ancient cities

Further References
Clavel, Pierre. 1986. The Progressive City: Planning and
Participation, 1968–1984. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Fainstein, Susan S. 1999. “Can We Make the Cities We
Want?” Pp. 249–72 in The Urban Moment:
Cosmopolitan Essays on the Late-20th-century City,
edited by Robert A. Beauregard and Sophie Body­
Gendrot. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krumholz, Norman. 1982. “A Retrospective View of
Equity Planning: Cleveland 1969­1979.” Journal of
the American Planning Association
48(Spring):163–83.
Nicholls, Walter Julio. 2003. “Forging a ‘New’
Organizational Infrastructure for Los Angeles’
Progressive Community.” International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 27(4):881–96.
Reed, Adolph, Jr. 1999. “A Critique of Neoprogressivism
in Theorizing about Local Development Policy: A
Case from Atlanta.” Pp. 163–77 in Stirrings in the
Jug: Black Politics in the Post-segregation Era, edited
by Adolph Reed, Jr. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Sites, William. 2003. Remaking New York: Primitive
Globalization and the Politics of Urban Community.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pr o s t i t U t i o n
See Sex Industry
PU b l i c ar t
Public art is a specialist field of contemporary art;
it has grown considerably since it began in the late
1960s. The term has a wide range of uses, embracing
artworks such as sculptures, mosaics, and
murals for public places; the design of street furniture;
the integration of arts and crafts skills in the
design of public spaces and buildings; and the
intervention of artists in public debate and socially
challenging situations. Its use is specific to the
industrialized world and only since the 1980s in
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Its history is
largely connected to urban rather than rural public
spaces and issues.
Public Art
613
The antecedents of public art include nineteenthcentury
statues and monumental sculpture, twentiethcentury
public works and community arts projects,
late twentieth­century sculpture parks, and periodic
reintroduction of decoration in modern architecture.
Among more remote precedents cited by public
art advocates are Egyptian temple decoration,
stained glass in medieval cathedrals in Europe,
Renaissance wall paintings, and baroque ceilings, as
well as the more relevant Mexican murals, art projects
of the Works Progress Administration in the United
States in the 1930s, and Bauhaus architecture.
The diversity of these antecedents and precedents
has produced tensions within public art,
for example, between a public service ethos and
commercially led expansion of the art market;
between conformity to social norms and engagement
in issues of gender, ethnicity, and social justice;
and between a retention of the modern artist’s
claim to autonomy and acknowledgement of the
role of users in public space. The rhetoric of government
arts funding tends to revolve around widening
access to contemporary art, and some artists’
groups developed collaborative practices in the
1990s aimed at introducing urban dwellers into
coauthorship of projects.
Since the 1960s, public art has given rise to further
specialist terms reflecting positions in response
to these tensions. These include site­specific art (used
since the 1980s), site­general art, art in the public
interest (a term favored by more radical artists in the
1990s), new genre public art (to denote acts of social
intervention), the art of the local (for a broad range
of approaches), and dialogic art (where citizen
engagement is a priority). Each denotes a different
attitude to the making of art for public spaces.
Public art has spawned an expansion of cultural
bureaucracy, as intermediaries and agencies take
on roles of advocacy, fund raising, contractual
negotiations, legal matters, and public relations for
artists. This reflects an increasing adoption of public
art in urban redevelopment, alongside the use of
redundant industrial buildings for arts uses, designation
of cultural quarters, and use of visual culture
to spearhead city marketing. But this expansion
of cultural management has produced little evaluation
of the social or economic impacts of public
art. Public art remains distinct from art in galleries
and museums, is less covered by art magazines
than gallery art (and does not produce the glossy