Cultural Pilgrimages

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys by Suzanne Lacy

 

In her writing, Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys, Suzanne Lacy examines the histories of “new genre public art” and  “public art.” Both forms of art exist in public spaces, but the ideologies supporting the works are vastly different.  She begins by looking at the development of “public art”, which with the help of government funding in the 1960s,” became a viable mode of individual artistic expression with hopes of enhancing, revitalizing and re-conceptualizing urban space. “Public art” enabled artwork to leave confines of the Museum and become accessible to the public.  By the 1970s and 80s a new trend began with the development of site-specific art. This opened up new ideas appropriating ecological and social aspects into the work, permoting education and public awareness. “Public art”, though conceptualized by the artist, also involved design teams consisting of architects, designers, and art administrators. There exists a distinct separation between the artist and audience, and during the tensions caused by the down turn of the economy in the 90s, it was art administrators, not the artists, who were able to keep the peace and begin programs to better educate the public. 

 

 Susan Lacy next looks at the development of the less accepted from of “public art” called “new genre art”.  Unlike “public art”, which was an expression of an individual artistic voice, new genre art was the results of a calibration between artist and public. The concepts fueling the work often deal with social and political concerns, with the hopes of not just affecting an aesthetic understanding but social transformation.  For many years, this form of activist art was not taken seriously and often combined experimental multimedia forms of expression. The late 50s saw artists abandoning the confines of conventional art spaces and entering into the realm of popular culture and public space. In the seventies artists started looking towards their communities and cultures to find a new artistic voice that spoke to personal and public concerns. Boundaries of race and class were crossed, and ethnic, feminist and Marxist artists began looking outside of themselves to find a new form of communication through aesthetics and an inclusion with the audience. The 80s and 90s new genre artists, or leftist artist, dealt with subject matter concerning ethnic struggles, a rebirth of feminist issues, AIDS and homosexual issues, censorship and ecology. Interestingly, the 90s saw recognition of genre art by “official” public art and a transformation from radical to accepted practice

 

There are many difficulties facing the genre artist when examining their work. First, the artist must reject the traditional role of the artist as existing on the fringe of society and instead create a value system by connecting with the community. They must find a balance between external and internal voices and confront prejudice to form a new transformational aesthetic language. Only when this language is defined can the artist truly hope for change. The artist must also consider the issue of the continuity of the work after the completion. In order for a work to be truly successful, the dialogue created must be maintained and the community exploration and education encouraged.

 

The genre artist is no longer alone in the studio, but out among the community, listening, empathizing, and gathering information to create a collective language.  They must embrace both similarities and differences and individual and community. The art itself is often found in the space that separates the audience from the artist, creating voice for the community.  The audience is no longer white and middle class, but a complex group of individuals creating communities with varied opinions, belief systems, cultures and traditions. Every change of venue introduces a new relationship between artist and audience and greatly effects both content and process. This notion of public diversity changes the definition of public as a whole, and this new definition must be taken into account and embraced by the artist and their work. 

 

Not only has the definition of the public changed, but so has the role of the artist and venue.  The artist now becomes a spokesperson and educator, working with the public to bring about awareness and hopefully change.  How this educational information is shared becomes an integral part in the art making process. The space the art occupies is no longer designated, appropriate venues can be found anywhere from playgrounds to shopping centers.

 

Critics and curators play a valuable role in the genre artist’s process. They both give words to the artist’s thoughts and help to bring those words to a greater audience.  The curator is the promoter and supporter, and helps bridge the gap between the artist and audience by finding new ways of expanding educational activities.  The critic sets the standards by which the work is seen and translates the works, which helps form connections with a more diverse audience. They are also the ones to view the work honestly and contextualize it in relation to history and contemporary art practice.

 

For the genre public artists finding the balance between beauty and originality is a difficult one. Contemporary art practice embraces novelty above all other qualities and often shuns beauty, but for the artist expressing a collective public consciousness, beauty must be addressed within the work as a being an important part of the human experience.

 

There are many difficulties surrounding the critique of genre public art, and the process must be looked at from a variety of perspectives.  The critic, when evaluating the work, must take into account the artist intent and how that intent has been translated in the work. It is hard to define what makes the work successful, and many questions need to be asked. For example: Should the critic judge the piece as a collective consciousness calling for social change or focus on the aesthetic qualities?  When the work is the collaboration of many, whose work is it?  To be deemed successful, does there need to be proof that the piece has caused societal change, or can it simply be a symbol of the desired change?  How does the art function differently than direct action?  These and many other questions arise when trying to assess and critique the genre public artist’s work. Perhaps, in order to comprehensibly critique the work, a new dialogue between artist and critic must be developed. If created this new language could pave the way for a new definition, changing the way art is appreciated and perceived.