Getting 'Er Done: Cultural Planning and the Phantasmagoria of Public
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Getting ‘er Done: Cultural Planning and the Phantasmagoria of Public Art in Edmonton By Ariel MacDonald A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Human Geography Earth and Atmospheric Sciences University of Alberta Ⓒ Ariel MacDonald, 2021 Abstract This research provides the first comprehensive account of Edmonton’s public art collection. It asks: How is public art understood and practiced, what landscapes do these understandings and practices give rise to, and what is the relationship between such landscapes and broader processes of urban development? Edmonton’s first public artwork was commissioned or purchased in 1957, and the collection has since grown to include over 260 artworks. Central to the collection’s growth was the adoption of a percent for art policy in 1991, whereby one percent of qualifying capital expenditure budgets have gone towards the creation of public artworks. Data were collected through site visits to public artworks, qualitative interviews with key informants working in the administration of public art in Edmonton and an examination of three key planning documents. The central data set, gathered from site visits to the artworks in the collection, was analyzed in three segments: (1) an overview of the collection noting its spatial and temporal growth; (2) the application and discussion of an interpretive tag system; and (3) the description of 12 exemplary artworks in the collection. In order to explore the relationship between the landscape of public art in Edmonton and broader processes of urban development, the theoretical lens of phantasmagoria was utilized. Popularized in early 19th century Paris, the phantasmagoria was a spooky lantern show where images were projected onto walls or screens but their source was obscured. Walter Benjamin later used the term in The Arcade Project (2002) as a metaphor to describe the effect of consumer culture in cities. Central to Benjamin’s use of phantasmagoria was the fantastical quality attributed to commodities through the process of commodity fetishism and their display in the Arcades. Central to understanding public art as a phantasmagoria are the utopian qualities associated with public art. This is the concept of public artopia, whereby it is claimed that public art is able to resolve social problems, create a unifying cultural identity for an area, improve the aesthetics of public space and attract economic investment. This thesis describes how, within the discourse of cultural planning, public art takes on a fantastical quality and becomes a fetishized ii commodity on display, which creates a phantasmagoria of public art in Edmonton. It examines how these claims intersect with the machinery of production of public art in Edmonton as well as the contextuality of the artworks themselves. It concludes that conceptualizing public art as a phantasmagoria is a means through which to examine how urban development is animated by fantasy. iii Preface This thesis is an original work by Ariel MacDonald. This research project, of which this thesis is a part, received research ethics approval from the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board, Project name “An Analysis of Public Art in Edmonton”, Pro 00091585, January 9, 2020. iv Acknowledgements Throughout the process of researching and writing this thesis I received a great deal of support and help from many of the wonderful people in my life. First, I would like to express my sincere and deep gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Damian Collins and Dr. Joshua Evans for their continuous support and patience. Dr. Collins and Dr. Evans' feedback pushed me to think more deeply and challenged me to write more clearly, think more critically and inquire further. I learned so much during the research process because of your thoughtful comments and willingness to help me. Without a fateful email in my undergrad announcing the beginning of an honours program in human geography and the subsequent encouragement and mentorship of Dr. Collins I would not have discovered my passion for human geography. I have really missed the lab during Covid and realized how much I loved hearing what everyone else was up to and how much it expanded by thoughts. Thank you Madeleine, Bon, Laura, Kenna and Alex for always provoking me to think more, and even more so for the company and friendship that made the stress of school bearable and even