Post on 24-Feb-2023
A Guided Tour, with a touch of history and some friendly academia, around Public Art and Public Spaces in Vancouver
Guide: Katie Taylor Tour Date: April 3, 2014 Group: History 490
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE TOUR
Walking tours are a great way to explore a city! Whether you are a local Vancouverite or a visiting tourist, a guided public art walk will introduce you to great works of public art and lead you through unique neighborhoods rich in culture and history.
The City of Vancouver has devised many public art walks that showcase public artworks and guide participants through different areas of the city. In 2002 the Office of Cultural Affairs published the pamphlet Downtown Shoreline: City of Vancouver, Public Art Walk, which directs individuals from one public artwork to another along the sea walls and beaches ringing downtown Vancouver. In September 2013 the City hosted free public art walking tours during Culture Days, including guided tours through Burrard Corridor-Downtown and Yaletown-False Creek. The Eastside Mural Tours, hosted by the City’s Great Beginnings Program, include four interactive cellular audio tours that explore public art in Vancouver’s historic neighborhoods of Gastown, Chinatown, Japantown and Strathcona.
The City of Vancouver offers a multitude of public art walks that are organized based on proximity. Featured artworks follow a sensible path or are concentrated in specific neighborhoods. However, the purpose of this public art walk is not to showcase the city’s inventory of public art and explore diverse communities – although you will no doubt come across many beautiful and controversial works of public art located throughout Vancouver! Instead, the purpose of this public art walk is to inform and educate participants on the relationship between public art and public space in an interactive way. Thus, the tour does not focus on a particular region of Vancouver, nor is it designed to be economical with travel time and distance. Rather, specific public artworks were chosen with the goal of presenting the arguments and themes of my research paper in a logical and comprehensible manner. So be prepared to zig-zag all over Vancouver! I hope you are wearing good walking shoes.
The tour is divided into two parts. Part I will use existing public artworks to provide a theoretical overview of public art by examining its interaction with public spaces – both physical and abstract. The first part of the tour will also detail the evolution of public art and its purpose in the public realm, including civic engagement, the transformation of public space and identity construction. Part II of the tour will similarly draw on existing public artworks, but the educational component will focus on public art specific to Vancouver and the city’s Public Art Program. The second part of the tour will explore public art before the adoption of the program in 1990, including early 20th century memorials and relics of Expo 86; the implementation of the program, including conflicts involving public spheres, private spheres, experts and the municipal government; how the program has responded and adapted to these conflicts over the course of two decades; and close with a discussion on the future of Vancouver’s Public Art Program, particularly the expansion of public art into the virtual public realm and the incorporation of public art into Vancouver’s Greenest City 2020 Initiative.
Let’s Begin!
2
PART I: THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC ART AND PUBLIC SPACE
Public art is artwork installed in a space that is nominally open to the public, including streets,
sidewalks, airports, public libraries, public parks, public beaches and waterfronts, as well as artwork in
private developments that is visible to the public. It may be commemorative, such as monuments;
functional, such as park benches; or large, abstract pieces – sometimes aesthetic, sometimes perplexing
– with little bearing on their environment, called “plop art.” Most art produced since 1990 falls under the
classification of “new genre” due to its interaction with its site and viewers, its emphasis on process and
community involvement, and its interpretative commentary on, or criticism of, contemporary social,
political and cultural issues. Furthermore, public art may be publically-funded, or it may be gifted by
private individuals or commissioned by private corporations as part of residential or commercial
developments.
Public art does not include artwork housed in galleries and museums because such art is only
accessible to members or paying customers. However, some art galleries also organize outdoor art
displays that are open to the public. The Vancouver Art Gallery, for example, is the curator for “Offsite,”
a rotating outdoor public art exhibition located on West Georgia Street near the Shangri-La, which is
funded by the City of Vancouver’s Public Art Program.
Public art interacts with its location and passerby, including pedestrians and motorists, in a
manner that differs from the viewing experience in a gallery or museum. Public art engages with its
location by referencing the topography and geography of a specific site or by referencing the history and
culture of a specific place. Its physical occupation of public space also forces passerby to engage with it,
whether through appreciation, contemplation, resentment or active avoidance. However, public art
derives only part of its “publicness” from its location because the concept of “public” encompasses more
than a physical or environmental existence. The public dimension is partly a psychological construct, which
includes the public sphere, a conceptual space in which ideas, values and opinions are transmitted and
exchanged. Thus public art occupies two overlapping public spaces: the physical and the abstract.
By viewing examples of public art in Vancouver we will see how public art engages with physical
and abstract public spaces and how it encourages civic participation in both. We will also look at a current
example of how public art can be used to transform public space. Additionally, we will see how public art
creates identities for groups of individuals living in physical spaces defined by artificially constructed
borders. Finally, we will end the tour with a look at how some works of public art are repurposed – how
locals subvert the original intended relationship between public art and public space. In Part II of the tour
we will look further into this relationship by examining the conflicts that have arisen in Vancouver since
1990 over the imposition of artworks on public spaces and evaluate the responses and adaptive changes
of the Public Art Program.
3
Photo Session (1984)
Artist: J. Seward Jr. Johnson
Location: Queen Elizabeth Park Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
Photo Session is a two-part sculpture of a man taking a photo of
a family against Vancouver’s skyline. It is an example of how
public art interacts with physical public space (in this case the
location’s topography and view) and engages with passerby.
The artwork is site-specific: it is necessarily set against the city’s
skyline, placing the artwork in the context of its surroundings.
The artwork also engages with the public: tourists are often
seen integrating the sculpted family into their own family
photos, taking pictures of the city, themselves and the artwork!
A-Maze-ing Laughter
Artist: Yue Minjun
Location: English Bay Images acquired from Vancouver Biennale: legacy
artworks website and Flickr.com.
A-Maze-ing Laughter, nominated in
2013 to be a “Great Place in Canada,”
highlights the role of public art in
drawing people into public spaces.
