当前位置: X-MOL 学术Open Philosophy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Editorial Introduction to the Topical Issue “Does Public Art Have to Be Bad Art?”
Open Philosophy ( IF 0.3 ) Pub Date : 2019-12-13 , DOI: 10.1515/opphil-2019-0041
Mark Kingwell 1
Affiliation  

Both the title and the call for papers for this topical issue were phrased with deliberate provocation in mind. So many discussions of public art seem to involve contentious views, citizen outcry, and conflict between ‘the general public’ (who must experience and live with the art) and the creators or curators of that art (who can sometimes seem, or be, elitist, arrogant, and irresponsible). The provocation, therefore, was deliberate but not without reflection. We wanted the articles in this issue to extend and expand on familiar disputes between citizens and government agencies, or corporations, who might commission public art works. We also wanted, naturally, to query the notion of ‘bad art’ in the context of the public sphere, especially in the places where everyday experience leads us to expect encounters with public art: parks, plazas, shared courtyards, airports, subway systems. It is worth noting the obvious links among these various sites, namely, that they are almost always urban and unavoidable. I may choose to drive to a non-gallery artwork such as Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty (1970, Great Salt Lake, Utah), or Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset’s Prada Marfa (2005, Valentine, Texas), or Seven Magic Mountains (2016, Las Vegas, Nevada) by Ugo Rondinone, or Alfredo Barsuglia’s Social Pool (2014, Mojave Desert, California). Here, remoteness is often part of the work. In these cited examples, desert or near wilderness is absolutely figured as part of the installation, as is the journey to overcome that remoteness. Similar logics can be observed in works in other topographies: isolated hilltops, remote forests, circuitous hikes. We might define these works as destination art, rather than public art, since they call to us from a distance and employ that distance as an essential element of their aesthetic effect, even as they refuse the confines of the gallery or museum space. But in some cases, works of public art conjoin proximity with distance. Consider, for example, Diller Scofido + Renfro’s Blur Building (Yverdon-les-Bain, Switzerland, 2002), which created an intersection of lake, bridge, building, and natural mist features to allow an experience of gorgeous uncanniness. Or Christo’s monumental Floating Piers (Lake Iseo, Italy, 2018), which moved beyond earlier experiments with draped buildings in the centre of cities (the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, the Reichstag in Berlin) and the fabric gates in New York’s Central Park, to create instead a destination experience of walking on water. One must also mention here the ill-fated large-scale project of Christo and Jeanne-Claude to cover California and Japan with giant umbrellas (1991), which resulted in two deaths. ‘Bad public art’ does not meet the case for such calamity, which among things was satirized by the television show The Simpsons, where the character Homer, doofus head of the family and briefly an aspiring public artist, muses on the inspiration provided by a dangerous installation: “Killer umbrellas? Excellent!”1. Such excesses aside, public art in the usual sense functions at least in part via proximity, not distance. This aspect of publicness is clearly more available in urban settings than elsewhere. That is, such art must remain accessible to an ordinary public, not just a motivated (and perhaps affluent) one who can traverse

中文翻译:

时事社论社论:“公共艺术一定是坏艺术吗?”

