1-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

Name: Vu Tran An Pho (Hemin 헤민)

2020195167

Professor Bo-Seon Shim

Theories and Practices of Public Art (IID2013)

Midterms

2. Give your thoughts on the “monumental” public art in terms of its weakness and
strength in representing communities. Take at least one example.

In the present day, people make visits to historical sites and contemplate on monuments
because these objects embrace substantial traces of important events in the past, chiefly those of
tragic and tearful memories. Because of an increase in the public demand to study and
commemorate representations of these bygone times, monuments rose as a lively form of art
surpassing any standard of aesthetics because of the exclusive stories they have to offer. While
these statues are respectfully hailed as “art of public memory” (also mentioned in James Young’s
study case of Holocaust memorials) and meticulously taken care of, they themselves receive
exacting criticisms for many of their shortcomings. With this in mind, this essay aims to
carefully reflect on their great strengths while also pointing out several drawbacks that need
improving.

To begin with, monuments are created for specific reasons that constitute strengths in
them. First, it is irrefutable that the monument exists to represent a painful history and glorify
individuals that sacrificed and helped contribute to today’s accumulated sense of peace.
Secondly, they are there to remind each of us that it is the right time to cheer to a mutual victory:
victory in past battles, victory in gaining eventual independence, and victory in building a
country with stability and sovereignty. They are unmoved objects that enliven the “days of yore”
and touch the hearts of observers with their abundant shreds of evidence of occasions like bloody
war times and the busy post-war reconstruction period of a country. Perceived through the eyes
of others, they are public works that effectively stimulate a meaningful public discussion on the
topic of historical events. Hannah Arendt, a German-born American political theorist who wrote
a stunning report “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, once said that “opinions are formed in a process of
open discussion and public debate”. In terms of feedback, monuments have both scholarly and
sentimentally engaged viewers via the virtual experience of traveling “back in time”, thereby
motivating them to speak their mind and compare their encoded memory of the past with the
works of “collected memory”, no matter if they are placed outdoors or indoors (museum). With
this mindset, monuments are half the collection of the past and half the response of the later
generation to how the past should be presented. Through these two aspects, monuments grow
 2-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

over time and become complete with not only facts but also mutually resonating emotions.
Purposes of their construction, alongside people’s discussion and analysis, validate their
existences for decades as either witnesses or rightful representations of ancient time.

On the other hand, monuments are critically assessed and negatively commented on from
time to time. In “10 Propositions”, American art historian Albert Edward Elsen (1927-1995)
directed attention to a need to reform monuments so that they can properly carry out
conventional values like they were supposed to be. While they should have clearly demonstrated
an image of a hero or a place of unforgettable past incidents, contemporary monuments are
inclined towards a popular free-form style of expression, representing elements of the “art and
life” category. An exemplary case of this criticism is Clothespin authored by Claes Oldenburg in
1976. Resembling a familiar object used on a daily basis, Clothespin is a gigantic stylized
monument with a humorous effect on passengers who pass by. Many claim that Clothespin bears
a similar yet reductive shape to Philadelphia Museum of Art’s “The Kiss”. The author explains
that a clothespin with two parts holding on to each other is an allusion to the city’s connectedness
with the past. In spite of the fact meaningful explanation and that Oldenburg was successful in
democratizing art and sparking a vivacious public debate on this soon-to-be Philadelphia
landmark, Clothespin is regarded as overly simplified it suffers from the shortage of the
seriousness of what it is bound to symbolize--a colonial heritage. Other than Clothespin, two
other of his works with similar criticisms worth mentioning are Ghost Typewriter and Two
Cheeseburgers with Everything. Another work that was passionately debated in our public art
class was a 1982 award-winning proposal by Maya Lin, a Yale undergraduate architecture
student, for the construction of Vietnam’s Veteran Memorials. Sources said that she beat out her
professor who also participated with her shockingly simple sketch of a V-shaped design. This can
be an interesting shape that catches sight of passers-by, but to veterans who fought with blood,
sweat, and tears in the war, this design has a problem--provoking anti-war sentiment and
brainwashing the intensity of war. While monuments may be made in a simple manner and take
their form in a shape of a daily object, it shouldn’t be extremely generalized to an extent that the
function to commemorate a person or an event is totally faded when one glances at the artwork.

To summarize, despite having many weaknesses in the function that creators of these
monuments may have to take a serious review, monuments still stand as unique symbols of
commemorating great times of the past with an artistic sense. There is no restriction in how
monuments should be constructed, but at least measures should be taken so that a criterion that
outlines basic standards that a monument should adapt to definitely proves to be of huge help to
bettering future monumental work.
 3-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

3. Give your thoughts about the changing roles of audiences in (public) arts that challenge
the taken-for-granted conceptions of arts and communities. How can public art be critical
and user-friendly at the same time in audiences’ participation?

In the matter of what’s so-called “creative interaction”, the role of today’s viewer of
public art is shifting towards a more active engagement with the artwork that they see. It stems
from their personal experiences with certain cultural aspects described in a piece of art and a
need to freely express their opinions towards it. The short essay’s main goal is to delineate the
changes in the role of audience members in their consumption of art and challenges that culture
and arts organizations face in reaction to these changes, thus providing suggestions for a fruitful
reform to the interaction between audiences and the arts and the role of the audiences as
co-creators of public art.

