PASW Regional Newsletter: Autumn 2000
'Beauty lies in the Eye of the Beholder' : fact and fiction?
A debate about quality in Public Art.
The London Hotel, Teignmouth, April 6th 2000
The Chair, Lee Corner opened the meeting by asking all present to write down their definition of quality the reason for doing this would be revealed later!
Maggie Bolt then welcomed everyone to the meeting. She said that defining quality was notoriously difficult which was exactly why this meeting had been organised, in order to try and engender some discussion about what constitutes 'quality'. She referred to how PASW had been working with the Devon Public Art Consortium on the issue of quality in public art, over the past year and that all parties now felt that the time was right to open up this issue for debate at a Network meeting. She therefore hoped that the meeting would provide an opportunity to share ideas.
Maggie said that whether we acknowledge it or not aesthetics are a major preoccupation for most people - the plethora of programmes and magazines dedicated to lifestyle makeovers: home, garden and self, pay testimony to that. When discussing the aesthetic quality of art we cannot simply conclude that it is 'all a matter of taste' and therefore dismiss any critical discussion. We need to recognise that judging or assessing quality is not purely a subjective matter but one which through information, experience and discussion can be debated at a more objective level.
Maggie pointed out the inherent contradiction currently within the planning system which talks of aesthetics being an 'extremely subjective matter' and then goes on to recommend that local planning authorities should reject 'obviously poor design' and 'confine their concern to those aspects of design, which are significant for the aesthetic quality of the area'
The challenge therefore for all us was to put into words, and into the arena for debate what is actually meant by quality and that hopefully today would be the start of such a discourse.
Before Maggie handed over to Lee, she informed the meeting that unfortunately Simon Grennan, Director of Public Art Forum was unable to present to the meeting due to illness.
Lee said that the purpose of the day was to open up this whole area of debate and she therefore wanted everyone present to engage fully in the discussion. She took the meeting through the revised agenda. She offered the meeting a starting point - that because we have all grown up with television we feel empowered enough to comment on it and that if we are confident in discussing this then why are we not similarly confident when discussing public art ? The reluctance, she suggested was due to a lack of access and exposure to benchmark our views against.
Lee went on to introduce the first speakers, Doff Pollard, Arts Development Officer at Teignbridge District Council and Public Art Adviser to the Consortium, Andrew Stacey.
Doff introduced the meeting to the background of the Consortium, which meets 4 times a year in order to discuss issues pertinent to public art. She said that Teignbridge were doing a lot of good work but that it was mature enough to recognise its weaknesses. She said that whilst the Council had a % for art policy , there were problems with the delivery. Recently, discussion within the Consortium had focused on issues of quality. PASW had initiated and facilitated this discussion and the partnership was now keen to share their ideas with today's meeting and further the debate.
She went on to outline what she felt were the areas that impact on quality, the:
- artists appointed.
- ideas.
- engagement with the community.
- materials used.
- execution of work.
- appropriateness to the place.
She talked about the pressure to deliver the work and how this process does not allow for research and development. This was something she felt needed to be addressed.
Doff identified the challenges for % for art to realise quality work as:
- limited resources to implement projects to highest quality standards.
- limited time for r & d.
limited r & d opportunity - flexibility within the artists brief.
- restricted breadth and diversity of artists selection.
- limited awareness by elected members and communities who might benefit.
- pressure for quantity at the price of quality.
- need for more effective communication between team members on projects.
- late securing of funding to employ an artist at beginning of project.
- limited evaluation.
- pressure which restricts risk taking.
- pressure to put emphasis on product not process.
- limited space allowed for public involvement.
Andrew Stacey started by saying that he would focus on how we might answer the above, by:
- identifying opportunities as far in advance as possible and securing early funding.
- emphasising that quality processes lead to quality products.
- securing funding for r & d on flexible non-prescriptive briefs which allow for exploration of challenging ideas.
- advocating a greater share of budgets for r & d time for artists.
- attracting high calibre artists to work for the district and positively influence good practice.
- increasing imaginative ways of engaging public involvement and participation.
- increasing officer and elected members awareness of the role in shaping of the environment.
- creating more opportunities for educational involvement at all levels of the educational scale.
- creating a forum for debating, sharing experience and disseminating good practice.
Andrew went on to talk briefly about % for art and how whilst public art can be done without it, the mechanism signals an intention of commitment to involving artists. It safeguards against the art being the first thing to go on an overstretched budget and it creates a culture of expectation.
Andrew finished by saying that the above were proposals from the Consortium to improve the quality of work.
