Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning

The University of Melbourne

Public Art in the City of Melbourne Its Typology and Planning

November 1999

Dongsuk Shin

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning

The University of Melbourne

Public Art in the City of Melbourne Its Typology and Planning

November 1999 Subject: Masters Research Project Coordinator: Dr. Ray Green Supervisor: Andrew Saniga Written by Dongsuk Shin

Contents

Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii List of Tables iv List of Figures v

1. Introduction 1 1.1. Research Questions and Objectives 1 1.2. Approaches 2 1.3. Significance 4

2. Background 5 2.1. Definitions of Public Art 5 2.2. Kinds of Public Art and Settings 8 2.3. Roles of Public Art 11 2.4. Public Art Policies and Planning 15

3. Methodology 23 3.1. Chronological Analysis 25 3.2. Geographical and Locational Analysis 33 3.3. Content Analysis 41 3.4. Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973 55 3.5. Artworks in Urban Context 60

4. Conclusion 65 Appendix A. Public Artworks, Part of the City of Melbourne Collection 68 B. Public Artworks Complimented by a Survey 100 Glossary 109 Bibliography 112

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning i Abstract

Abstract

Public art began with outdoor sculpture as symbolism or embellishment, and public artworks were increased dramatically over the world in the 1960s. However, debate on the definition of public art is still going on: ‘Artworks in Public Places’ and ‘Artworks by/with the public’. Roles and content of public art in Melbourne have been altered and they have affected the typology chronologically and geographically. Awareness of significance of site-specific artworks leads artists to design artworks in the urban context. As another catalyst for public art, community art projects may not be inseparable from neighbourhood character. Site-specificity and execution of community art projects may always need collaboration.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning ii Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

I have to thank many people for their time and help. First of all, I would like to thank Andrew Saniga, my supervisor, for helpful comments and generous advice. I would like to thank those people in Cultural Development of Melbourne City Council, who have provided information about outdoor artworks, and urban and public art policy: Dave Hamra, Alison Fraser and Dodd Haunt. Also, I would like to thank Ray Green, subject coordinator, for his special consideration. When I lost my final works at the end of semester because of my personal computer problem, he extended my due date. I am seriously grateful for professional life in Object Plan, Seoul where I became interested in public art for the first time. Most of all, I would like to thank my wife and professional colleague, Youngju Choi, for her support and discussion. Without her help, this thesis would not have been possible. Lastly, all photographs and maps are prepared based on a survey except the following which I would like to acknowledge: Figures 2-4 (source: Robinette, 1976), Figures 5-8 (source: Wagenknecht-Harte, 1989), Figures 11-12 (source: Fleming and Tscharner, 1987), and Photos 10, 38 and 69 in sculpture category in Appendix A (source: City of Melbourne, 1995). I dedicate the thesis to my lovely baby who will start her life next April.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning iii List of Tables

List of Tables

Table 1. Factors for analysing ...... 24 Table 2. Number of artworks by categories...... 29 Table 3. Distribution of MCC public artworks by suburbs ...... 36 Table 4. Locational distribution of MCC artworks by types of locations ...... 40 Table 5. Classification of forms of sculpture...... 42 Table 6. Relationship between forms and memorials...... 44 Table 7. Classification of memorials by themes...... 44 Table 8. Materials for sculpture...... 46 Table 9. Classification of painting...... 48 Table 10. Classification of water features ...... 49 Table 11. Classification of pavement art...... 51 Table 12. Classification of drinking fountains ...... 52 Table 13. Classification of others category ...... 53 Table 14. Summary of changes of public artworks before and after 1973...... 59

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning iv List of Figures

List of Figures

Figure 1. Research flowchart...... 3 Figure 2. Clement Meadmore, Lippincott, Inc., North Haven, Connecticut...... 8 Figure 3. Eero Saarinen, Gateway Arch, St. Louis, Missouri...... 8 Figure 4. Willi Gutmann, The Big One, Peachtree Centre, Atlanta...... 8 Figure 5. Henry Moore, in front of Dallas City Hall, Texas...... 9 Figure 6. George Segal, 3 People on 4 Benches, Grove Isle...... 9 Figure 7. Richard Serra, Tilted Arc, Manhattan, New York...... 9 Figure 8. Irwin and the SWA Group, Dallas, Texas...... 10 Figure 9. Petrus Spronk, Architectural Fragment, 1992 ...... 13 Figure 10. Ron Robertson-Swann, Vault, 1980...... 14 Figure 11. Drawing of Bethesda's Art Plan...... 17 Figure 12. The Townscape Institute devised this art plan for Richmond's proposed arts district.19 Figure 13. Surveyed area...... 24 Figure 14. Apollo of Belvedere, c.1780, Queen Victoria Gardens...... 25 Figure 15. Boy on a Turtle, c.1850, Fitzroy Gardens ...... 25 Figure 16. Charles Summers, River God Fountain, 1862, Fitzroy Gardens...... 25 Figure 17. Charles Summers, Burke and Wills Monument, 1865, Swanston Street Walk ...... 26 Figure 18. Change of the number of artworks over time...... 26 Figure 19. Clement Meadmore, Awakening, 1968, AMP Square...... 26 Figure 20. Proportion of artworks over time ...... 27 Figure 21. Change of categories of artworks over time...... 28 Figure 22. Change and proportion of artworks over time ...... 30 Figure 23. Peter Corlett, Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop Memorial, 1995, Kings Domain ...... 31 Figure 24. Change by character of artworks...... 31 Figure 25. Ray Thomas, Another View Walking Trail Site 10, 1995, Alexandra Gardens...... 32 Figure 26. Ian Sprague and participants, People's Path, 1979, Fitzroy Gardens ...... 32 Figure 27. Classification of suburbs...... 34 Figure 28. Change of artworks by suburb ...... 35 Figure 29. Distribution of artworks by suburbs...... 37 Figure 30. Distribution of artwork in the CAD ...... 38 Figure 31. Change of types of locations ...... 39 Figure 32. Change of forms of sculpture...... 41 Figure 33. G. A. Lawson, Roberts Burns Memorial, 1904, Treasury Gardens...... 41

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning v List of Figures

Figure 34. Sir Bertman Mackennal, King Edward VII Memorial, 1920, Queen Victoria Gardens.42 Figure 35. John E. Robinson, Water Children, 1975, Queen Victoria Gardens...... 42 Figure 36. Tom Bass, Genii, 1973, Queen Victoria Gardens...... 43 Figure 37. Bernice McPherson, Di Christenson, Craig Perry and participants, 1995, Hotham Hill Estate, North Melbourne...... 43 Figure 38. Bruce Armstrong & Geoffrey Bartlett, Constellation, 1997, Turning Basin...... 43 Figure 39. Akio Makigawa, Time and Tide, 1994, Town Hall Plaza...... 43 Figure 40. Percival Ball, Eight Hour Day Memorial, 1903, Russell and Victoria St. corner...... 43 Figure 41. DeLacy Evans & Joseph Hamilton, The Boer War Memorial, 1903, Kings Domain 43 Figure 42. George Allen, World War II (Cenotaph), 1954, Shrine of Remembrance...... 45 Figure 43. Change of materials...... 47 Figure 44 Elizabeth McKinnon, Lynch's Bridge Mosaic Mural, 1998, Epsom Road underpass 47 Figure 45. Eastern Hill Fire Station Mural...... 48 Figure 46. Jenifer McVarthy, Painted Tram Poles, 1992, Swanston St. Walk, outside State Library...... 48 Figure 47. Lisa Kennedy, Electric Supply Box D, 1993, Swanston Street Walk & Bourke Street48 Figure 48. Robert Jacks, Personal Island, 1992, Swanston Street Walk...... 50 Figure 49 French Fountain, Carlton Gardens...... 50 Figure 50. Robert Woodward, Coles Fountain, 1994, Parliament Reserve ...... 50 Figure 51. June Arnold, Dolphin Fountain, 1982, Fitzroy Gardens...... 50 Figure 52. Southbank Fountain, 1997, Southbank Promenade ...... 50 Figure 53. Waterfall Fountain, 1933, Fitzroy Gardens...... 50 Figure 54. Another View Walking Trail Site 1, 1995, Spring Street...... 51 Figure 55. Tanya Court and Kate Cullity, Zoo Paving, 1995...... 51 Figure 56. Robert Jacks, Personal Island, 1992, Swanston Street Walk...... 52 Figure 57. James Catell & Lyn Kinder-Dickson, Joanne Croke & Tim Jones, Susan Toole, Adrian Gemelli, Pavement Tiles, 1994, Bourke St. Mall...... 52 Figure 58. North Melbourne Drinking Fountain, 1877 ...... 52 Figure 59. Charles Douglas Richardson, William Ievers (Jnr) Memorial Drinking Fountain, 1916, McArthur Square...... 53 Figure 60. Ornamental Domed Drinking Fountain, c.1900, Queen Victoria Gardens ...... 53 Figure 61. Councillors R. J. & F. G. J. Hardy Memorial Drinking Fountain, 1939, Hardy Reserve...... 53 Figure 62. H. Black, Lady Janet Marrion Clarke Memorial, 1913, Queen Victoria Gardens. ...54 Figure 63. Bernice McPherson with local residents, Railway Viewing Platform, 1994, Railway

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning vi List of Figures

Place, West Melbourne...... 54 Figure 64. Change of public artworks by suburbs before and after 1973...... 55 Figure 65. Change of public artworks by location types before and after 1973...... 56 Figure 66. Change in categories of public artworks before and after 1973...... 57 Figure 67. Change of character and types of artworks since 1973...... 58 Figure 68. Changes of materials and methods for sculpture...... 58 Figure 69. Artworks and physical environment ...... 61 Figure 70. Artworks and leisure features...... 62 Figure 71. Artworks and neighbourhood...... 63

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning vii Introduction

1. Introduction

Today’s urgent concern for the quality of life places a heavy burden of responsibility upon those people and groups—environmental designers, community organisation, governmental agencies, business, and other institutions—who play significant roles in determining the quality of the physical environment. These people are well aware of the essential contribution of the visual arts. The use of outdoor sculpture is one of the most visual and easily accessible ways to include art in the environment. The history of outdoor sculpture is almost long as that of human beings, and now, it is mainly recognised through the production of public art. The notion of public art commenced together with the emergence of large-scale sculpture in conjunction with modern architecture in the 1960s. Now, we are in the midst of a public art boom. Articles appear daily in national and local presses documenting yet another project. ‘Per Cent for Art’ programs proliferate at all levels of government, and involve both local artists and international art-world stars. Obviously, public art is viewed as an important and inseparable part of the urban environment. Increasingly, artists create work for public places, community planners broaden their vision to include art in the public realm, and the public is increasingly involved in and exposed to contemporary artworks. Public art today, therefore, will not be the public art of the future. However, it seems reasonable to assume that the primary role of public art will not change. The primary role is to embellish the built environment. Public art as urban ornament has contributed to varying extents to the mental and psychological quality of people as well as to enriching the physical quality of the built environment. Besides the ornamental role, public art is re- interpreted as an urban landmark and urban memory in relation to urban design. It is considered to be significant in contributing to the aim of place making. If so, what character of public art might be demonstrated to have carried out those important roles? How has the character of public art altered with the lapse of time? Those questions connect with the alteration the concept of public art which has affected roles of public art. The notion of publicness, therefore, will be a starting point of this research.

1.1. Research Questions and Objectives

There are many kinds of public artworks in Melbourne. Some artworks attract people, but some do not. Some executed by public art program do not at all appeal aesthetically nor do they give meaning to people, but regardless, their existence may enhance the physical quality of the city to some degree. It seems reasonable to assume the phenomenon that people might mot recognise

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 1 Introduction

certain artworks to have the same aesthetic value as those works in galleries. It also seems likely that in some instances people may not even perceive their existence. Thus, the research begins with two basic questions: • What is the content and history of public art in the City of Melbourne? • How has the role of public art in urban planning/design altered over the last century? The answer of those questions will give us an understanding of public art in the City of Melbourne. The objectives of the research, therefore, are to: • understand the history of public art in the City of Melbourne; • develop an inventory of public art projects in the City of Melbourne and recommend sites for future public art projects; and, • suggest future directions of public art.

1.2. Approaches

To achieve the objectives, the research begins with literature review regarding the notion of public art, public art policies and planning of Melbourne City Council (MCC), and other cities such as Los Angeles and Seattle in USA. Public artworks in the City of Melbourne are then analysed in order to establish their typology. The research analyses public artworks by time, space and content in a statistical way. The analysed data are based on a list of MCC outdoor artworks, which was provided by “Cultural Development” department of MCC. The data describe only those artworks that are part of the collections of MCC or those managed by MCC, however there are also a good many other public artworks owned or managed by other bodies such as state government, private corporations, National Gallery of Victoria, etc. The research, therefore, made a more complete survey of those artworks not included by MCC to make meaningful comparisons and thus aid the definition of the character of public art in the City of Melbourne more clearly. Finally, based on the typology and all analysed results, future directions for public art in the City of Melbourne will be proposed. Figure 1 shows the research method and methodology.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 2 Introduction

Research questions / Objectives

Data collection Literature review l List of MCC outdoor artworks l Definitions of public art l Public artworks by a survey, l Kinds of public art and which are not included in settings MCC list l Roles of public art l Policies, strategies and projects for public art in Melbourne Verification of collected data l Policies and planning of l site survey public art in other cities l existing published materials

Preparation of inventory of final data for analysis

Review of research questions and objectives

Data analysis

l Chronological analysis l Geographical and locational analysis l Content analysis

Results and Findings

Suggestions for the future planning of public art in

the City of Melbourne

Figure 1. Research flowchart

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 3 Introduction

1.3. Significance

This research will provide a resource for establishing guidelines when Melbourne City Council attempts future planning for public art and urban design at the local government level. Firstly, spatial distribution of public artworks over the whole City of Melbourne can be the base for establishment of the plan which seeks to reduce cultural inequality between suburbs. Secondly, characteristic typology of existing artworks can help in commissioning future artworks. Finally, inventory of public artworks can be used for further research such as public art management and conservation.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 4 Background: Definitions of Public Art

2. Background

What is public art? What sorts of artworks are in it? How different is today’s public art from yesterdays? What is the role of public art? How does it relate to planning/design? How has public art been controlled? These series of questions are inseparable from the notion of public art and the relationship between art-related planning or policies. The research, therefore, investigates two major topics: the notion of public art and planning. The concept of public art has been changed continuously since it emerged, so that firstly, definitions of public art are reviewed. Secondly, kinds of public art and settings are discussed and categorised. Thirdly, roles of public art are researched in relation to urban planning/design. Finally, planning of public art is explored by analysing policies, strategies, and public art programs of MCC and other cities. The literature on Australian public art is quite scarce, and the subject is seldom covered in local journals, so that much of the literature review for this research has been based on examples from the UK or USA.

