Of course there’s “high” and “low” culture…right?

Is something like Strictly Come Dancing ever going to make people more self-aware; more inqusitive of the world around them; more appreciative of beauty (and ugliness); more disturbed by old codes of behaviour, than say…oh I don’t know, Hamlet? I’m not saying ligher entertainment has no place, but this idea that’s come up in discussions that we shouldn’t call it for it what it is because it’s ”elitist” to do so strikes me as very strange. There’s obvious differences in depth and approach between the arts of “high” culture and mass culture, even if nobody could say one is “better” than the other.

As T.S Eliot has said of poetry: “there is always the communication of some new experience, or some fresh understanding of the familiar, or the expression of something but have no words for, which enlarges our consciousness or refines our sensibility.”[1] Like Aristotle, we might take the view that art can cleanse us and offer all of us catharsis, tall and short, coloured and not-so-coloured, female and male, rich and poor…. [2] Art does indeed expand our understanding of ourselves and the external world and does help us understand concepts that are impossible to articulate in any other way; we when read or hear something GREAT, we can experience a  revlation of sorts and come away from the experience as “better” people, whether the work is terrifying or beautiful. Like the early Hegel, we may believe that art reveals truth in a direct, intuitive way, and I think that the more people can experience ”high” (or whatever you want to label it) art it in the public sphere, the better. 

 

   [1] Eliot, T.S, On Poetry and Poets, page 18

[2] Kraut, Richard, The Cambridge Companion to Plato, page 357

 J.S Mill distinguished between different forms of pleasure in conception of utilitarianism to counter criticisms of Bentham’s account of the theory. Take this passage from Martin Amis’ novel,  Money, for example: 

‘Watching television is one of my main interests, one of my chief skills.  Video films are another accomplishment of mine: diabolism, carnage, soft core.  I realize, when I can bear to think about it, that all my hobbies are pornographic in tendency… fast food, sex shows, space games, slot machines, video nasties, nude mags, drink, pubs, fighting, television, handjobs’[1].      

I am not judging such pleasures as good or bad (though Amis’ tone might indicate he is): but they are obviously of a different nature to, say, the sort of pleasure Gaudi might have got from completing designs for a Cathereral. In the same way, I think it is true that some types of public art can be distinguished from other types, and that public art of different depths will affect people in different ways. 

---

[1] Martin Amis, Money, (Vintage, London: 2005), p. 67

Robert Logan

Question…

I seem to recall meetings having been e-mailed out to us re: our creative industries essay. The e-mail itself has vanished. Could anyone point me in the right direction/confirm that I’m simply losing my mind?

Max Olesker

Goodness knows what the font was doing there….

But never mind! Hopefully it’s still readable! Sarah

Public Art and Mass Culture

Here’s the second part of my research. I wasn’t entirely sure where I was going with it, and was a bit clueless at the beginning, but hopefully I’m not talking a load of rubbish! :

 

I was reading our group blog, and something that Lottie said about the definition of public art, really struck me and inspired me to think about what public art IS in a wider context. She wrote the Wikipedia definition of public art, which is that:

 

“The term public art properly refers to works of art in any media that has been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all.”

 

This made me start questioning; whether the term ‘public art’ also now refers to things put out on the television and the internet? Both of which are, in a way, a form of “public domain”. If this be the case, then it gives creative writers a wider scope to get involved in.

 

The internet and TV are forms of mass media which help to define what is known as mass, or popular culture. So, thinking about all this, I did a bit of research into mass culture and its relationship to public art, trying to perhaps find a link between the two.

 

Turning again to Wikipedia (because it gives a pretty concise definition!), it says that popular culture is:

 

“the culture (which by the way is defined as, ‘patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance’) which is well-liked or common… deemed by what is popular within the social context – that of which is most strongly represented by what is perceived to be popularly accepted among society. It comprises the daily interactions, needs and desires and cultural ‘moments’ that make up the everyday lives of the mainstream [and] can include any number of practices and ideas on various subjects…”

 

Most interestingly I found that:

 

“Popular culture often contrasts with a more exclusive, even elitist “high culture” that is, the culture of ruling social groups.”

 

I then did some research into ‘high culture’ and found that the term relates to cultural products (mainly in the arts) that are considered to be highly esteemed and intellectual, a bit above the rest. This can include literature, music, some types of performing arts, but most importantly, it COULD be seen to include public art. Public Art is often thought-provoking in some way, it’s not just randomly plonked somewhere to simply look pretty and provide to public tastes (most of the time) or IS IT?!

