Artifact 6: Public Art
Objectives
- Learn about public funding for the arts.
- Examine public art’s role in capturing history and place making.
- Explore the relationship of cultural values to civic dialogue, beautification and identity.
As the quarter comes to a close, I was grateful to take a break from studying for my more traditional finals and to tackle this assignment. Like the Google Remix project or the hour of people watching earlier in the quarter, it’s fun to explore this unit’s subject, Public Art, by experiencing it in addition to reading others’ points of view. As I walked over to the Knight Library I thought about the Runquist Murals and how my purpose was specifically to view them rather than use the library as I had so many times before. It felt like I was heading to a museum exhibit.
I spent a good amount of time looking at each of the murals and in truth, really saw them for the first time. Many, many times I passed them on my way to one study session or another but I never took the time to truly see them. This moment reminded me of Alex Grey’s chapter, “Deeply Seeing” that we read for the unit on Creative Spirituality. I had found the reading difficult and Grey’s self importance annoying, but in seeing rather than just looking at the murals, I can agree with him when he says, “Seeing occurs when our attention is arrested by a person, object, or scene. Our mind stops chattering and pays attention. We see both the shape of the thing and it’s meaning to us.” (Grey, p. 72) In taking time to really “see” the Runquist Murals, two areas of interest emerged for me – capturing history and ethnic and gender diversity. In my mind they are interwoven and I will strive to make that clear in my response.
The Runquist Murals tell a historic story of the evolution of science and the arts. In addition, the lens through which the artists and brothers Albert and Arthur created the murals reflects the times and environment in which they lived and worked. World War II, the depression, and the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest all contributed to the outcome. In other words, they capture notable people and moments in history but the very nature of the work is informed by their own lives. In Erika Doss’ article Public Art Controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate, (hyperlink) she discusses the idea that public works of art are hard to pin down and define because the very concept of “public” art is, “a multifaceted arena.” (Doss, 2) She further says, “Public art’s multifaceted dimensions segue with the multifaceted forms and multiple publics of America itself.” (Doss, p. 2) What I believe Doss is saying is that we, the “public” all have differing views of what we know to be valuable and true and therefore should be reflected in our art. By displaying the murals, the University of Oregon is capturing a moment in time from a particular pair of artists who are alumni of the university as well as being native sons.
I can understand that some aspects of the murals might be troubling when looking at them through a modern lens. The obvious omission of people of color and women, in a piece that is about the history of the world, is notable. However, this lack of gender and ethnic diversity gave rise to the University’s creation of the Runquist Project which, “ … looks to create a dialogue centered …” (A Response To Runquist’s Murals) around the murals. Rather than removing the murals because they don’t represent the public’s prevailing points of view, the University has created a place to surface and discuss difficult topics. Doss discusses this phenomenon when she describes the controversy over several works of public art and the fact that they sometimes don’t survive when there is pressure to remove them or destroy them. In summary she says, “ … the shifting circumstances of American public culture and … original intentions … are often subject to change and reconsideration.” (Doss p. 4)
This is where I believe the idea capturing history is interwoven with that of cultural diversity. The public art history of our country is riddled with examples that ignore the true diversity of the American people and yet altering or removing these works rather than use them as a place to engender dialogue seems to me to be a mistake. As a nation, how else do we learn not to repeat the past or to look at society through different eyes? Doss captures this sentiment when she says, “Grounded in conversation, dialogue, and often debate, public art can serve as a symbol of civic examination, prompting further debates about community needs, hopes and histories. As an instrument of public conversation, public art can become a catalyst for civic and national revitalization. Often because it is controversial.” (Doss, p. 10) I imagine this is exactly the point of keeping the Runquist Murals in the Knight Library and the creation of the The Runquist Project.
Reflection
This unit gave me an opportunity to review the Runquist Murals located in the Knight Library. As I noted above, I enjoyed “seeing” them for the first time and having a chance to reflect on their history and controversy, albeit minor in my view. In reflecting on this unit and public art in general, I was reminded of my trip to New York last summer to visit family and inspired to learn more about the High Line. The High Line is a public park that was created by repurposing the old elevated New York Central Railroad at the west end of the city. It is nearly a mile and a half long and runs from the Chelsea neighborhood all the way to 34th Street in Manhattan. The last trains ran on sections of the line in the 1980’s and went into complete disuse after that. In the late 1990’s the Friends of the High Line was formed by residents and efforts were undertaken to create the park, open space, and cultural attractions that now make up the High Line.
These are a couple pictures of the Highline. The first photo shows an ariel view of the city with the new construction. The second photo shows all the overgrown plants on the old set of train tracks.
The park, its public art, and the controversy surrounding it was very much in keeping with Erika Doss’ reflections in her article, Public Art Controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate. The creation of the High Line has been the backdrop for a significant and ongoing clash between the ideals of civic improvement and beautification and those of cultural diversity including race and class. Prior to opening of the High Line in 2006, the Chelsea neighborhood, host to the largest section of the park, had seen better days. The neighborhood was gritty and industrial and as compared to other sections of the city that had experienced revitalization, Chelsea had seen better days. In addition, since 1964 Chelsea has been home to two large low-income housing projects serving over 3,000 residents – most of whom are people of color.
When the founders of the High Line, residents of the Chelsea neighborhood, began their campaign to create the park and its attractions, they did so with a great deal of local, grassroots support. City officials, philanthropists, and residents alike agreed that the High Line would be good for the neighborhood. However, long time residents did not imagine that a park would be the beginning of the end of the neighborhood many had called home for generations. In her article, Getting to the Bottom of the High Line Controversy,Kelly Chan writes, “While the park began as a grass roots endeavor … it quickly became a tool for … the creation of a new, upscale, corporatized stretch along the West Side.” (Chan, p. 2) Chan further notes that, “ … local businesses have reported alarming drops in profit and … one only has to look at the string of slick, residential high-rises flanking the High Line to understand how a former neighborhood of mostly working-class residents and light-industrial businesses has drastically changed.” (Chan, p.3) This situation has inspired those who remain to challenge the ongoing gentrification of their community. Doss captures this phenomenon well when she says, “ … enhanced grassroots participation in public culture also inspires public conversations about the purpose and meaning of public art. It’s visibly public presence, it’s frequent dependence on public dollars, and its originating concept of as a unifying form of civic beautification can make public art a beacon for controversy.” (Doss, p. 5)
Interestingly, Doss wrote her article the same year the High Line opened in 2006. Had the founders and funders of the High Line known Erika Doss and her research, they might have paused for a moment before proceeding. Not that the High Line should not have been created but perhaps a more thoughtful approach would have helped them understand the consequences. Chan is clear about what the future might hold when she says, “Making something beautiful for the public does not necessarily mean it will be shared … for this to happen, the city most step in to ensure that less powerful and less affluent parties are protected … “ (Chan, p.4)
Future
I grew up in the Bay Area of California and frequently visit my extended family in New York City and it would be hard to miss how much these two cities have changed in the last five years. I love both cities but they feel increasingly like fancy and shiny places that no longer feature the cultural diversity that was once so interesting and attractive to me. As a Family and Human Services major I have seen that drastic income inequality forces so many people into the fringes of education and healthcare and it often starts by displacement due to gentrification. As I think about my career, I am challenging myself to work proactively to anticipate the kind of problems created by civic improvement rather than just to react once they have been set in motion. As Chan notes in her article, “Change in itself is not something to be feared, especially in a city like New York. But change that stifles diversity is, in fact, a disquieting detriment to any city.” (Chan, p. 3)
Bibliography
The High Line,. ‘The High Line | Friends Of The High Line’. N.p., 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.