2.1. Definitions of Public Art

Public art is a very new phenomenon in modern terms. It is something still in the process of becoming. Almost every definition pertaining to the field of public art has undergone scrutiny and change since 1966, when the National Endowment for the Arts in USA began to explore ways in which to support the placement of art in public places (Halbreich, 1988: 9). It does, however, seem surprising, nearly forty years after the passage of the first Per Cent for Art ordinance in Philadelphia1, that we still are unable to define exactly what public art is, or ought to be. What, at first glance, seems simple, becomes very complex, linguistically and conceptually. In an article titled ‘How Art Becomes Public’, Jerry Allen (1985) gives thoughtful exploration to some difficult issues surrounding the definition of public art. The very notion of a ‘public art’ is something of a contradiction in terms. In it, we join two words whose meanings are, in some ways, antithetical. We recognise ‘art’ in the twentieth century as the individual inquiry of the sculptor or painter, the epitome of self-assertion. To that we join ‘public’, a reference to the collective, the social order, self-negation. Hence, we link the private and the public, in a single-concept or object, from which we expect

1 The first city in the USA to adopt a Per Cent for Art Policy was Philadelphia in 1959.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 5 Background: Definitions of Public Art

both coherence and integrity. This … is central to an issue that has plagued public art in modern times. Herein lies the problem. Much of what we call public art simply is not. The overwhelming majority of public artworks are simply private artworks—gallery or studio pieces—‘slumming it’ on a plaza or in the lobby of some public structure. Their traditional placement and their grand (and often exaggerated) scale give rise to the expectation that they should be public in content, or monumental in terms other than scale. They are only big, private artworks. Where, indeed, is the ‘public’ in public art? Occasionally, the issue has been skirted by resorting to other language: Art in Public Places, rather than Public Art. Those languages have become two possible starting points in constructing a definition of public art. Pointing out that ‘art in public places’ is to define the art in terms of location alone, Lawrence Alloway (Forgey, 1980: 86) observes, “it takes more than an outdoor site to make a sculpture public.” It implies another way of defining public art, which might be in terms of content, audience and a context that is both broad and heterogeneous. In a 1986 symposium for ‘Arts and the Changing City’ held by British American Arts Association, Jack Mackie, artist, notes that the terms ‘public art’ and ‘art in public places’ have different meanings and need to be distinguished from one another: ‘Art in public places’ refers to works of art placed in view of the public, while ‘public art’ is a hybrid work involving much more than simply the creative products of an individual artist (British American Arts Association, 1989: 44). Dolores Hayden (1995: 67) notes that the older definition of public art is art that is accessible to the public because it is permanently sited in public places. (It is not in galleries or museums or private offices or private homes, but in the streets, the parks, the public realm.) James Clark (Yngvason, 1993: 8) states, “public art is artwork that depends on its context; it is an amalgamation of events—the physical appearance of a site, its history, the socio-economic dimensions of the community, and the artist’s intervention.” Or as Lucy Lippard (1990), critic and author of Mixed Blessings, puts it, “public art is accessible art of any kind that cares about/challenges/involves and consults the audience for or with whom it is made, respecting community and environment; the other stuff is still private art, no matter how big or exposed or intrusive or hyped it may be.” Malcolm Miles defines public art in terms of its reception by the public: The terms ‘art’ and ‘public’ fit no more easily together in the twentieth century, and a definition of ‘public art’ is fraught with the contradiction that whilst modernist art has occupied the hermetic space of the white-walled gallery, art forms more closely linked to areas of everyday life, such as ‘community arts’ or ‘outsider art’, have been marginalised by the art establishment as lacking ‘aesthetic quality’. But, a sculpture in a plaza is not

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 6 Background: Definitions of Public Art

made accessible by its site as such, and any work of art in a public collection might be described as ‘public’, so that the issues becomes not ‘public art’ but ‘the reception of art by publics’. That reception can be manipulated (Miles, 1997: 85). Public art might, since definitions are mutable and cumulative, be taken to include the work of artists undertaking residences in industrial or social settings, and the community art programs which began in the late 1960s, or community wall paintings which were concerned to make visible the voices of groups who then lacked access to broadcast television. All these forms of art practice are located outside the spaces and conventions of gallery and museums, which is the broadest definition of public art. Definitions are, in any case, no more interesting than finite, and perhaps a better question might be whether there are commonalities between public art and popular culture, since for the majority of people, television, film and advertising imagery are their major visual intake (Miles, 1997: 12).

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 7 Background: Kinds of Public Art and Settings

2.2. Kinds of Public Art and Settings

The media of public art is various. All visual and performing art might be included in the kinds of public art. If we wanted the broadest possible definition of public art, we would have to include all manner of visual activities that can be found in well visited places—sculpture, mural or potable painting, earthworks, electronic and computer based art, projections, sound, ephemeral art, performance, festival and celebration, fountains, streetlights, collaborative art/urban design projects, graffiti and, perhaps, even the many signs and poster messages that crowd our streets. Yet, in general, public art tends to be limited to professional art, which is legally placed in public place because it is the art commissioned officially by the public funds or for the public interests. Most studies on public art deal with particularly public sculpture among many other kinds of public art. That is because the concept of public art originated from sculpture and sculpture as three-dimensional object is closely related the closest to architecture which is the main ingredient of urban environment. There are various ways of classifying public sculpture. In regard of outdoor sculpture, Margaret A. Robinette (1976: 28) states that there are three approaches to classification, all of which focus on the sculpture, the setting, or both; functional/historical, perceptual/experiential, and stylistic approach. The functional/historical approach developed by James M. Goode (1973) divides sculpture into ten categories: “statues, equestrian statues, relief panels, aluminium and bronze doors, fountains, architectural sculpture, pediments, animal, cemetery and abstract sculpture.” Art Brenner (1972) developed the perceptual/experimental approach and classified sculpture into three categories:

Figure 2. Clement Figure 3. Eero Saarinen, Gateway Arch, St. Figure 4. Willi Gutmann, Meadmore, Lippincott, Inc., Louis, Missouri. The Big One, Peachtree North Haven, Connecticut. Centre, Atlanta.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 8 Background: Kinds of Public Art and Settings

• Sculpture-as-object (Figure 2), or ‘free’ sculpture, is conceived as a piece to be appreciated solely on its own independent, aesthetic merits. • Sculpture-as-architecture (Figure 3) may be defined as an environmental shell in which people may live, work, or play—an enclosed sculptural volume seen from both inside and out. It might equally be called architecture-as-sculpture. • Sculpture-in-architecture (Figure 4) is not a free object nor is it a building, rather it is an integral part of the architectural design just as the architectural forms are integral to the artistic conception of the sculpture. Finally, “outdoor sculpture may also be categorised stylistically, ranging from traditional to more modern forms of representationalism and from the now generally accepted forms of abstract expressionism to any number of newer forms of non-objective art” (Robinette, 1976: 32). In Being and Circumstance, the artist, Robert Irwin Figure 5. Henry Moore, in front of Dallas City (1985) identifies four general working categories for Hall, Texas. Public/Site Art: site-dominant, site-adjusted, site- specific, and site-conditioned/determined. • Site-dominant sculpture (Figure 5) is an object having its own integrity; it is “… conceptually independent of site; as objects, it can be appropriately exhibited in a variety of sites within

a city or within many different cities” (Andrews, Figure 6. George Segal, 3 People on 4 Benches, 1984, in cited Wagenknecht-Harte, 1989: 41). Grove Isle. • Site-adjusted sculpture (Figure 6) also consists of an object created in a studio destined for a variety of sites, but it is dependent upon a site for the various visual interactions involving scale, colour, texture, or mass (Wagenknecht- Harte, 1989: 41). • Site-specific sculpture (Figure 7) is “a combination of a form the artist creates and the environment in which that form is placed. The work of art is contingent not only on the artist’s ideas but also on the physical, cultural, and historical characteristics of a specific site … it is only at Figure 7. Richard Serra, Tilted Arc, Manhattan, New York.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 9 Background: Kinds of Public Art and Settings

one particular site that the completed work exists” (Shaffer, 1983, in cited Wagenknecht-Harte, 1989: 48). • Site-conditioned/determined sculpture (Figure 8) draws all of its cues from its surroundings. The design process begins with intimate hands on reading of the site and continues with a distillation

of the gleaned information, followed by the Figure 8. Irwin and the SWA Group, Dallas, transformation into a sculptural response Texas. (Wagenknecht-Harte, 1989: 48). In his article titled ‘Public Sculpture: the Pleasure and the Pain’ for Art and Australia, Graeme Sturgeon (1987: 222) divides public sculpture into three categories: sculpture-as-memorial, sculpture-as-decoration and sculpture-as-sculpture, and Michael Hedger (1995) into six categories based on character and location: fountains, war memorials, commemorative sculpture, garden sculpture, gallery collections, and architectural and corporate sculpture which is attached to the building, or placed in the courtyard or lobby. Successful integration of sculpture with the setting demands knowledge not only of the various kinds of sculpture, but of the requirements and limitations imposed by different types of settings. Since the late 1960s, works of contemporary art and craft have increasingly been located in city square and government buildings, corporate plazas, parks and garden festivals, schools, hospitals, railway stations and on the external walls of houses, in a growth of commissioning echoing, in a different visual language and with a broader range of settings, that of statues and memorials in the nineteenth century. Robinette classifies settings for outdoor sculpture by three criteria which are location, designations and the dominant factor in a given setting. In Outdoor Sculpture, Robinette (1976: 32-34) notes: Classification of settings for outdoor sculpture can be determined by numerous criteria. Perhaps the simplest is that of location: urban, suburban, or rural. There is of course the possibility of overlapping, especially between urban and suburban, but in general the distinction is discernible. Within these broad areas settings can be further specified by designations such as commercial, industrial, governmental, institutional, educational, cultural, residential, transportation related (those associated with the various systems of transportation), and exposition-type (those monumental works displayed at expositions). Additional distinctions may be made according to whether the dominant factor in a given setting is the architecture, the landscape architecture, or the sculpture itself.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 10 Background: Roles of Public Art

2.3. Roles of Public Art

2.3.1. Roles of Public Sculpture throughout History

Sculpture is the most representative type of public art. A history of sculpture, especially outdoor sculpture, might be a starting point to investigate roots of public art before the emergence of the notion of public art. The beginning of sculpture in Australia dates from 1787; however, it might be helpful to begin with the framework of the European sculptural tradition for contextual understanding of sculpture in Australia. From the ancient, the primary motive of sculpture was the desire to create a symbolic image that would honour and please the gods or commemorate the dead, and the secondary motive was the individual’s desire to somehow perpetuate himself—to attain immorality. Greek exterior sculpture continued to fulfil the religious/symbolic function in the adornment of temples to the gods, but the individual ego was subordinated to the concept of the “ideal,” as artists struggled to harmonise the concept of fidelity to nature with that of ideal beauty. However, the Romans seem to have had a greater ego environment, creating such monumental commemorative works as the Arch of Constantine, and Trajan’s Column. In the Middle Ages, to the religious/symbolic functions of sculpture was now added a didactic or educational one. Outdoor sculpture is designed, inherently and often structurally, as a part of the architecture and conforms to a total programming of several art forms in order to convey a particular message, or to create a unity of design. In the Italian Renaissance, sculpture reasserted its independence from architecture, emerging in such powerful declarations of the spirit of humanism as Michelangelo’s David or Moses. Equestrian monuments commemorated heroes, and fountains with allegorical/mythological/ symbolical themes began to play a significant role in the ornamentation of gardens and the marking of special places, such as plazas or squares in cities. A large number of sculpture were erected in this period; however, we can see prosperity of sculpture in the nineteenth century as G. A. Gutheim (1963) states that the ultimate flowering of the statue in a public place awaited the coming of the nineteenth century street memorials. The remarkable proliferation of statues of heroes in marble and bronze can be attributes to the new patriotism and the new nationalism of that era, as well as to the fact that the technique of bronze casting had been recently perfected. In the twentieth century, with the advent of International Style architecture and its disdain of traditional ornament, painting and sculpture were forced into a different role. Although Bauhaus rhetoric, called for the integration of the arts in theory, in practice the very materials of the buildings and its functionalist rationale all but prohibited it (Senie and Webster, 1989: 287).

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 11 Background: Roles of Public Art

Today’s milestones of taste indicate that our culture has indeed changed since nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A good deal of this change in style and form in outdoor sculpture may be attributed to the total modern art movement. It rarely commemorates heroes and events, nor symbolises accomplishments and goals. Instead its task appears to function as a community symbol or a corporate image—often its purpose is commercial as well as cultural— and to be aesthetically enhancing its setting. It is expected to contribute visually and experientially to the quality of life of those who experience it as an element in their daily environment. There is, however, a sense that it is still symbolic and expressive, at least of the technological world in which we live. In the case of Australia, sculptors have always fared badly and been less well supported than painters and printmakers because of the nature of sculpture which needs more time, more material, and more financial commitment. Obviously, lack of financial support has often forced the sculptor to produce small pieces even when the work of sculpture has to stand outside against the often overwhelming backdrop of the city. At least this was the problem until the 1960s, when solid, three-dimensional object sculpture began to experience a process of dematerialisation which has radically altered the whole conception of what is traditionally understood by the term sculpture (Sturgeon, 1978: 7). In the 1970s, the concept of site-specific work began to be applied to gallery installations and landscape sculpture. Theoretically, a work was created for a specific site and thereby became a part of it. Site specificity might be established through formal aesthetic links or through historical and cultural references. It implies no single style. Thus large-scale monolithic sculptures made out of industrial materials might be site specific, as might be works using natural forms and materials. The latter approach has recently been expanded by a number of artists to move beyond site specificity to the creation of the entire site. Meaningful criteria for evaluating public art can be developed only after an examination of the many different styles and approaches it can take. Public art is today as diverse as museum or gallery art (Senie and Webster, 1989: 288-289).

