We are in the midst of a public art paradigm shift . Cities are supplementing monumental public art , in the urban planning and landscape architecture context , in favor of diffuse networks of creative production . The advent of “ creative placemaking ,” the maker movement , tactical urbanism , readilyavailable tools of digital production , and other cultural drivers are steadily chiseling away at the prominence of iconic public art . What is emerging in its place is not yet fully defined . From DIY phenomena such as yarn-bombing , to corporate marketing events such as Nokia ’ s light installation with artist Deadmau5 , to pop-up galleries and street performances employed by urban districts as economic development tools , we are clearly in the midst of something new .
How did we get here ?
Traditionally , public art has been seen as a way to mark a destination or create an instant icon . Drawing upon a monumental tradition , set in Hellenistic cities , public art often commemorates notable events or people . This tradition was revived during the Beaux- Arts era in a collusion between city-making and artmaking . In its 1906 charter , the Association for Public Art in Philadelphia sets the tone for the following century . Its mission is to “ promote and foster the beautiful ” through “ architecture , improvements , and the city plan .” Or , more simply , city-making plus art-making equals public art , and , by extension , a good place . This formula continued unchanged through contemporary urban design with public art as monument — a visible and attractive marker that municipalities , park districts , and corporations use to signal status , identity , or history .
We ’ re not so naive as to suggest that public art was once , in some hazy past , easy to conceive or straightforward to execute , or that only now arts professionals and built environment professionals are refiguring their relationship to each other . Rather , we suggest in the following pages that the entire category of public art , as defined above , is being destabilized by emerging forms of relationships between the designed environment and creative endeavor that takes place in that environment .
The paradigm shift should not be entirely a surprise . Over the last century , the practice of landscape architecture and the practice of art has become scarcely recognizable to late Victorian proponents of beauty and order . Movements such as landscape urbanism demonstrate that the scope and ambition of the landscape architecture profession has extended into new realms . And in art , the proliferation of means and media has been so vast and unrelenting that every human activity , without exception , may be eligible for a foundation grant . So if the well-meaning Philadelphians — and other Beaux-Arts proponents of public art — held in mind a common image when they advocated to bring beauty to landscape , today that vision is unintelligible . Rather than attempting to define what ’ s replaced that vision , we offer some notes on the symptoms — the visible signs that tell us of the underlying shift .
From grandeur to guerrilla
Creativity in the public sphere is no longer the exclusive domain of municipalities and agencies . Increasingly , production of creativity is distributed among DIYers , community groups , and corporations in addition to traditional players such as park departments and city agencies . The spectrum of public art tacticians has diversified and spans grassroots activists self-producing events that draw attention to a particular issue , or real estate developers investing in pop-up art to signal and support initial phases of construction .
The diversification of players has been made possible , in part , by the dominance of social media as an audience engagement tool . The stronghold of traditional arts presenters has been loosened by these tools , which allow for increased and equitable information exchange . This trend has helped fuel the realm of unsanctioned art that can be promoted
Boston Society of Landscape Architects Fieldbook
9