Whose space is it anyway?

The question of Art in Public Space and visual Culture in Public Space

By  

Nadia  Arbelo,  MEd.,  PhD  (cand.)  

 

How do we think about public space? Is it a dominant discourse which has influenced

our urban planning tactics, personal interactional decisions and our ideas about the

successes and failures of public space? Is there an inti-privatization argument that can

locate injustice and change?

I will pose several questions in my argument of ‘whose has the right to public space?’ I

feel that there is no such thing called Public Space any longer. Because I don’t think

that there ever was such. I believe that public space is used as a control for the people.

From the beginning a particular elite citizenry was only entitled to public space. Not all

people of the Agora was entitled to the free use of public space. When the Caesars

came into the public market the slaves and unmentionables were bowed down or

bowed out of site. This reminds me of the time when in the south of the US, there was

the empowered and the disempowered, the disempowered and their rights and abilities

to use public space was limited, those who could and those who could not do certain

activities in public space. For example women and slaves were not able to buy and sell

unless they were doing so for the master. They could not sit on any council to make

decisions regarding public decisions and/or things.

Now 2500 years later, during international woman’s day, the empowerment of women

today. In an advanced economy of today maybe just one thing has to do with owning

their reproductive rights. Afghanistan women are not allowed to appear in public without

the chador so were still looking at 2500 years on from Athens and the empowerment of

women to take part in public activities. At the same time developing economies in which

a large part of the market place women take up the majority or space, but do they have

control over where they set up stand, are they empowered to decisions to the use of

public markets. Some places yes, some places no. Universally, with the exception of

Afghanistan you can visit any city in the world and go to town square (Tito Trg), where

you don’t need a passport nor visa on the square/plaza, but at any time you could be

stopped by the police for an identity check, to see if you have the legal rights to be in

that particular city. Right now, French Pres,. Nickolas Sarkozy wants to bow out of the

Shenga agreements due to too many foreigners and illegal immigrants. The interesting

things are that it’s not per se the browning of France, but a cultural thing. As long as

you speak French your fine. But if you want to use public space for your own cultural

thing, example Muslims wanting to have prayer in public space that challenges public

space. How much is French society willing to let non-French public activities use their

public space. The public markets in Lyon per se, that is mostly French but the market in

the Etat Unis was mostly Arab, so French people are saying: wait a minute these people

are taking over our public space and therefore there is a reaction against the emigrant.

The recent French political arena regarding the halal meat was being taken over by

Muslims. That’s obviously false as Muslims don’t sell or eat pork. But it’s the

perception of the use of public space.

The Occupy Wall Street movement challenges public perception of public space. Does

the general public perception hold that people have the right to occupy public space or

does it go against the cultural perception? So the bottom line is that the politics of public

space is based on public perception of what is legitimate and not legitimate for public

use and how much control should the government have over public use of public space.

Questions about physical space has stimulated debate within the movement. Some

argue that camps are essential for operations as dramatic symbols or as egalitarian

communities such as general housekeeping, the organization of the occupiers, etc. To

the credit they sat up a campaign to clean up their own public space by bringing out

brooms, mops, and aliging themselves together to show that they would clean up their

own messes. This was done because they knew that if they left the public space they

would not be allowed to return to that same space. They are hoping to set an example

for society that the public can govern our public space.

The question of public use of public space is now become a cultural question. If in

China, there has been public protest in public space all over the country, but the

government still will not allow demonstrations in Tieneman Square. So in that sense the

government controls what public space can or cannot be used for public expression.

Hyde Park in London, the speakers corner, in the 19th century and on into the present

day there was one place in London where you could stand up and have your say

without being arrested and that was the “speaker corners”. But now there are

demonstrations going on and began Occupy London in front of St. Paul’s Church where

protesters were given a limited amount of time before they were kicked out. This also

gets down to “state as parent”. How much right do we give governance to act as our

parent within government? Is the public to immature to be given total access to public

space? How much right does the public give the state to control them. In actuality we

have given them too much and can’t take it back as they have gone too far. Put a label

on it, “Occupy means to take back” and what’s the difference of taking back and taking

over when you had it to begin with. Did we think we had control of public space which is

the illusion of democracy? Maybe we really never had control of unlimited use but

somehow the illusion of democracy we did once or we should have. As Marx said, “A

state is just an illusory community”.

Is the political state giving public space to us in order to give us the feeling of creating

our own privatization? Or do they think of the Occupy movement as simply Public Art?