2.3.2. Public Art as Landmarks

The role of art is to transform spaces into places, the public into people. This entails a merging of individual with common interests, without contradiction. Art is personal and shared. Public art may not be a necessary urban infrastructure, however it is closely related to the quality of the city which is contained with public interests.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 12 Background: Roles of Public Art

While Adolf Loos put aside decoration, linking it with crime (Miles, 1989: 5), public art as part of urban ornament would play a crucial role of making the image of cities and healing our environment. Public art falls within Lynch’s definition of, in particular, city landmark because of its urban ornamental characteristic. According to Lynch’s theories, the city with clearly identifiable and distinct districts lends itself to the creation of a strong perceptual image in the viewer. This strong visual image facilitates the user’s understanding of the city and therefore its management and use by the individual (Lynch, 1960). An important purpose is to make a city more memorable by giving identity and structure to its public realm (Moughtin et al., 1995: 103). To confer identity requires an understanding of the nature of a place. For example, Architectural Fragment enables the public to easily understand and identify their environment by providing language which everybody, who may Figure 9. Petrus Spronk, Architectural Fragment, 1992 not have any contact with art in galleries, can immediately read. For establishment of identity, the emphasis of public art should be on making something which is part of, and brings out the qualities of the location. It needs the users of the place to articulate what it is they valued in it.

2.3.3. Public Art as Sustaining Memory

In The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch (Lynch, 1960:1) has notes, “Nothing is experienced by itself, but always in relation to its surroundings, the sequences of events leading up to it, the memory of past experiences.” Many artists, especially those interested in working with urban communities in public places, are attempting to reach out to history and geography to study the meanings of historic urban landscapes as a way of representing the conjunction of public history and public art. Representation of such an artwork is now becoming diverse in form and style, but metaphorical wit connects private and public, personal and political, the individual and the community, in the most effective public art projects about places that link past and present. Scale and cost are not the defining elements of a public, urban language. Rather it is metaphorical ingenuity that enables the creators of some projects to summon the resonance of urban public life, while others fail and their projects fall flat. No public art can succeed in enhancing the social meaning of place without a solid base of historical research and community support. (Miles, 1997:2) That is because critique of public art in the public realm necessarily extends to a series of overlapping issues, such as the diversity of urban public and

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 13 Background: Roles of Public Art

culture, the functions and gendering of public space, the operation of power, and the roles of professionals of the built environment in relation to non-professional urban dwellers. As an example, we can find the infamous case of Ron Robertson-Swann’s Vault. It is well documented, but in short, this yellow painted steel assemblage, nicknamed The Yellow Peril, was commissioned for Central Melbourne. Its installation was eventually relegated from Melbourne’s City Square to Batman Park near Yarra River. The space and object combine to mutual benefits, each reinforcing the meaning of the other. In Vault, such complementarity has Figure 10. Ron Robertson-Swann, Vault, 1980. not been achieved. It also resonated uncompromisingly against Melbourne’s civic buildings. Robertson-Swann who is a modernist, has argued, “most public art is like a mouse trying to piss and roar like a bull elephant.” And in the same lamentable breath; “But modern art is without a home; it is like divorce and marriage you lose your future, it is as simple and as complicated as that.” (Jones-Evans, 1994) These views typify the derision and schools of thinking emerging concerning public art. Purists, usually ‘individual’ artists, tend to argue all public art and community art projects are compromised low art expressions. While their detractors, community artist and the state bureaucracies that fund them, argue the need for ordinary people to take possession of public space, to empower and celebrate their lives through making public art. While there is no denying community art programs allow ordinary people to claim spiritual territory over the urban environment, the desire to democratise artistic processes in pursuit of cultural equity has produced some of the most lamentable public art projects across Australia.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 14 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

2.4. Public Art Policies and Planning

The Per Cent for Art model is the most common mechanism used to fund art in public building projects. But recent directions are also being tested whereby public planning mechanism—such as redevelopment authorities and zoning regulations—are encouraging or requiring the inclusion of public art in private development projects. In connection with funding for public art, the private/public models are reviewed in this section. Also in the public art planning process, administrators have begun to emphasise the relationship of public art to the whole city, rather than to a plaza-like site which could be thought of as the equivalent of the traditional pedestal. As the increasing concern on public art, a practical comprehensive plan which integrates public art into the process of planning has been developed. Cities such as Seattle have sponsored major planning studies of the role and place of various types of public art in the life of different urban districts (Halbreich, 1988: 11). Along with funding models, this section examines current plans and policies for public art in the City of Melbourne such as Urban and Public Art policy, Cultural Policy, Melbourne Strategy Plan and City Plan.

2.4.1. Per Cent for Art Policy

Public art is a regular activity in many organisations which include the private, not-for-profit sector, private, for-profit sector, and the public sector which includes agencies of municipal, state and federal government and a variety of specific public agencies such as transportation and national and state park services. Per Cent for Art legislation is one of a number of methods designated for public art. The typical Per Cent for Art law stipulates that a certain percentage of the cost of constructing or renovating a public building or site (or of a capital improvement project) shall be set aside for artwork (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988: 27). For example, the Arts Councils in the UK promote a Per Cent for Art policy, through which a given percentage (usually one per cent) within the budget for a building scheme is set aside for the commissioning of art and craft works; such policies are currently in operation (at levels from 0.5 per cent to 2 per cent) by more than 90 cities and states in the USA2 (Miles, 1997:5). In Australia, the Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council acted as midwife to the birth of public art projects throughout the nation during 1973. The Board was instrumental in establishing the concept of providing a percentage of building costs for the acquisition of artworks as part of the construction budgets for Australian government buildings (Weston, no

2 For a full list (as at 1987) see Cruikshank and Korza, 1988: 287-295.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 15 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

date: 3). The aim of Public Art program of the Visual Arts Board is to give the public access to the very best in contemporary Australian art, and especially to provide works of art where none at present exist. It is intended that the work of art will contribute to public enjoyment and education and that the projects will be the result of an effective partnership between the Visual Arts Board, artists and clients (Weston, no date: 9). Currently, Melbourne City Council is committed to supporting Per Cent for Art scheme through the annual allocation of 1 per cent of its total capital works budget for public art projects, developed and implemented through the Urban and Public Art Program.

2.4.2. Redevelopment and Zoning

Kathy Halbreich (1988: 30) notes, “while federal, state, and local agencies still provide a great deal of the impetus and muscle for public art projects, Per Cent for Art funds cannot always be stretched to finance all the innovative or ambitious projects.” Only a handful of cities, through their development or redevelopment authorities, have formally crafted programs ensuring public art in private development projects. Most notable of the programs are the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency model3 The Community Redevelopment Agency’s (CRA) Downtown Art in Public Places Policy (DAPPP) was the result of extensive research of public art program across USA and consulting from public art experts who helped to shape the innovations of the CRA’s policy. The policy requires that at least 1 per cent of private development costs (total project costs exclusive of land) for new commercial and multi-family developments (with some exceptions) be allocated by the developer to support such efforts. Of that 1 per cent, at least 40 per cent is to be deposited in the Downtown Cultural Trust Fund. Each development has the option of choosing to implement its Per Cent for Art obligation via this combination of on-site program and Trust Fund contribution, or to make an exclusive 0.8 per cent Trust Fund donation (and thereby eliminate on-site artwork). The Trust Fund, a distinguishing innovation of the CRA Policy, is a funding mechanism which aggregates portions of the individual private, site-specific per cent for art requirement and redistributes these funds to finance cultural programs and art projects in downtown locations beyond those new private projects which generated the art funds. The Trust Funds, therefore, is a means of financing and siting artworks or programs that

3 Excerpted from Cruikshank and Korza, 1988: 40-41.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 16 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

otherwise are infeasible, such as in neighbourhoods without private investments or where development projects are too small or exempt from the DAPPP. Controversial or technically innovative artist-initiated proposals usually avoided by developers are specifically encouraged. Art projects funded by the Trust Fund are administrated by the CRA and may occur anywhere within the redevelopment zone. The redevelopment context is perhaps the best opportunity for early artist involvement and early integration of the arts component into the overall development of a private developer’s project concept and design (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988: 43). However, artists’ lack of experience or familiarity with large-scale or complex design process has frustrated developers, the CRA staff, and artists at critical design review stage. Zoning is a well-established regulatory tool in city planning to regulate the use, scale and form of buildings and land, the density of development, etc. There is the fundamental difference between plans and zoning codes. While redevelopment is process-oriented, zoning is product- oriented and a relatively inflexible tool of public policy. Conventional zoning regulations have been used explicitly to support public art. For example, in San Francisco, where the zoning ordinance stipulates that a developer must provide for publicly accessible art, just as he or she must observe setback guidelines, design parameters, and so on as a necessary factor of development. Another zoning method which has been used frequently to encourage public art is incentive or bonus zoning. This is a technique whereby a community secures certain amenities (such as public space, space for retail shops, or building setback) in a development by granting extra income-generating benefits to the developer—most often by adjusting Figure 11. Drawing of Bethesda's Art Plan, generated by the floor area ratio to the developer’s incentive zoning and the site specific determination of the art country’s urban design staff, illustrates how public art will be advantage (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988: integrated into building and amenity design. 45).

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 17 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

Various zoning mandates and incentives have been put forward as useful means of harnessing private development monies in support of art in public places. In the hands of the best city planners, it is argued, these private dollars can spur a city to a program of public art which is integral to private-sector growth and which creates well-designed and publicly accessible private spaces. Even though it has yet to be realised, there is the potential for artists to be involved in and to influence the early design stages of development projects. Participants in the public art field, including representatives of urban planning and private development, agree that these new directions in funding public art through the private sector should continue to be explored and refined. They represent not only significant sources of funds, but new opportunities for artists as well. Most importantly, however, they enable both publicly and privately funded spaces to be considered together in an overall approach to public art for a city (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988: 49).

2.4.3. Integrating Public Art in Community Planning

In the previous section on redevelopment and zoning, it was argued that the inclusion of artists on redevelopment and zoning boards could ensure earlier intervention in the urban design process. It is one of a number of ways to integrate public art within community planning. The integration calls for a specific, long-range, and comprehensive plan which guides a city to action by addressing the creation, integration, and maintenance of art in the city. Cruikshank and Korza (1988: 50-51) note that a public art master plan ensures a coherent artwork acquisition program by: • providing a framework of policies and procedures which guide artwork acquisition with a plan for the city as a whole; • establishing an approach for selection of specific locations for public art projects; • defining relationships of art in public places to other city goals and mechanisms (planning, budgetary, etc.); • engaging the community in the design of the plan; and, • ensuring the role of artists in developing the plan, as well as participating activity in the design of public spaces. As a result, the plan institutionalises a discussion of the broadest range of artistic possibilities and recognises artists as thoughtful contributors to the design of the environment. Such comprehensive planning also encourages interdisciplinary discussion and collaboration. Seattle is one example generally thought to be successful.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 18 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

Artwork Network—A Planning Study for Seattle: Art in the Civic Context Seattle has led the way in the practical integration of public art within municipal planning and budgeting processes. In 1984, the Seattle Arts Commission carried out a study with the objective of developing a rationale for making site recommendations for public art projects within a network of primary public places, in particular, downtown areas. It was the philosophy of the arts commission that it could “support the city’s sense of identity by sponsoring artworks at these places of social commerce or Figure 12. The Townscape Institute devised this art plan for Richmond's proposed arts district. The drawing conceptualises significant public meaning” the spatial/visual relationships linking these diverse proposed (Thompson, 1984 in cited Cruikshank art elements. & Korza, 1988: 51). The study began by analysing public art from the macro view of the entire cityscape and works its way down to a micro examination of various districts in downtown Seattle. By viewing the past twenty years of public art in Seattle, the study analysed the different ways in which public art appealed to its audience—“aesthetic, didactic, functional, symbolic”—and to its site (Thompson, 1984 in cited Fleming and Tscharner, 1987: 195). The research process assessed present and projected landscape of downtown Seattle, as dictated by such factors as transportation patterns, population trends, projected development, and the role of commerce. Specific prospective sites for public art were also evaluated in terms of their character and uses, and following is the set of criteria to analyse a site’s suitability for public art: • Is a site on public property, or property readily available to the public art process?; • Does a site suggest art opportunities that would extend the breadth and quality of the Art in Public Places Program?; • Will innovative art on the site enhance the pedestrian/streetscape experience?; and • Is the site situated in the network of public places?

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 19 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

Finally, each of the recommendations fall into one of the following categories: • priority sites: these sites meet all four criteria and presently exist in downtown Seattle; • future sites: these sites lie within proposed development areas. When the sites are constructed, they would fit all four criteria and so become priority sites. The arts commission should monitor the progress and scale of development in these target areas; • temporary sites: although these sites also fit the four criteria, they are privately owned or may be subject to future development. Due to these limitations, these sites are included as possible locations for temporary artwork installations. (Thompson, 1984) But, most importantly, this was not a list of sites nor a template to be used for all time or all situations. Rather, the study was a primer to urban design and the function of public art in the city which provided a variable method for future site selection (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988: 52). Although the function of some public art is too complex to be so simply categorised, this typology is still a useful tool for making decisions about commissioning public art. It offers a framework in which a community can appraise its own public art needs (Fleming and Tscharner, 1987: 195).