These larger than life bronze statues depicting Minjun’s iconic
hysterical laughing image occupy nominally-free public space and have
become inextricably part of our view and experience of that space (to
such an extent that when the artwork’s temporary loan for the 2009-
2011 Biennale came to an end, Chip Wilson purchased and donated
the sculptures to the City). Although most critics, rather cynically, see
only irony, insecurity and inscrutability in the figures’ mirth, the
grinning statues extend an implicit invitation to observers to enter the
physical public space and participate – to engage with the artwork and
with each other. Indeed, people have come to this artwork to laugh,
take pictures and mimic the statues; to dress them up (similar to the
Lions guarding the Lions Gate Bridge) in everything from lifejackets to
rainbow fluorescent knitted outfits. This type of civic engagement with
physical public space is necessary for democracy and the creation of a
livable city because it encourages socialization and interpersonal
connections.
4
Four Boats Stranded: Red and Yellow, Black and White (2001)
Artist: Ken Lum
Location: Atop the Vancouver Art Gallery Images acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website and Flickr.
Four Boats Stranded: Red and Yellow, Black
and White (2001) is an example of place-
specific art that responds to its location’s
cultural and judicial history. The artwork
features scaled-down versions of four boats
that reflect Vancouver’s history: a First
Nation’s Longboat, painted red; Captain
Vancouver’s three-masted survey ship,
“Discovery,” which he sailed into English Bay
in 1792, painted white; the Komagata Maru,
whose East Indian migrants onboard were
denied entrance to Vancouver in 1914,
painted black; and a cargo ship that carried 599 illegal migrants from China’s Fujian Province to the
Vancouver Island Coastline in 1999, painted yellow. Each boat’s respective colour speaks to racial and
cultural stereotypes and colonial ethnic identifications. It’s installation atop the Vancouver Art Gallery,
formerly the Supreme Court of British Columbia, refers to historical
legal cases and issues that have been brought before the court, such
as immigration and land claims, which still resonate today. While the
location of Four Boats Stranded is outside the limits of what can be
reasonably defined as physical public space, it nevertheless enters the
realm of abstract public space. The artwork engages the public sphere
through commentary on Vancouver’s history and its treatment of
indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and immigrants.
5
Untitled, informally called Main Street Poodle (2013)
Artist: Gisele Amantea
Location: Corner of Main and 18th in East Vancouver Image from vancitybuzz.com.
The Main Street Poodle, sitting atop a
25 foot pole, was commissioned
through the Vancouver Public Art
Program. It has sparked public
debate and divided the Main Street
Community. Some residents and
business owners like the artwork’s
weird, quirky, out-of-place feel – it
ironically suits Main Street. Bryan
Newson, manager of the Public Art
Program, thinks “that it’s entirely
appropriate for Main Street with all
those very interesting shops which
sell used goods, which sell antiques,
which sell funky stuff. People think it
comes right out of the material
culture that is just so evident right up
and down Main Street.” Critics,
however, question the significance of
this “meaningless icon” and its
relevance to Main Street and balk at
the $97,600 price tag, which was paid
for by the federal government,
Trans-Link and the City of Vancouver.
Even Mayor Gregor Robertson
weighed in with this tweet:
“Definitely not a fan of the Main St.
poodle but public art is important
and at times provocative!” Ironically,
the mayor may have inadvertently
stumbled upon the real significance
of the poodle. Richard Newirth, director of Vancouver’s Olympic and Paralympic Public Art Program,
argues that good public art “provokes healthy controversy,” which inspires locals to engage and interact
with other residents and the city. While the giant fluffy white poodle on a stick contributes little to
discussions in the public realm (tweets by @MainStPoodle are generally limited to inane comments about
cat videos and pictures of sheep), the artwork draws people into abstract public spaces by provoking
controversy and fostering public debate. It prompts Vancouverites to question a range of social and
political issues, from the domestication of pets to frivolous government spending. Civic involvement in
abstract public space enables open discussion, debate and criticism and is thus a necessary component of
democracy and urban livability.
6
Marker of Change (1997)
Artist: Beth Alber
Location: Thorton Park, Strathcona Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
Marker of Change consists of fourteen pink granite
coffin-like benches onto which the names of fourteen
women killed at L’Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 are
inscribed. Gouges in the benches that collect rainwater
symbolize scars and tears. The artwork, sponsored by the
Capilano College Women’s Centre, serves as a memorial
“dedicated to all women who have been murdered by
men.” Marker of Change demonstrates how public art
can interact with both physical and abstract public
spaces and draw the public into both realms. The
artwork has transformed Thorton Park into a site for
individual self-reflection and meditation, drawing people
into the physical park space to sit on the pink “benches”
while eating lunch or smoking a cigarette. Its location in
Thorton Park also focuses public attention on the
continuing violence against women in the Downtown
Eastside. The artwork’s implied criticism places it in the realm of abstract public space and contributes
controversial dialogue to public discussions on violence against women. The purpose of contemporary
public art, according to Scott Watson, Director and Curator of the Morris & Helen Belkin Gallery at the
University of British Columbia, is to not only reflect society, but to engage it. Marker of Change represents
social realities but also critiques society and demands change.
Spinning Chandelier
Artist: Rodney Graham
Proposed location: Beach Avenue,
hanging under the North Side of the
Granville Street Bridge Images include an artist’s rendition of the public artwork, published
in the Vancouver Sun newspaper on March 5, 2014, as well as
photographs taken by Katie Taylor at the Gesamtkunstwerk
Exhibition and under the north side of the Granville Street Bridge on
March 22, 2014.
Vancouver’s Public Art Program for private-sector
development requires that new developments
over 100,000 square feet contribute $1.81 to the installation of public art for every revenue-generating
square foot. Westbank Corporation proposed to install a spinning 18th century chandelier under the
7
Granville Street Bridge as the public art component of its Vancouver House development on Beach
Avenue. The proposed public artwork was reviewed and approved by the Public Art Committee at a
meeting on February 11, 2014.
