The ‘Publicness’ of Public Art: Access, Actor, Interest Approach

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 10, 220 - 255, 30.09.2013

Müge Akkar Ercan

Öz

Once we think of public art, a series of
questions come to our mind: What is the ‘publicness’ of public art? Is any
public artwork exhibited in a public space ‘absolutely’ public? Could a public
artwork be ‘more’ or ‘less’ public than any other? Is it possible to define the
extent of publicness of an artwork with different forms of representation? This
article, focusing on the question of ‘publicness’ of public art, aims to find
out answers to these questions. Taking a glance at the literature of the
‘public’ and ‘private’ terms, it uses the three criteria of ‘access’,’actor’
and ‘interest’, put forth by Benn and Gaus in 1983 to define these concepts,
and it seeks to define and discuss the ‘publicness’ of public art. This
research ultimately aims to provide with a model or an empirical instrument to
be used specifically in the fields of urban planning and design. The article is
composed of four sections. The first section discusses the accessibility of
public art, the second part focuses on the actors of public art and the third
section widely explains the multiple interests which public art serves for. In
the final section, the article concludes the discussions on the three
dimensions of publicness of public art.

Anahtar Kelimeler

public art, public space, public, private, publicness, privateness, access, actor, interest

Kamusal Sanatın ‘Kamusallığı’: Erişim, Aktör, Fayda Yaklaşımı

Öz

Kamusal mekanda sanattan
bahsedildiğinde aklımıza bir dizi soru gelir: Kamusal sanatın ‘kamusallığı’
nedir? Kamusal mekanda sergilenen herhangi bir sanat eseri ‘mutlak’ kamusal
mıdır? Bir kamusal sanat eseri, diğerine göre daha ‘az’ ya da daha ‘çok’
kamusal olabilir mi? Kamusal mekanda farklı temsil biçimleriyle sunulan sanat
eserinin ne kadar ‘kamusal’ olduğu tanımlanabilir mi? Ölçülebilir mi? Bu
makale, kamusal sanatın ‘kamusallığı’ sorunsalına odaklanarak, bu sorulara
cevap aramayı hedeflemektedir. ‘Kamu’ ve ‘özel’ kavramlarıyla ilgili yazına
hızlıca göz attıktan sonra, bu kavramları tanımlamak için Benn ve Gaus’un
1983’te ortaya attığı ‘erişebilirlik’, ‘aktör’ ve ‘fayda’ ölçütlerine
dayanarak, kamusal sanatın kamusallığını tanımlamayı ve tartışmayı hedeflemektedir;
özellikle kent planlama ve tasarım alanlarında yapılacak araştırmalarda
kullanılabilecek bir araç (ya da model) sunmaya çalışmaktadır. Makale dört ana
bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümünde, kamusal sanata erişim, ikinci bölümünde
kamusal sanatın aktörleri ve üçüncü bölümünde ise, kamusal sanatın çok yönlü
faydalarına bağlı olarak ‘kamusallık’larının nasıl değişebileceği
tartışılmaktadır. Sonuç bölümünde ise, kamusallığın üç boyutuna bağlı olarak
yapılan tartışmanın sonuçları özetlenmektedir.   

Anahtar Kelimeler

kamusal sanat, kamusal mekan, kamu, özel, kamusallık, özellik, erişim, aktör, fayda

