Public Art: off the leash
Dr Dan Wollmering
By Dr Dan Wollmering
It is said that there are two things wrong with ‘public art’: one, it is art and two, it is public.
Being on view every day, outside, public art does not operate within the safe interiors of galleries and museums, where the general public enters of their own free will, ready for an ‘art experience’. In fact, one may argue that it does not have a license to operate at all, except by the decision of a committee and the funding resources that follow.
So when it makes a sudden appearance, most often by stealth, it is little wonder that some members of the public get up in arms, as we saw recently when a public artwork installed in the City of Moreland was reported in certain sections of the media under the heading ‘They call this art’?
Questions abound when we address ’public art’, a term that has been challenged, examined, dissected and written about over the past forty years or so. Are there better ways and measures to introduce public art pieces to the community? Can the public be informed in a way to lessen the impact when the work is installed? Does the public, in fact, need to be brought into the discussion well before a work arrives?
Melbourne has a rich and dynamic public art scene and we have certainly matured since the unfortunate City Square debacle when the now-iconic sculpture ‘Vault’, by Ron Robertson-Swann - dubbed the “Yellow Peril” by sectors of the media - was ostracised in the early hours of the morning to a muddy patch along the Yarra River. Now, ideally suited in its new home at ACCA (the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art), we may ask in the context of today: what was all the fuss about?
Today, Melbourne and its surrounding suburbs can boast a number of major and minor works, both of a permanent and temporal nature, that are ‘world class’. The public art controversies of the past seem somewhat tame by today’s standards – since the doors of post-postmodernism were blown open, and now just about anything goes.
Yet, like a periscope searching for sensation, the media continues to thrive on the vitriol unleashed when they have a work in their sights. Ironically, this attention exposes the work of the artist to even greater masses, but for all the wrong reasons, that are essentially about ‘dumbing down’ the discourse to sensation and hyperbole.
Which brings us back to Tim Craker’s unusual sculptural work consisting of orange plastic safety fencing - containing cut out images of local indigenous plants and birds of the area - which was installed in the City of Moreland. The sculpture sets out to challenge our perceptions of this ubiquitous material and the associations that we bring to it by working it in another context. In one of Craker’s contentious works, a fenced- off, fully grown gum tree may be seen as mildly absurd, yet on reflection, perhaps as a comment on our need to protect nature and the surrounding issues of sustainability.
Yet, trying to articulate the intention of public artists’ concepts and visions may be somewhat inadequate without their voice. Often when difficult works are given explanation, grounded in the context of the site and surrounding references, the audience is given an opportunity of greater understanding with insights of the workings of an artist’s mind and their subsequent intentions.
The media could play a more informative and expansive role by allowing a greater platform for artists’ voices on such occasions, without resorting to division and attention grabbing headlines. Surely as Melbournians - educated and culturally rich (embracing sport, entertainment and the arts) - we can handle it. Let us lift our standards by progressive and balanced reporting, so when we experience such works, we can ponder, reflect and then make up our minds.
Dr Dan Wollmering is from the Faculty of Art & Design at Monash University.