本主题的标题和征集用语都带有蓄意的挑衅。如此多的公共艺术讨论似乎涉及有争议的观点,公民的强烈抗议,以及“公众”(必须体验和生活于该艺术中)与该艺术的创造者或策展人(有时可能看起来或成为,精英,自大和不负责任)。因此,挑衅是故意的,但并非没有反思。我们希望本期的文章能够扩展和扩展可能委托公共艺术作品的公民与政府机构或公司之间的常见纠纷。我们自然也想在公共领域中质疑“不良艺术”的概念,尤其是在日常经验使我们期望与公共艺术相遇的地方:公园,广场,共用庭院,机场,地铁系统。值得注意的是,这些不同站点之间存在明显的联系,即它们几乎总是在城市中且不可避免。我可能会选择驾驶非画廊的艺术品,例如罗伯特·史密森(Robert Smithson)的《螺旋码头》(Spiral Jetty)(1970年,犹他州大盐湖城)或迈克尔·埃尔姆格林(Michael Elmgreen)和印加·德拉格塞特(Ingar Dragset)的普拉达·玛法(Prada Marfa)(2005年,德克萨斯州瓦伦丁),或《七魔法山》(2016年Ugo Rondinone或Alfredo Barsuglia的Social Pool(2014年,加利福尼亚州莫哈韦沙漠),内华达州拉斯维加斯)。在这里,远程通常是工作的一部分。在这些引用的示例中,沙漠或荒野附近绝对被视为该装置的一部分,而克服这种偏远的旅程也是如此。在其他地形图的作品中也可以观察到类似的逻辑:孤立的山顶,偏远的森林,circuit回的远足。我们可以将这些作品定义为目的地艺术品,而不是公共艺术,因为他们从远处呼唤我们,并且将这一距离作为审美效果的基本要素,即使他们拒绝了画廊或博物馆空间的限制。但是在某些情况下,公共艺术作品将距离与距离融合在一起。例如,考虑迪勒·斯科菲多(Diller Scofido)和伦弗(Renfro)的迷离建筑(瑞士,伊夫尔登莱班,2002年),该建筑创造了湖泊,桥梁,建筑和天然薄雾特征的交汇处,从而可以体验到华丽的烦躁感。或克里斯托(Christo)具有纪念意义的浮桥(意大利伊塞奥湖(Lake Iseo),2018年),它超越了早期的实验,在城市中心(巴黎的凯旋门,柏林的国会大厦)和纽约中央公园的布艺门上装饰了立体建筑,而是创造一种在水上行走的目的地体验。在这里还必须提到克里斯托和珍妮·克劳德(Christo and Jeanne-Claude)失败的大型项目,用巨型雨伞覆盖加利福尼亚和日本(1991年),导致两人死亡。“糟糕的公共艺术”与这种灾难不符,电视节目《辛普森一家》(The Simpsons)对此颇有讽刺意味,荷马是家庭中的疯子,短暂地是一位有抱负的公共艺术家,他在沉思中汲取灵感。危险的安装:“杀手伞?太好了!” 1。除了这些过剩之外,通常意义上的公共艺术至少部分是通过距离而不是距离来起作用。在城市环境中,与其他地方相比,宣传的这一方面显然更多。也就是说,这种艺术必须对普通公众保持开放,而不仅仅是一个有动力(也许是富裕)的人可以穿越 “糟糕的公共艺术”与这种灾难不符,电视节目《辛普森一家》(The Simpsons)对此颇有讽刺意味,荷马是家庭中的疯子,短暂地是一位有抱负的公共艺术家,他在沉思中汲取灵感。危险的安装:“杀手伞?太好了!” 1。除了这些过剩之外,通常意义上的公共艺术至少部分是通过距离而不是距离来起作用。在城市环境中,与其他地方相比,宣传的这一方面显然更多。也就是说,这种艺术必须对普通公众保持开放,而不仅仅是一个有动力(也许是富裕)的人可以穿越 “糟糕的公共艺术”与这种灾难不符,电视节目《辛普森一家》(The Simpsons)讽刺了这一点,其中荷马是家庭中的疯子,短暂地是一位有抱负的公共艺术家,他在沉思中汲取灵感。危险的安装:“杀手伞?太好了!” 1。除了这些过剩之外,通常意义上的公共艺术至少部分是通过距离而不是距离来起作用。在城市环境中,与其他地方相比,宣传的这一方面显然更多。也就是说,这种艺术必须对普通公众保持开放,而不仅仅是一个有动力(也许是富裕)的人可以穿越 想着一个危险的装置提供的灵感:“杀手伞?太好了!” 1。除了这些过剩之外,通常意义上的公共艺术至少部分是通过距离而不是距离来起作用。在城市环境中,与其他地方相比,宣传的这一方面显然更多。也就是说,这种艺术必须对普通公众保持开放,而不仅仅是一个有动力(也许是富裕)的人可以穿越 想着一个危险的装置提供的灵感:“杀手伞?太好了!” 1。除了这些过剩之外,通常意义上的公共艺术至少部分是通过距离而不是距离来起作用。在城市环境中,与其他地方相比,宣传的这一方面显然更多。也就是说,这种艺术必须对普通公众保持开放,而不仅仅是一个有动力(也许是富裕)的人可以穿越
更新日期:2019-12-13
down
wechat
bug