Another example is the women’s “Take back the night” which was essentially the public

safety for women to walk the streets at night, women began to demonstrate they had a

right to safety in public space at night, but they were not trying over public space just

their safety in public space. So in some way they were saying to the state you have the

responsibility to protect us so we are not victims of crime because we are women. “Dad

you have to protect us” women are not trying control public space but they want the

right to use public space at night without being assaulted and such. They are not

challenging government over the right but over not protecting them. It’s more than that

because it’s a social and culture statement to everyone that we are your mother, sister,

daughters in society, “Respect us”.

An extension of this is the “Million Man March” the promise keepers movement. Take

back the night was a call and response and the men saying ‘we hear you, we affirm

your right to safety’. All of these movements were created as public response to public

safety in public spaces. The government is not protecting us, “We the people are going

out into the street to demonstrate our anger against criminality, to make the general

public aware that we need to be proactive to protect ourselves. The representation of

disempowerment is empowerment, a discourse of resistance and the ability to express

resistance is power.

Now we come back to the point of rights and responsibility of government and of the

people. And people are taking over public space for demonstration for the most part to

tell government that it’s not being responsive to the needs of the people. So now does

the government allow people the right to freely associate in public space or do they

send in the storm troopers, riot squads? So maybe it has always been this way that

governments control public space and give the public the rights to what they can and

cannot do in public space. Public reaction in Syria, where they are using public space to

protest against the government and initially they were allowed to do so but when it

became a threat to the power of government they sent in the tanks. Baharain, is seeing

the second wave of public demonstration and government repression. Every day, there

are thousands of people in the streets to demonstrate and they are being beaten,

arrested etc.

Do we give government the right to rule us or do they take that right? How much do we

give them and how much do we take? Are we on the verge of a global social

revolution? Government has the force of coercion, how far will they go to keep control,

how far will the people go to take back control? The question of the state being able to

keep control for public safety at this point it seems that if you remove the state you

remove the universality of public safety. So in case of Libya for example, if you go into

someone else turf they are the police, judge and jury for their own turf. And there is no

central state authority to protect equal rights for all citizens in all places. So are we

ready to take over our own self- management of society or will there always be the need

for a government to do that for us.

In The Cultures of Cities, Sharon Zukin discusses how culture has become a powerful

force in shaping cities. When looking at cities, it is no longer enough to talk about the

service economy or the manufacturing economy. She argues that it is the "symbolic

economy" that can play the most significant role in shaping the identity of places - as

defined by their landmarks, cultural institutions, recreational spaces, etc. But in a

multiethnic city with different social classes, just whose culture is shaping the city?

Whose city is it anyway? The use of the term "cultures" in the title is deliberate; Zukin

argues that there is no single monolithic "culture" for a city, even if economic forces

seek to create visual aesthetic for the city that is coherent and consistent.

What does this mean for public space and public access to that space? In NYC for

instance, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) have done a good job cleaning up

parts of the city and enhancing the provision of certain services e.g. sanitation, that the

city administration has been unable to supply as effectively. But what does it mean

when the look and feel of a place is controlled primarily by commercial interests, and

where the individuals behind these commercial interests don't even live in the district

whose identity they play such a large role in shaping? And can we consider these

planned and tightly managed urban spaces to be authentic representations of the city,

when oftentimes their image is dictated less by the demographics, history and economic

realities of the space, than by some aspiration towards an idealised, visually coherent

and sanitised aesthetic? Whose preferences does this aesthetic reflect? And

conversely, who is kept out by this new visual aesthetic?

According to Sharon Zukin there is an “aggressive private-sector bid for control of

public space, a relentless drive for expansion by art museums and other non-profit

cultural institutions, and an increasing redesign of the built environment for the purposes

of social control.” ( Zukin, S. 1995).

Tying these developments to a new "symbolic economy" based on tourism, media and

entertainment, Zukin traces the connections between real estate development and

popular expression, and between elite visions of the arts and more democratic

representations. Going beyond the immigrants, artists, street peddlers, and security

guards who are the key figures in the symbolic economy, Zukin asks: Who really

occupies the central spaces of cities? And whose culture is imposed as public culture?

(Zukin, S. 1995)

The look and feel of cities reflect decisions about what - and who - should be visible and

what should not, on concepts of order and disorder, and on uses of aesthetic power. In

this primal sense, the city has always had a symbolic economy. Modern cities also owe

their existence to a second, more abstract symbolic economy devised by "place

entrepreneurs... (Zurken,S. pg 7)

Cities are often criticized because they represent the basest instincts of human society.