 

Although it’s not mass produced (in a sense that there are a lot of copies of the same pieces of artwork EVERYWHERE), I think that public art can be seen to relate to mass culture. To begin with, as has been already discussed, public art is often associated with the community. On the blog, someone wrote about how Cronk suggests that the ‘the job of the public artist is to… function as a cultural mediator for a broad spectrum of the community.’ It often then, speaks to the wider community, and on a small level can thus affect mass culture. With the use of the television and internet, it also means that, despite what I’ve just said, in a sense public art CAN be mass produced. In some ways it’s no longer necessarily site-specific because people can see photos on the internet (such as the artwork in Milsom’s street), watch performances on the tv (or youtube), so it reaches out into the mass media. It’s evolving.

 

If public art is indeed ‘high culture’ it can be seen that the boundaries between this and ‘low culture’ (most associated with popular culture) are beginning to blur. Although not directly related to public art, an example of this can be seen in the idea of book clubs. I was reading a brief outline of Janice Radway’s “The Scandal of the Middlebrow” in which she suggested that book clubs blur high and low culture by studying ‘serious’ fiction on the same level as popular fiction such as adventure stories and fantasy etc. They’re a place where high and low can meet together in the same space. Although Radway is an American theorist (so it’s not necessarily relevant to the UK), and as I said, book clubs are not related directly to public art, it could be seen that some forms of public art blur into popular culture, for instance – if there is a performance of someone’s work on the street concerning something some could call ‘highbrow’ and it is then heavily televised, causing it to spark off a whole load of pop songs, and a soap opera etc does this still make it public art, or because it’s now been taken up by the mass media, has it been blurred into popular culture? In relation to the book club idea, television then provides a space for ‘high’ public art to mix with ‘low’ art (such as soaps etc on the TV, or even just the idea of the television, as a mass media, itself)

 

This raises an issue that Adorno wrote about in ‘The Culture Industry’ when he says: “a great poet is almost as good as a great inventor or a talent scout, just as long as the standing of the work protects us from having to read any of it.” In popular culture, one often hears/sees/reads all about something (in this case perhaps, a poem), causing society to know all about it without ever having to experience it for themselves. So, if say, a public performance is aired on television, or a photograph is posted on the internet depicting a sculpture or some other kind of public art, which then causes a massive blog discussion etc etc, one can simply read about or see the public art without having to properly experience it for themselves – does this then cause the work to fall into the realms of popular culture?

 

Adorno also writes about mass culture that:

 

“Whatever is to pass muster must already have been handled, manipulated and approved by hundreds of thousands of people before anyone can enjoy it.”

 

Public art is not ‘handled’ by hundreds of thousands of people, but however, it DOES have to fit criteria, for example, the issues Cherelle already discussed about censorship – Public Art can’t be abusive, contain swearing etc. Similarly, public art, like popular art in mass culture, has to gain approval in order to get funding. As Laura pointed out in her research, public art more often than not only receives backing if the project undertaken can be seen to be making a positive impact on the community. In other words, one could say, public art has to pander to the wider society (through censorship and community etc) in order to work, implying that public art is actually a form of mass culture.

 

 

 

Rob I thought maybe you could argue against this idea that public art can work WITH/be mass culture (a much easier job, trust me :S), maybe looking at how it can alienate people/ make political statements etc (do the public actually WANT it?) etc.

 

Sarah

Update on what’s going on!!

Hey creativeindustrialists! Here’s an update on what’s going on with our presentation, as was discussed at our meeting today! We now have a running order of who is going to speak when on what etc. Here it is:

Kate – History of Public Art

Laura – Funding of PA

Yasmin/ Lottie (decide between you who goes first) – Public Art and the Community

Owen – Conversations through public art

Max O – Transient Theatre

Max D – Public Art is pointless

Cherelle – Censorship

Sarah – Examples of literature and PA/ PA in relation to mass culture (FOR)

Rob – PA in relation to mass culture (AGAINST), vague conclusion.

Hope I haven’t missed anyone there! Also, important reminder, we are all going to meet up in crosslands on Monday (24th) at 4-5pm to run over any problems and also, most importantly, have a run-through of what’s going to happen! So PLEASE all be there!

See you soon Sarah

Ruminating upon Lone Twin…

So, some continued research in the direction of Lone Twin throws up some interesting points in relation to their working practice and the impact it can have upon a community. The company’s projects are met with varying levels of success but, it seems, tend to affect those who actively engage in the work in a powerful and occasionally even profound manner.