2.4.4. Policies and Planning for Public Art in the City of Melbourne

City of Melbourne Strategy Plan is a major policy framework for the future development of the City. In Strategy Plan 1985, the City set out policy objectives for arts and culture as a part of development framework for leisure, tourism and recreation. However, if the arts are to achieve their potential for further enlivening Melbourne and making a greater contribution to the local economy, then planning is needed. This important area was not discussed in detail in the plan. So, in the ’90 and ’92 reviews of the Strategy Plan 1985, the City intended to address a number of issues relating to the arts, which include the following: • to involve artists in promoting a better urban environment; opportunities could be developed for ‘Art in Public Spaces’ as defined in models utilised by the Victorian Ministry for the Arts (City of Melbourne, 1990: 52) • to promote an understanding and awareness of the importance of cultural property and support the conservation of archives, objects, painting and sculpture which reflect Melbourne’s cultural identity (City of Melbourne, 1992: 74). Articulating the value and the place of the arts, City Plan ’97 divided the City’s key activities into six themes. The theme of ‘Cultural Vitality’ connects with public art as a broad meaning and the Council proposes the implementation methods to achieve this theme as follows:

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 20 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

• continue to show leadership by devoting one per cent of Council’s capital works budget to art • in partnership with Arts Victoria develop, fund and promote the creation of a major visual arts event which provide a program of public artworks and arts activities approximately every two years • manage the City’s public art in line with the Council’s Urban and Public Art Policy • animate and enrich the design of public spaces by the inclusion of integrated artworks • encourage the inclusion and integration of public art in the planning of new developments through the City’s Public Art Program, and support contemporary visual art In Corporate Plan 1999-2002, the Council proposes three-year performance measures relating to public art, which include positive feedback from the National Trust and maintenance of the One Per Cent for Art program. Since the first Cultural Policy was adopted in 1987 and revised in 1993, the City has focussed more on the arts sector. In the ’98 revised policy, the City responds with a substantial increase in the level and quality of its programs of support through new initiatives such as the City for the Arts Plan (1996), and further integration with the broader policy framework under which all Council activities operate, most notably City Plan ’97. For public art which is one of major goals of the ’98 Cultural Policy, the Cultural Development Branch (CDAB) implements and enhances the Per Cent for Art Policy in order to enliven the city through the installation and/or exhibition of new artworks. The Public Art and Acquisition Committee (PAAC) which is a sub- committee of CDAB advises the City on matters relating to public art including the Per Cent for Art Policy, the siting of artworks, commissioning artists, contracts, maintenance and promotion. The policy dedicates one per cent of the Council's Capital Works commitments to the commissioning of new public artworks, wherever possible integrated at the earliest stages in public construction projects. In relation to City Plan ’97 and the Cultural Policy, Urban and Public Art Policy plays the most critical role which guides development and implementation of public art projects. The specific aims of the policy are to: • integrate art into the structure, fabric and daily life of Melbourne; • create the highest quality public spaces through innovative integration of art, design, architecture and related elements; • support the development of innovative and quality contemporary artwork for the city; • increase the understanding and enjoyment of contemporary art by the community; • develop a sense of identity, place and pride in the city; and

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 21 Background: Public Art Policies and Planning

• establish art and artists as recognised assets of the city. In the policy, public art is defined as art, which is located in or otherwise related to the public domain; and/or accessible to members of the public; and/or created through a public event or activity. The concept of public art encompasses a broad range of outcomes: • artworks created for specific locations • temporary exhibits/exhibitions, artwork installations or art performances in public spaces • artworks which, due to their location or production, engage with their specific environment • artworks produced through interaction with or involvement of communities • the integration of artistic concepts within the design of urban or public spaces • the fabrication by artists and craftsmen of unique features for public spaces. • collaboration of artists, architects or designers to create unique physical (or virtual) environments. Also, the policy suggests various processes to realise public art projects as follows: • acquisitions of contemporary art • commissions of contemporary art—permanent and temporary • acceptance of selected gifts of art • temporary placement of art in public spaces—exhibitions, art performances and site based installations • engagement of artists in specific projects • engagement of artists as consultants—for specialist advice or planning input • engagement of artists as part of collaborative design teams—for conceptual or design input • engagement of artists in collaborative community based projects • engagement of artists as artisans • artist-in-residence projects

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 22 Methodology

3. Methodology

In the previous chapter on background, the notion of public art and policies/plans/programs for public art were reviewed. This chapter analyses the public artworks in the City of Melbourne by the framework developed from literature review. Data used for the statistical analysis are based on the list of outdoor artworks owned and managed by the City of Melbourne, which is provided by Cultural Development of Melbourne City Council in May 1999. Originally, there were 162 artworks on the MCC list. In the verification process by a site survey, however, it was found that some artworks were removed or not found at the designated place, so eventually only 140 artworks4 remained on the list. All revised data belonging to MCC collection are documented with photos and descriptions in appendix A. There are also a large amount of other public artworks owned or managed by other bodies such as state government, private corporations, National Gallery of Victoria, and so on. The research, therefore, made an additional survey for those artworks not recorded on the MCC list so as to compare the two different cases. The survey included Central Activities District (CAD), Parklands, and art precinct around Arts Centre in Southbank. The complemented artworks include mainly professional artworks, and a total of 36 artworks were collected and shown in appendix B. All artworks for this research were classified into five categories based on forms and functions: sculpture, painting, water feature, pavement, drinking fountain and others. Drinking fountains can belong to the category water feature. Yet, drinking fountains are relatively large number, so that they are dealt with an independent category. The pavement art category has sculptural/crafts character, however the function is obviously different from that of sculpture as a three-dimensional object. The pavement art category, therefore, is also dealt with as an independent category. Each artwork is analysed by factors such as the year of installation, geographical locations and types of locations by functions of artworks, forms, materials and methods. Chronologically, the research covers the year 1850 to 1999 and particularly, changes before and after 1973 were analysed, 1973 being the year that Per Cent for Art Policy was introduced to Melbourne. Geographically, it ranges over the area shown in Figure 27. A total of fifteen suburbs within MCC, therefore, were analysed. Table 1 summaries the details of factors for analysis.

4 Four artworks were removed, four mis-recorded, and fourteen not found at the designated place (most of them are considered to be removed).

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 23 Methodology

Table 1. Factors for analysing

Factors Contents Year 1850-1999 Suburbs CAD, Carlton, Carlton North, Docklands, East Melbourne, Fishermans Bend, Footscray, Kensington, North Melbourne, Parklands, Parkville, Prahran, Southbank, South Yarra, West Melbourne Types of Locations Public open spaces, Footpaths, Medians/Strips, Privately owned public spaces, Buildings, Bridges Characters Memorials (war, commemorative)/Monuments (event), Aboriginal art, Community art, Ornaments/Decorations Forms • Sculpture: statues (figures, busts, equestrians), replicas, representational, abstract • Painting: murals, mosaic • Water features: fountains, waterfalls, ponds • Pavement art: unit pavers, independent fragments • Drinking fountains: with a canopy, without a canopy, with figure statues Materials Bronze, Brass, Wood, Stone, Metal, Ceramic, Mixed Methods Casting, Carving, Assembling, Welding, Mixed

Figure 13. Surveyed area

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 24 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

3.1. Chronological Analysis

3.1.1. General trends of the installation of public artworks

Public art in Melbourne begins with the form of sculpture. Apollo of the Belvedere and Farnex Hercules which were erected 1928, are presumed the oldest outdoor sculpture. Both are replica of bust in Rome and carved in c.1780. However, neither of them can be considered as the first public artwork, because both were imported overseas and simply erected in Melbourne. Boy on a Turtle in Fitzroy Gardens in c.1850 is recorded as the first outdoor artwork on the MCC list, however has character as garden sculpture rather than public sculpture. As Michael Hedger (1995: 77) states: Figure 14. Apollo of Belvedere, Classical figurative sculpture was used extensively in nineteenth c.1780, Queen Victoria Gardens century Australian public gardens, recreating European style in the Antipodes. Prominent citizens donated handsome imported marble statues as well as fountains and memorials. The most popular of these figures are restful or pensive nymphs and youths, busts of classical writers and heroes from classical literature. The name of sculptors are not recorded on the works, nor in the shipping records or bills from studio. River God Fountain by Charles Summers, which is made of cement and stone in 1862, is much closer to public sculpture than Boy on a Turtle because of its character as public sculpture and uniqueness which can hardly be duplicated. It, therefore, may have to become the first outdoor sculpture. Charles Summers’ Burke and Wills Monument, 1865 which represents monumental group of the two explorers is the first large-scale bronze to be cast in Australia and represents a considerable feat of the bronze founder’s art (Sturgeon, 1978:29).

Figure 15. Boy on a Turtle, c.1850, Fitzroy Gardens Figure 16. Charles Summers, River God Fountain, 1862, Fitzroy Gardens Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 25 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

As shown in Figure 18 and 20, not until the 1900s did public artworks increase in numbers. In the 1930s, there was a dramatic increase in outdoor sculpture all over the world because of erection of a good many war memorials after World War I. The Shrine of Remembrance is a notable example, which is the most representative in Australia in terms of the scale and form. However, there are not many war memorials in Melbourne. According to analysis, only two out of seventeen public artworks which were erected in the 1930s belong to war memorials and the rest are commemorative memorials and garden sculpture.

In the 1960s, contemporary sculpture began to emerge in Figure 17. Charles Summers, Burke urban environment such as The Children’s Tree (1963) and and Wills Monument, 1865, Swanston Street Walk Awakening (1968)—neither of them is on the MCC list—.

25

20

15

10 No. of artworks No. 5

0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Figure 18. Change of the number of artworks over time

In the 1970s, artworks proliferated again after the 1930s. It seems to relate to when the Per Cent for Art scheme was introduced by the Austalia Council in 1973. A modern concept of public art, which stemmed from the scheme, brought about a flourish not only in Melbourne but also all over Australia. Alongside the Figure 19. Clement Meadmore, Awakening, 1968, AMP Square

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 26 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

increase in numbers, the form of artworks also became more diverse with a movement beyond the traditional figure statue of the nineteenth century. Such trend declined considerably in the 1980s and not one project for public art was carried out by MCC between 1983 and 1991. That might be because 1) the 1980s were a decadent period, of economic boom and private expenditure, and 2) there might have been stagnation in commissioning for public art after failure of the Vault case. However, a number of public sculptures were commissioned by other bodies, particularly National Gallery of Victoria, and were subsequently erected around Arts Centre in St.Kilda Road.

no date 2.9% 19C 8.6%

1900s 8.6% 1990s 37.1% 1910s 5.7%

1920s 5.7%

1930s 1980s 12.1% 3.6% 1970s 1960s 1940s 7.9% 2.9% 2.1%

Figure 20. Proportion of artworks over time

The 1990s are the heyday of public art whereby 36 per cent of total artworks were installed in this period. The reason is closely related to urban planning/design which had more concern on improvement of an urban image. The Swanston Street Walk Art Works Program (1992-1993) and the Bourke Street Mall Upgrade (1994) established the important motive to enhance the quality of city as well as bring about an increase in artworks in the urban environment. Also, Per Cent for Art Policy was further developed by initiating the City’s long-term financial commitment to the arts which will contribute one per cent of their capital works budget to include designers and artists in their planning teams, or to commission or acquire artworks (City of Melbourne, 1995: 82). In spite of that, prospects of the fields of sculpture and painting might not be very bright, because in the ’98 Cultural Policy, MCC indicated that the Council dedicates the Per Cent for Art allocation during the next two years to festivals and the Melbourne International Biennial.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 27 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

3.1.2. Trends by categories of public artworks

30

25

20

15

Sculpture 10 Water feature 5 Drinking fountain Pavement 0 Painting Others 1990-1999 1970-1979 1950-1959 1930-1939 1910-1919 1890-1899 1870-1879 1850-1859

Figure 21. Change of categories of artworks over time

Sculpture Since 1900, sculpture has been installed more than any other categories. The reason might connect with a series of historical or political events. From the gold rush on, sculptured architectural decorations became a more common practice (Radford, 1976), and it seemed to affect the growing of outdoor sculptural monuments in the 1900s. Even though war memorials are not superior in numbers, commissions for war memorials after World War I also might contribute to the increasing number of installations in the 1930s. In the 1990s a dramatic increase, as mentioned in the section on general trends, might result from development and improvement of public art—related plans or policies.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 28 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

Table 2. Number of artworks by categories

Categories No. of Artworks Per cent Sculpture 73 52.1% Painting 10 7.2% Water features 21 15.0% Pavement 10 7.2% Drinking fountains 17 12.1% Others 9 6.4% Total 140

Painting In the 1990s painting began to emerge as public art in the form of murals or paintings on existing equipment. The number of commissioned painting still does not reach that of sculpture. The reason might be that painting is less durable and requires more maintenance than sculpture although it can be executed easier. Such a merit of painting, however, will increase the use in decorating existing facilities such as poles, posts, electric boxes and so on.

Water Features Like sculpture, water features also have been steadily increased since their emergence, however the total number is far less that of sculpture. Unlike sculpture or painting, water features have some complexity because they often have multi-functional character: water feature-as-sculpture or simply water feature-as-basin, and so on. The forms as well as functions are also diverse from conventional styles of water basin to contemporary ones executed in conjunction with cutting-edge technologies such as fountains without a basin.

Pavement The special treatment of pavement as a form of public art began to emerge in the urban environment in the late 1970s. This category was installed in the urban space, particularly the CAD. The reason seems to be because it is less constricted by existing conditions unlike other kinds of three-dimensional artworks that are installed. Even though many people walk with their heads at the ground, it is not very successful to catch passers-by’s eyes on account of lower visibility and smaller size than other categories such as sculpture and painting. Nevertheless the installation is expected to increase steadily, because the pavement category is often used as a way to express more accessible forms of community art which can enhance identity of a community.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 29 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

Drinking fountains Most drinking fountain were installed between 1900 and 1940, and the installation has hardly taken place ever since. There might be various reasons. First of all, differing from the past, drinking fountains today tend to emphasise the function rather than ornamental aspects. Secondly, a demand for the installation has reduced because today people can easily get many kinds of beverages including drinking water. Last of all, there seems to be recognition that drinking fountains might cause water waste and problems with hygiene. As a consequence, this category is not expected to increase in the future.