They are built versions of Leviathan and Mammon. mapping the power of the

bureaucratic machine or the social pressures of money. We who live in cities like to

think of "culture" as the antidote to this crass vision. The Acropolis of the urban art

museum or concert hall. the trendy art gallery and cafe. restaurants that fuse ethnic

traditions into culinary logos cultural activities are supposed to lift us out... (Zurken,S pg

1 ).

To lift us out of the mire of our everyday lives and into the sacred spaces of ritualized

pleasures, Yet culture is also a powerful means of controlling cities, As a source of

images and memories, it symbolizes "who belongs...

( Zurken,S pg 1, ).

aestheticize diversity, another way has been to aestheticize fear, Controlling the various

cultures of cities suggests the possibility of controlling all sorts of urban ills, from

violence and hate crime to economic decline, That this is an illusion has been amply

shown by battles over multiculturalism and its warring factions - ethnic politics and

urban riots, Yet the cultural power to create an image, to frame a vision, of the city has

become more important as publics have become more mobile... (Zurken,S . pg 3)

Public space is the determining element in the look of a city. Some communities in

America have now prohibited billboards thus a question arises as to this ownership of

space. If visual culture encompasses the entire built-in environment then in terms of

public space, who has the right to it and who has the right to determine how it is used?

Looking at “private space’, and the rights to public display in private spaces such as

malls, private buildings on public space and elsewhere, societies must have laws, but

what are these clearly defined law(s) of public space? Plato suggested that the

Guardians should be the ones making the laws to determine what the public receives.

Is this still the case in a democratic society?

What then about nature’s aesthetics, such as parks as public spaces. Do people leave

to the state to determine the aesthetic of wilderness areas? Public parks are also public

spaces, national parks are public spaces yet is it the ownership that matters most? The

caretakers (government) has the expertise to maintain parks and they in turn hire

people who can manage these state parks for us (We the people) Is it still useful to

keep this top down governmental rationale? Can private environmentalists take over

control of the park systems, especially now that there is a fee to enter these public

parks in America?

I can refer to the Sierra Club which was a small group of people who came together to

protect Yosemite National forest in California and it has expanded now to become a

lobby group that protects all public natural environments.

In the US there are public interest laws; if you want to build or display something that

affects the public view then you must have a meeting of public input. Does the same

apply to the natural environment if you have snowboarders, mobiles, skiers, hikers, etc.

those who want to protect the wilderness and then those who want economic benefit?

In Slovenia, if you want to display an installation of art in public space you also must get

a permit to do so, and without this permit you can be either fined . My argument will be, ‘because of different groups having different interests in how a society functions who then determines which group gets what?’ Is it the lobbyist and the

squeaky wheels, or is it the people? Currently the “occupy movement” is in a dispute

over public space where the government claims that the occupiers are illegally in public

space as they now have become a national threat to society and to the public’s safety.

The government has determined that the movement is endangering public safety from

within public space.

A move towards development and democracy “from below” is recognized as an affront

to both “local” elites and “global” capital. Accordingly, I examine the contested, forever-

protean process of radical democracy conceived as public space. Within this realm,

violence is acknowledged as both an outcome of attempts to impose an “ordered” view

of public space originating “from above”, and often as an act of resistance “from below”

by those seeking radical democratic spaces of “unscripted” interaction. 1

This violence reveals an apparent paradox of democracy, because although premised

on the non-violent mitigation of conflict, contemporary “democracies” are often anti-

political and antagonistic, which provokes violent conflict’s possibility. (Springer, S.

2010)

If we are to speak about visual culture we must first define it. To do that, we must deal

with the notion of culture. What is culture? Then what is Visual in the visual culture.

One definition of visual culture is what we see, the physical aspects of the world around

us that we see every day. However, the visual is much more than this. It is a process

of vision and perception. Culture is a little trickier to define. Encyclopedia Britannica

defines culture as,” behavior peculiar to homo sapiens, together with material objects

used as an integral part of this behavior. Thus, culture includes language, ideas, beliefs,

customs, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, and works of art, rituals, and

ceremonies, among other elements’ (Britannica).

Next, ‘Public Space” and as I know it, it is most streets, pavement, town squares or

parks. Government buildings which are open to the public, such as libraries, and

museums are also public space. It is a social place that is open and accessible to all,

regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. This public space is

commonly shared and created for open usage throughout a community. It seems that

the physical setting is socially constructed which creates a behavior influence.

