Art & the Public Sphere - Volume 3, Issue 2, 2014

Arts discourse abounds with references and concessions to the public – that disorderedly mass of individuals who may stumble across the threshold of the public museum. Likewise, the public is invoked in conjunction with public engagement with art, or with public galleries, public funding, public art and so on. In spite of the institutional and critical focus on art’s public dimensions intensifying since the 1990s (from Suzanne Lacy’s ‘new genre public art’ to Nicolas Bourriaud’s ‘relational aesthetics’, Grant Kester’s writings on ‘dialogical art’ and Claire Bishop’s on participation) it seems an oversight that the relationship between art and the public as such has not been considered in any significant critical depth. At the same time, much of this critical discourse has appeared within a politico-economic climate of neo-liberal capitalism, which has devastatingly (re)fashioned the public in its own image. This article argues that it is precisely this potential dimension of the public that a number of contemporary artists are testing or seeking to redeem. It contends that the public’s definitive excess, the impossibility of pinning it down, is also its potent political and democratic potential. I focus on participatory works by the former collaborative duo Komar and Melamid, and by Stuart Ringholt, arguing that each work contributes to unique understandings of the public with respect to contemporary art.

The physical body locates an intersection of public communication and private subjectivity that is particularly interesting when used to convey messages of lived experience to the public through art. This article creates a definition for ‘Intimate Exposure Projects’ (IEPs), which seek to use a body coded as private to represent personal experience to a public viewer. Exploring fine art photography, live performance and the media, this article argues that, despite some crucial problems with feminist thought and intersectional identity, these IEPs are evidence of people’s desire (particularly women) to break down damaging notions of a body unsuitable for public view in order to make bodily narratives less fictional.

The central claim in this article is simple: aesthetic activities make society better. They are essential for the so-called good society. Specifically it is argued that aesthetic reflection contributes to what Maeve Cooke calls ‘human flourishing’. Vocabularies from the two dominant discourses in social analysis are surveyed: (1) Applied Social Science, which is, generally speaking, empirically grounded and sits within a tradition of Positivism in relation to social analysis and (2) Critical Theory, which is more theoretical, speculative and sits within a Marxian tradition of social theory. First, I introduce the instrumental use of aesthetic practices and vocabularies that I want to oppose. This is done through a brief account of some ways in which creative practice can be used in forms of neo-liberal governance. Second, I survey and compare the use of aesthetics in Applied Social Science and Critical Theory. As I discuss, despite their differences both employ an understanding of the good society based on human flourishing. I conclude by offering three ways in which aesthetic practices contribute to human flourishing: (1) through fostering individual flourishing; (2) as a form of political imagination; and (3) as a model of discourse not regulated by truth.

Jürgen Habermas’ famous description of the public sphere, and its central place in liberal democracy, has unfortunately become a normative model, both within arts and politics. However, as this article argues, Habermas’ proposition is not only historical, but was retrograde from the outset, and now functions more as a blacking of political action than an enabler, and must be contested in terms of counterpublic formations and experiences, as well as criticized from its insistence on rationality and negotiation in an era of post-political consensus within the former public sphere.

‘The ugly truth’ explores the relationship between Street Art and the Creative City. Examining the recuperation of this supposedly insurgent aesthetic, it exposes the ‘artwashing’ that Street Art is now implicated within, the simulacrum of authenticity and the beautiful lie that it now presents. Reacting against the impulses of both publicly and privately funded contemporary public art projects, as well as the complicity and lack of criticality of many Street Artists themselves, this article will call for a re-examination of the types of visuality our cities need. Concluding with an examination of a number of truly critical independent public art projects, the article will thus stake a claim for that which may be ‘ugly’ yet important, disagreeable but necessary. It will stake a claim for the ugly truth essential to the sustainability of a vibrant public sphere.

This interview with a few members of Gran Fury explores and draws lessons about the pedagogy of collective activists artistic practice within schools and in the public sphere. Based on an educational workshop conducted by Gran Fury several years ago with graduate students, the conversation highlights not only the how and why of artistic activist education, but also what it means to teach artistic activism for the public sphere in institutional settings, such as schools.

De Sokkel #5: Private Colloquies on a Public Sculpture and The Making of De Sokkel #5, Ilaria Lupo, Stadspark, Antwerp, The Middelheim Museum and AIR Antwerpen, 11 May–22 September 2013

How to Construct a Time Machine, MK Gallery, 23 January–22 March 2015

Out of Time, Out of Place: Public Art (Now), Claire Doherty (ed.) (2015) London: Art Books, 256 pp., ISBN: 9781908970176, h/bk, £29.99

Transmission Annual: Labour Work Action , Michael Corris, Jaspar Joseph-Lester and Sharon Kivland (eds) (2013) London: Artwords Press, 176 pp., ISBN: 9781906441319, p/bk, £14.50