The Future of Public Art
A letter from Hou Hanru to Hans Ulrich Obrist
Dear HUO,
Thanks much for your inspiring survey on the future of art. In response I’d like to share with you excerpts from an interview addressing questions on public art raised by Pelin Tan, a highly talented and active theoretician and historian based in Istanbul.
PT As public space is layered with myriad different presentations, ideologies and roots nowadays, how can artistic practices intervene? Is it possible for art to create counter-publics, or does the very idea of a ‘counter-public’ remain an idealistic leftist wish?
HHR Actually, this is a question about what kind of society we are living in today. Is the increasing privatization of urban spaces around the world symptomatic of globalization and imposition of a monopolistic model of trans-national capitalism? It seems this is increasingly true. Various local authorities, from the state to municipalities, have been accommodating this trend by changing urban regulations (often “liberating” them), sometimes in the most undemocratic and corrupt ways. On the other hand, one can also observe how more and more social initiatives, ranging from individuals to NGOs, are now struggling to invent and develop visions and strategies of resistance to the trend. These include various forms of “informal” economy, alternative organizations and cultural, social and political projects, not to mention environmental activism. Ultimately, they strive for urban renovation that respects historical diversity and protects the wellbeing of society. This conflict between monopolizing and diversifying forces, between privatization and the striving for public-ness, has turned the debate about public-versus-private spaces into a much more dynamic, interactive and open one, instead of being dogmatically ideological. As Toni Negri and Michael Hardt point out, there is no more being ‘outside’ of the current ‘global system’ (the ‘Empire’). What is important is to develop visions, strategies and actions to incessantly, spontaneously and effectively take over urban spaces (whether under gentrification or not) and introduce new natures and utilities for public interests – a complex and often contradictory assemblage of diverse claims. In this case, ‘traditional’, ‘leftist’, ‘romantic’ and even ‘utopian’ ideas and strategies such as Hakim Bey’s ”Temporary Autonomous Zone’ can be revised and adapted to the new dynamism and become totally realistic. It’s also here that one can generate new concepts and projects for public art practices.
Today, public art should no longer simply consist of static, finished and closed forms (whether monumental or intimate, spectacular or ‘immaterial’). Instead, it should emphasize the open-ended, ever evolving, participatory, collaborative and ultimately anti-eternal. It functions as a perpetual machine of production of social relationships via proposals for dialogue and collaboration between individuals, as a laboratory of collective action generating common interests. It’s a kind of testing ground for urban change that leads to a better equilibrium of diverse interests (of individual, collective and social entities) and that envisages systems of value beyond the grasp of capitalism. Therefore, contemporary public art frequently takes on diverse, often trans-disciplinary forms, existing somewhere between ‘art’ and ‘architecture’, between stable structures and performative, time-based actions, and it resists being frozen within any specific viewpoint. It’s fundamentally experimental and penetrates all domains of our everyday lives and communication in both the ‘real world’ and ‘virtual world’: a dense and intense platform for debate and trials that produce new urban forms and activities. It’s not about creating a ‘counter-public’, but about seeking relevance in a renewable public form. It’s a kind of complex yet realizable utopia.
(There have been numerous successful examples of this kind of public art initiative around the world. Many of my own curatorial projects have included aspects of this kind of experiment. The insistence on biennial/triennial projects as ‘local’ events to produce new localities in the face of globalisation is a central principle of this practice. Such projects as The Fifth System and Trans(ient) City are even more direct examples of this quasi-unique search for a new status and strategy for public art. )
PT The social movements of the ’60s were powerful and, as discussed in the writings of Wallerstein/Balibar, these (mostly activist) movements played a part in changing society. Some of the current practices in contemporary art have been making political and social ‘gestures’, with some even forming a type of social-cultural movement. Do you think taking on this role can harm the autonomy of art practices? Or can art be effective in directly intervening in the transformation of alternative society and culture?
