[TheForge] Public Art

[RIES NIEMI]

Andrew- you raise some interesting points, which I am always willing to
discuss, as this is a subject I think about all the time.

First- right now I am putting together a slide show for the abana conference
dealing with one specific thing- how blacksmiths are getting involved in
public art commissions by governmental agencies. I want to discuss the
people who are already doing this work, and talk about how other people can
break into getting these jobs.
For the purpose of that particular discussion, I am limiting my scope to
public commissions that are open to anyone who wants to apply.


The idea of guerilla public art is actually one I have been interested in
since the mid 70's, having done quite a few pieces myself. I have done
billboard alterations, left pieces out in public places I no longer wanted,
and created anonymous pieces I screwed onto buildings, etc.
One of my favorite interventions, which I was unfortunately not involved in,
was the placement of a large ball and chain around the ankle of the
"Hammering Man" sculpture in downtown Seattle. There also is an artist in
pittsburgh who makes enormous sculptures out of materials he finds in old
abandoned industrial sites, then usually leaves them installed in those old
mills.
I would love to see someone document and collect examples of this sort of
public art, particularly in metal.



> 
> Not all official public art is loved, liked, or even accepted.

Thats for sure, and of course it is true about everything any artist or
craftsman makes. There have been some famous examples of public art being
removed, often for political reasons. However, much of the forged work being
done for public spaces is loved by the people who have to live with it.
People relate to craftsmanship, tactile surfaces, and historical techniques
a lot more than to minimalism or conceptual art.  Blacksmiths are in a
unique position to take advantage of these commissions. Many artists just
dont know how to make things- blacksmiths do, and so they often have a
better chance of getting these jobs. Also, architects and money men like the
idea of killing two birds with one stone- making "functional art" such as
fences, gates or stairrails they would have had to pay for anyway.

> 
> How and why does a copy disqualify work as "public art"?
> Just curious.

Generally when getting a public commission you will sign a contract stating
that you are creating an "original work of art". Part of this is the old
High Art versus Craft feud, and the high art people are the ones who have
convinced the government to spend money on this stuff. To do so, they have
come up with a reason why it shouldnt just go the lowest bidding fabricating
shop, and the "original" route is one they often take. So this isnt my
distinction, but one of the basic qualifiers for most of these jobs.
Personally, I am usually more interested in someone who can combine
craftsmanship and originality, but thats just my  personal bias.

> 
> What about a public building?

There are lots of people who make sculptures and then sell them. Thats a
perfectly reputable way to go, its just not the category of art I want to
present at this one slide show. I think sculpture has gotten pretty wide
exposure in art history classes, but I think there are quite a few people
who are not aware of the opportunities in "public art".

>> Designs by others- architects, decorators, or clients showing a picture from
>> a book and saying "make one like this".
> 
Again- fabricating designs of others is the way lots of smiths make a
living- I have done my fair share of it myself. Its just not the subject I
am going to talk about on this one day.

> 
> Is this really so?  Consider how such works are procured.  First,
> there is a public call for the work wherein the parameters are
> given.  This then goes to bidding for designs (I believe price
> is usually fixed up front).  Then a choice is made by some body
> of officials... based upon what?  Over on artmetal we just went
> through a whole discussion on this experience of one of the
> members.  He came up with a really cool design for one of the
> municipal airports in  California.  The design they chose was
> comparatively trite, cliche, dull, PC, and I suppose safe in the
> eyes of the officials making the choice.  Compared to his work
> it was a horrible little travesty that gave off the stench of
> pandering cowardice, though I may well be mistaken on that.
> But they were, after all, deciding an issue that may not have
> been political in and of itself, but was perhaps turned into
> one by the sorts looking to be mayor or chief dog catcher one
> day.

One of the reasons I feel qualified to talk about this subject is that I
have a lot of experience with the making of this particular sausage, from
all ends. I have been making sculptures in the "public art" category since
the late 70's, with over 20 completed projects. I have been rejected from
tons more, and short listed but not chosen from another 30 or so. I have
also been on juries to select public art. I know a lot about the actual
dirty truths of the politics that you are speculating about. Unfortunately,
its usually more complicated, mundane, and political than the juicy
corruption or scandal one would hope for. For instance, "officials" often
have little or no say in deciding who gets these jobs. The juries usually
consist of neighborhood folks, or people who work in the building being
constructed, the architect, and some local artists. The actual
administrators usually dont have a vote, although there have been cases
where the mayor or city council member, seeing potential publicity, shoots
down a project after it has been selected.
> 
> I'm not sure this is quite so, but there are others more tuned
> in to such things than I.  I think you get the money when your
> designs prove the best suited for the application.  How that is
> determined is probably not anything remotely resembling exact
> science or equitability, at least in many cases.
> 
> I think you have a really good idea here, Ries, but I feel that
> maybe you need some adjustments to your premises about public
> art.  I may be way wrong here, but it seems to me that the salient
> concept is "public", as here I mean official public art, though
> I can see some real potential to investigating cases where
> unofficial public art has captured the imagination and support
> of the public.  Perhaps someone plopped an iron sculpture in the
> towm square at 3 AM without permission and it became the joy of
> the public.  Just a thought.  Question as to original or copy,
> is that really relevant.  Not saying it isn't, just askling the
> question.  You listed a few characteristics but didn't really
> explain why you held these as defining terms.  My contention
> is that if you want this to be a truly effective presentation,
> the foundation may need some further fleshing out so that the
> viewer will have a more complete understanding of what it is
> you are presenting and why.  I hope you don't take this as
> anything other than a most constructively offered criticism.

Again- I am discussing actual case histories of commissions real blacksmiths
have gotten. How they got them, what the competition was, budgets, political
realities, profits or lack of them, public response, durability and
lifetimes of real stuff people really made. A lot of your ideas are
interesting ideas, and I am interested in further discussion on this or
other forums, but the specifics of what I described are, good or bad, pretty
much the reality of commissioned public art.
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login:  blacksmithblacksmith@hotmail.com
> password:  anvil
> ___________
> 
> 
>