Review of Social Changes of Public Art

The current cultural affairs commissioner of New York City, Tom Finkelpearl, not only has an extensive background in museum administration, but also has training in art and sculpture. In his introductory essay, Finkelpearl summarizes the ever-changing attitudes towards public art as well as the role that the artist, government and architecture plays in engaging with public art. Moreover, the relationship between artist, institutionalized systems, and public site are also questioned and investigated. By exploring through what means art can engage with the forever changing social, economic and political forces, Finkelpearl studies the idea that art can exist in a public space, interact with the community as well as instigate change. In his introductory chapter, he analyzes what it means to create “socially engaged art” and the challenges that the artist or public may face. The idea that public art and society are ever evolving off of each other, is highlighted by the use of architecture in the post-World War 2 era.

People were abandoning the city for the suburbs in an attempt to live out the “American dream”. This consequently created a banality of the suburbs, where architects were no longer invited to design these homes. Through urban renewal projects and the introduction of high modernism, art began to change the city (for better and for worse). Through trial and error, the design process started to shift towards the user’s preference, and respond to “community needs”. Michael von Maschzisker said to “spread the message that fine arts must be returned to American Architecture; that sterility and her handmaiden, monotony, must be banished from our avenues”. Additionally, Mierle Laderman Ukeles, who created profoundly unique public art, provided to be a great example that supported Finkelpearl’s theory. Before the 1990’s, sculpture and public art were limited to mere monuments placed in an open space. Artists like Ukeles helped redefine “public art”, and now public artists are no longer limited to creating monuments – they can now create their own “plaza” and create their own urban environments. A new emphasis was placed on the site of public art, which would then mark the artform as “unique” to their settings. Ukeles mentioned once that she did a lot of domestic work, and “now, I will simply do these maintenance everyday things and flush them up to consciousness, exhibit them as art. ” Being quite radical for the time, Mierle Laderman Ukeles challenged the concept of the site for art. Her performance art led her to create her own “public space” that ultimately allowed her to interact with the city in such a way that left an impact.

Finklepearl writes a convincing thesis, for public art had evolved through many social changes. The definition for “public art”, one could argue, is always going to change. How the public resonates and communicates with such art is going to depend on when and where the artwork takes place. Just as the world has seen change from the Second World War, the world will continue to see change throughout the evolvement of technology. How are these technological advances going to affect public art and sculpture? How are they going to affect the “site” in which art is to exist? Finklepearl wrote well on how the past has affected the present, and how the artist community had gotten to where it is today but doesn’t mention how public art will look in the future. To conclude with the wise words of Fluxus artist Joseph Beuys, “art that cannot shape society and therefore also cannot penetrate the heart questions of society, and in the end influence the question of capital, is no art”.