Today's discussion was about the obvious disconnect between permanent and temporary works of public art. After steering clear of the 'does graffiti count?' discussion (phew!) we came to the conclusion that if art in a public realm is not engaging, it is not useful. Unfortunately many pieces in our city appear to lack engagement and thus cast a poor light on the usefulness of art.
It this the role of public art: to engage and serve city dwellers? How long can a piece of art perform this role - or perhaps the question is for how long does city culture hold issues, tensions and discussions in its bronzed grip before moving to the next idea? Perhaps the question is what type of art would have city dwellers disengage with what is currently consuming them first?
Temporary exhibitions are exciting. Although if truth be told, the allure of what is next on the art scene is cradled side-by-side with the reassurance that if I don't enjoy it or identify with it, it wont be there long enough to really matter. Protests, yarn bombing, chalk art, flash mobs and the like are art of a different generation. A generation that paces in front of a microwave and wears out the 'door close' buttons on elevators. My idea, right now, is valid and useful..but tomorrow, someone elses i(dea) will take centre stage, but just for a moment, only to be screen swiped away for the next.
Engaging art. Quality discussions. Contested space.
Here are a two public artworks which I have found to be absorbing and engaging. World class. Not in Cape Town.
Chicago USA:Anish Kapoor
Washinton DC, USA:Maya Lin
No comments:
Post a Comment