The way in which public art is commissioned has evolved over the past few years, but Maggie Bolt believes there is still more for commissioners to think about.
Art in public, public art, art in the public realm, art and architecture ? there are various labels to describe the practice of artists engaging with working outside the gallery. Some are more contentious than others but, personally, I have no problem with the term ?public art? ? it has been around for long enough for people to associate the term with artists engaging in the public realm.
Distinction
In the early days of public art in this country, the emphasis was on artists? contributions being visible: sculptures, water features, murals and bins, benches and bollards were the staple public art fare in many cities, towns and villages. Often (though not always) artists were enlisted to try and rectify the poor image of unused and unloved spaces ? or to ?cheer up? or decorate poorly designed developments. The limitations of this approach, and the poor use it made of an artist?s potential contribution, started to become apparent. Despite public art?s intention of creating unique and stimulating places, everywhere was beginning to look the same and public art was, in some instances, becoming as formulaic as the areas it was trying to distinguish. So, practice moved on and now there seems to be a general acceptance that artists should become involved at the beginning of the design process, not at the end.
If you like what an artist makes, then you must like the way that he or she thinks, so why not harness that creative thinking from the outset? Quality of thought and implementation in design result in imaginative and exciting places that are fit for purpose, reflect local identity and provide economic benefits. They meet respective communities? needs by engaging them in the cultural process.
Creative solutions
There is currently a positive political climate in which to promote and push for more creative solutions as to how we develop our environment. The planning system has been reformed and there is a fresh emphasis on ensuring that new settlements, as well as rural and urban regeneration, incorporate high quality design. At the same time, there is a growing awareness that a great deal of what we have created and constructed is simply not good enough.
These factors provide many opportunities to challenge current ways of working and thinking, to explore new angles, to apply lateral thinking and generally to adapt and change. The current campaigns aimed at involving the professions and the public in debates about open space, the proliferation of highway signs and street furniture, and poor housing design are all very positive steps that should be welcomed. The Department for Culture Media and Sport has recently called for further robust evidence of exactly what it is that the arts bring to regeneration, and the response from a wide variety of organisations and professions demonstrates what we all instinctively know: that creativity matters.
But how do we achieve this integration of artists? creativity into public realm design when day-to-day concerns push for delivery, outputs and justification of spend? How do we ensure that artists? input doesn?t just become another commodity and that an integrated approach doesn?t result in such a blurring of the boundaries that the essence of what an artist is and brings becomes lost in a corporate sea?
We have to be creative in every aspect of what we do. We need to legitimise thinking time for genuine research and development to be built into schemes and developments. We need to leave scope for artists to contribute; we need to ensure that their role is as important and valid as that of any other consultant. After all, no one questions the specialist knowledge of an archaeologist, geologist or engineer ? so why not widen this to ?visual engineers?, in other words, artists?
Raising the bar
It is this approach that ?PROJECT ? engaging artists in the built environment?, funded by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and Arts & Business, aims to support and encourage over the next two years. Managed and delivered by Public Art South West, the scheme provides funding to support artists to comment on or work within the design, planning and construction sectors.
The purpose of PROJECT is to influence and create a shared vision for architecture, public space, planning and high quality urban design. The scheme intends to raise the level of debate, change working practices, unlock partnership funding and analyse the impact of working with artists. There is £300,000 available up until March 2006, over £100,000 of which has just been awarded to ten schemes throughout the UK involving artists in a variety of exciting and groundbreaking projects.
However, just taking this approach doesn?t mean everything will automatically fall into place. There are (of course!) pitfalls, of which rushed thinking and complacency are the major causes. Commissioners should not make assumptions about what the artist can bring, or what they will do, before the project even starts. Design teams should be encouraged to establish clear internal lines of communication and create a climate of mutual trust and respect. No one should try to predict the outcome before even establishing the aims and procedure (and neither should funding schemes ask us to!).
More time and expertise should be allocated to finding the right artist for the right job, and priority should be given to discussion and debate, evaluating what has been achieved and to future planning. Everyone involved in projects should network more widely and take advantage of all the good material and knowledge that is available. In short, we all need to be creative risk-takers prepared to embrace the inspirational and unexpected input of artists.
Maggie Bolt is Director of Public Art South West. For information on PASW visit http://www.publicartonline.org.uk for more information on PROJECT visit
http://www.project-awards.org.uk