“Lone Twin’s work takes the form of interventions in public spaces that change people’s relationship with that space and with each other. Sometimes the work goes unwitnessed; more often, it creates instant communities.” Lyn Gardner, Guardian.

With reference to previous points that have been made, Lone Twin’s performances can each be considered separately or considered as a whole, as examples of transient Live Art. It strikes me that any art within and for a community must make some kind of impact upon that community; thus, whilst it can be tempting to assess Lone Twin’s work in terms of purely theatrical success, it is important to consider the work’s function as public art or, as Lottie mentioned, ‘community art’. These issues are brought to the forefront when one considers that not all of their performances succeed in engaging an audience;

“The oddity of the circumstances in which the encounters happen adds to their potency. To that end, they have spent 18 hours walking back and forth over a bridge in Denmark hoping that other people might join them; dressed up as cowboys and spent 12 hours linedancing; and carried a heavy wooden plank in a straight line through Colchester. Often, it ends in failure. They once stood on a bridge in northern Canada for 12 hours in the freezing cold inviting people to hold their hands. Nobody did.” Lyn Gardner.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s opinions re: the necessity of public art performances interacting with the local community. Much like local writers solely benefiting from their commissions (as Yasmin mentioned), in instances where Lone Twin fail to create a dialogue with ‘audience’ members can the performance be deemed a success for anyone but the performers? Furthermore, a greater question can be asked with regard to transient art as a whole; on a practical level is it economical for councils or local venues to invest in a work which may not be seen by many and will certainly be last for less time than a mural or other more permanent work (though it could be argued that Lone Twin’s durational work at least provides value for money…)?

Max Olesker

 

Edit – A couple of links

http://londonist.com/2008/09/review_speeches_by_lone_twin.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2007/jun/13/theatre2

x

…

…

apologies for the weird format of that last post.

Kate

History and Tradition

 

 

 

Wow, there’s been some damn fine blogging since I last came on here.

The oldest forms of officially sanctioned public art are things like statues and monuments, although architectural detail can count as well. This made me think that public art wasn’t really considered as just ‘art’ as such in the past; it all served a purpose, whether that’s remembrance-

 

 

http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/nelsons_column.jpgOr the grand palaces and castles where the aristocracy lived. Today, art (in many people’s opinions) defines ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture, and this seems to be a throwback from when certain ornate things defined your standing the world and your reputation. Regular houses aren’t public works of art, but take that in comparison to Buckingham palace and it begins to seem obvious how this definition came about. However, these days public art is, in some respects, going back to it’s roots in terms of purpose- and this time in terms of literal usefulness, because things like benches or street lamps can be commissioned that are very ornate etc. Furthermore, as the royal family and the notion of aristocracy and patronage falls out of favour, things like graffiti and other street art that would once be considered vandalism becomes more enigmatic and ‘cool’. Therefore, as a further point of research I think it’ll be really interesting to trace the movement of public art in relation to the movement of wealth and class in society. I’ll also look more at the actual usage of public art; because whilst things like benches and street lamps can be considered as ‘art in public’, it also has a certain frivolity that it never used to. An example of this is the poem in Bath that Sarah had a picture of- after the poem itself there were lots of random ‘meaningful’ sounding words that I thought seemed a bit pretentious and useless.

I looked briefly at memorials and found it really interesting the way they have changed- nelson’s column is really big and ornate in a way that memorials aren’t these days. Take the Diana memorial lake thing for example; the flowing water is designed to express her personality and the different troubled times in her life- it’s more much idea based whereas Nelson’s column is a literal representation of him; and this more interpretive, idea based sentiment runs throughout all different public arts nowadays. I found tonnes of examples of abstract public art that never would have been commissioned a hundred years ago. Looking again at the memorial side of things; it is interesting to compare them to gravestones (sorry to get morbid). In old cemeteries, the oldest tombstones tend to be very plane in shape and colour, whereas nowadays there are far more ornate marbley tombstones for just the average person- this kind of shows a reverse trend in the high/low culture thing. Of course this is all based upon what is actually considered public art; but since memorials are historically one of the earliest public art forms, I think it’s still relevant to look at memorials today even though people may not consider them ‘art’.

