Home > Blogs > The Editorial: The Planning Season > Snow snow snow snow.

Blogs

Snow snow snow snow.

by Ruth Barker, 29 Nov 2010

Hello,

I love the snow. I’ve been working on PAR+RS all day and resisting the urge to run out to the park and play. But then I felt guilty for my frivolous thoughts because I heard from Fanny Christie at PVAF that the weekend’s weather has seriously disrupted plans for an upcoming project, and I remembered that for many many people (especially those who have a journey to make) the snow is not fun in the least. So wrap up warm and take care, everyone. And good luck getting back on schedule, Fanny.

So, today I’ve been writing to lots of brilliant people trying to hassle (sorry, ‘enourage’) them into writing for PAR+RS. Take this as a reminder – send us your articles! I’m particularly interested at the moment in hearing from architects, planners, strategists, landscape designers, urbanists, and all the rest of you. If you are reading this list and know of someone to whom I should be speaking, drop me a line with your suggestion. I’m hoping to get some really good pieces for the upcoming Planning season…

Thanks loads to Matt for his thoughtful Comment to my post ‘Sacrificial Materials’ below. I’d love to come back on one thing (sorry if I’m hogging the debate – do chip in on Matt’s new blog here). It’s that thing about a division between gallery art/public art; and gallery artist/public artist. I guess one thing I’ve been mulling over lately is that many artists, myself included, make work that’s on a sliding scale of publicness, with some projects being more public than others. I choose to work across different contexts at different times, and many other artists do the same. You’re unusual in some ways, Matt, in that you are fairly exclusively a public artist in the sense that you describe – an artist who always makes publicly sited work. Where does that leave the rest of us? Is it an all or nothing thing?

And I can completely sympathise with your last sentence, about public art practice not getting the meaty discussion it deserves. Incidentally, I was reading Carol Becker on the subject of ‘The Artist As Public Intellectual’ recently. Did I mention this before on the Blog? I’ve a feeling that I might have done. Anyway, it’s raised a lot of interesting questions for me, which I’m in the process of thinking through (thanks to Jason E Bowman for pointing me in its direction).
Becker writes about the importance of the artist’s voice in society, and she places that voice as one that might speak about inequality, politics, and justice. This is of course important, but I’ve also been thinking about the importance of artists being able to speak about art. I think – very genuinely – that art is incredibly important. I really believe that it’s one of the most important things that humans do. And because I believe that, I also believe that it’s important that art is discussed well and fully and humanely, and that we strive do so in public.

More later,
R.

Comments

  1. 29 Nov 2010

    Matt Baker

    re people for your planning series – Diarmaid Lawlor of A+DS is on your list I’m sure? Lisa Mackenzie (landscape Architect and public art masterplanner for new UHI campus) Nick Wright (planning consultancy and localism person)?

    re the ‘all or nothing question’…much as I dream of being a purist, I completely accept that we (myself included) work across different contexts and situations.
    What I am describing as gallery practice is (i think) similar to what Lucy Lippard (quoted in my original post) calls ‘private art’. I believe it is entirely possible (indeed common) for an artist to practice both public and private/gallery art within their work.

    What I am questioning is the way we use physical context as the criteria that governs whether something is public art or not – in my opinion a ‘private/gallery’ artwork that is shown in (or otherwise involves) public space or people is still ‘private/gallery’ practice and should not be confused with public art.

    For me, what separates two particular works (which could be by the same artist) – is the INTENT behind them ie is the work using art primarily FOR the place (public) or is it USING a context for an effect directed at the artworld (gallery/private)?

    I find the concept of the artist’s intent rather than whether the work is inside or outside a ‘traditional art space’ (SAC) more useful when trying to meaningfully assess the effectiveness of a public art.

    I’d stress again that I am not making value judgements here – private and public are equally valid and valuable in my view.

    I’m off to look at Carol Becker now – low temperatures have cancelled concrete pours this week = more time to wrestle with things philosophical

    cheers
    M

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Please login to leave comments.