As mentioned in my last blog post, this week I had the opportunity to help with an artist-focused class for homeschooled children. The artist that this class focused on was Katsushika Hokusai. For those of you less versed in Japanese artists, Hokusai is most well known for the print, "The Great Wave off Kanagawa":
Hokusai revolutionized the art form of wood block printing that was so prevalent at the time of his career as an artist. Instead of using kabuki actors and courtesans as traditional subject matter, he depicted landscapes and ocean scenes in his distinctive style that eventually affected the course of art in both Japanese and western art.
Small history lesson aside, it was rather fortuitous that this particular artist was chosen for the class, both because his most well-known piece is within the ocean theme of the gallery and that much of his art can be considered public.
Unlike many of his contemporaries and the pervading "starving artist" trope, Hokusai gained much notoriety and fame during his career, rather than only after. This is due mostly to the fact that he was a genius at self-promotion. For example, he created a 600 foot portrait of a Buddhist monk named Daruma during a festival in Tokyo. His instruments? Buckets of paint and broomsticks.
Of course, some may deem this feat more of a spectacle than an example of respectable public art. However, this brings up an important question: what is public art?
From prior research, the most readily available answer is that public art is some form of visual art in a public (or otherwise easily accessible) location that serves a purpose. Now, the specific intent of the art is where the definition of public becomes sticky. Murals or large sculptures can easily be identified as works of public art, but what about advertisements, propaganda, or vandalism? Is Hokusai's giant portrait public art if the intent is motivated by selfish reasons? Can profit and government play roles in public art?
All signs point to yes. This is especially true after the Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which introduced government-commissioned art into public spaces. However, more recently, an onslaught of independent artists have done public pieces to create statements about the reality which we live in rather than create a piece for a company. This is essentially transforming the concept of public art, and is a testament to its fluidity and ambiguity as an art form.
To conclude, the following are examples of modern artists with public pieces:
 |
| Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial |
 |
| A piece by Jenny Holzer, with quite a literal message |
 |
| A Covered Reichstag by Christo |
Thank you for reading this week, and I plan to interview a local muralist for next week's entry!
Bonus Hokusai class photos:
 |
| My own print using styrofoam and a wooden stylus |
 |
| A student's print |
 |
| Part of a slideshow on Hokusai--the children were not as engaged at this point |
 |
| A print by one of the I.D.E.A. Museum staff, a professional printmaker |
 |
| A woodblock carving by aforementioned printmaker |
 |
| Another of his carvings |
Beautiful! The children's classes must be a lot of fun, and I bet that the kids look up to you as an accomplished artist! I was fortunate to see some Hokusai prints during an exhibition while I was a student at Michigan.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in time, do you have a favorite representation of public art? In your mind, are there any boundaries that, upon being crossed, render art no longer "public"?
Thank you for your comment Ms. Mitrovich!
DeleteAt this point in time, I'm not sure if a particular representation of public art attracts me. However, if we're talking about particular artists, I'm a big fan of Ai Weiwei, a Chinese artist whose work is as conceptual as it is political and controversial. Much of his work is within a public place, such as on government buildings, and uses this space to create commentary on topics such as the oppression of the Chinese government, the destructive legacy of European imperialism, and the Syrian refugee crisis. I encourage you to check out his stuff!
Pieces contained within private collections are by definition not public, but there also seems to be a strange prevailing sense that public art is located in outdoors. But in general, art associated with government funding for public good is considered public art in the purest sense (as with the traditional definition of "public"). However, artists more recently have created piece outside of museums for the general public to view; I believe this also falls under what can be considered "public art".
Considering how subjective public art and art in general are, my answers should by no means be taken as law.
Your presentation on Hokusai's print was a great way to introduce the children to the idea of woodblock prints. While I am familiar with the print, I was not aware that Hokusai was associated with public art as well.
ReplyDeleteSometimes a lot of heated debate erupts over an installation of a new piece of public art. When I was in Barcelona, I visited the Tapies Museum, which houses his 60-foot-high dirty sock sculpture (complete with a hole in its heel)! Although he was Catalonia's most famous artist, the public balked at letting this sculpture grace its intended spot at the central hall of the National Museum of Catalan Art. So it sits on an outdoor terrace at his museum. At first, I found the idea somewhat ludicrous, but, on second thought, it actually provoked intriguing thought.
Controversiality seems to be a stipulation of all types of art, public art notwithstanding. However, given that public art is by definition more accessible than nonpublic art, the reaction towards a piece of public art is inevitably more acute.
DeleteOne of the great things about art as whole is that it challenges ways of thinking and thereby expands our understanding of our existence (sometimes). It was great that you got to see and experience that sculpture in Barcelona!
I really enjoyed how you juxtaposed really old public art with modern pieces of public art. I feel like this question might be unanswerable...but how do you think public art has changed over time?
ReplyDeleteThe influence of profit and government in public art is a very interesting relationship that I haven't thought about before. I've visited the Vietnam Memorial many times in the past but didn't that about the impact the government may have had on it.
ReplyDeleteIn your post you mentioned that the 600 foot portrait could be seen as a spectacle, and that could negatively affect the project and have it not be seen quite as much as art. That comment brought up a couple of things. In the late 20th century especially, there was a huge movement that focused on performance art, which by and large is public. I think you made good points that even though the portrait was a self-promoting spectacle it still counts as art, but I think looking into performative aspects of art in the public space would be good too.
ReplyDelete