fun! Particularly thank you Madeleine for helping me with excel, your help saved me a lot of time, frustration and swearing. Sophie, reading your thesis made me want to write better and feel some bubbling jealousy. I miss being neighbors and working together at the Starbucks. Working together and chatting (sometimes more one than the other) helped me get through some of the tougher parts of this thesis. Thank you Darcy for creating the maps in this thesis, your patience and GIS skills were indispensable. My parents have always been a huge source of support for me. Thank you Mom for reading all the pedantic shit I love (Marxist stuff and phantasmagoria). Thank you Dad for driving me to artworks all over the city and showing interest in what I was studying. I have always felt very supported by you both, even when I was at my most spiral-y and annoying, thank you both. Thanks to my sisters for listening to me talk endlessly and rant about my thesis. Thank you Belles for your inexhaustible kindness and caretaking, as well as your kooky levity. Thank you Roz for reading my thesis even when I acted mad grumpy, thank you for bossing me when you knew I needed it. To my friends: Meagan, Kaz, Cole and Laura. Meagan you’re an incredible friend thank you for listening to my frequent and repetitive rants. Kaz, your sharp wit and consistent support always brought me joy through my grimacing. Cole (c-daddy), I have missed your humour and energy, you’ve always inspired me to think more cynically and find the v humour in anything. Laura, thank you so much for your support, you’ve challenged me to re-think what I thought were ‘the rules’ and your insights have been measured, direct and kind. This thesis draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. vi Abstract ii Preface iv Acknowledgements v List of Tables xi List of Figures xii 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Research Questions and Objectives 2 1.2. The City of Edmonton 2 1.3. History of Edmonton as Gathering Place 3 1.4. Economy as Identity 4 1.4.1. Edmonton and Entrepreneurship: Take a Risk 7 1.5. Public Art Policy in Edmonton 9 1.6. Thesis Overview 12 2. Literature Review 14 2.1. Public Art Literature Review 14 2.1.1. Introduction 14 2.1.2.Capitalism and Public Art 15 2.1.3. Geography and Art 16 2.1.4. Modernism, Urban Planning and Public Art 17 2.1.4.1. Modernism in Planning 17 2.1.4.2. Art and Modernism 18 2.1.5. Origin of Public Art: Monuments, Architecture and Art History 21 2.1.6 Percent for Art 23 2.1.7. Conventional Public Art and its Detractors (New Genre Public Art) 24 2.1.7.1. Conventional Public Art 24 2.1.7.2. New Genre Public Art 25 2.1.8. What is Public? 28 2.1.9. Public Artopia 30 2.1.10. Public Response 31 2.1.11.Public Art and Human Geography 32 2.1.12.Conclusion 33 2.2. Phantasmagoria Literature Review 35 vii 2.2.1. Definition of Phantasmagoria as a Technical Object 35 2.2.2.Origins of Phantasmagoria: Etymology and Marx 36 2.2.3.The Arcades Project 38 2.2.4.Commodity Fetishism and Commodity Culture 40 2.2.5. Historical Materialism and the Dialectical Image 41 2.2.6. Recent usage of Phantasmagoria in Human Geography 43 2.2.7. Summary 47 2.2.8.Public Art and Phantasmagoria 47 2.2.8.1 The Means of Production of Public Art 48 2.2.8.2. Public Art: Fetishized and Phantasmagoric 49 3. Methodology 52 3.1 Case Study Research and the Study of Public Art 52 3.1.1. Landscape Analysis 54 3.1.2. Policy Analysis 55 3.1.3.Interviews 56 3.2 Summary 58 4. Results 59 4.1 Overview of the Civic Collection 59 4.1.1. Spatial Distribution of Current Collection 59 4.1.2. Change of Collection Over Time 65 4.1.3. Description of the Current Collection 68 4.1.3.1.Interpretive Tag System 68 4.2. Public Art Exemplars 76 4.2.1. Long Burrow 6 (1978) by Barry Cogswell 76 4.2.2. Talus Dome (2012) by Ball Nogues Studios 78 4.2.3. Indigenous Art Park -ÎNÎW River Lot 11 (2018) 80 4.2.4. 53 Degrees 30 North (2019) by Thorsten Goldberg 87 4.2.5. Wayne Gretzky (1989) by John Weaver 88 4.2.6. Towncar (2007) by Tania Garner-Tomas 91 4.2.6. Parade 1, Albert Wildlife (2010) by Gabe Wong 91 4.3. Analysis of Public Art Policy 92 4.3.1. Creative Urbanism 94 4.3.2. Potential 98 viii 4.3.3. Artopia 100 4.3.3.1. Physical Aesthetic Claims 101 4.3.3.2. Economic claims 101 4.3.3.3. Social claims 102 4.3.3.4. Cultural-symbolic claims 105 4.3.4. Summary 105 4.4. Analysis of Key Informant Interviews 106 4.4.1. Community Engagement versus Community Research 106 4.4.2. Placemaking versus Place Recognition 109 4.4.3. Planners versus Artists 110 4.4.3.1.