HHR There are many ways to understand and practice art. It’s totally legitimate and necessary to consider art as part of a large social, activist movement. It’s a tradition dating back at least to the time of classic avant-garde that has never been totally interrupted. Economic, cultural, social, political and especially geopolitical conditions, prompted by the rapid pace of globalization, are actually making this activist aspect more necessary and urgent than ever. Art today, like many other cultural activities, is at once a local and global activity. In addition, the discourses and concepts circulating in the art world and forming an intellectual backbone for artists’ materialization of imaginations, energies, emotions, and creativities continue to refer to theories and debates on post-colonialism, globalisation, critique of capitalism and urbanism. Art has never been as ‘theoretical’ or as open to other fields as it is today. The assumption that art should be autonomous, a kind of precept of the modernist period, has entirely lost its relevance and validity. It’s true that art should somehow maintain its particular role via developing its distinctive language. But this does not mean it should be ‘autonomous’. Instead, art’s direct and indirect involvement and engagement with social reality provides a source of ‘inspiration’ and linguistic, formal and intellectual content. This interactive process is exactly the means by which new linguistic and formal expressions are created and obtain significance. Art is probably the most advanced part of the process, a kind of avant-garde ‘laboratory’ of new ideas, projects and actions… and it’s here that it gains its publicness. In this sense, the more social significance an artwork can engender, the more powerful it is. No doubt, it is an effective catalysis of social transformation.
PT As our main problems in this century seem to be ‘shelter’, ‘dwelling’ in neo-liberal urban sprawl and violations of the rights of claiming a ‘place’ and a ‘dwelling’, what role do you think art practices can play in counteracting them? Do you think art practices can only originate gestures that are ‘consumed’ as a new topic in artistic and urban spheres or can they really be operative in bringing actors together to create platforms for alternative resistance?
HHR Yes, it’s extremely important to point out that global cities are a complex and contradictory terrain that generate different interests and shortcomings for different populations in different parts of the world. It’s truly breathtaking to witness the urban booms around the world – from Istanbul to Shanghai, Sao Paulo to Dubai, London to Moscow, New York to Lagos… And they are forming a network of global cities, or centers of command for a global economy, as Saskia Sassen demonstrates. On the other hand, new modes of city formation, or urbanisms, are being ‘invented’ as a result of the global capital, people, ideas and imagination. Global cities are increasingly becoming generic, as Rem Koolhaas and his followers say. But one should not forget, as Mike Davis (Planet of Slums) reminds us, this is also a process of production of slums, and more than 60% of urban populations are actually living in slums and ‘informal’ cities. Basic rights of living such as having shelter or dwelling, and even walking, are now becoming a rarefied ‘luxury’ for many in the city. However, as I have been studying in Chinese and other ‘non-Western’ cities, conventional concepts and methods of urbanism have been surpassed by the waves of post-planning, namely construction before planning, and hence are turning planning into a posterior, ‘corrective’ practice. In the process of ‘informal’ expansion of urban spaces and construction without permission, normal, often lower class, inhabitants are managing ingeniously to design pragmatic and creative urban and architectural constructions, suggesting a huge potential for solutions to serious urban problems ranging from shelter to employment, from economic resource to environmental crisis, from social relations to urban texture, from individual rights to social institution, etc. They are often the most dynamic and vibrant zones of cities. The favelas of Latin American cities and ‘Villages in the City’ in China’s current urbanisation have revealed clearly this potential. Many social workers, activists, architects, urbanists, and sociologists have already invested their energies and talents in learning from the situation and coming up with ways to improve living conditions in those ‘ad hoc’ cities, and to provide them a formal status – an ontological recognition of such an ‘alternative’ way of city-making and experimentation with new urban organization. They are no longer merely sites of case studies but instead laboratories of romantic ideas inspired by aspects of urban life such as high density, flexibility and simplicity. They are now a vital part of the urban reality that one can no longer ignore or ‘fix’ with tabula-rasa solutions. Certainly, this has been greatly inspiring for artists interested in urban transformation and social struggle. We have seen a great many projects, works and actions created over the last decade, almost everywhere in the world. It’s true that some of these projects and works are what you described as ‘new topics for consumption’, but a considerable number of them are indeed truly engaging actions and have succeeded in making themselves an integral part of the urban transformation. No doubt, in this process different actors are brought together to create not only a platform for resistance but also for foreseeing the future.
All the best,
Hanru
Next
https://www.art-it.asia/en/u/admin_columns_e/s1uj4nxyhwLSad8cBNgO/
Previous
https://www.art-it.asia/en/u/admin_columns_e/ej1F4ZX9kzYfCyShlKAP/
Index
https://www.art-it.asia/en/u/admin_columns_e/9zBAU4WxiwpIvnY65VuF
Originally printed in ART iT No.18 Winter/Spring 2008