ixia and Public Art Leicester Event

3rd October 2001

Public Art is traditionally presented as a practice that results in monumental celebrations of a collective civic pride. This perception informs a practice that is limited in terms of artistic creativity and the impact of this creativity of the public realm. In addition it demands an approach where commissioning is informed by consensus not dialogue. It also results in an exclusive practice that denies difference as a cause for celebration or empowerment. Within current policymaking our public realm is being developed as a series of segregated and commodified spaces, as a result exclusion is defined by the ability to take part as a consumer rather than an active and engaged citizen. Participants in the public realm are increasingly defined by their social and economic position. The attempt to address the visual globalisation of public space and recapture identity and distinctiveness is presents a challenge to professionals engages in the creation of our public realm. There is a need to establish a practice that is inclusive of diversity within practitioners and audience.

The event aimed to define key issues within current practice that could impact on the development of a truly inclusive practice. It was also the aim of the event to produce a position statement and identify specific needs and goals in relation to diversity and inclusive practice.

Report of Proceedings

Attendance
The event was well attended with participant attending from within the EMA region and a substantial number from elsewhere; a list of attendees is attached. Although we were pleased that the event attracted significant numbers it made it difficult to facilitate focused discussions during plenary the session.

Presentations
The day aimed to explore the impact of diverse cultures on the built environment. Eddie Chambers opened the event with a presentation that attempted to question the processes of commissioning in the public realm and explore the contested nature of the public realm.

'When considering matters relating to 'cultural diversity' and the built environment, I think we need to pay particular attention to how we construct notions of 'space'. We need to ask questions about how 'territory' is assigned. What constitutes 'shared' space? What constitutes space that is, for want of a better term, 'ethnically prescribed'? In seeking to create public art that adequately reflects our ideas of cultural diversity, is all space up for grabs? Or are some spaces off-limits? How far should we go in giving the built fabric of our cities an enduring multi-ethnic/culturally diverse dimension?'

Olu Taiwu gave a stimulating and challenging performance using dance, movement and sound to raise issue of personal space and the individual within the complexities of the contemporary and global society. Artists Said Adrus and Bhajan Bunyan presented the development of their project Sacred Places, just one of the projects commissioned as part of the Cultural Mapping project initiated by Public Art Leicester.

Group Discussions

The participants then split into groups to consider question by the presentations.

• How far should our built environment reflect the cultures of our communities?
• Is cultural diversity a relevant starting point when commissioning public art?

The questions were only starting points for the animated discussions.

The groups unsurprisingly did not reach consensus. The event raised a key problem for debates around public art practice where participants bring such varied levels of experience to the table. Inevitably the discussions get sidetracked to those of process and issues of good practice in commissioning. The limited amount of time in such event made it difficult to draw out common themes from each group.

However a few key themes could be drawn out to inform future debate:

• Perceptions of what constitutes contemporary public art practice needs to shift dramatically in order that we recognise a cultural value that cuts across boundaries of race, gender and economic status.
• The starting point of place or site specificity alone is not enough to establish a practice that contributes to identity, value and ownership.
• Commissioning work in opposition to the structures and processes that surround the built environment although welcomed is not sufficient to shift future practice.
• Change demands a more sophisticated conceptual framework that establishes cultural citizenship that is inclusive, 'an identity that is formed not out of legal membership but out of a sense of cultural belonging'.