This piece by local artist Rodney Graham is an example of how public art can be used to transform both
physical and abstract public spaces. Currently, the underside of the north end of the Granville Street
Bridge consists of vacant unused space. Besides a few parked cars and pieces of litter blowing about, the
public space is barren – it lacks people and the atmosphere is dead. Considering Vancouver’s finite
capacity to physically expand, as well as increasing demand for a decreasing supply of space, this waste
of physical public space is depressing.
However, Westbank’s model
depicting the future of Beach Avenue,
displayed at the Gesamtkunstwerk
exhibition, reveals a remarkable
transformation of physical and
abstract public space. Below the
hanging chandelier, people stroll
along the sidewalks and streets, dine
on outdoor restaurant terraces, shop,
skateboard and talk with one
another. In the model Vancouverites
have colonized the physical public
space and, through their interactions,
the public realm is created.
8
Dude Chilling Park (2012)
Artist: Victor Briestensky
Location: Guelph Park Image acquired from the City of Vancouver: Parks, Recreation and Culture.
In November 2012 the Dude Chilling Park sign was
installed in Guelph Park. The artwork, which mimics
typical park signs found in city parks, was not approved
by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, nor did it pass through the long bureaucratic process of
review and approval required of other artworks commissioned through the Public Art Program. Shortly
after removing the sign, however, Park Board staff received a request from Mount Pleasant residents to
reinstall the sign permanently. A petition circulated Mount Pleasant and gathered 1,500 signatures.
Residents of the Mount Pleasant community argued that the Dude Chilling Park sign celebrated the unique
characteristics of Guelph Park and their local community. Dude Chilling Park thus demonstrates how
public art can be used to construct and consolidate neighborhood identity for a community defined by its
existence within a given geographical territory, but whose intangible notions of “identity” exist in the
abstract realm of public space.
Monument for East Vancouver (2010)
Artist: Ken Lum
Location: Clark Drive at East 6th Avenue, East Van Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
Monument for East Vancouver similarly constructs, consolidates
and promotes group identity; however it focuses on the regional
identity of East Vancouver vis-à-vis Downtown. The free-standing
illuminated sculpture depicts the East Van logo: the words East and
Van intersecting through the “a” and delineated by a cross. This
logo is a symbol of Christianity and aggressive regional pride among
East Van residents. It emerged organically in the 1940s and has
circulated as tag-graffiti for decades. The logo, however, remained
an informal symbol of regional identity until Lum formalized it in his
public artwork. The logo has since been commercialized and can be
found on T-shirts and coffee mugs. The location, orientation and
timing of Monument for East Vancouver further speaks to its role in
constructing, consolidating and promoting the regional identity of
East Vancouver. The artwork is installed near a busy intersection
where commuters drive back and forth – it occupies an industrial wasteland but is visible to everyone.
The artwork faces westward toward downtown – toward money and power – turning it into a symbol of
defiance and announcing the presence of East Vancouver to its wealthier regional counterpart.
Furthermore, Monument for East Vancouver was commissioned through the civic branch of the Olympic
and Paralympic Public Art Program for the 2010 Winter Olympics, defining East Van regional identity at a
time when the world’s perception of Vancouver’s citywide identity was a hot topic.
9
The Drop (2009)
Artist Group: Inges Idee
Location: Bon Voyage Plaza at the Vancouver Convention Centre Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
The Drop was commissioned by the
Vancouver Convention Centre in 2009 but it
served the same purpose of constructing,
consolidating and promoting Vancouver’s
identity to the rest of the world as other
artworks commissioned in advance of the
2010 Winter Olympics through the Olympic
and Paralympic Public Art Program. Richard
Newirth, director of said program, argued
that the role of public artwork installed for
the 2010 Olympics would extend beyond
Vancouver and Vancouverites. Public art
would project an image of culture and class
to foreign visitors and foreign nations: “It’s
really about capturing what Vancouver
means, how it’s changing, how it’s reacting,
how the Olympics is impacting on it and
what the city will look like afterwards.” A
giant blue sculpture depicting “a large,
gentle raindrop” certainly captures one
prominent feature of Canada’s third
rainiest city. The Drop, which adds another
voice to discussions in the public realm
about the commodification and scarcity of
water, also participates in more banal
everyday conversations in which Vancouverites invariably bring up “the weather.” While The Drop was
unfortunately temporarily removed during the Olympics because it apparently interfered with television
cameras, I would argue that since most Vancouverites agree that water and rain are a defining feature of
our beautiful city, The Drop at the very least served as a marker of identity to Vancouverites.
And just before we take a break to re-caffeinate and rest our
weary feet prior to commencing Part II of our tour, we will see
how in some cases the relationship between public art and
public space produces unintended and unexpected results!
Girl in a Wetsuit (1972)
Artist: Elek Imredy
Location: Great Granite Boulder in Stanley Park Images acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry and Flickr.com.
10
Girl in a Wetsuit, a life-sized
bronze statue of a woman in a
wetsuit with flippers on her feet
and her scuba-diving goggles
pushed up on her forehead, sits
on a large intertidal boulder off
the shore of Stanley Park. The
sculpture is not out of place in
the surrounding physical
landscape. It is, however, largely
removed from accessible
physical public space, similar to
the installation of Four Boats
Stranded atop the roof of the
Vancouver Art Gallery. Girl in a
Wetsuit, which the artist
intended to serve as a purely visual landmark, was intended to be separated from physical public space.
Nevertheless, in 2011 Vancouver residents brought this work of public art into abstract public space by
outfitting the scuba diver in a Canucks jersey. She was implicitly invited into ‘Nucks Nation and the
excitement surrounding the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs that permeated the public realm in Vancouver.
217.5 Arc X 13 (2007)
Artist: Bernar Venet
Location: Sunset Beach
at English Bay Image acquired from the Vancouver
Biennale: legacy artworks website.
217.5 Arc X 13, part of Venet’s
monumental “Arc” series, which
illustrates the “beauty, balance
and malleability of raw steel,”
derives its name from the
precise description of its own
mathematical composition.