Lee thanked the speakers, saying that they had introduced important considerations for the debate, highlighting how practical issues can effect the issue of quality. She then asked for comments and questions from the floor. A number of issues were raised :
- the relationship between the artist, architect and local arena and how there is a need for someone to navigate artists through the whole process.
- how art can often be used as a political football.
- the fact that elements of art are measurable and that the essence of work can't be measured - it is a subjective judgment.
- the difficulty of implementing public art in residential developments.
- the fact that art should not be a 'bolt on'. There is a need for a different perspective as to what may transpire from involving an artist.
- whether artists were the natural people to link with the community at a grass roots level.
- who are the public and what questions should we be asking when consulting.
Lee asked the meeting whether there was any proof that r & d time at the beginning of a project results in better quality art?
Lee introduced Juliet Bidgood, a member of the art and architectural practice, muf. Juliet described muf, how it was established in 1994 and how it worked as a truly collaborative project. She said that she wanted to do her presentation by example, showing slides and video footage of current projects and how they aimed to achieve quality work. She said that she would define quality as accuracy to situation. She talked about their being a period of further developing the brief at the beginning of a project. And that this was critical to the success of the project in achieving its aims. She asked the question as to whether artwork created spaces ? She went on to talk about 4 specific projects muf have been or are currently engaged in :
'Wide and Digital Map', Hackney - a research project to develop an integrated art and regeneration strategy for Hoxton and South Shoreditch.Þ muf commissioned six artists to research the hidden history and culture of people who live, work and pass through the area and to resolve this research as temporary public art installations that directly included people from the locale.
'Shared Ground', Southwark Street - muf were invited to develop a design strategy 'to improve' Southwark Street parallel to the river Thames alongside the new Tate Modern at Bankside. The project resulted from a process of research and consultation which directly informed the thematic content of the design. They spent three months talking to people about their expectations and desires for the area.
'Pleasure Garden', Stoke on Trent. Juliet explained that the money for the project had originally been secured for creating a barrier against ram raiders. The project however had evolved substantially and ended up being a project which created a new public space and which incorporated new ceramic seating, which was developed in partnership with Armitage Shanks. Juliet then showed a video that explored the process of making the work.
'Can Do' Birmingham - a project done in collaboration with the Scarman Trust which sought to empower local people in order that they could initiate change to their immediate environment.
Lee thanked Juliet for her presentation and asked for responses from the meeting. Many people present felt that there were problems with the creation of a wish list which was never fulfilled. That expectation was raised but not realised, although a number of people felt that the experiences of being involved in such projects did empower people and their personal resonance could last a lifetime. Juliet replied that much of the work had been realised and that where work had not been realised for whatever reason she shared people's frustration.
Before breaking for tea, Lee said that she felt the meeting was beginning to tease out the fact that art can be about engaging people, can be temporary and can be about something that doesn't necessarily end with a product. That there are issues about the quality of life that might not rely on tangible products.
After tea Lee said that she wanted people to accept that quality is affected by external issues e.g. time / money etc. She then read a sample of people's definition of quality.ÞThere followed a lively and very constructive plenary session which raised many issues including, that :
- there is a lack of something in our general social culture in being unable to define quality.
- the lack of exposure to art mitigates against the development of a critical knowledge.
- quality has to be about long term enhancement.
- value judgments change when one understands the work.
- there is a confusion of the emotional response with a more logical response.
- there is a need for a criteria that is used to judge the quality of work.
- you have to set issues of quality against a contextual criteria, the intentions of the work.
- there is a need to introduce children to the area of judgment in order to build confidence at a young age.
- the debate on public art is relatively new.
- work should be sympathetic to the environment, it should not shock but peoples' horizons should be expanded.
- the joy about public art was in the unexpected that we shouldn't become too intellectual about how we respond to it.
- there is often an issue of how long a work has been on site before it is generally accepted. Issues of local distinctiveness.
- art should not offer instant entertainment and impact and that the relationship between the work and the people may unfold over a period of years.
- public art can play a role in creating a sense of place.
- was it a question of quality equalling a sense of place ?
- quality is not the lowest common denominator and that the role of public art was to challenge issues.
- quality work must know why it exists, it must recognise its intentions.
- quality should not be simply a subjective analysis.
Lee said that she felt there had been a real quality of debate and that the meeting had begun to recognise the layers of complexity about everything we do.
Maggie thanked Lee and all the speakers for their contributions and for Teignbridge District Council for their support in realising the meeting.
Doff Pollard then invited the delegates to stay for a light buffet provided by Teignbridge District Council and have an opportunity to hear from the artist Ray Smith, who had worked on many projects in Teignbridge and then undertake a tour of the public art programme.