Figure 22 shows an overall alteration of each category. Sculpture was the most dominant in numbers regardless of periods. Drinking fountains were installed most next to sculpture between the 1990s and the 1930s, and painting and pavement in the 1990s.

60

50

Water feature 40 Sculpture Pavement 30 Painting Others No. of artworks No. 20 Drinking fountain 10

0

1850-1859 1870-1879 1890-1899 1910-1919 1930-1939 1950-1959 1970-1979 1990-1999 Figure 22. Change and proportion of artworks over time

3.1.3. Character

As reviewed in ‘2.3 Roles of Public Art’, basically public art relates closely to ornament and decoration of urban environment. There is no doubt that many public artworks have been used simply as an element of embellishment of urban space. Such artworks, however, have another particular purpose or character such as memorials, Aboriginal art and community. Among them, memorials—including monuments—are the most notable example and reach 28.6 per cent of total public artworks. According to Sturgeon’s classification, sculpture-as-memorial is one of

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 30 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

the major categories of public art. Since first emergence, memorials have steadily increased in numbers, however since the 1980s the trend has declined gradually. The reason can be found in Hedger’s statement. He (1995: 47) states: “Opinions on the contribution of public figure are so diversified that consensus is virtually impossible. Were a government to ignore this and erect a controversial memorial, it Figure 23. Peter Corlett, Sir Edward "Weary" Dunlop would risk alienating numbers of people and Memorial, 1995, Kings Domain becoming electorally unpopular, or at least subject the work to vandalism.” Memorials are now more likely to be dedicated to non-political figures, such as John Pascoe Fawkner Memorial (1979) and Sir Edward “Weary” Dunlop Memorial (1995).

30

25

20

15

10 No. of Artworks No. 5 Ornament Community art 0 Aboriginal art Memorial 1990-1999 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 1900-1909 1890-1899 1880-1889 1870-1879 1860-1869 1850-1859 Figure 24. Change by character of artworks

Aboriginal art began to emerge as part of public art in the 1990s and sixteen artworks, which reached 11.4 per cent of total public artworks, were installed during this period. Most are part of the series of Another View Walking Trail, 1995. Originally, Another View Walking Trail was planned to include eighteen artworks, but only thirteen artworks5 were installed. Each of these

5 Currently twelve artworks remain. During the survey the pavement artwork (Site 8), which was installed

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 31 Methodology: Chronological Analysis

artworks is based on a re-interpretation and re- deployment of traditional Aboriginal stories and practices. Since the 1970s, Australia has self- consciously engaged in a range of revisionist processes which have attempted to acknowledge Aboriginal rights (in land, as citizens) and to incorporate the Aboriginal experience of Figure 25. Ray Thomas, Another View Walking Trail colonisation into the public history of the nation. Site 10, 1995, Alexandra Gardens In the last decade of the twentieth century these various initiatives have been harnessed into the more comprehensive national objective of ‘reconciliation’, Reconciliation aims to ‘heal the wounds’ produced in Australia’s colonial past (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994 in cited Jane M. Jacobs, 1997: 204). Community art, which emerged in the late 1970s, has been the modern way to express public art and three projects have been carried out until now. The first project commissioned by MCC is People’s Path (1979) in Fitzroy Garden, and the others Railway Viewing Platform (1994) in West Melbourne and Hotham Hill Estate

Community Works (1995) which contains three Figure 26. Ian Sprague and participants, People's Path, artworks in North Melbourne. Whereas many 1979, Fitzroy Gardens theorists deal with community art as the aim that public art should pursue, community artworks are inferior in numbers. Community art is not a new art form. It is a social movement aiming to restore the control of ownership of the arts to all people; rather than allowing the taste of the rich and powerful to be the dominant mode within culture. In resource material, Landscape and Art: the Collaborative Approach, Sue Clark states that the theory of community art should be based on the concrete realities of everyday life and experience. Through working in the community, artists can assist communities to identify their own values, priorities, history and self-image, as distinct from the manipulative priorities of commercial culture (Dare & McMurray, 1984). near Old Custom House, was removed without any notice.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 32 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

3.2. Geographical and Locational Analysis

In the previous section, changes of installation of public artworks over time were reviewed. Here, it is analysed in two aspects how the artworks are distributed spatially. One is the distribution by suburbs, and the other by types of locations. Some suburbs have a great deal of artworks, but others not. Gardens have a lot, but bridges few. A spatial analysis aims at offering frameworks describing the relationship between artworks and urban spaces. Siting of public artworks are inseparable from the understanding and interpretation of urban space and it should be achieved in conjunction with urban planning/design. Analysis of existing artworks in the urban context will be a prerequisite for siting.

3.2.1. Geographical Distribution

Classification of suburbs Suburbs dealt in this research, in general, coincide with postcode boundaries and suburb names. Originally thirteen suburbs belonged to Melbourne City Council: Melbourne, East Melbourne and Jolimont, West Melbourne, North Melbourne, Carlton, part of Carlton North, Parkville, part of Flemington and Kensington, part of Footscray, Fishermans Bend, Southbank, part of South Yarra, and part of Prahran. However, the suburb Melbourne composed of two postcode boundaries—3000 and 3004—needed to be subdivided into three areas because of the obvious difference in character. Postcode 3000 was divided in two areas, the Central Activities District (CAD) and Docklands. The CAD includes the Hoddle Grid, northern parts of the grid and northbank, and Docklands is the area in the west of Spencer Street. And postcode 3004 was named Parklands. Fifteen areas, therefore, were analysed for the geographical distribution. Figure 27 shows the boundaries of suburbs.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 33 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

Figure 27. Classification of suburbs

Trends of distribution by suburbs Figure 28 shows how installation of public artworks in suburbs has altered since 1850. About 72.3 per cent of total artworks were intensively installed in three suburbs such as the CAD, Parklands and East Melbourne and particularly, artworks in the CAD has been increased dramatically since 1980. It relates closely to layout of public open space in the City of Melbourne. The main reasons for a dramatic increase within those areas can be explained as follows: • Artworks have been installed mainly in existing gardens such as King’s Domain, Queen Victoria Gardens, etc. in the Parklands, Fitzroy Gardens in East Melbourne and Carlton Gardens in Carlton. • The types of urban space such as footpaths emerged as locations for public artworks. • Contemporary art pursues more interactive relationship with people in a daily environment.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 34 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

35

30

25

20 CAD Carlton 15 Carlton North No. of artworks No. East Melbourne Footscray 10 Kensington North Melbourne 5 Parklands Parkville 0 Southbank West Melbourne 1990-1999 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 1900-1909 1890-1899 1880-1889 1870-1879 1860-1869 1850-1859

Figure 28. Change of artworks by suburb

Comparison between suburbs Over half of total artworks are installed in the CAD (42 artworks) and the Parklands (31), and 20.7 per cent in East Melbourne (29), Carlton (9) and West Melbourne (8). 119 artworks, 85 per cent of total artworks, therefore, are now installed in those five suburbs. It will be because public open spaces are concentrated in those suburbs except in the CAD. The rest, which reach 15 per cent of total artworks, are scattered over six suburbs which include North Melbourne, Parkille, Carlton North, Southbank, Footscray, and Flemington and Kensington. Finally, not one artwork is found in Docklands, Fishermans Bend, Prahran and South Yarra. There will be two reasons: One is that, Docklands and Fishermans Bend are harbour facility- related industrial areas. Such a land use hardly attracts people, so that it tends to be excluded

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 35 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

from recommended sites for public art. The other is that, most areas of South Yarra and Prahran, belong to the Stonnington City Council. Although there are artworks in those two suburbs, they might be owned and managed by the Stonnington City Council.

Table 3. Distribution of MCC public artworks by suburbs Suburbs Sculpture Painting Water Pavement Drinking Others Total feature fountain CAD 27(11)6 6(4) 2 5 1 1(1) 42(16) Parklands 21(4) 1 4 1 2 2(3) 31(7) East Melbourne 13(3) -(1) 10 1(1) 3 2 29(5) Carlton - 1 4 - 4 - 9 West Melbourne 4 - - 1 - 3 8 Parkville 3 - - 1 2 1 7 North Melbourne 2 - - 1 2 - 5 Carlton North 1 - - - 3 - 4 Southbank 1(8) 1 1 - - - 3(8) Footscray 1 - - - - - 1 Flemington and - 1 - - - - 1 Kensington Docklands ------Nil Fishermans Bend ------Nil Prahran ------Nil South Yarra ------Nil Total 73(26) 10(5) 21 10(1) 17 9(4) 140(36)

Figure 29 shows the geographical distribution of artworks, and grey areas of the map describe public open spaces. As shown on the map, artworks are installed mainly in public open spaces in the whole suburbs except the CAD. Figure 30 shows the distribution in the CAD of artworks on the MCC list and the amended list. Those artworks are marked in each category. Many of artworks are concentrated on Swanston Street Walk and Bourke Street Mall.

6 Numbers in bracket are a number of surveyed artworks

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 36 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

Figure 29. Distribution of artworks by suburbs

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 37 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

Figure 30. Distribution of artwork in the CAD

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 38 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

3.2.2. Locational Distribution

Classification of types of locations Types of locations were classified into five categories: public open spaces which include gardens, reserves, parks and squares; strips/medians which are adjacent to footpaths or in the middle of streets; footpaths; privately owned but publicly accessible spaces such as forecourts of private buildings or churches; and others such as the case attached to building facade, bridges and so on.

Change of public artworks by types of locations

30

25

20

15

10 No. of Artworks No.

5 Others Privately owned public space 0 Strip/Median Footpath 1990-1999 1980-1989

Public open space 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 1900-1909 1890-1899 1880-1889 1870-1879 1860-1869 1850-1859

Figure 31. Change of types of locations

Figure 31 shows how spatial layout of public artworks has altered since 1850. Public artworks were usually installed in public open spaces in the form of memorials or garden sculpture. Yet, since 1990 the artworks installed on footpaths have dramatically increased and are about three times as many as those in public open spaces. It can be explained that first, urban planning/design acknowledges significance of roles of public art in urban environment, especially the CAD and second, contemporary public artworks intend to access people more closely by physical interaction and integration into their daily lives.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 39 Methodology: Geographical and Locational Analysis

Locational distribution of public artworks All the artworks surveyed were in space accessible for twenty-four hours except some in public buildings such as Council House and Carlton Baths. It means that most are in the public realm and even privately owned public spaces are also accessible for twenty-four hours.

Table 4. Locational distribution of MCC artworks by types of locations Types of locations No. of Per cent Types of locations No. of Per cent Artworks details Artworks Public open spaces 84 60.0% Gardens 61 43.6% Parks 9 6.4% Reserves 6 4.3% Shrine 2 1.4% Squares 6 4.3% Footpaths 37 26.4% Footpaths 37 26.4% Strips/Medians 11 7.9% Strips 7 5.0% Medians 4 2.9% Privately owned 2 1.4% Forecourts 2 1.4% public spaces Others 6 4.3% Bridges 2 1.4% Buildings 4 2.9% Total 140 100% 140 100%

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 40 Methodology: Content Analysis

3.3. Content Analysis

3.3.1. Sculpture

Forms

16

14

12

10 8 6

Obelisk 4 Street furniture 2 Abstract 0 Representational Figure 1990-1999 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1950-1959 1940-1949 1930-1939 1920-1929 1910-1919 1900-1909 1890-1899 1880-1889 1870-1879 1860-1869 1850-1859 Figure 32. Change of forms of sculpture

The sculpture category reaches 52.1 per cent of total public artworks and figure statues are 47.9 per cent of total works of sculpture. As shown in Figure 29, figure statues have increased steadily, however, since 1980 the installation has decreased dramatically. A decrease of figure statues seems to have brought about an increase of non-figure statues with representational or abstract forms. In the 1990s, forms of sculpture were more diversified and utilitarian artworks such as benches (Figure 37) emerged. Based on forms, sculpture was divided into two kinds of forms: figure statues and non-figure statues. Figure statues including either people or animals were subdivided into two: single figures and groups (Figure 35), and single figures again into two which Figure 33. G. A. Lawson, Roberts Burns Memorial, 1904, were busts and full size figures (Figure 33, 34). Non-figure statues Treasury Gardens.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 41 Methodology: Content Analysis

were also divided into two: representational (Figure 36, 38) and abstract (Figure 39) forms. Table 5 shows classification of sculpture based on forms. According to the table, non-figure statues are slightly superior in numbers to figure statues. However, if five busts combined with drinking fountains are included in the figure statues category, the result will be reversed. Figure statues are a representative nineteenth-century sculptural form and still represent forms of sculpture in the City of Melbourne.

Table 5. Classification of forms of sculpture Forms No. of Artworks Remarks • Full-size 22 (30.1%) Five busts combined with Single drinking fountains were 35 Figure Busts 4 (5.5%) analysed in the category (47.9%) drinking fountains. Groups 9 (12.3%)

Representational 24 (32.9%) Abstract 7 (9.6%) 38 Non-figure Obelisks 5 (6.8%) (52.1%) Street furniture 2 (2.7%) • Equal to 52.1 % of total Total 73 public artworks

In the case of non-figure statues, most of them are representational in form. This will be because, differently from artworks in corporate plazas or private gardens, public art should be easily understood by the public. Representational forms are easier to understand than abstract forms and acceptable from broader public including non-museum-going audiences.