According to the Biennale,
“Venet employs mathematical
manipulations of this industrial material to explore the interconnected relationships between nature,
humanity and the universe.” According to the public, the size and spacing of the curved metal beams
present the perfect opportunity to hang a hammock and speak only of the “interconnected relationship”
between sun and tanning. Thus 217.5 Arc X 13, which pontificates on intangible relationships between
abstract notions and which the artist intended to engage in dialogue with the public ream, nevertheless
occupies physical public space on Sunset Beach and is frequently repurposed by the public into a
hammock-hanger or a jungle gym.
11
PART II: THE CITY OF VANCOUVER’S PUBLIC ART PROGRAM FOR CIVIC
AND PRIVATE-SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
In Part II of our tour we will continue to examine the relationship between public art and public
space. However, we will pay particular attention to the Vancouver Public Art Program, focusing on its
implementation in the time period between its adoption in 1990 and the Vancouver Winter Olympics in
2010. Due to the “public” nature of public art – its physical occupation of public space as well as its
contributions to dialogue in the abstract public realm – the production of public art in Vancouver has
frequently revealed tensions and caused various conflicts to emerge between experts and the public,
between different “publics,” between public and private spheres, and between the municipal government
and the public. In addition to viewing examples of public artworks that demonstrate these conflicts, we
will also examine how the Vancouver Public Art Program has responded and adapted to obstacles and
changes. We will conclude the public art walk with a discussion of the future of the Public Art Program,
including the incorporation of public art into the emerging virtual public realm, dominated by social media,
and the incorporation of public art into Vancouver’s sustainable urban development plans by installing
public art along greenways and bike lanes, for example, and by integrating the Public Art Program with
the City’s Greenest City 2020 Action Plan.
The Harding Memorial (1925)
Sculptor: Charles Marega
Location: Stanley Park Image acquired from The History of Metropolitan Vancouver online archives.
Prior to 1990 most public art in Vancouver was acquired on an ad hoc basis through individual or corporate
donations or through commissions for civic infrastructure. While Vancouver lacked an established policy
on public art for most of the twentieth century, there were still various public artworks scattered
throughout the city. Most public art before WWII consisted of commemorative monuments and statues
celebrating heroic people or historical events. Examples include the works of prolific sculptor Charles
Marega, such as the memorial to US President Warren Harding (1925), which commemorated the first
12
American presidential visit to
Canada two years prior, and a
drinking fountain honouring Joe
Fortes (1926), Vancouver’s first
lifeguard. Other examples
include Angel of Victory (1921)
in front of Waterfront Centre,
formerly the Canadian Pacific Railroad Station, commemorating the
company’s employees who served in WWI, and figureheads of
Captains Harry Burrard and George Vancouver over the Burrard
Street Bridge (1932). The 1960s witnessed a burst in installations of
public art as well as popular interest in public art, which was
catalogued and documented by Doris Munroe in her 1973 thesis. By
the late 1980s Vancouver had a large inventory of public artworks,
but the city still lacked a program to manage, regulate and integrate
public art into urban development plans.
6-Meter Tall Stainless
Steel Crab (1968)
Designer: George Norris
Welder: Gus Lidberg
Location: H.R. MacMillan
Space Centre Image (left) acquired from Flickr.com.
Inukshuk (1986)
Artist: Alvin Kanak
Location: English Bay Image (right) acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
The need for a public art program became apparent after the
conclusion of the 1986 World’s Fair. Expo 86, held in Vancouver to
celebrate the city’s centennial, produced a substantial amount of
public art. In addition the City’s public art commissions before and
during the event, provincial and national pavilions donated gifts of
public art to the City after the event. In order to deal with this
sudden wealth of public art, City Hall established a Public Spaces
Subcommittee (PSSC) to address the use of public space and to
assess which artworks merited long-term placement. Inukshuk, for
example, was donated by the Northwest Territories Pavilion and is
now located in English Bay; China Gate, donated by the People’s
Joe Fortes Memorial
Drinking Fountain (1926)
Sculptor: Charles Marega
Location: Alexandra Park Image (right) acquired from Wikimedia.
13
Republic of China, was installed at the entrance to Chinatown. The PSSC also conducted a survey of
successful public art programs already implemented in major cities throughout the USA and Canada,
including Seattle (1973), New York (1977), Chicago (1978), Los Angeles (1985), Ottawa (1984), Toronto
(1985), Montreal (1989) and Edmonton (February 1990). The PSSC recommended that Vancouver similarly
adopt a public art program. In October 1990 city staff and civic leaders introduced the Public Art Program
for Civic and Private Development and the following year City Council passed bylaw 6870, which approved
the creation of the Public Art Committee. The Vancouver Public Art Program was thus born of necessity
after Expo 86 then morphed from reactive to proactive – from dealing with artworks donated after the
massive celebration to commissioning new artworks.
The Words Don’t Fit the Picture (2010)
Artist: Ron Terada
Location: Vancouver Public Library Image acquired from Flickr.com.
Unlike most other municipal public art programs,
which use a “percent for art” model or a bonus
scheme, the Vancouver Public Art Program is
composed of two strands: a program for civic
development and a program for private
development. According to the original Public Art
Program adopted in 1990, the civic program was
based on 1% of budgeted construction costs. Civic art now comprises a line item in the annual budget of
around $2 million. The civic art process begins with the City’s initial call for submissions. Artists submit
proposals, then the Public Art Committee reviews the artist selection and design concepts and offers a
recommendation to City Hall. The Words Don’t Fit the Picture, installed outside the Vancouver Public
Library, is an example of public artwork commissioned through the civic public art program.