Limitations are imposed the social construction is considered to privately ruled: by the

implicit and explicit rules and expectations of the space that are enforced. Although not

considered public space, privately owned buildings or property visible from sidewalks

and public thoroughfares may affect the public visual landscape, for example, outdoor

advertising.

Historically, public space in the west has been limited to town centers, church squares

and such which are nearly always engineered around a central monument, which

informs the program of the space. Prime local example is our square outside which all

can find by looking for the church tower. These spaces act as a commons for the

people; a political, social and cultural arena. Jurgen Habermas concept of public space

(or public sphere) links the development of democracy and its emergence with public

space. An example of this was a brief period in the US under Roosevelt’s government

that created a project called the “New Deal”. Many public works in an economic effort to

boost employment produced a huge number of public works in an economic effort to

boost employment during the depression. The result was much more than. This New

Deal project has been credited with significantly contributing to the quality of American

life and encouraging unity between all aspects of a community.

Habermas’ concepts described a space of institutions and practices between the private

intrests of everyday life in civil society and the realm of state power. The public space

(where private interests prevail) and the state which exerts arbitrary forms of power and

domination. He termed this the “bourgeois public sphere” (Kellner, Douglas). It

consisted of social spaces where people gathered to discuss common interests, affairs

and to organize against oppressive forms of social and public power.

Foucault states that ‘space’ is,

“somewhat arbitrary to try to dissociate the effective practice of freedom by

people, the practice of social relations, and the spatial distributions in which they

find themselves. If they are separated, they become impossible to understand

(Foucault, 1984, 246).

It has been argued that the democratic ideal of public life throughout the use of public

space has deteriorated.

Modern Critique

Modern architecture lamented on the “narrative of loss” within public space. Meaning

modern society has withdrawn from public life what used to inform city centers. Political

and social needs can now be expressed from home. Michale Sorkin’s and Mike Davis

suggested in their article of “Fortress Los Angeles: the Militarization of the End of Urban

Space and The New American City and the End of Public space”, that the declaration of

“the end of public space” and the “destruction of any truly democratic urban spaces”

may be correct. The other side of the coin argues that when people apply meaning to

public space, wherever it may be, the concept of public, democracy and citizenship are

being redefined by people through such lived experience. Many discussions have

surfaced around the idea that, historically, public space has been inherently

contradictory in the way it has always been exclusive with who is able to participate.

These spaces are in constant flux, and in response, its users restructure and reinterpret

physical space. Historically in 1862 in the US zoning requirements were made and

regulations were put in place for buildings not to exceed certain widths of the street.

Thus creating wide open, airy spaces where life could just unfold. An example given is

in the US in a predominately African-American neighborhood of Baldwin Hills in LA

where a parking lot has been transformed into a scene of intense commercial and social

activity. Locals gather to meet and socialize, sell and consume goods. This illustrates

the historical ideal of fixed public space around a monument is not viable for

contemporary diverse social ranges as “no single physical space can represent a

completely inclusive ‘space of democracy’.

It appears that whoever represents the public has the power over public space. Another

example is we elect a government representative, let’s say Mayor to an arts community

where public art is on display but then the police are the ones who have the power to

make the decision as to who can use the public space. Our representatives make laws

about the use of public space then in turn delegate authorities to officiate and regulate

this public space. But in a democracy is it not “We the People, By the people, For the

people”?

Socrates said the ‘Agora (Mall)’ was public space. The ideal of public space is

something that is sacred in western democratic countries, yet no government allows

total free speech. Governments are always controlling what we can and cannot do in

public space and what we can and cannot say. The notion of free speech includes or

excludes the right to say what one thinks and or feels.

This starts to make a counter narrative regarding public space. The discourse has

come into main stream academia.

This takes us now into Public Art in Public space.

What happens with fixed art in public spaces? Fixed art as an object say Mural or

Poster and also performance art. If there is the true notion of public space as a

designated space why then does the government have the right to say where you can

place or post something as well as get on a soap box and freely speak? If you place

posters for political rallies in public space this is illegal except in designated areas.

Again, our rights have been stripped away.

Murals are a didactic, aesthetic and decorative art expression. When does this art

become political and how does that affect the display in public space and where is the

line drawn with free speech (expression) and free art (art as free speech). While Keith

Harring brought Graffiti into the galleries and Museums which gave graffiti legitimacy

does this mean we must bring public space into the galleries and museums also? If so

then we can look at what Adorno says about Cultural Industry, ‘The exchange value of a

commodity depends upon its utility’ as well as upon the institutional conditions of the

market (Adorno, T. 1984) applies here too.