Figure 34. Sir Bertman Mackennal, King Edward Figure 35. John E. Robinson, Water Children, 1975, VII Memorial, 1920, Queen Victoria Gardens. Queen Victoria Gardens.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 42 Methodology: Content Analysis

Figure 36. Tom Bass, Genii, 1973, Queen Figure 37. Bernice McPherson, Di Christenson, Victoria Gardens. Craig Perry and participants, 1995, Hotham Hill Estate, North Melbourne.

Figure 38. Bruce Armstrong & Figure 39. Akio Makigawa, Figure 40. Percival Ball, Eight Geoffrey Bartlett, Constellation, Time and Tide, 1994, Town Hall Hour Day Memorial, 1903, 1997, Turning Basin. Plaza. Russell and Victoria St. corner.

Memorials and monuments In general, monuments are larger in size than memorials and mostly erected to commemorate events rather than people. However, the distinction between them has ambiguity, as Hedger (1995: 74) notes, “Many Australian monuments, commemorating events of ideals, cannot adequately be classified.” In the analysis, therefore, monuments were classified as the category memorials. 27 out of 73 total works of sculpture were erected as memorials and they reach 40 per cent of total works of sculpture. As shown in Table 6, 77.5 per cent (31 works) of total memorials connect with a people-related theme (including Figure 41. DeLacy Evans & Joseph animals) which deals with kings, governors, explorers, earliest Hamilton, The Boer War Memorial, 1903, Kings Domain

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 43 Methodology: Content Analysis

pioneers and so on. Hedger’s (1995: 47) statement supports the result of this analysis: Commemorative sculpture in Australia is dominated by an abundance of figurative work of nineteenth century statesmen and explorers, showing the zeal of the time for the immortalisation in bronze of well-known public figure.

Table 6. Relationship between forms and memorials Categories Forms No. of Memorials Remarks Figure statues 19 Busts 2 27 Sculpture Representational 1 (67.5%) Obelisks 5 Water features 1 (2.5%) • Including 5 works Drinking fountains 9 (22.5%) combining busts Landscape gardens 1 Others Platforms 1 3 (7.5%) Rotundas 1 Total 40

Table 7. Classification of memorials by themes Themes No. of Memorials Remarks People (including 31 (77.5%) • Men:women:animals=25:5:1 animals) War 5 (12.5%) • Two obelisks, one representational form and two figure statues Events 4 (10%) Total 40

In terms of a sex ratio, 25 out of 31 works are memorials to men and only 5 works to women. Memorials to women are rare: however, in the area of humanitarianism their presence is significant (Hedger, 1995: 62). War memorials reach 12.5 per cent (5 works) of total memorials. They were erected to commemorate servicemen who had lost their lives in World War I or Boer War. Boer War memorial is the first war memorial in Melbourne. War memorials are the most widespread

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 44 Methodology: Content Analysis

examples of public sculpture in Australia. However, aesthetic qualities were sometimes overlooked. While some pieces are magnificent works of art, most war memorials are plain obelisks, pedestals or columns, inscribed with the names of the fallen and the thanks of the local community (Hedger, 1995: 25). Shrine of Remembrance in the Kings Domain will be more important than any other memorials. As to significance of the Shrine, Hedger (1995: 36) notes: Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance is considered to be the largest structure ever built to commemorate World War I. These are extraordinary works and represent one of Figure 42. George Allen, World Australia’s major sculptural achievements. Criticisms that War II (Cenotaph), 1954, Shrine of their forms are of ‘predictable symbolism’, and that they Remembrance. Not on the MCC list. are irrelevant to the purpose of the monument and to Australia, particularly, all seem superfluous because of the universality of their themes and the timelessness of their cause. However, Shrine of Remembrance is not registered on the MCC list, so that it was excluded from the statistical analysis. Finally 10 per cent (4 works) of total memorials have an event-related theme. They were erected to commemorate the eight hours working day, the landing of the first European in Melbourne, and Victoria’s separation from New South Wales, and so on.

Materials and methods These days sculptors seem at home with almost every conceivable material—if ‘it’ exists, then art can be fashioned from it (Durry, 1993: 11). This implies sculpture materials have diversified from traditional materials such as bronze, stone, and wood to recent ones such as steel, fiberglass, and ceramic. Figure 42 proves such diversification. Nevertheless materials for outdoor sculpture have limitations in terms of durability, and therefore traditional materials, which are relatively permanent, seem to be preferred for long-term survival. Sturgeon (1985: 58) however notes: The production of sculpture in permanent materials, stone or bronze, presupposes a long future, but with the present day awareness of the nuclear threat, it may well be that sculptors are unconsciously responding by producing ephemeral works destined to disintegrate in a relatively short time. Survival in the long term is unlikely and the production of sculpture in durable material therefore irrelevant. As shown in Table 8, sculpture in Melbourne is dominated by such traditional materials. 50.73

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 45 Methodology: Content Analysis

per cent of total works of sculpture were made of those materials. Among others bronze was used most often and it can be explained in relation to a large number of figure statues which have relied on bronze. Differently from bronze, mixed materials which include bronze and stone, stone and steel, and steel and fiberglass, etc. are mainly seen in representational forms of sculpture. Many recent sculptures have been created using a mixture of materials in one work. A variety of materials contribute their own special qualities of texture, surface or meaning to the completed purpose of the sculpture. Methods as well as forms have been affected by inherent character of materials. The materials used most often for carving, which is removing part of a solid material, over the age have been stone and wood. Bronze has been used for casting and steel for assembling or welding.

Table 8. Materials for sculpture

Materials Forms No. of artworks Remarks Figure statues 24 Bronze Representational 6 Abstract 2 Figure statues 7 • Marble, Bluestone, Stone Representational 4 Sandstone, Granite, etc. Obelisks 4 Representational 2 • Steel, Stainless steel, Metal Abstract 2 Iron, etc. Street furniture 1 Wood Representational 3 Figure statues 3 Representational 8 Mixed Abstract 2 Obelisks 1 Street furniture 1 Figure statues 1 • Cement, ceramic, etc. Others Representational 1 Abstract 1 Total 73

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 46 Methodology: Content Analysis

14

12

Bronze 10 Metal Stone 8 Wood 6 Mixed Paint No. of Artworks No. 4 Others

2

0

1850-1859 1860-1869 1870-1879 1880-1889 1890-1899 1900-1909 1910-1919 1920-1929 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 Figure 43. Change of materials

3.3.2. Painting

According to the MCC list, installation of the first painting is after 1990; however, the emergence in public place dates back long before. By and large, paintings in Melbourne are divided into two categories: one is murals, and the other paintings on existing equipment. The former category means literal murals and includes paintings on the building or retaining Figure 44 Elizabeth McKinnon, Lynch's Bridge walls and those with the picture frame, which Mosaic Mural, 1998, Epsom Road underpass are freestanding. One of commissioned murals is a mosaic (Figure 44) with ceramic tiles in a residential area of Kensington Bank. By representing a historical Stock-route it reflects locality of the area. However, the others are small in size or installed inside the building, so that they are hardly perceived by the public. The latter category includes paintings on existing equipment such as tram poles (Figure 46) and electric supply boxes. All artworks (Figure 47) in this category are related to Aboriginal art. Only ten paintings are on the MCC list; however, there are more artworks that are not commissioned by the Council. Although paintings are far inferior to sculptures in number, they

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 47 Methodology: Content Analysis

have much greater affect on the colour in urban environment. Painting might be the best way to give ‘colour’ more economically than sculpture.

Table 9. Classification of painting Forms of painting No. of artworks Remarks Inside building 1 Koorie mural Mural Wall 2 One is mosaic. Free standing 1 Painting on The painting remains for five years Tram poles 2 existing to be repainted by another artist. equipment Electric supply boxes 4 Three are Aboriginal art.

Figure 45. Eastern Hill Fire Station Figure 46. Jenifer McVarthy, Painted Figure 47. Lisa Kennedy, Electric Mural Tram Poles, 1992, Swanston St. Supply Box D, 1993, Swanston Walk, outside State Library Street Walk & Bourke Street

3.3.3. Water Features

History of Melbourne’s water features dates back to the 1860s in which River God Fountain, which is considered the first water feature, was installed. The Victorians’ love of gardens and practice of imitating the European styles inspired many prominent citizens to donate grandiose classical styled fountains to public gardens. Importing a little of the flavour of Italy and France meant adding old world charm to the colonial cities (Hedger, 1995: 10) A fundamental point about water features is that they are always commissioned. They exist to embellish a site, usually according to some civic plan. Because of the attraction of water, they

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 48 Methodology: Content Analysis

must be inviting and restful, or inspiring, and according to the architect’s or planner’s vision, either impose upon or blend in with the streetscape. The most successful water features are those wherein water is integral part of the form: that is, fountains designed by sculptors who envisage the water as a moving part of the whole form. Unfortunately, the majority of fountains solve engineering problems but ignore aesthetics. Many modern site-specific water features are noteworthy because of their sculptural forms. Their creators must face the same problems of all sculptors of public works, but they must also successfully utilise the problematic element of water (Hedger, 1995: 21).

Table 10. Classification of water features Forms No. of water features Remarks W/ Nozzles only 3 Fountain w/ Sculptural object 11 Natural 3 Waterfall Artificial 2 Including a type of cascade Regular 1 Pond Irregular 1 with nozzles Total 21

Based on forms, Melbourne’s water features were classified into three categories: fountains, waterfalls and ponds, and they were subdivided into two types on each. Differently from drinking fountains, only one out of a total of 21 works was installed as a memorial, which is John F. Kennedy Memorial Fountain in Treasury Gardens. In the case of fountains, most of them were designed as sculptural works (Figure 49) rather than treating water as sculptural form (Figure 48). However, the years subsequent to the active 1960s period have shown a movement towards minimalism and a concern to portray water as form in itself. Engineering concerns now are to manipulate the water flow discreetly, rather than allowing sculptural works themselves to appear to do so (Hedger, 1995: 23). The Coles Fountain (Figure 50) in Parliament Reserve shows water as sculptural form and plays upon the idea of an environmental fountain, enabling one to walk through the sprays and react with the form they make.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 49 Methodology: Content Analysis

Figure 51. Robert Jacks, Personal Island, 1992, Figure 48 French Fountain, Carlton Gardens. Swanston Street Walk.

Figure 49. Robert Woodward, Coles Fountain, 1994, Figure 50. June Arnold, Dolphin Fountain, 1982, Parliament Reserve Fitzroy Gardens.

Figure 52. Southbank Fountain, 1997, Southbank Figure 53. Waterfall Fountain, 1933, Fitzroy Gardens. Promenade

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 50 Methodology: Content Analysis

3.3.4. Pavement Art

Currently 10 artworks belong to the category pavement art. Based on forms, pavement art was classified into two categories: pavement artworks as unit pavers and as independent pieces. The former is the artwork which is part of the whole artwork, but also becomes an independent artwork such as pavement tiles in Burke Street Mall. Among any other materials, ceramic which is the main material for mosaic and brass were Figure 54. Another View Walking Trail Site 1, 1995, used most often and the others such as bricks, Spring Street. concrete, glass and metal were also used for this category. Personal Island (Figure 56) is the example to inlay brass in bluestone pavers.

Table 11. Classification of pavement art Forms Materials No. of pavements Remarks Terracotta bricks 1 Concrete 1 Unit paver Ceramic, metal, glass and Mixed 1 concrete Independent Brass 3 Brass inlay in bluestone fragment Ceramic 4 Mosaic Total 10

Two of total pavement artworks were installed as community art (Figure 24) and form 40% of a total of community artworks. All of them are a form of unit pavers. Pavement art may be a suitable media for community art projects. It may be due to the small size of unit pavers which can be easily managed and become an independent artwork of individuals of community.

Figure 55. Tanya Court and Kate Cullity, Zoo Paving, 1995.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 51 Methodology: Content Analysis

Figure 56. Robert Jacks, Personal Island, 1992, Figure 57. James Catell & Lyn Kinder-Dickson, Swanston Street Walk. Joanne Croke & Tim Jones, Susan Toole, Adrian Gemelli, Pavement Tiles, 1994, Bourke St. Mall.

3.3.5. Drinking Fountains

As shown in Table 6, 9 out of total 17 drinking fountains function as memorials. This means that 52.9 per cent of total drinking fountains were installed to commemorate governors and councillors. Hedger (1995: 9) states, “Australia’s earliest fountains were erected to provide drinking water but some became means of endowment to the cities by aldermen, prosperous citizens and church group.” In terms of forms, drinking fountains were classified into two categories: those with - and without canopies, and the former were subdivided into two according as they combine sculptural elements or not. As shown in Table 12, five drinking Figure 58. North Melbourne fountains have a bust on the top of their canopy and they all are Drinking Fountain, 1877 drinking fountain as memorials. The main material is stone but the oldest drinking fountain, which is near North Melbourne Town Hall, is made of cast iron. Figure 61 shows a common shape of the drinking fountains category without canopies. Currently three works no longer have taps on them, so that they are hardly perceived as drinking fountains.

Table 12. Classification of drinking fountains Forms No. of drinking fountains Remarks with Bust 5 with Canopy without Bust 2 One is made of cast iron. without Canopy 10 Total 17

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 52 Methodology: Content Analysis

Figure 59. Charles Douglas Figure 60. Ornamental Domed Figure 61. Councillors R. J. & F. G. Richardson, William Ievers (Jnr) Drinking Fountain, c.1900, Queen J. Hardy Memorial Drinking Memorial Drinking Fountain, 1916, Victoria Gardens Fountain, 1939, Hardy Reserve McArthur Square

3.3.6. Others

This category includes artworks, which have difficulty including into such categories as sculpture, painting, water feature, pavement art, and drinking fountains. For example, a rotunda (Figure 62) and pavilion have strong architectural character and Pioneer Women’s Memorial Garden is an independent small landscaped area in Kings Domain. Some artworks such as Railway Viewing Platform (Figure 63) and Separation Memorial in Flagstaff Gardens may be more than a mere ornamental element. They exist as a place-maker giving a sense of place by intending to create the site together with the artwork.