Lyingontopofabuildingthecloudslookednonearerthanwheniwaslyingonthestreet
(2008)
Artist: Liam Gillick
Location: Fairmont Pacific Rim, Downtown Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
The Public Art Program for Private Sector
Development, which applies to rezoned private
developments, including commercial, industrial and
multiple-dwelling residential, originally required that
developers contribute $1 per revenue-producing
square foot to the commissioning and installation of public art. Developers had six options for fulfilling
the City’s public art directive, including contributing all required monies to the City’s Public Art Reserve
Fund. After the 2008 Policy Review, the required contributions were raised to $1.81 per revenue-
generating square foot to account for higher construction costs due to inflation. Additionally, the number
14
of options available to developers was
reduced to three in an effort to improve the
quality of public artworks in Vancouver. The
review also highlighted a curious trend: the
Public Art Program had resulted in an over-
concentration of public art in the downtown
core because that was where most of
Vancouver’s rezoned private developments
took place in the 1990s and 2000s. Two public
artworks commissioned by Westbank
Corporation – Lying on Top of a Building the
Clouds Looked No Nearer than when I was
Lying on the Street, built into the architecture
of the Fairmont Pacific Rim, and Abbott &
Cordova, 7 August 1971, part of the
Woodward’s redevelopment – are examples
of the application of the Public Art Program
to private-sector developments in downtown
Vancouver.
Now that we have an understanding of the theoretical relationship between public art and public space,
on one hand, as well as a cliff notes overview of Vancouver’s Public Art Program, we will now examine
how the installation of public art in Vancouver since 1990 has produced conflicts regarding the use of, and
authority over, public spaces.
Our next destination will be Vancouver City Hall where the Public Art Committee meets once a month.
Vancouver City Hall Image acquired from Vancouver Public Space Network.
According to Bylaw 6870, the primary function
of the Public Art Committee was to “assist and
provide advice and guidance to Council, Park
Board Staff, developers and citizens on public
art matters and the implementation of the
Public Art Program for Civic and Private
Development.” Bylaw 6870 also granted the
Committee broad advisory powers “including
but not limited to a review of the proposed
artwork, the art or artist selection process, and
any proposed education, consultation, or
information process forming part of any public
art proposal, presented in fulfillment of Public
Art Program requirements or otherwise.”
Abbott & Cordova, 7 August 1971 (2010)
Artist: Stan Douglas
Location: Woodward’s, Downtown Eastside Image acquired from the City of Vancouver Public Art Registry website.
15
The nine-member committee, appointed by City Council, consisted of two artists, three art professionals,
two urban designers, one developer and one resident – individuals with relevant knowledge and
experience that would surely enable them to make informed recommendations on the commissioning,
selection and implementation of public art. However, shortly after the Committee’s conception,
Vancouver residents expressed concerns about the role of the “secret” and “infallible” Public Art
Committee in arbitrarily choosing artworks to be installed on their public spaces. A newspaper article
published by columnist Malcolm Perry in the Vancouver Sun in 1993, and the response by Bryan Newson,
the manager of the Public Art Program, exemplifies the conflict between appointed professionals and
experts, on one hand, and the general public whom their decisions impact, on the other, regarding who
has the right to assign artworks to public space. Perry’s column complained about the Committee’s closed
evaluation of a recent public art proposal; in his article “Picking Public Art isn’t done Behind Closed Doors”
Newson countered that “open public process is at the heart of Vancouver’s program.” Newson further
argued that members of the Public Art Committee not only “have a thorough knowledge of public art,”
thus qualifying them as experts, but committee members were also a diverse group who hailed “from all
corners of the city” and represented “ordinary citizens.” Newson thus implied that the Public Art
Committee transcended the divide between experts and ordinary folks because its members had
expertise in matters relating to both public art and Vancouver and could therefore assess public art
proposals from the perspectives of both art professionals and ordinary Vancouverites. Nevertheless,
Perry’s initial column criticizing the Public Art Committee, and Newson’s response in an effort to rescue
its legitimacy, demonstrated that in the early 1990s Vancouverites felt alienated from the public art
process and believed that the Public Art Committee selected and imposed public art on them from above.
The 2008 Policy Review addressed this conflict between experts, on one hand, and ordinary Vancouverites
on the other. It called for greater involvement of local residents in the public art process in order to give
communities greater ownership of, and control over, public spaces in their neighborhoods. Public Art
Committee meetings are open to the public and since 2004 the Committee has posted PDFs of the agenda
and minutes for each meeting on its website. Thus ordinary citizens who are not committee members are
empowered to do more than just view, ignore or complain about public art. Furthermore, the 2008 Review
outlined and clarified the roles and responsibilities of “stakeholders” – the various individuals,
committees, professionals, civic officials and institutions involved in the Public Art Progress – in order to
enhance transparency and accountability.
Brush with Illumination (1998)
Artist: Buster Simpson
Location: False Creek Seawall near
David Lam Park Image acquired from Flickr.com.
Conflicts also emerged within the public sphere
between different “publics,” primarily due to
competition for limited public funds and
competing demands for finite public space. In
1990 the City Manager forewarned of financial
16
tug-of-war between the nascent Public Art Program and other well-deserving civic programs: “the
program constitutes an increase in the level of City service and needs to be weighed against other
demands on scarce public funds.” Conflict over the use of limited public space has also emerged as a
contentious public issue. Between 1990 and 2010 Vancouver experienced rapid growth and development.
Spatial growth, however, has been constrained by bodies of water (the inner Harbour, English Bay and
the Fraser River) and by large tracts of designated parkland (Pacific Spirit Park and Stanley Park). The City
of Vancouver thus faces the problem of a “diminishing stock of public space.” (Considering the abundance
of water surrounding the City of Vancouver, it is interesting to reflect on how few aquatic public artworks
exist. Brush with Illumination is a notable exception.) Meanwhile, since 1990 land has come under
increasing pressure from competing interests, including nature-lovers who want to preserve green space,
residential developers who want to build more expensive condominiums, businesses owners who want
to expand their commercial operations, and individuals associated with the Public Art Program who
naturally want to install large-scale permanent artworks on scarce public space. Public art advocates are
therefore in conflict with different groups that comprise the public sphere.
