'built in?'

by Ben Spencer, 11 May 2009

Over the last couple of months I’ve been struggling to condense my thoughts around the issue of ‘integrating’ artists’ work into any project. In writing here, I’ve always said the projects subject to evaluation will act as an inspiration for the blog rather than being referenced directly. The issue of integration, however, is directly linked to the projects under consideration and so I am likely to draw a little more directly on the projects under review.

I suppose the idea underpinning my thoughts, and crucially the basis of any project, is: ‘why do we want to involve an artist in our work?’ Artists are very good at having conversations, looking at things in different ways, diverging or supporting the direction of a project. For some projects this might manifest itself through a practical, rather than an artistic, approach, but I would argue it will always be valuable, if sometimes rather intangible.

Working on another project, another evaluation, has highlighted the contradiction of ‘intergrating’ artists work into capital projects:

A growing number of artists are invited to become ‘creative agents’ in the construction of our public spaces. The language surrounding these schemes (manifested in the form of briefs, marketing material, funding applications, local authority documents and magazine articles) is now fully professionalised. Artists are no longer requested to make stand-alone works of art for designated spaces (the insensitive ‘plop’ associations that come with this type of commissioning have been well documented), they are now invited to help local authorities or clients ‘deliver a vision’, to become part of a large team of architects, planners, engineers, local authority officers and facilitators who are engaged in the process of making a building or a public space. The danger of this type of language and involvement is that the voice of the artist frequently goes unheard. An even larger danger is that artists themselves become professionalised and savvy to this way of working and in so doing become part of the system which kills the essence of an art programme.

What’s a ‘creative agent’? Artists’ collaboration with architects and planners, Jes Fernie in ‘Open space – Art in the public realm in London 1995 – 2005’ ed. Jemima Montagu, Arts Council England and Central Lodong Partnership, February 2007.

The central dichotomy remains. Is an artist involved in a capital project, as part of the design team and therefore in danger of becoming a designer – at the earliest stages of the project. Or is the artists’ work clearly identifiable and therefore in danger of being ‘plopped’ into a scheme, as referred to by Jes Fernie above. The difficulty is that clients will often be looking for an identified work – something to take to the funders – “this is what you will be paying / paid for”.

While the projects under consideration are quite different (one ostensibly a city centre environmental regeneration landscaping project – the other two new buildings), the issues surprisingly converge on this topic. In both cases, the artists work is being ‘retro-fitted’ after completion of the construction works which begs the question as to whether the work is truly integrated or not. This situation has arisen predominantly for pragmatic reasons. The construction was well advanced and couldn’t be delayed to wait for the artists’ works. Contractural issues meant it was impractical for artists to be working on a construction site. And, in some instances, the appointment of the artists came late into the project.

The flip-side of these thoughts is the nature of the involvement of the artist. Is the artist’s work intellectually integrated into the project – through early intervention, working with the design team, influencing the designers’ thinking, supporting the project ‘blueprint’. The artist may purely be another voice – being whoever they want to be. The artist’s work may alternatively be physically integrated into the project. Or the work may stand alone. Of course, there is no standard approach and the nature of the work will reflect the client, the commissioner, the design team and the artist.

In talking about some of these issues, it seems that more artists in Scotland ‘toggle’ between gallery and public art practice. This is likely because work opportunities are fewer in Scotland, but it does seem a more prevalent Scottish practice which raises the point of who is the audience for the work – client / art world / user group / community?

To a certain extent these writings and the PAR+RS web site are already reaching the ‘knowledgeable’, the professional and the interested. Another piece of work has highlighted the need to reach out to others, particularly development and regeneration services. This reflection on integrating artists work into construction projects makes me think we need to also take the arguments to the contractors – to educate ‘contractors’ champions’: builders who believe in the value of artists’ work in capital projects.