Table 13. Classification of others category Forms No. of artworks Remarks Pavilions 3 Architectural character Gardens 1 Landscape design Platforms 2 Place-making Others 3 Window, cairn and sun dial Total 9

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 53 Methodology: Content Analysis

Figure 63. Bernice McPherson with local residents, Figure 62. H. Black, Lady Janet Marrion Clarke Railway Viewing Platform, 1994, Railway Place, West Memorial, 1913, Queen Victoria Gardens. Melbourne.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 54 Methodology: Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

3.4. Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

The year 1973 is a turning point which brought about a paradigm shift in the history of Australian public art due to the introduction of Percent for Art policy. Comparisons made before and after 1973, therefore, are of great significance in this research. Since 1973, installation of public artworks has increased dramatically and artworks have been diversified in both character and forms. This section will investigate what is the main difference before and after 1973 and will show how these differences correlates with urban space.

3.4.1. Changes in spatial distribution

Geographical distribution There is a big change in distribution by suburbs. Particularly in the CAD, the number of artworks has increased by 30 to 36 since 1973 and hence the CAD became the area which public artworks were installed most in Melbourne. Such an alteration is closely related to public art policies and an attitude toward culture which pursues improvement of the quality of city by closely connecting urban space and public art. On the contrary, an increasing rate of artworks in East Melbourne dropped drastically after 1973. Such a phenomenon can be explained in relation to existing land uses and to changes in settings for public artworks, that is, a decrease in the use of public art in gardens. It therefore will be natural for East Melbourne, abundant in gardens, to show a declining tendency.

40 36 35 30 24 25 19 before 1973 20 after 1973 15 12 No. of artworks 10 8 6 5 6 3 3 3 4 4 5 11 1 1 2 1 0 CAD Carlton Parkville Footscray Parklands Southbank Kensington Carlton North East Melbourne West Melbourne North Melbourne Figure 64. Change of public artworks by suburbs before and after 1973.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 55 Methodology: Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

Although it is recognised that modern society craves ‘heroes’ in all fields of endeavour, contemporary culture seems more reluctant to honour them in bronze. This may be a by-product of our egalitarian age.

Locational distribution As shown in Figure 65, whereas before 1973, 61 out of total artworks (83.6 %) were installed in public open spaces such as gardens, squares, and parks, a good many artworks have been placed mainly on footpaths in the CAD since then. It seems to relate to various cultural and social effects of public art. First, the 1973 Per Cent for Art Policy has promoted installation of public artworks. Although the policy gives priority to events or festivals rather than installation of sculpture or painting, it has contributed to increasing artworks in public space, especially footpaths in conjunction with the urban design movement such as the Swanston Street Walk Art Program and Bourke Street Mall Upgrade. Second, in urban planning/design there has been recognition about the importance of roles of public art in urban space, especially the CAD. Lastly, recreational activities have been re- oriented to commercialisation. For example, an increase in installation of artworks in malls rather than gardens can be understood in this context. Another change is the emergence of corporate plazas, after 1973, as one of settings for public artworks. Apart from effects of Per Cent for Art scheme, an increase of artworks in such a publicly accessible private space seems to relate to the modern art movement, the task of which appears to be to function as a corporate image.

70 61 60 50 40 32 30 23 before 1973 20 after 1973 No. of artworks No. 5 6 5 5 10 2 1 0 Others space Footpath owned Privately Public open Public public space Strip/Median Figure 65. Change of public artworks by location types before and after 1973

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 56 Methodology: Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

3.4.2. Change of contents

Category Figure 66 shows that 67 out of a total of 140 public artworks were installed after 1973. This means 49.3 per cent of the total number of artworks were executed for twenty six years while the rest 50.7 per cent were provided for 123 years. Remarkable and notable change is the emergence of painting and pavement art after 1973. On the contrary, the drinking fountains category was hardly installed after 1973.

40 36 37 35

30

25 before 1973 20 after 1973 16 14 15

No. of artworks of No. 10 10 10 7 7 5 1 2 0 Water Others feature Painting fountain Drinking Sculpture Pavement Figure 66. Change in categories of public artworks before and after 1973

Character and forms Notable changes in character of public art occur with the emergence of Aboriginal art and community art and the drastic decrease in Memorials. The decline in memorials may be due to the lack of consensus regarding who are the heroes in modern society and how we wish to remember them. As Hedger (1995: 47) notes:

Although it is recognised that modern society craves ‘heroes’ in all fields of endeavour, we are more reluctant to honour them in bronze. This may be due to the relative distinct in figurative sculpture or to the fact that photography can conveniently preserve the likenesses and deeds of people forever; but most importantly, it is a by-product of our egalitarian age. A decrease in representational forms shown in Figure 67 can be explained in relation to the issues regarding memorials. Considering commemorative sculpture in Melbourne which is dominated by an abundance of figurative or representational work, it may be natural that the decrease in memorials brought about the change in representational forms, particularly figure statues.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 57 Methodology: Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

40 34 35 30 27 25 before 1973 20 after 1973 14 15 13 9

No. of artworks No. 8 10 6 5 4 4 5 5 2 0 0 00 0 Mural Figure Obelisk Abstract Memorials Aboriginal art Community art Street furniture Street Representational Figure 67. Change of character and types of artworks since 1973

Materials and Methods The alteration of character and types also affected materials and methods of artworks. A dramatic decrease in the use of stone seems to have caused carvings to vanish after 1973. However, despite the decline in figure statue, bronze is still used as a main material for public art. Without sticking to only one material, contemporary public art is bringing a mixed method using a mixed material into fashion such as Constellation, Railway Viewing Platform and Wind Contrivance.

40 34 35 30 25 22 20 21 20 before 1973 15 14 15 after 1973 15

No. of artworks 10 9 8 9 9 10 6 4 5 2 2 1 0 0 Stone Metal Wood Mixed Mixed Bronze Casting Carving

Assembling Figure 68. Changes of materials and methods for sculpture

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 58 Methodology: Changes of Public Artworks before and after 1973

Table 14. Summary of changes of public artworks before and after 1973 Items Before 1973 Since 1973 Total number of artworks 73 67 Categories Sculpture 36 37 Painting - 10 Water features 14 7 Pavement - 10 Drinking fountains 16 1 Others 7 2 Suburbs CAD 6 36 Parklands 19 12 Carlton 8 1 Carlton North 3 1 East Melbourne 24 5 Footscray 1 - Kensington - 1 North Melbourne 2 3 Parkville 6 1 Southbank - 3 West Melbourne 4 4 Types of Locations Public open spaces 61 23 Footpaths 5 32 Strips/Medians 6 5 Privately owned public spaces - 2 Others 1 5 Character Memorials/Monuments 34 6 Aboriginal art - 13 Community art - 5 Forms of sculpture Figure statues 27 8 (including mural) Representational 5 14 Abstract - 9 Obelisks 4 - Murals - 4 Street furniture - 2 Materials Bronze 20 15 Metal 2 9 Stone 34 4 Wood 1 2 Mixed 10 14 Methods Casting 22 15 Carving 21 - Assembling 6 8 Mixed 9 9

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 59 Methodology: Artworks in Urban Context

3.5. Artworks in Urban Context

In the previous section, the content of artworks and their spatial distribution were reviewed. Apart from forms or character, spatial layout of public artworks relates closely to urban context. For example, an artwork was erected as part of Citylink project at the gateway to the city and it acts as a landmark. Location of artworks, particularly in public space, is as important as forms or character, or maybe more. If siting of public artworks can be planned carefully in conjunction with urban planning/design, value of artworks in urban space will become greater and the quality of city also will be enhanced. This section, therefore, will analyse the relationship between artworks and the urban context in terms of urban planning/design which may affect public art: physical environment, leisure features, neighbourhood planning and community recreation facilities. For this analysis, some maps in Strategy Plan 1985 were used as the base.

Artworks and physical environment The physical environment strategy was produced by MCC to reinforce Melbourne’s distinctive physical identity, conserve its built form and landscape heritage and improve its environmental amenity. According to the strategy, there are two main gateways and fourteen minor gateways near the CAD. The southern main gateway at the intersection of Swanston and Flinders Street seems likely to be affected by Federation Square which is now under construction, and the function of the gateway is expected to be an extension of the arts precinct. There is a considerably large national flag and a billboard at this northern main gateway. However, the billboard does not seem to contribute to establishing on image as the main gateway, and therefore more perceivable artworks as landmarks may be required. Currently four out of fourteen minor gateways have artworks which include the Eight Hour Day Memorial, Grants Fountain, Gordon Reserve, and King Street Underpass Mural. However, only eight Hour Day Memorial in Russell and Victoria Street seems to play a role of a gateway because it is large enough to be perceived and has a distinctive form of obelisk. Future installation of artworks that clearly function as a landmark for those significant locations may enhance legibility and identity of the urban environment.

Artworks and leisure feature As stated in the section of ‘locational distribution’, currently open spaces have the largest amount of artworks among other types of locations and a number of artworks in open spaces are also significant to Melbourne’s heritage. Contrary to Melburnians’ passion for sport, there is

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 60 Methodology: Artworks in Urban Context

Figure 69. Artworks and physical environment (produced based on Physical environment strategy for the City of Melbourne – outside the Central Activities District—City of Melbourne, 1985: 292) hardly any artwork installed in sporting facilities. Lastly, the Strategy Plan 1985 proposed some target areas for tourist/entertainment such as the CAD, Southbank and Lygon Street. While many of the areas already have a good many artworks, Lygon Street has relativelt few artworks. Importantly, Lygon Street is in the vicinity of the CAD and has development potential as a north-south cultural axis linking Lygon Street to Southbank which is already established as an art precinct. In this respect, an increase of artworks in Lygon Street, therefore, may be a significant urban design strategy.

Artworks and neighbourhood Neighbourhood boundaries in Figure 71 were developed into neighbourhood character boundaries in the late 1990s and they have become the base of much of urban planning/design. Despite the difficulty in defining what the neighbourhoods are, the development of the

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 61 Methodology: Artworks in Urban Context

Figure 70. Artworks and leisure features (produced based on Leisure features of metropolitan or state significance—City of Melbourne, 1985: 245). neighbourhoods based on their character may be of significance in relation to community art. Currently artworks installed in those neighbourhoods hardly exist except Hotham Hill Estate Community Artworks in North and West Melbourne neighbourhoods and Lynch’s Bridge Mosaic Mural in Flemington and Kensington neighbourhoods. In terms of cultural equality, it seems appropriate to make a plan for community artworks based on the concept of neighbourhoods. In this context, ’98 Cultural Policy proposed North Melbourne Town Hall area in North and West Melbourne neighbourhood to develop into a new northern art precinct of the city. Errol Street which is a primary hub in the neighbourhood, therefore, will act as a counterpart of Southbank which is a southern art precinct together with the CAD.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 62 Methodology: Artworks in Urban Context

Figure 71. Artworks and neighbourhood (produced based on Location of proposed neighbourhood hubs—City of Melbourne, 1985: 214).

Artworks and community recreation facilities Public art planning based on neighbourhood character also connects with the community facilities which are shown in Figure 72 such as community centres, swimming pools, and tennis courts. Such facilities may have high potential as future sites for community artworks. However, almost no artworks were installed in community recreation facilities, except Carlton Baths and State Library.

The analyses of artworks in urban context are summarised as follows: • By and large, installation of public artworks falls into two categories; artworks in the neighbourhoods and artworks in the CAD; • The former may be required so as to reduce the cultural inequity between suburbs and a

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 63 Methodology: Artworks in Urban Context

Figure 72. Artworks and community recreation facilities (produced based on Community recreation facilities— City of Melbourne, 1985: 247)

form of community art relating to neighbourhood character; • Community facilities are the areas which have high potential for community artworks; • Artworks in the CAD relate to tourism. By increasing artworks in Lygon Street, the north- south cultural axis can be developed as a new tourist asset such as sculpture walk in Melbourne; and • Lastly, installation of artworks as landmarks may need to be encouraged in order to improve the quality of city and also create new urban memories.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 64 Conclusion

4. Conclusion

Results and findings Frameworks developed from the literature review regarding definitions, kinds and setting, and policies/plans/strategies for public art become the base for interpreting and understanding public art. Based on the frameworks, the research statistically analysed public artworks by the time, space, and content. The following results were found:

Content and history of public art in the City of Melbourne Currently MCC owns and manages total 140 public artworks which have been installed since 1850. By and large, those artworks were classified into five categories: sculpture, painting, water features, pavement art, and drinking fountains. The sculpture category reaches 52.1 per cent of total public artworks and this is the lead category of public art. About 50 per cent of total works of sculpture are figure statues and most of them—even contemporary works—are a representative nineteenth-century sculptural form. In terms of character, 40 per cent of total works of sculpture were erected as memorials. Memorials were divided into two categories: people-related memorials and war memorials, and 77.5 per cent of total memorials are people-related ones. The emergence of painting and pavement art was only after 1990. Currently these categories form 7.2 per cent of total public artworks respectively. The pavement art category, particularly a form of unit pavers, is used most often for community art. The history of Melbourne’s water features dates back to the 1860s and water features reach 15 per cent of total public artworks. Water features are one of the progressive categories which have been changed into a form of contemporary public art. Drinking fountains reach 12.1 per cent of total public artworks; however, only one artwork was installed after the 1940s. Drinking fountains, therefore, are not expected to be increased in numbers in the future.

The roles of public art in urban planning/design Artworks generally artworks have increased steadily in numbers over the years. The 1990s is the heyday of public art by showing 37.1 per cent increase over the last decade and the reason is closely related to urban planning/design such as Swanston Street Walk Art Works Program. Also, Per Cent for Art Policy has played an important role in funding public artworks. Concentration of artworks in the CAD has created spatial distribution inequities between suburbs. Despite significance and enlargement of the concept of community art, three

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 65 Conclusion

community art projects were commissioned by the Council and the lack of community artworks seems to have worsened the cultural inequity. Concentration of artworks in the CAD also brought about a range of types of locations: that is, there was a shift in locations of artworks from public open spaces to footpaths or strips/medians. Artworks in private corporate plazas also enhance the quality of the urban environment alongside artworks on the MCC list.