In order to address the conflict that
has arisen between different
“publics” Newson explains that the
Public Art Program has expended its
purpose from merely “finding spaces
in the city for art” to include “the protection of public space, which is
under constant pressure.” Regarding green space, the Vancouver
Board of Parks and Recreation has taken a similarly proactive
approach in its simultaneous advocacy for public art and preservation
of public space. The Park Board’s vision for public art in parks, which
was first articulated in 1993 in the Park Board Art Policy then reaffirmed
a decade later, is complementary rather than competitive: “Public art…
enhances the connection people have to their public realm and
complements park spaces and their uses rather than competing with or
dominating them.” Furthermore, the emerging practice in Vancouver of
“environmental art” – art that is non-destructive, created using natural
organic materials, and which usually exists for a only short period of
time before returning to the Earth from which it came – has presented
the Park Board with an alternative to installing art that occupies green
space and competes with nature: creating public artworks that
themselves are nature! In a statement the Park Board declared its
commitment to environmental art: “Vancouver parks are finite and the
interest in creative exploration of public space is infinite. Works that
Listen (2009) Artists: John Hemsworth and Peter von Tiesenhausen Location: Stanley Park Image (right) acquired from Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation website.
Entwined (2009) Artist: Tania Willard Location: Stanley Park Image (below) acquired from Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation website.
17
enhance the natural environment through the use of living and/or natural materials, that are ephemeral
(for up to 18 months) or that remediate the environment are high priorities for all parks.” Examples of
environmental art include artworks creates through the Stanley Park Environmental Art Project, such as
Listen, a sculpture carved from the remnants of the wind storm that ravaged Stanley Park in December
2006, and Entwined, a woven piece that explores the interconnectedness of Stanley Park’s ecology. As
you will see, both pieces have degraded significantly over the last five years but, since they are works of
environmental art, degradation is an expected – indeed desired – process.
Device to Root out Evil (2005-2009 Vancouver Biennale) Artist: Dennis Oppenheim Location: Harbour Green Park Image acquired from Blogspot.com.
Another challenge faced by public art in Vancouver is competition with private interests. Vancouver has
stunningly beautiful natural scenery and “view corridors,” which preoccupy themselves with the various
harbours and North Shore Mountains and enhance land values. Conflicts, however, often arise between
public and private spheres when public artworks are installed on public spaces for the public benefit but
interfere with the scenic views of local residents.
18
Controversy over Dennis Oppenheim’s “Device to Root out Evil,” a sculpture of an upside-down church
initially acquired on loan for the first Vancouver Biennial in 2005-2007, then permanently, but only for a
short time, highlights this public-private tension and the City’s response. Controversy followed the
sculpture like a shadow, from New York City to Stanford to Vancouver. Christians, crying blasphemy, were
aghast that God’s House could be so mercilessly flipped topsy-turvy and called art. However, local
residents were less concerned with the symbolism of an upside-down church and instead focused their
complaints and antagonisms on the sculpture’s location in a small park too close to condominiums,
blocking their views of Coal Harbour. According to Park Board Vice Chairman Ian Robertson: “It’s a
controversial piece, and it’s in people’s front yards. They can’t escape it… many residents have told us
[Vancouver Park Board] they don’t want to see it there” – in their yard space, interfering with their views
– “it would be better off in a park where it wouldn’t be so much in your face.” In 2008 the Park Board
responded to criticisms and controversy by voting unanimously to remove the offending sculpture, which
has since found a more forgiving home in Calgary.
Half a decade later some Vancouverites are still bitter,
drawing renewed attention to the public-private
conflict. An article posted in March 2013 to the
Vancouver Biennale Blog beseeching Vancouverites to
“Bring ‘Device to Root out Evil’ Back to Vancouver”
highlights conflict between the general public’s
favourable opinion of Device to Root out Evil – the
sculpture had “widespread critical acclaim” – and the
contrasting private views of “a group of Coal Harbour
residents” who “complained about the work obstructing
sightlines to the harbour.”
The Borscht Belt, from “Trace Ingredients”
(March 2008-September 2008)
Artist: Carol Sawyer
Location: Vancouver Public Library Image (left) acquired from Flickr.com.
The Public Art Program adopted in 1990 paid little
attention to balancing public and private considerations
and included no provisions for addressing negative
externalities of public art. The 2008 Policy Review
addressed the public-private issue somewhat by calling
for more use of temporary art installations. The authors of the document argued that “temporary projects
and programs… offer an excellent opportunity to commission risk-taking art projects.” The authors
implicitly reasoned that it is easier to placate local residents when obstructive artworks are only
temporary. The 2008 Review cited recent successful temporary art installations around the Vancouver
Public Library, such as the Aperture Project, which featured Carol Sawyer’s photographs of book stacks,
presented as sculpture and poetry, and recommended that the city “commission temporary projects for
public spaces throughout the city.”
19
The Washington Monument (1884)
Architect: Robert Mills
Location: National Mall, Washington, D.C. Photograph acquired from Flickr.com.
The final conflict we will encounter on our public art
walk today centres on government power and the
public. Governments have a long history of using public
art as a means of extending their power over the public
consciousness. In Art, Space and the City: Public Art and
Urban Futures Malcolm Miles devotes an entire chapter
to explaining how monuments are a form of social
control. Governments use this form of public art to
celebrate heroes, important historical figures and
significant events, which serves to reflect a particular set
of values and constructs one narrative of national (or
municipal) history. While Vancouver has some
commemorative monuments (some of which we have
seen on this tour) that date back to the first half of the
20th century, they postdate the centuries when
monuments had their heyday as the dominant public art
form. Since Vancouver is relatively young, our cityscape lacks examples of grand and imposing monuments
comparable to The Washington Monument, which lords over the National Mall in Washington, D.C. In
Vancouver, City Hall extends its power over the public through the use of public art, not by erecting
magnificent monuments that rival sky scrapers, but by strictly defining the parameters of acceptable
public art, which excludes “unsightly” artistic forms like graffiti, thus limiting individuals’ capacity to
artistically express themselves in public spaces.
