Download (2.2 MB) - Christchurch Art Gallery

Space is Place
At first glance, the health of art in public space in Aotearoa
could be judged ruddy. In Christchurch there is the flush of
activity that comes with the SCAPE 2008 Biennial and the
commissioning of the first permanent work by the newly
formed civic Public Art Advisory Group – Flour Power by
Regan Gentry. Dunedin City Council is inviting proposals
from artists and curators for a new art in public space
programme, and in Auckland a new manager of public art
has been appointed to lead a line-up of activities fulfilling
a refreshed public art policy. Thanks to the work of the
Wellington Sculpture Trust, Wellington City Council,
Wellington Waterfront and Wellington Tenths Trust,
Wellington is now arguably the most densely populated
city in New Zealand when it comes to permanent public
sculptures. It is also ‘home base’ to the national temporary
public art series ‘One Day Sculpture’, which began in August
with works by Maddie Leach and Kah Bee Chow, and runs
through until mid 2009.
However, it is vital that we do not slip into a self-satisfied
malaise. Compared with many other countries we are still
in a period of relative infancy, or at best adolescence, when
it comes to commissioning and resourcing contemporary,
critical, high-calibre artworks in public space. The challenges
are plural: we need to encourage a deeper and broader
understanding of what art in public space can be, while also
sharpening our commissioning and curatorial practices to
be more in tune with the practices of artists, the interests
of audiences and the pressures of urban and suburban
development. Slowly, a breadth of opportunities is emerging:
permanent, temporary, commissioned and self-initiated.
These need to be met with a commitment to prioritising
quality over quantity, and the growth of a more robust
understanding of ‘good practice’ across a range of different
art forms and ways of making.
‘I refute the argument that works
in public space must inevitably be
diluted by the approvals process
and can’t retain their bite or spark.’
Different municipalities currently operate independently,
and with varying levels of commitment, resources and success.
While there are guidebooks and critical texts aplenty (the
majority of which are published offshore), there is a real need
for a set of national policy guidelines to assist local authorities
in formulating their own policies and protocols that are
clear, informed, contemporary and regularly reviewed. An
important model to consider when formulating policy at a
national or local level is the ‘percent-for-art’ system.¹ Recent
research undertaken by the Rob Garrett Contemporary
Fine Art consultancy concluded that, internationally, the
most common way for city administrations to resource
their public art programmes is through percent-for-art
funding. Most often this takes the form of a 1–2% levy on
civic capital development budgets, but in some cities, such
as San Francisco, this has been extended to private CBD
developments.
... In many schemes the levy is pooled to create a public fund,
but in other cases the public art budget is levied project-by-project
... Overall the percent-for-art mechanism is favoured because it is
easily understood; because it indexes public spending on public art
to the fluctuations of the city's or the state's other public development
and capital works spending; and because it enables the public
administration to leverage significant additional private resources
for public art in partnership.²
Currently it could be argued that private commissions
are considerably more ambitious, adventurous and better
financed than most public commissions. Alan Gibbs’s The
Farm and John and Jo Gow’s Connells Bay Centre for
Sculpture on Waiheke Island, are two examples that come
immediately to mind. The private commissioning process in
many ways is more direct, with fewer constituencies to engage
in consultation and no perils of ‘decision by committee’ to
negotiate. But I refute the argument that works in public
space must inevitably be diluted by the approvals process
and can’t retain their bite or spark.
Up and down the country local authorities, arts advisors
and artists are scrutinising current practices and trying to
discern a way forward, but with a predominantly regional
focus. These ‘art’ discussions are intertwined with equally
heated debates about how our cities should grow in response
to pressures of economic development and sustainability,
immigration and population movement. Good urban design
(under which umbrella art in public space often seems to
rest) is commonly held to be a shining light of hope. Within
these broader discussions the ideas and enquiries of artists
can be generative and revealing. Internationally there has
been considerable criticism regarding corporate or civicled
public art projects that position artists as the ‘friendly
face’ of regeneration and gentrification. An interesting
case study in the UK where this role is more honestly and
deliberately defined was PROJECT,³ a two-year initiative
funded by CABE (Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment), Arts & Business, and Public Art South
West to ‘evaluate the contribution that artists can make
to regeneration and development, by involving them in
projects in a strategic way.’ 4 The scheme was so successful
that it has morphed into a longer-term undertaking called
Artists for Places. 5
There are other models for ‘embedding’ artists within
architectural and urban design processes. A regular occurrence
in the UK is for artists to be appointed to design teams
within public (and sometimes corporate) building projects.
Whether or not a discreet authored ‘artwork’ results, the
artist is present as a creative member of the design team,
contributing ideas on a broad range of issues. In CABE’s
Art & Places publication they note: Art, in the sense of writing,
designing, performing and drawing, can also reflect on what is
meaningful to people about a place. But the contribution of art and
artists is more than merely placing a piece of public art in front of a
building, or staging a performance in a public space. This is narrow
thinking. When artists are engaged in placemaking the way they
‘Compared with many other countries
we are still in a period of relative
infancy, or at best adolescence, when it
comes to commissioning and resourcing
contemporary, critical, high-calibre
artworks in public space.’
think and address issues can fundamentally affect the outcome,
by broadening the scope of what is conceivable, and by helping
professionals and communities to unlock creativity and find better
ways of expressing themselves. 6
We need to avoid narrow thinking and default
commissioning patterns like the plague. It may mean that
realising new works is less ‘convenient’, but it will hopefully
ensure that the artworks are more engaged with, and
meaningful to, the community within which they take root,
and allow artists to extend their generative and critical role
within our society.
Heather Galbraith
August 2008
Heather Galbraith is Senior Curator / Manager Curatorial
Programmes at City Gallery Wellington Te Whare Toi, and a
member of Wellington City Council’s Public Art Panel
1 An interesting national Percent-for-Art policy guideline (for Ireland)
can be seen at www.publicartonline.org.uk/current/policies/index.html.
2 Email correspondence between Rob Garrett Contemporary Fine Arts
and the author 11 July 2008.
3 Accessed through www.publicartonline.org.uk/news/notices/publications
on 11 July 2008.
4 See more at www.aandb.org.uk. Click on the ‘Artists for Places’
square top right of the screen.
5 Art & Places, Eric Holding (ed.), CABE and Arts & Business, London
2008. An online publication downloadable from www.cabe.org.uk.
6 www.sculpture.org.nz.
18 19