Recommendations Based on results and findings, the research recommends regarding public art planning as follows: • Sculpture is a significant category of public artwork which plays a leading role in public art. Sculpture is superior in numbers, however nineteenth-century sculpture is still dominant in Melbourne and Plop-art also has begun to emerge since 1960s. Various forms of sculptures need to be installed and they need to be site-specific artworks rather than simply traditional or minimalist’s artworks in the 1960s. Fortunately, artworks commissioned recently seem to pursue the qualities of site-specificity. More works of painting, especially murals, need to be commissioned in order to enrich colour of the urban environment. These objectives all can be achieved by collaboration between artists, designers, planners, and administrators and so on. Collaboration, therefore, is the most important element in executing public art projects. • Currently, considerable amounts of artwork are limited to the space such as the CAD and Gardens, and this induces the cultural inequity between suburbs. Encouragement of community art projects can be a way of reducing the inequality. The public’s perception of community artworks will not be enhanced until they are developed in a manner which is based on neighbourhood character. • Four types of sites for public art can be recommended in the city of Melbourne. Firstly, by increasing artworks in Lygon Street as one of the target areas for tourism, and by linking with the CAD and Southbank which are established arts precincts, the north- south cultural axis can be developed as a new tourist asset such as sculpture walk in Melbourne. Secondly, in relation to significant areas proposed in a MCC physical environment strategy, installation of artworks as landmarks may be required in order to improve the quality of city and also enhance identification way-finding in the urban environment. Thirdly, artworks may be required in relation to the Docklands as a new entertainment

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 66 Conclusion

and sporting hub and those artworks may act as significant landmarks.

Areas for further research Based on the analysis, this research recommended future site for public artworks. However, a holistic approach to the site recommendation for each category of public art needs to be further studied by using such frameworks as the Settle study (1984)—Planning Study for Seattle: Art in the Civic Context. Preservation of existing artworks is equally as critical as installation of new artworks. The preservation of public art includes collection, management and conservation. This also needs the establishment of database of public artworks prior to the execution. For example, specific materials and their sources used in the execution of an artwork and method(s) of fabrication is essential in creating a database for conservation.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 67 Appendix

Appendix

A. Public Artworks, Part of the City of Melbourne Collection

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 68 Appendix

B. Public Artworks Complimented by a Survey

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 100 Glossary

Glossary

Abstract Art: A general term describing all art—especially painting or sculpture—that depicts an object or form in a non-realistic manner, or employs non-realistic use of form. The works of sculptor Beverly Pepper and painter Jackson Pollack exemplify this approach.

Allegorical Art: A term referring to any art work—visual or written—in which the characters or figures act as symbols representing ideas or principles. A blindfolded woman holding up a scale is an often-used allegorical figure, representing justice.

Art Deco: A term originated about 1860 referring to the style of art and architecture popular between World War I and World War II, characterised by streamlined forms, geometric patterns, boldness, simplicity, and, in sculpture, popular use of aluminum as a medium.

Art Nouveau: A term referring to the style of art and architecture popular during the period 1880-1910, characterised by curved, slender, elegant lines, the most frequent motif of which was the lily; the style was especially popular in France.

Arts and Crafts: English movement in applied arts and, indirectly, in architecture, during the second half of the 19th century, emphasising the importance of craftsmanship and high standards of design in everyday objects as a reaction against the industrial Revolution.

Bas Relief: A sculpture, carving or frieze with little depth, or only slight projection from the background.

Beaux-Arts: French for “Fine Arts”; a movement in architecture and art which originated at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, and lasted from 1870-1930, characterised by emphasis on ornamentation, embellishment, and grandeur with use of classical form; includes wide use of ornate public sanctuary.

Bronze: An alloy of copper and tin, frequently including other elements, often used for sculpture, public monuments, and other durable metal works.

Bust: A sculpture representing the head and neck, and often the shoulders and chest, of a human figure; also known as a portrait bust.

Classical: A style of architecture or art following the traditions of ancient Greece or Rome, characterised by frequent use of columns, simple, heavy symmetry, and triangular pediments over entrance ways.

Environmental Art: A term usually describing three-dimensional art located both indoors and outdoors. Most environmental art pieces attempt to change the observer’s perception by

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 109 Glossary

manipulating such elements as light, colour, power, shape and sound. Many environmental art pieces encourage the public to participate by entering into the piece or by affecting certain changes. The “Spiral Jetty” by Robert Smithson at the Great Salt Lake in Utah is among the best known environmental art pieces of the 1970’s.

Minimalism: A style of art prevalent in the 1960’s and 70’s which sought to reduce sculpture to its most direct properties as object in space. Richard Serra’s large Cor-Ten steel sculptures exemplify this style.

Modern Movement: A style of architecture popular from the 1930s to the present, exemplifying the philosophy “form follows function,” characterised by such building technologies as high-rise, pre-cast concrete, extreme cantilevers, reflective glass facades, curtain walls, flat roofs, and the lack of decoration. It is also called the international style because it avoids any particular national, historical, or regional design references.

Mosaic: An inlaid surface of small pieces of coloured glass, tile, or stone which form a design or pattern, especially popular during the Byzantine and Art Nouveau periods.

Mural: A wall painting, usually created to enhance a large empty exterior or interior surface; may be painted directly onto wall, or onto another surface which is then attached to the wall.

Neoclassical: Pertaining to the revival of the styles of ancient Greek and Roman art and architecture, a movement especially popular in the United States from 1810 – 1850 and 1890 – 1930.

Pedestal: The supporting base for a column or sculpture, usually stone or bronze, which raises the object above street or ground level.

Pop Art: A term derived from “popular art” describing that style of art which originated in the 1960’s, often characterised by colours and references to commercial images, and objects of the “vernacular culture” not ordinarily thought of as art. Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans are among the best known Pop Images.

Post-Modernism: An architectural style which followed the Modern Movement, or International Style; it started in the mid 1970’s, and emphasised the sculptural quality of buildings, using an eclecticism of past stylistic elements, usually less severe and formally ordered than in the Modern Movement Style, sometimes whimsical.

Representational Art: A general term referring to art in which elements are composed or arranged to resemble a person, structure, object, scene, or other artifact; it can be stylised or naturalistic.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 110 Glossary

Site-Specific Art: A term referring to artworks in which either form or content relate to surrounding landscape, community or physical environment, which are designed for a specific location and reinforce association with place. Mags Harries’ Asaroton 1976 in Haymarket, Boston is one example of such an approach.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 111 Bibliography

Bibliography

Allen, Jerry (1985) ‘How Art Becomes Public’, Public Art Collection Portfolio (special publication), King County, Washington: King County Arts Commission.

Andrews, Richard (1984) ‘Artists and the Visual Definition of Cities: The Experience of Seattle’, in Stacy Paleologus Harris, ed., Insignt/On Sites: Perspectives on Art in Public Places, Washington D.C.: Partners for Livable Places.

Brenner, Art (1971) ‘Sculpture and Architecture’, Leonardo, Vol. 4.

British American Arts Association (1989) Arts and the Changing City: An Agenda for Urban Regeneration, London: BAAA.

City of Melbourne (1985) City of Melbourne Strategy Plan 1985, Melbourne: City Strategy Planning Division, Technical Services Department and City of Melbourne.

City of Melbourne (1990) City of Melbourne Strategy Plan: Issues for the ’90s, Melbourne: City of Melbourne and Department of Planning and Urban Growth.

City of Melbourne (1992) Directions 1992-95: A Review of the City of Melbourne Strategy Plan 1985, Melbourne: City of Melbourne and Department of Planning and Housing.

City of Melbourne (1995) Melbourne Our City Our Culture: Profiling a City’s Art and Cultural Achievement, Melbourne: Hyland House Publishing.

City of Melbourne (1997a) City Plan ’97 Draft: The City of Melbourne’s Municipal Strategic Statement, Exhibition copy, Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

City of Melbourne (1997b) Urban and Public Art Policy, unpublished material.

City of Melbourne (1998a) 2000 Arts Grants Program, Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

City of Melbourne (1998b) Cultural Policy, Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

City of Melbourne (1999) Corporate Plan 1999-2002, Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. and Pam Korza (1988) Going Public: A Field Guide to Developments in Art in Public Places, Amherst, Massachusetts: Arts Extension Service and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Dare, Richard and Robert McMurray, eds. (1984) Landscape and Art: The Collaborative Approach, Knoxfield, Victoria: City of Knox.

Drury, Nevill (1993) New Sculpture: Profiles in Contemporary Australian Sculpture, East

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 112 Bibliography

Roseville, New South Wales: G+B Arts International.

Fleming, Ronald Lee and Renata von Tscharner (1987) Placemakers: Public Art That Tells You Where You Are, 2nd Ed, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Forgey, Benjamin (1980) ‘It Takes More Than an Outdoor Site to Make Sculpture Public’, Art News, September.

Goode, James M. (1973) ‘Outdoor Sculpture: Washington’s Overlooked Monuments’, Historic Preservation, January-March, pp. 4-14.

Gryphon Gallery (1986) Sculpture for Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria: Gryphon Gallery.

Gutheim, F. A. (1963) ‘Urban Space and Urban Design’, in J. Wingo, ed., The Future Use of Urban Land, Baltimore: John Hopkins.

Halbreich, Kathy (1988) ‘Stretching the Terrain: Sketching Twenty Years of Public Art’, in Jeffrey L. Cruikshank and Pam Korza, Going Public: A Field Guide to Developments in Art in Public Places, Amherst, Massachusetts: Arts Extension Service and the National Endowment for the Arts, pp. 9-12.

Harold Osborne, gen. ed. (1969) The Appreciation of the Arts, 3 vols., London: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, Sculpture, ed. L. R. Rogers.

Harris, Stacy Paleologus, ed. (1984) Insignt/On Sites: Perspectives on Art in Public Places, Washington D.C.: Partners for Livable Places.

Hayden, Dolores (1995) The Power of Place: Urban Landscape as Public History, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Hedger, Michael (1995) Public Sculpture in Australia, Roseville, NSW: Craftsman House.

Hutchison, Noel (1976) ‘Sculpture in Australia 1788-c.1923’, in Early Australian Sculpture, Ballarat, Victoria: Ballarat Fine Art Gallery.

Irwin, Robert (1985) Being and Circumstance: Notes Towards a Conditional Art, Larkspur Landing, California: The Lapis Press.

Jacobs, Jane M. (1997) ‘Resisting Reconciliation: the Secret Geographies of (post)colonial Australia’, in Steve Pile and Michael Kieth, eds., Geographies of Resistance, London: Routledge, pp. 203-218.

Jones-Evans, Dale, Gareth Sansom, Susan Norrie, Maria Kozic, Richard Goodwin, Ron Robertson-Swan and Janet Laurence (1994) ‘Urban Art’, Polis, No. 2 (September), pp. 60-63.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 113 Bibliography

Lippard, Lucy (1990) Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America, New York: Pantheon.

Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (1985) Downtown Art in Public Places Policy, reprinted in Jeffrey L. Cruikshank and Pam Korza (1988) Going Public: A Field Guide to Developments in Art in Public Places, Amherst, Massachusetts: Arts Extension Service and the National Endowment for the Arts, pp. 184-200.

Lumley, Ann (1990) Sydney’s Sculpture, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Lynch, Kevin (1960) The Image of the City, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Miles, Malcolm (1989) ‘The Argument for Public Art’, in Malcolm Miles ed., Art for Public Places: Critical Essays, Winchester: Winchester School of Art Press, pp. 1-15.

Miles, Malcolm (1997) Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Future, London and New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, W. J. T., ed. (1992) Art and the Public Sphere, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Moughtin, cliff, Taner Oc and Steven Tiesdell (1995) Urban Design: Ornament and Decoration, Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.

Palmer, Maudie and Elizabeth Cross (1990) ‘Installation by Two Australian Artists’, in Fourth Australian Sculpture Triennial, Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria.

Radford, Ron (1976) ‘Forward Note’, in Early Australian Sculpture, Ballarat, Victoria: Ballarat Fine Art Gallery.

Redstone, Louis G. and Ruth R. Redstone (1981) Public Art: New Directions, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Robinette, Margaret A. (1976) Outdoor Sculpture: Object and Environment, New York: Whitney Library of Design.

Sabine, Patricia and Jennifer Saunders (1990) ‘On-site: Sculpture in City Spaces’, in Fourth Australian Sculpture Triennial, Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria.

Senie, Harriet F. (1992) Contemporary Public Sculpture: tradition, Transformation and Controversy, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Senie, Harriet F. and Sally Webster (1989) ‘Editor’s Statement: Critical Issues in Public Art’, Art Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4, Winter, pp. 287-290.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 114 Bibliography

Shaffer, Diana (1983) ‘Nancy Holt: Spaces for Reflections or Projections’, in Alan Sonfist, ed., Art in the Land: A Critical Anthology of Environmental Art, New York: E. P. Dutton, inc.

Strugeon, Graeme (1978) The Development of Australian Sculpture 1788-1975, London: Thames and Hudson.

Strugeon, Graeme (1985) Sculpture at Mildura, Mildura, Victoria: Mildura City Council.

Strugeon, Graeme (1987) ‘Public Sculpture: The Pleasure and the Pain’, Art and Australia, vol. 25, No. 2, Summer, pp. 222-227.

Thompson, Lynn, ed. (1984) Artwork/Network: A Planning Study for Seattle: Art in the Civic Context, Seattle: Storefront Press.

Victorian State Urban Art Unit (1986) Place for People: Urban Spaces in Victoria.

Wagenknecht-Harte, Kay (1989) Site + Sculpture: The Collaborative Design Process, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Weston, Neville (no date) In the Public Eye: Public Art in Australia, Adelaide: Visual Arts Board.

Yngvason, Hafthor (1993) ‘The New Public Art: As Opposed to What?’, Public Art Review 8, Spring/Summer.

Public Art in the City of Melbourne: Its Typology and Planning 115