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.

25