To kick off the third week of the trimester, I had the opportunity to view the official unveiling of a mural on Roosevelt Row in downtown Phoenix.
Titled "The Garden", this mural was made in conjunction with an organization known as the "I Have a Name" Project under the watch of founder and photographer Jon Linton as well as artists Brian Boner and Wayne Rainey. The unveiling of the piece was accompanied by a candlelight vigil for those who had passed away while homeless.
This concurrence of events in particular brings to attention the singular intent of the work, which as I stated before is one of the hallmarks of public art. When a work of art can be exposed to a wide audience, it seems to be the best platform for igniting awareness among a large volume of people. To this end, Linton states
"A west wall of the building will carry a message in humanity and compassion while the north facing wall shall list names of those lost to the street. The overall scope of this work intends to create a dialogue beyond the boundaries of this city and help motivate action that might end the human suffering that is homelessness." (Becker, 2015)
And the intent of Linton's message may be no better situated than at Roosevelt Row, an area populated by vivid and thought-provoking murals that are attraction in and of themselves. But the area itself begs the question of the environment around a specific piece of art. Similar to the dilemma of a tree falling in a forest with no people, if a piece of public art is created where it will not be seen, can it be considered public art? I am inclined to say no, as one of the key elements of public art is that of spreading a message, or at the very least an impression, from creator to audience. This belief can easily be applied to art across all media, but because the relationship between public art and the public is so intimate--and in some ways commonplace--it seems especially true. The role of people consuming public art is critical in a way that should be obvious because of the word "public" in the name, but maybe isn't considered as much when one is physically confronted with a piece. And though at the surface "The Garden" isn't by definition interactive, it was the vigil, the people who showed up to support and see the work, that transformed the piece from the representation of a message to a piece of public art.
Just something to chew on. Thanks for reading and I'll see you in next week's installment!
Source:
Becker, Katrina. "The Art of Awareness." Downtown Phoenix Journal. Downtown Phoenix Journal, 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 27 Feb. 2016. <http://downtownphoenixjournal.com/2015/01/19/art-awareness/>.
The unveiling of the mural was perfect timing for your project! To me, the flying birds motif seems to be a positive expression of a sad subjects: the deaths of the homeless. Flying away, it seems as though their souls are finally free from the struggles of the street, which made me stop and think about their plight because it was not the stereotypical image of a homeless person. I guess that means that the mural has succeeded as a public art installation.
ReplyDeleteIt seems my favorite way to comment on here is to take things that you said and then form questions based on that, so here goes!
ReplyDeleteYou said "Similar to the dilemma of a tree falling in a forest with no people, if a piece of public art is created where it will not be seen, can it be considered public art?" You quickly answered your own question, but I think you might be overlooking one small aspect of public art. Becker mentioned that the overall intention of the work is to create a dialogue about the city (public space) and motivate action. So, in that regard, does a piece of art need to be in the public space to motivate action? Or can a piece of art be more privately viewed/displayed and still be considered public art through its intentions and concepts being rooted in the idea of the public? (i.e. a piece of art displayed in a gallery that comments on and attempts to motivate action to end homelessness)
Thank you for reading Mr. Cleland! In retrospect, I think I did answer my own question too rapidly without considering other aspects of an audience, including the use of the internet. I know that I've seen many artists create pieces in remote areas that have then circulated through photos online, and I think that this could also rightly be considered public art. Privately viewed art also fits the broader stipulations I gave for public art, so I believe I have to narrow by definition, but I think I'd ultimately like to try and define the disparity between public art and art in general. I don't think that there's a necessity of a public space to spur action, but logically there is a positive correlation between public space and general visibility.
DeleteIt's very nice to see some art that's dedicated towards those in need. Thanks for the interesting post!
ReplyDeleteI like how you've gone to multiple places around AZ to find public art. and I really like all the pictures!
ReplyDelete