For some time, there has been a lot of talk about “art in public space”. In the Swedish context we have for example Konstfack now offering a specialized masters in “Konst i offentligheten”. Within art discourse, “art in public space” is usually supposed to be more “open” and “democratic” than art in art institutions – even if the excourse into “the public” is generally aimed at producing a documentation to be presented in exaclty these (supposedly non-public) art institutions. I will give one terrible example, found in a catalogue published by Manifesta7 (to be more exact, in the “Workbook”, a pedagogical piece intended for children visitors of the biennale). It is from an interview with the artist Daniel Knorr about his work Ex-Privato that was also featured at Manifesta7 (but on another venue than we were at, so I can’t comment on the piece itself). I quote it as a quite typical example of the current artworld discourse on publicness:
Public space belongs to everyone. /…/ The more space a society offers to its citizens for their free use, the more every individual will have a say about it. What does art in public space mean? Art in public space is direct contact made by the artist to his audience, without limiting the sort of audience whom it addresses, as it is in the case of the case of the gallery or a museum. Why is it important to work in public spaces? The placement of an artist’s work in public spaces means, on the one hand, freedom, but on the other hand, there is also a responsibility for the people who view the work of art. Art made by an artist for public spaces has the chance to enter directly into a dialogue with all citizens, thus giving the artist the possibility to experiment with their perceptions and create a broad discussion.What bullshit!
I am writing these lines while actually performing art in public space, sitting in a conceptual bus that is parked right at Trg Republike in the center of Belgrade. Around us, inhabitants of the city, of all ages, look at the bus. For some hours earlier in the evening, the improvised interaction was really intense, including playing children, mix tapes, an orthodox priest who supposedly was against all computer technology, three flute-playing men, questions about what all this had to do with The Pirate Bay, in a Kopimi folk suit, a video screening, the bus, ourselves, and the very processes of copying between all these elements. (Documentation of the evening will come up/out/around, of course.) One simple conclusion of the evening: Taking the rethoric about “art in public space” seriously, would demand giving up the idea of “art” and of the “artist” – at least for the time of the actual interaction. Artists engaging in this naïve talk are almost never ready to do that, of course. Really making public means ending the activity of art and instead going into the activity of play. And that’s something different. Play is not made by somefone or for someone.
You can “just play,” but it’s odd to speak of “just performing”: the basic grammar of performance is that you perform something, you give a performance “of” something. In other words, language leads us to construct the process of performance as supplementary to the product that occasions it or in which it resultsContinuing the conclusion: “Art” per definition can never be completely private or completely public. Such activities will be recognized as something different. In practice, “art” is defined by spaces which reside somewhere between these extremes. (Now we eat sushi in the bus. Belgrade citygoers are looking at us from the windows. It is very unclear whether this is still an art performance. We love this in-betweenness.)
Update: Below is a picture of the bus, in front of Belgrade’s Tito Museum who has (maybe surprisingly) invited us to stay there and give some lectures in the bus. 
Update 2: A pic from the action at Trg Republike. The ravioli held by the girl was provided by Altemark. The man with the magic staff is said to have been an actor in Serbia’s most famous movie, Underground.
4 kommentarer ↓
Tampongtomteverkstan feels that art can become close to truly public! But that means that the artist cannot claim any control over the art. The interpretation must be made by the people. That includes the definition of the work as art. The people must have the possibility to change/ add to the art, and remove it completely from public space if they like. The artist’s role can only be the one of a catalyst. The “artist’s role” must be minimized of the “publicness” should be maximized.
But Tampongtomteverkstan recognize that public art might serve different puposes. In your art one of the puposes is advertising (piratbyrån, the ideas of kopimi etc), and you should not try to minimize the “artist’s role”, since the effect of the advertising then would lessen aswell. The prize is ofcourse that your art’s “publicness” is reduced.
[...] published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Website Comment ‹ Note from Belgrade, regarding the cliché “art in public space” Möjligtvis liknande inlägg: Flygplats, museum, [...]
[...] Note from Belgrade, regarding the cliché “art in public space” [...]
Tampongtomteverkstan: I think the artist always has just as much or more control over the art as anyone else. To obstain from this is a choice that can be made but often not an honest one I think because it hides the power the artist actually has.
Let me give you an example from the bus. While it was stationed in Bolzano during the summer, it was left with some spray cans inside. When we arrived again, we had noticed that someone had taken these and spraypainted the outside of the bus. I a very ugly manner I have to add. Now, as artists we had several choices in this situation. We could have kept the spraypaint, talking about how the people now had truly interacted with the art. But this would have been to fetischise authenticity. What we did I think was much better, we also remodified the bus. Removed some paint, added other, filled in some earlier paintings and generally made it look much better from our point of view. In this way we claimed just the same control over the art as the people with the spray cans had claimed. It was only our position as artists that made it possible to do this after the exhibition was closed and therefor have the final “word”. The artist has an information advantage over the public in relation to the art. The artist always uses this even in a way that allows, yes allows, the public to engage with the art. It is always a priviledge granted by the artist.
Kommentera