Kaynakça

• Akkar Ercan, M. (2007). Public spaces of post-industrial cities and their changing roles. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 24(1), 115-137.
• Akkar, M. (2005). The changing ‘publicness’ of contemporary public spaces: A case study of the Grey’s Monument Area, Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Design International, 10, 95-113.
• Annabel Jackson Associates (AJA) (2007). Evaluation of Public Art: A literature Review And Proposed Methodology. Final evaluation report to Yorkshire Culture. http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/yorkshireimages/2007AJAEvaluationofPublicArtLiteratureReviewPublicVersion.pdf (14 Mayıs 2013).
• Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Arendt, H. (1997). The public and the private realm. S.E. Bronner (ed.) Twentieth Century Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 21-26) London and New York: Routledge.
• Augé C. & Augé P. (1955). Larousse Dictionnaire Encyclopédique. Paris: Libraries Larousse-Paris VI.
• Beech, D. (2005). Sloganeering. http://www.hewittandjordan.com/work/assets/slo ganeering. pdf (14 Mayıs 2013).
• Beech, D., Hewitt, A., Jordan, M. (2008). The economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property. http://freee.org.uk/works/the-economic-function-of-public-art-is-to-increase-the-value-of-private-property/ (13 Mayıs 2013).
• Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jürgen Habermas. C. Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 73-96). London: MIT Press.
• Bianchini, F. (1993). Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies. F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (eds.) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience (pp. 21–47) Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Carmona, M., Heath, T. Oc, T., Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public Places, Urban Spaces. Amsterdam, London: Elsevier. Benn, S.I. & Gaus, G.F. (eds.) (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. London, Canberra: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Brandao, P. (2003). Apocalyptic – Integrated 20 notes of “parallel thought” on public space and economy, and some new types of public spaces. Public Arts and Urban Design, Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives, Barcelona: MACBA, 162-168. Cameron, S. & Coaffee, J. (2005). Art, gentrification and regeneration—from artist as pioneer to public arts. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(1), 39–58.
• Cow Parade (2011). Cow Parade websitesi: cow.parade.com. (16 Mayıs 2013).
• Crilley, D. (1993). Megastructures and urban change: Aesthetics, ideology and design, P.L. Knox (ed.), The Restless Urban Landscape (pp. 127-164). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Crowther, J. (ed.) (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cybriwski, R. (1999) Changing patterns of urban public space: observations and assessments from the Tokyo and New York metropolitan areas. Cities, (16:4), 223-231.
• Erzen, J. (2009). Kent Estetiği ve Ankara için bir Manifesto. Dosya 10.2, 3-10.
• Evans, G. (2003). Hard-branding the cultural city—from Prado to Prada. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 417–441.
• Evans, G. (2004). Cultural industry quarters: from pre-industrial to post-industrial production. D. Bell & M. Jayne (eds.) City of Quarters (pp. 71–92). Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Evans, G. (2005). Measure for measure: evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Studies 42(5/6), 959–983.
• Gablik, S. (1998). The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art. New Renaissance magazine. 8(1).
• Günay, Z. (2010). Conservation versus Regeneration?: Case of European Capital of Culture 2010 Istanbul. European Planning Studies. 18(8), 1173-1186.
• Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. T. McCarthy (trans.) Boston: Beacon Press.
• Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. T. Burger ve F. Lawrence (trans.) Great Britain: Polity Press.
• Habermas, J. (1997). The public sphere. S.E. Bronner (ed.) Twentieth Century Political Theory: A Reader. (pp. 21-26). London, New York: Routledge.
• Hajer, M.A. (1993). Rotterdam: re-designing the public domain. F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (eds.) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience (pp. 48-72). Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.
• Hall, T. & Robertson, I. (2001). Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape Research, 26(1), 5–26.
• Hall, T. & Hubbard, P. (1996). The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies?. Progress in Human Geography, (20:2), 153-174.
• Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 71B(1), 3-17
• Hein, H. (1996). What is Public Art? Time, Place and Meaning. The Journal Of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 54(1), 1-7.
• Johnson, J. (1994). Public sphere, postmodernism and polemic. American Political Science Review. 88(2), 427-430.
• Kamenka, E. (1983). Public/private in Marxist Theory and Marxist Practice. S.I. Benn & G.F. Gaus (eds.) Public and Private in Social Life (pp. 267-279). London, Canberra: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Kwon, M. (1997). For Hamburg: Public art and urban identities. Public Art is Everywhere. Hamburg: Kunstverein Hamburg and Kulturbehörde Hamburg, 95-109.
• Kwon, M. (2002). One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
• Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• McCarthy, J. (2006). Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity?. Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), 243–262.
• McGovern, S.J. (1997). Political culture as a catalyst for political change in American cities. Critical Sociology, 23(1), 81-114.
• Miles, M. (1997). Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. New York: Routledge.
• Miles, M. (2005). Interruptions: testing the rhetoric of culturally led urban development. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 889–911.
• Mitchell, W.J. (1990). The Violence of Public Art. Critical Inquiry, 16(4), 880-899.
• Nettleship, W. (1989). Public Sculpture as a Collaboration with a Community. Leonardo, 22(2), 171-174.
• Olsen, D.J. (1986). The City as a Work of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Pateman, C. (1983). Feminist critiques of the public-private dichotomy. S.I. Benn & G.F. Gaus (eds.) Public and Private in Social Life (pp. 281-303). London, Canberra: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Peto, J. (1992). Roles and functions, Jones, S. (ed.) Art in Public: What, Why and How (pp. 28–43). Sunderland: AN Publications.
• Phillips, P. (1988). Out of Order: The Public Art Machine. Art Forum, 27(4), 92-97.
• Phillips, P. (1999). Dynamic exchange, public art at this time. Public Art Review, 11(1), 4-9.
• Philo, C. & Kearns, G. (1993). Culture, history, capital: A critical introduction to the selling of places. G. Philo & C. Philo (eds.) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present (pp. 1-32). Oxford, New York, Seoul, Tokyo: Pergamon Press.
• Porch, R. (2000). Public art-an off the wall proposition?. Urban Design, 76, 16-19.
• City of London (2009). City of London Public Art Program. London: City of London.
• Policy Studies Institute (1994). The benefits of public art. Cultural Trends, 23, 37–55.
• Rendell, J. (2002). Public art: Between public and private. S. Bennett & J. Butler (eds.) Locality, Regeneration and Diver(c)ities: Advances in Art & Urban Futures 1 (pp. 19-26). Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
• Roberts, M. (1998). Art in Public Realm. C. Greed & M. Roberts (eds.) Introducing Urban Design (pp. 116-129). London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
• Patrick, K. (2002). Foreword. S. Bennett & J. Butler (eds.) Locality, Regeneration and Diver(c)ities: Advances in Art & Urban Futures 1 (pp. 7-9). Bristol: Intellect Ltd.
• Sennett, R. (1992). The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Steinberger, P.J. (1999). Public and private. Political Studies. 47, 292-313.
• Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK) (1992). Türkçe Sözlüğü. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu TDK. İstanbul.
• Usherwood, P. (2003). Public art and pseudo-history. Public Arts and Urban Design, Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives. Barcelona: MACBA. 60-73.
• Vale, L. & Warner, S.B. (2001). Imaging the City: Continuing Struggles and New Directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
• Villa, R.D. (1992). Postmodernism and the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 712-721.
• Worth, M. (2003). Creating significance through public space: An inclusive and interdisciplinary practice. Public Arts and Urban Design, Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives. Barcelona: MACBA. 47-59.
• Zukin, S. (1995). The Cultures of Cities. London: Blackwell.