First, it is obvious that decades by decades, there has hitherto been a consistent gap and
struggle for authority between art experts and art viewers. Traditionally, it is common knowledge
that viewers who desire to see art for themselves are supposed to do this activity passively. It
equals contemplation in silence. However, conflicting thoughts being muted over time may
accumulate tensions that one day, it stands a high possibility of uncontrollable explosion. Erika
Doss, in underlying these patterns of intentions, comforts the consumers to not be dissatisfied
when they view public art as both irrelevant and a blatant symbol of their loss of autonomy in the
public sphere”. Take a look at Painter’s Studio by Gustave Courbet in 1855. It was sort of
inscribed in the minds of people that when artists express their gifted talent on canvass, others
must stay aside and adore it from afar. Even if they have questions about the artwork itself, they
may keep it to themselves and willingly nod to the general explanation of the artist himself or
herself. While it may sound like a logical reason that artists should be given respect for whatever
they input, they are “not necessarily the sole judge of how it is best seen, or even of what it
means” (C.S. Smith 1976:225). Public art can stand a chance of becoming a narcissistic form
undercover if artists’ interpretations are merely centered. In the end, art viewers are those who
pay for the exhibition and like any other product, they should have the right to comment on what
they spend money on to fit their needs. Harriet Senie also agrees that the public should not be
categorized as some isolated monolithic group but should be regarded as a team who help
“reframe” the artwork so it can be complete. This puts forth a new era in which art viewers are
gaining a new identity as a partner-in-crime of artists, proactively proferring ideas to
complement the artwork. Pine and Gilmore (1999: 20) encourage associations to “draw the
consumer into the process” of preparing the art, from forming ideas to wrapping up in order to
optimize the impact of their voice, giving them the pleasant experience of witnessing their
desires becoming a reality.

To realize this goal, there are some recommendations that, if possible, can be applied to
increase the interactivity between members of the public and the public art effectively and
thoughtfully. Surveys and meetings should be conducted to gather ideas for specific regions or
 4-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

groups of people, for example, to artistically document the upcoming projects. An outstanding
example could trace back to one of the special projects that we watched in a class titled “Great
Wall of Los Angeles”. This project became the most highly revered artwork and Los Angles
landmark because it incorporated young people from different walks of life to reflect the history
of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups throughout the history timeline of the United
States, namely the Native Americans with their lands taken away and LGBTQ community with
their identities being mocked at. The special collaboration between art professionals and young
people brought a whole new level to the wall, completely changing the strict and traditional art
discipline with its addition of graffiti style. “Public art need not become “user-friendly” in
reductive ways, making things intellectually easy and emotionally comfortable, but rather
“user-friendly” in a more complicated sense, empowering individuals to make choices without
constantly second-guessing their abilities to do so. Once this happens, it does not matter if the
viewer is ensconced within a clearly demarcated art space or happened upon an accidental
artwork: her more finely tuned instincts shall discern the “art” in her experiences.” (Knight, pp.
110-111.)

In the final analysis, the roles of the audience in public involve passive engagement and
collaboration with the artists in creating the public creative products. Nowadays, when art is
increasingly open to public engagement on various platforms, both roles play an equal role--no
more, no less--in their contribution to the successful reception of the audience and should all be
applauded. In this sense, the audience is a type of invisible artist that inspires artists to invest
time and energy in a piece of art, and the audience’s view should be taken into account because
they, in the end, also have their hands on the role of the consumers of the arts. Triumphant arts
and cultural institutions promote exposure to the audience and take extra steps to work with the
audience at all levels and of all experiences as well as backgrounds in making and refining arts.
While roles of the viewers with arts and cultures will continue to evolve over time, organizations
in charge of culture and arts need to put a halt to taking for granted the meaning of art projects
and brainstorm for innovative ways to collect ideas and feedback from the audiences to catch up
with the changes and create memorable experiences with the art consumers.
 5-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

References

Caporaso, A. (2020, August 31). Art, monument, and memory: An introduction. Journal of
Maritime Archaeology. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11457-020-09269-7.

Bach, P. B. (2021, March 5). Clothespin (1976). Association for Public Art. Retrieved October
22, 2021, from https://www.associationforpublicart.org/artwork/clothespin/.

Brennan, J. (2019, October 18). Public art and the art of public participation. National Civic
League. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from
https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/public-art-and-the-art-of-public-participat
ion/.

Knight, Cher K. Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
2011. Internet resource.

Pine, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience Economy: Work is theatre and every business
a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Walmsley, B and Franks, A (2011) The audience experience: changing roles and relationships.
In: Walmsley, B, (ed.) Key Issues in the Arts and Entertainment Industry. Goodfellow .
ISBN 978-1-906884-20-8
 6-VU, PHO (HEMIN)

Further Readings

Pitts, S.E. (2005) ‘What makes an audience? Investigating the roles and experiences of listeners
at a chamber music festival’, Music and Letters, 86 (2).