How Can the Public Art in Philadelphia Promote the Quality Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
How Can the Public Art in Philadelphia Promote the Quality of Public Users’ Life? The Public Perception Surveys in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of Drexel University By Shu-Yi Kao (Drexel ID:10906183) In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of Master of Arts Administration Spring 2008 Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………3 II. Literature Review……………………………………………………………...5 III. The Development of Public Art in Philadelphia…………….……………….17 IV. Research Design and Methodology…………………………………………..27 V. Finding in the Surveys………………………………………………………..31 VI. Discussion and Summary…………………………………………………….51 List of References…………………………………………………………………….64 Appendix A—Survey Question Classification……………………………………….70 Appendix B—Survey Copy………………………………………………………….80 Appendix C—Survey Results………………………………………………………..86 Appendix D—Survey Pictures……………………………………...………………119 2 I. Introduction Problem Statement This research will examine the perception of public art by public users, including environmental, aesthetic, cultural, social and economic, and interpersonal impacts in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the past decades, public art has successfully received considerable attention. Initiated in 1967, the contemporary movement in public art rapidly spread out from the establishment of the Art in Public Places Program at the National Endowment for the Arts, which piloted various levels of governmental agencies to fund for the idea of public art support (Beardsley 1982; Lacy 1996). When the notable case of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc occurred in 1989 aroused vigorous debate about public art and its funding sources, it led people to rethink about the acceptance and the relationship of public art by the public. The more public art in public places is given a public use, the more involvement of government, communities, artists and public users is inevitable coordinated with multidisciplinary issues (Blair, Pijawka and Steiner 1998). Through 1050 anonymous questionnaires based on three surveys, this study will be an example to elaborate on and clarify the link between the role of public art by the perceptions as well as by the preferences and its interaction with public users, including residents and visitors in the City of Philadelphia. The result of this research may provide some suggestions to the 3 governments, community developers, city planners and suburban designers in the future. Delimitation and Limitation of this Research This research confines itself to surveying, observing and analyzing the interaction between public users and public art, defined here as outdoor sculptures in Philadelphia. In this quantitative study, the findings could be subject to other interpretation. Because of three sculptures selected from various types of sculptures in Philadelphia, the purposive sampling procedure would not be generalized to all forms of public art. Additionally, the public users exposing themselves to outdoor activities would be liable to weather so that the finding of this survey was restricted within the limited period of a year. 4 II. Literature Review (II-I) The Theoretical Definition of Public Art What is Public Art The definition of Public Art could vary from the elementary (Hein 1996; Norman 2000; Russell 2004; Fleming 2005) to an extensive and complicated subject (Lacy 1996; Stephen 2006). Simply, public art, unlike gallery art or sequestered private art, is made for the public and usually exists “outside museum and gallery walls” (Finkelpearl 2001; Russell 2004; Fleming 2005). From the public art agency’s point of view, Becker (2004) defines public art as “work created by artists for places accessible to and used by the public” and can be “encompassed by a much wider spectrum of activities and approaches.” As an art educator, Argiro (2004) deems that public art, referring to any form of art in public spaces, “includes architecture, landscape and urban design.” Russell (2004) even provides a fundamental category to cover the various forms that public art can take, “such as murals (e.g., wall paintings and mosaics), three-dimensional works (e.g., statuary and earthworks), and performance pieces (e.g., Happenings).” The term of public art has been used to describe sculptures installed in open spaces, such as parks and plazas, and traditionally been commemorative of great 5 people or events, or illustrative of common sociopolitical goals (Beardsley 1981; Blair, Pijawka and Steiner 1998). Appearing in public places where is hailed as particular opportunities to create potential new exhibition spaces for the art previously only found in museums and private collections, public art has been created with minimal concern for the effects of the installations and the relationship between the public and its implication although its initial purpose is to celebrate heroism and transcendence as well as to display splendid ornamentation. Barbara Goldstein (2005) once pointed out that public art has been created not for the single intention; it is supposed both to advance public space and expose its intended audience to the visual artwork that is basically different from museum art. Before going deeper into the realm of public art, it must be realized that there is a clear distinction between “public art” and “gallery art” (Fleming 2005). “Public” and “private” are opposite words that do not exclude but entail one another. According to Finkelpearl’s (2001) definition, “ ‘public’ is associated with the lower classes as opposed to the word ‘private,’ which is associated with privilege.” Finkelpearl implies that “art is generally associated with the upper classes, at least in terms of those who consume it—collectors and museum audiences.” Public art here plays a significant role that tends to integrate the contradictory boundaries and is meant to bring them together. What people can tolerate and appreciate in the gallery, 6 however, might result in serious criticism when displayed in a public space. Therefore, public art has to be obvious to the general public and aims at communicating with them because it is inevitably involved in the experience of the public’s daily life. Fleming (2005) supports that public art must not only be aware of artistic contents—artwork’s theme, subject, location and material—but discern its implication for the public. What public art represents is all about the public utility and should be expected as a matter of particular pieces of quality art. While Stephens (2006) generously considers that “if the art is located in a space that is easily accessible by the general public, it can be classified as art for the public,” Lippard (1995) strictly narrows the scope of public art. Without referring to the concerns, challenges, involvements, and consultations of the audiences for or with whom the artwork is made, no matter how large or impressive it may be, it is still under personal creativities as private art. Rather than the concrete physical appearance, public art is recently more emphasized on the effect of mental level of public society. Phillips (1995) indicates that “public art is about the commons—the physical configuration and mental landscape of American public life.” In the past four decades, the component of our society is increasingly varied and pluralistic that raises social, political and religious values which coexist within it. Public art need not always directly express progressive socially or politically, but the essence of it ought to be 7 socially referenced. Hein (2006) insists that public art should not be as simple as the use of art for social purposes; it must be art and be social at the same time. As a tool, art can bridge the gap between artists and its audiences. Expectantly with the physical and social values in both its unity and diversity, public art attempts to draw the communities together and to participate with its audiences (Raven 1995). While facing the controversial critique, public art is gradually accepted by the general public that encourages artists to launch their more self-conscious and grass-roots creativities. According to Bach (1992), public art is “….a manifestation of how we see the world—the artist’s reflection of our social, cultural, and physical environment.” Additionally, Lippard (1995) supplies that the commitment of artists is “not to a vanishing notion of small town space but to the experiences of social change and communal continuity embodied by the commons.” As a consequence, public art can represent the aesthetic expression that corresponded to people’s requirement for social empowerment (Hein 2006). What is Public Art for Lennard (1987) indicates that the responsibility of public art is “to enhance the quality of civic life and the sense of community, and to humanize cities.” For supporting that point, Becker (2004) divides what accomplishment public art is able 8 to reach into four areas: “1) to engage civic dialogue and community; 2) to attract attention and economic benefit; 3) to connect artists with communities; and 4) to enhance public appreciation of art.” The artworks in the public place can satisfy certain populations not usually served by museums and offer them an opportunity in the creation of art. While most consider that people can directly obtain the exclusive accomplishments of artists by public art, some suggest that the public art must be something about to make people comment on or discuss or even can inspire people’s emotion. Otherwise, it is merely an isolated piece