Most academic discussions of public art begin with defining the phrase “public art” and its two
etymological components. Similarly, the “Art in Public Places Progress Report,” commissioned by the City
of Vancouver in 1990 and incorporated into the Public Art Program later that year, prescribed its own
definition of public art. The report initially suggested a broad, open and inclusive definition of public art,
providing examples of public art as a point of departure rather than as limitations. Then a mere two pages
later the same report implied that a piece of work may only be considered art if it “enhances the public
uses and character of the site.” However, whether or not an artwork “enhances” public space is entirely
subjective. Thus the City added a corollary to its vague definition: public art is that “which qualifies as
public art in the opinion of the public art advisory group or its designated panels.” This effectively
delegated authority to the future Public Art Committee to decide what public works do and do not qualify
as public art. Thus in 1990 the groundwork was laid for conflict between City Hall, on one hand, and all
the individuals who comprise the public, on the other, over the definition of – and authority to define –
public art.
In the late 1980s Vancouver experienced a burst in both outdoor art installations and tag-graffiti reports.
However, in the early 1990s the City moved to separate the two art forms, legitimizing the former and
20
coopting it into the newly-emerging Public Art Program while criminalizing the latter and subjecting it to
a municipal crack down. The City’s full-scale anti-graffiti offensive commenced in 1991 with its adoption
of the “Anti-Graffiti and Anti-Vandalism Program,” followed in 1994 by the passage of “Bylaw no. 7343: a
by-law to prevent unsightliness of property by prohibiting the placement of graffiti and requiring that
property be kept free of graffiti.” Clearly, Vancouverites were not allowed to adorn public spaces with tag-
graffiti. The City’s prohibition on tag-graffiti in the 1990s placed this form of artistic self-expression outside
the boundary of acceptable public artwork.
In the 1990s City Hall’s conception of public art excluded tag-graffiti, not only because it was “unsightly,”
but because it was viewed as an indicator of social decay. A 1990 newspaper article titled “Wanted: Graffiti
Expert to Keep Vancouver Clean” implied that city officials viewed taggers not as artists but as defilers of
public space and their works not as art but as visual projections of uncleanliness, danger and incivility. A
similar connection between tag graffiti and degeneracy was observed in the “Anti-Graffiti and Anti-
Vandalism Program,” which revealed city officials’ fears that the “graffiti-vandalism problem” reflected
“underlying community and social issues.” Although tag-graffiti was increasingly picked up by popular
culture, the City resisted changing its interpretation of public art to accommodate tag-graffiti in the Public
Art Program because, according to Alderman Gordon Price, “there is danger in calling it art.”
Graffiti Wall in front of
Chip Wilson’s House
Artists: Various unknown
Location: Point Grey Road Image acquired from National Post online
media.
The City’s prohibition of graffiti
“on any wall, fence, building or
structure… in any street or other
public place” as well as “on real
property and adjacent to a street
or other public place”
represented an extension of
municipal government power over the public by defining the limits of public art through regulations. It
also represented an extension of municipal government power over individuals by curtailing their rights
to artistically express themselves in public spaces and by requiring real property owners and occupants to
keep their publically-visible properties graffiti-free. While many Vancouverites no doubt shared the City’s
negative view of tag graffiti, the fact that City Hall had to pass Bylaw no. 7343 in order to regulate graffiti
in the first place, as well as a follow-up in 2002 – “Bylaw no. 8539: a by-law to amend Graffiti by-law no.
7343 to regulate the removal of graffiti from private property,” which imposed ever heftier fines for
certain violations – suggests that not everyone was in agreement with the City’s narrow view of public
art. Indeed, in 2013 Chip Wilson hired graffiti artists to tag his own property! The City, however, still rejects
tag-graffiti as a legitimate art form and ordered the Lulu Lemon business tycoon to remove the offensive
work from his wall along a publically-visible beachfront.
21
In Part II of this public art walk we briefly reviewed the evolution of public art in Vancouver throughout
the 20th century and more thoroughly examined the relationships and tensions between public art and
public spaces between 1990 and 2010. However, in order to make history contemporary and relevant, we
must be able to apply what we learned about the past to understanding the present and anticipating the
future.
In 1990 the “Art in Public Places Progress Report” astutely remarked that “public art forms and practice
are evolving rapidly.” Thus the Public Art Program was designed to be flexible and adaptive. Sure enough,
over the next two decades Vancouver underwent rapid growth and development, which must now be
matched by evolution in the city’s Public Art Program. Changes in the Public Art Program must
accommodate new conceptions of public art and address conflicts that arise over the use of public spaces.
So what is the future of public art in Vancouver and what direction should the Public Art Program take?
The 2008 Review offered a comprehensive evaluation of Vancouver’s Public Art Program and provided
recommendations on its future management to the City of Vancouver. The review looked at the city’s
historical development patterns, which focused outward, as well as future development patterns, which
the authors expected to focus inward. The review recommended that the Public Art Program devise a
“Design Framework for Public Art in Vancouver” that accommodates increasing density, responds to
limited public space, and allocates public art and funding to geographic areas that will be the sites of
future civic capital investment. It further recommended that the program produce Local Area Plans that
offer a broader conceptualization of public space – rather than reviewing public art on a case-by-case
basis – and apply these area plans to newly-emerging “eco-density” regions, since rezoning applications
and ensuing development are likely to entail the commissioning of many public artworks in high-density
areas in the near future.
The review focused primarily on how the Public Art Program must respond to the physical growth and
development of Vancouver – but public art does not confine itself to physical public space! It also engages
with abstract public space. While physical public space in Vancouver is limited, the 21st century has
witnessed an expansion of abstract public space due to the emergence of a virtual public realm. Electronic
communication through the internet, as well as online forums, blogs and social media, have the potential
to transform the types, purposes and nature of public art. Gary Yarbrough, in a TED Talk delivered at UBC
in 2013, described how the internet has expanded the public realm and given temporary or ephemeral
public art, which is transient in the physical world, a permanent and sharable existence in the virtual
world.