Public art is still being investigated and it asks its audience to re-imagine, re-experience,

review, and re-live. In the field of architectural design the focus has been turned onto

the city as needing to discover new ways to re-use, re-establish, and re-invent a city

which is in step with the interest for a sustainable future. “(AWQAI journal).

We must rethink our public spaces and its uses until we can determine who has the

rights to this space and how We the People examine how our demands of public space

and political innovations could translate to the wider social struggle for a world beyond

capitalist exploitation whereby ownership is not only with the government but

representative of and by the people.

Thinking about Maurice Merleau-Ponty who suggests says that “it’s about changing and

challenging our perception through experience, to subvert expectations of what is

usually seen in these spaces.” There is a difference between urban and city areas and

the environment which is untouched and an isolated place. He goes on to say that “we

switch off our relaxation with removing ourselves from the city (fast paced lifestyle)

environments to more natural spaces.” Thus we are living separated from our

landscapes and this idea or disconnection makes it easy to forget our responsibility to

maintain and preserve our environment.

Art is usually an after-thought for public space. Historically beginning in the 1960’s

architects, engineers government workers and artists were involved in city planning

projects. But there were not prepared as this thought their way of operating to planning

sessions. Disagreements ensues which led to more isolation and intentional disconnect

between artworks and their surroundings. Few artists have braved or risked failure of

making art in the open in-front and in conjunction with society at large. One such artist

is Ethan Philbrik who danced outdoors with public art pieces of George Rickey and his II

Triangles. The surrounding of this performance influenced the viewer’s opinion of a

particular piece. This was an art with distinctive problems and charged semiotics of

socially employed public space. Another such artist was Paul Kreft a filmmaker who

used music to accompany motion of a sculpture which called attention to how a

sculpture moves in nature and movement are hinged into collaboration.

Conclusion: The Revolution

The 49th hexagram is Ge,2 meaning “Revolution” or “Radical change”. The bottom

trigram is Li or “Fire” and the upper is Dui or “Lake”. Water and fire overcome each

other. This phenomenon suggests a picture of revolution that abolishes the old>

The Decision says:

Proper day. Upon it obtain confidence from people. Supremely prosperous and smooth. Favorable to being steadfast and upright. Regret vanishes. Confucius’ commentary on Decision is: “When the revolutionary tempest breaks out,

faith will accord with it. Enlightened intelligences makes people joyful. Great success

comes through justice. Since revolution is proper, all regret disappears. Heaven and

Earth abolish the old and bring about the new, then the four seasons complete their

changes. Tang and Wu…brought about the new. They obeyed the will of heaven in

accord with the wishes of the people. The time and meaning of abolishing the old is truly

great!” But each of the six lines can change and not all the changes are favorable 3.

References

Adorno, Theodor. (1984). ‘Theodor Adorno and the culture Industry” presented to the

Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association. Toronto Canada.

AQEAI online journal.

Habermas, Jurgen, (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An

Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

Crawford, Margaret. (1995). Contesting the Public Realm: Struggles over Public Space

in Los Angeles, Journal of Architectual Education, Vol. 49, No.1 (Sep, 1995) pp.4-9.

Foucault, Michel. (1984). Space, Knowledge, and Power. In Paul Rabinow (Ed.) the

Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon. 239-56.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport2004/introduction.html. National

Coalition for the Homeless. (2004) “llegal to be homeless”.

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/kellner.html. “Habermas, the Public Sphere,

and Democracy: A Critical Intervention”. (1992)

Sorkin, M & Davis, M. 1992. Fortress Los Angeles: the Militarization of Urban Space,

New York Hill and Wang.

Springer, Simon. Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New

Zealand; simonspringer@gmail.com

Susan S. Fainstein, Scott Campbell - Readings in urban theory 2002 - 417 pages.

The Complete I Ching, transl. Alfred Huang, Inner Traditions, Rochester, 1998, pp.389-396.

Zukin, Sharon - 1995 - The cultures of cities - Page 3. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. UK 322

pages

EndNotes

1 The categories “from above” and “from below” signify that modern political power

has been appropriated from the direct control of the people through systematized rule

(hierarchy, patriarchy etc) that strips the majority of their basic freedom. “From above”

speaks to rationalities, strategies, technologies, and techniques of power originating

from the minority entrenched in position of authority through social, economic, and

political “archies”. “From below” represents applications of power originating from

locations within the prevailing system where social, economic, and political power has

been reduced via the repressions of systematized rule.

2 We have to pay attention the the first and third lines and avoid mistakes.