A darker side to public art is that it has very often been used in propaganda; you only need to look at the photo of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled a few years ago to see what I mean. Public art can provide a form of cohesion because it can be constantly viewed- the nazi swastika is a very striking and visual symbol, and the use of it on various uniforms, posters and buildings can serve as a constant reminder in a way that public speaking cannot. The Saddam Hussein statue loomed large over the city in a very ominous way. I’d also like to look at Eastern Germany after WW2, and the types of symbolism used there, as well as the types of symbolisms and art forms used in certain political parties today.

Another thing I aim to look at is the History of Government involvement in public art on a day to day basis (for instance, the council document we got given a few weeks ago that discussed public art) But I think I’m going to leave it at this for now, I didn’t find any articles that dealt with history and tradition of public art directly, but I will find some literature etc using all the starting points I’ve noted above.

I hope this wasn’t too confused!

Kate.

 

Final Reminder!

Just a final reminder for everyone to make sure they’ve definately uploaded their research onto the blog by the end of tonight (about 10pm?) so everything can be printed off. If that’s a problem, I will check the blog again tomorrow morning before the lecture at 11am just to make sure – but the chances are I will FORGET to do it then, so please upload you’re stuff TODAY if possible!

See you all tomorrow at 12.

Sarah

Literature and Public Art

I was researching some specific examples of how literature has been used in public art and I came across an article about the work of Marc Andre Marc André Brouillette. Even though he is based in Canada, NOT the UK, I thought that what he was doing is something maybe British writers/ artists should be inspired to do. Here’s pretty much what the article said:

“Given the recent cuts to arts funding, and ongoing hand-wringing about the place of text in the digital age, research on literature in public space might seem unlikely (totally true!)

Marc André Brouillette, a poet who is interested in the representation of space in poetry, began thinking about how poetry is reflected in public space. The Département d’Études françaises professor received funding through SSHRC for PLEPUC (Présences du littéraire dans l’espace public canadien) to explore the potential for literature as public art.

“I saw it as a way to bring together my interests in literature, visual arts and architecture, and an opportunity to showcase literature in public,” explained Brouillette of the project. The first two-day research-creation workshop held earlier this month offered a concrete opportunity to explore the idea. A group of nine professionals were invited to form three teams to envision how to bring literature to the site of the former Pine/Parc interchange. “Everyone knows the space, and most people have an attachment to it. They found the site inspiring” explained Brouillette.

According to material produced for the workshop, the site, at the foot of the Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.-designed Mount Royal park, has been called the lungs of Montreal. Given the number of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles that pass through the area, it’s the ideal space to explore literature “not conceived for the page, the book or the screen.”

This is the first of several workshops addressing different sites or themes related to public literature that Brouillette hopes to organize as part of the project. Ideally, art historians, visual artists and urban developers will also become involved. The results of these workshops will be published at the end of the project, in two or three years’ time.

Meanwhile, the SSHRC funding also supports the creation of a database cataloguing examples of literary public art across Canada. Brouillette has been looking through existing public art databases, contacting professors with similar interests, institutions and government offices across the country to identify these works.”

I’ll bring in the picture of the eventual piece of artwork that was created…

On the homefront, another literal example of public art and literature working together visually is the carving on the pavement on Milsom’s street. Just to refresh memory (so people don’t have to trawl back through loads of blog!) here’s a bit about it:

“By increasing the pavement widths in Milsom Street, Bath, the council created a new space within the city. In celebration of the new space, the council’s ci:te project invited stone carver Alec Peever to create a lasting art work that would further enhance the street and the city. Alec worked with Alyson Hallett (a poet) and together they have given Bath a poetical pavement which draws on the city’s beginnings and future as a spa. Alec has hand carved Alyson’s poem with hammer and chisel into the paving, adding individual words at the edges of the site. Their powerful collaboration has given Bath a public work of art that is available to everyone, every day, at any time.”

Again, will bring in a photo.

But what about if writers don’t want to get involved with just the visual static forms of art? I was reading the ‘Arts Council of Northern Ireland: ART FORM AND SPECIALIST AREA POLICY’ and it said something I think sums up the various ways literature can be used within public art at the same time showing the flexibility of the writer:

“The writer… can be an artist, an entertainer, a recorder, a performer, a conscience…. Writing, story-telling and reading are activities at the core of a society’s creative life. The art form itself is not fixed, confined between covers. It is in evolution. Graphic novels, e-literature, hypertext, performance literature – and other variations – help grow the art into new expressive media to stand with novels, stories and poems.”

So it’s all about evolution, finding new ways to get literature out there. Things like workshops, performances etc, which I think some of you guys are covering… Also that giant debate on graffiti, that is another specific example of literature in public art, OR IS IT?!

Sarah