Digital Natives (April 2011)
Lorna Brown and Clint Burnham Location: Kitsilano Reserve, near the Burrard Street Bridge Images acquired from digitalnatives.othersights.ca.
Public art in Vancouver has taken some tentative steps into the virtual public realm. Digital Natives, for example, was partially constructed from social
22
media posts. This temporary installation during the month of April, 2011, utilized an electronic billboard located on a strip of aboriginal land on the Kitsilano Reserve to depict a series of ten-second text messages. The messages consisted of comments in native languages with translation as well as tweets to @diginativ from non-Native contributors. This work gave new meaning to public art in Vancouver: not only was it installed on public space and received by the public, principally pedestrians and motorists crossing the Burrard Street Bridge, it was also produced by the public through their tweets and fostered communication and dialogue on aboriginal issues in the virtual public realm. Moreover, the name “Digital Natives” is a double entendre. The first meaning of “native” referred to indigenous people while the second meaning referred to individuals in the current generation who were raised using social media – natives to the digital world – some of whom had their tweets posted on the billboard. Digital Natives is an example of how public art in Vancouver has started to branch out into the expanding virtual public realm, something we will likely witness more of in the future.
In the future Vancouver’s Public Art Program will also likely be geared towards sustainable urban development. While the original Public Art Program from 1990 did not discuss public art in relation to sustainable development, the 2008 review called for more integration between the program and Vancouver’s Greenest City 2020 Action Plan: “The Public Art Program should focus substantial resources on integrating public art into places and projects that embrace the city’s ‘green infrastructure’ trajectory – connecting Vancouver’s unique indigenous landscape to its aspirations for a sustainable city.” Examples of green infrastructure include bikeways, bus stops, community gardens and greenways, such as the Carrall Street Greenway, a Public Realm Improvement and Community Development Initiative that included two public art events. Thus in the future we can expect to see more “green” public art as the Public Art Program aligns itself with broader city planning initiatives.
That’s all folks!
23
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS “Anti-Graffiti and Anti-Vandalism Program.” 1991. Vancouver Engineering Services. 53
pg. “Art in Public Places Progress Report.” 1990. City of Vancouver Planning Department.
40 pg. “Bylaw no. 6870: a bylaw to create an advisory body on ‘Public Art.’” August 13, 1991.
Vancouver City Council. Consolidated and amended to include Bylaw no. 9402 on December 12, 2006.
“Bylaw no. 7343: a by-law to prevent unsightliness of property by prohibiting the
placement of graffiti and requiring that property be kept free of graffiti.” October 4, 1994. Vancouver City Council. Microfiche.
“Bylaw no. 8539: a by-law to amend Graffiti by-law no. 7343 to regulate the removal of
graffiti from private property.” July 30, 2002. Vancouver City Council. Microfiche.
“Offsite.” Vancouver Art Gallery. http://projects.vanartgallery.bc.ca/offsite/. “Public Art Committee.” City of Vancouver. http://vancouver.ca/your-
government/public-art-committee.aspx. “Public Art Program for Civic and Private Development.” 1990. City of Vancouver
Planning Department. 23 pg. “Public Art Registry.” City of Vancouver. http://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-
culture/explore-the-public-art-registries.aspx. Chow, Linda, Brigid Kudzius, and Douglas Scott. “Carrall Street Greenway: Public
Realm Improvements & Community Development.” Transportation Division, City of Vancouver. 2009 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada.
Cole, Barbara. Downtown Shoreline: City of Vancouver, Public Art Walk. Vancouver:
Office of Cultural Affairs, City of Vancouver, 2002. Cox, Michael. “Public Art – Private Views: Exploring Art in Public Spaces in
Vancouver.” M.A.L.S. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2012. Cox, Michael. “Public Art – Private Views: Exploring Art in Public Spaces in
Vancouver.” Documentary film supplement to MA thesis. December 4, 2012. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12697.
Duncan, Alan Slater. “Planning Strategy for Public Art, City of Vancouver.” MA Thesis,
University of British Columbia, 1990. Microfiche.
24
Hansen, Darah. “Poodle Installation Delight, Confuses on Main Street.” The Vancouver Sun. January 9, 2013. http://www.vancouversun.com/Poodle+installation+delights+confuses+Main+Street/7798434/story.html.
Griffin, Kevin. “Olympic Public Art to Light up the City.” The Vancouver Sun,
September 18, 2008. B1. Proquest. Griffin, Kevin. “Vancouver's Public Art Praised; ‘Bold and Decisive’ Works make
Important Statement about City, Program Director Says.” The Vancouver Sun, October 29, 2009. D17. Proquest.
Huffington Post B.C. “Main Street Poodle: Vancouver Art Gets Mixed Reviews.”
February 5, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/05/main-street-
poodle-vancouver-art_n_2624643.html. Matas, Robert. “Wanted: Graffiti Expert to Keep Vancouver Clean.” The Globe and Mail.
April 10, 1990. A13. Mickleburgh, Rod. “Artistic Controversy Reaches Tipping Point: Vancouver's parks
commissioners vote to send a sculpture of an upside-down chapel into artistic purgatory.” The Globe and Mail, April 3, 2008. A3. Proquest.
Miles, Malcolm. Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. New York:
Routledge, 1997. Munroe, Doris C. “Public art in Vancouver.” MA Thesis, University of British
Columbia, 1973. The Vancouver Sun. “Picking Public Art isn’t done Behind Closed Doors.” January 20,
1993. A12. Proquest. The Vancouver Sun. “Vancouver: Policy on Public Art Considered.” March 10, 1997.
B3. Proquest. Vancouver Public Art Program: Program Review/Design Framework for Public Art.
Final Review Draft. April 17, 2008. Yarbrough, Gary. “Freedom of Public Space and Art.” Filmed November 2, 2013,
University of British Columbia. TEDx Terry Talk, 19:10. Filmed by Craig Ross.
Edited by David Ng. Posted January 31, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx-ce_E7MWM.