by Kyong Park
February 10, 2008
Thanks to C, M, K and F for their wonderful presentations about your own works, giving me some starting points from which we could begin to outline the parameters, domains and processes of Public Culture. I am also looking forward to next week’s presentation from J, CL and K, and B [optional to him]. I should first say what I mean by parameters, domains and processes in regards to Public Culture.
Let's consider Public Culture as having some spatial characteristics, or atleast figurative features that could help us identify it in some tangible way. Such structurally minded visualization might be helpful for us, so that we can better engage and explore the term Public Culture that I feel remains undefined. For instance, ‘parameter’ could suggest that there is a boundary or distinction between what is Public Culture and what is not, granted that I prefer that such boundaries remain permeable, movable and transformative. A boundary that is flexible and overlapping with other sets of territories.
‘Domain’ then could be a territory within Public Culture that enables us to configure and critique it within itself, about its own performances and nature, without considering what lies beyond it. It is the sovereignty that gives the consensus and contentions within Public Culture, for the purpose of its own developments and responsibility as a particular field or practice of art. Obviously, parameter and domain of Public Culture would be associative to each other, and their relational status would help to define both independently.
‘Process,’ on the other hand, suggests that Public Culture is something that evolves, never permanently fixed as an artifact nor as a subject. This may be because the subjects, or the contents, of Public Culture are constantly changing under the influence of time or places. Few examples on the dynamic condition of Public Culture could be the trends of popular media, advancing technologies or the global economy. Of course both parameter and domain of Public Culture are subjected to similar dynamic conditions.
But more importantly, process is also about the methodology through which we can begin to understand, respond or even make Public Culture, at least in the form of art. Moreover, this also suggests that the work within research or expressions, or about theories and criticism, of Public Culture is process-based, and arguably that its expressions are in the form of process only, leaving no distinctive object of art behind. In addition, “process’ is an element that can bridge and combine ‘parameter’ and “domain’ of Public Culture, with process as a key instrument that can migrate between them.
Let me say that these three spatial characteristics of Public Culture coincide with the subtitle of this course EXCLUSION/INCLUSION/FLOW, respectively. And I also think that these three spatial characteristics of Public Culture could collaborate to form a fundamental and formalistic structure from which various issues and subjects of Public Culture can be analyzed more effectively. Imagine that they together outline the board game of a 3-dimensional chess game within—not upon—the vital ‘features’ of Public Culture could functionally coerce or align.
My open assessment on Public Culture embraces various and particular statements on Public Culture that you [the students] have blogged onto our web site so far. Each has its own legitimate concerns, but they are mostly about issues that could be entertained in the parameter and domain of Public Culture. However, we need, for the moment, separate ourselves from the multiplicity of issues in order to discuss the fundamental clauses of Public Culture. To do so, I suggest we use the notion of ‘features’ in Public Culture, which also rises from various concerns you raised last week
CONTEXTUAL
Although C may feel that his work has been overly determined by contextual concerns, I continue to think that context is a vital resource for Public Culture. But what are the forms of context in Public Culture, meaning in physical or metaphysical, social or personal, and visual or textual terms for examples? For C, they seem to be cultural and urban landscapes, and predominantly physically based. For K, Internet social culture was one of her context, but also territorial social culture was important to her, asking why she, as a white American, would have the legitimacy to do work about Tijuana culture. The boundary between normality and exceptions in sexuality, or the conflict from UCSD on his web site location seemed to form a strong context for M. Meanwhile the presence of social and political expressions that challenges the normality in urban spaces were some of the resources for F’s works. In all cases, contexts were importance source and reason for ensuing artistic processes.
RESEARCH
Some think that research is an essential domain of Public Culture. This suggests that art can work as an instrument for knowledge construction, and not necessarily—even not at all—a pure aesthetic expeditions on cognitive visual experiences by, and for, an heighten individuality. I emphasize individuality here to contrast with the notion of research in Public Culture implies that the subject of work is greater than the artist alone, and assumes to be social or communal. Then is the boundary of research in Public Culture to be found along the line that distinguishes what is self and social? But can a self and the social ever shared a common domain in Public Culture?
SOCIAL
CL wondered if the domain of Public Culture must always have a social issue, context or purpose. And some reputed art of Public Culture have lead to comments like “art is not a social work,” absurd yet a case for a debate on parameter and domain of Public Culture. Furthermore, I tend to think that M’s erotic web site is a socially engaging practice, or at least poses a question on social normality; even it may not be classified as your ordinary social work. What needs to be questioned then is the domain of social, or more precisely the domain of society, as it itself is being changed by new social constructions from the Internet community. Here, the boundary between personal and social overlaps, as one can be completely self and unique and yet still project themselves to the society of similar self or shared interests, not to mention that all this can be done completely within traditionally anti-social spaces; alone to be together. This creates new sets of subculture, as well as some of the more private component of societal structure becoming more public. This suggests that the support for Public Culture may not be just about defense of public sphere from its totally privatization, but also reconfiguration of the parameters and domains of public and private. Therefore, critical re-assessment of contemporary state of society is necessary for the subsequent construction of Public Culture
COLLABORATIONS
Often art in Public Culture assumes the requirement to collaborate with others, such as organizations, communities, governmental agencies, NGOs, or even corporations. This leads to the importance of dialogues with others, outside between me, I and myself. If so, then what are the benefit of collaboration with those outside of art community, and can such acts improves the activities and significance of art in public and how?
INTERDISCIPLINARY
Another form of collaboration or dialogues can occur between disciplines of higher educations, researches and studies. For instance, I am looking forward to the future chance of collaborating with other departments and schools at UCSD, such as sociology, history, anthropology, geography, economics, political science and so on, or virtually every disciplines, depending on particular needs of my projects. This also is one of the main ideas behind the creation of Public Culture initiative by this department. And I agree that the benefit of interdisciplinary collaboration is about the chance to construct some practical application of arts in society—in an expanded sense of it—as well as to enlarge the terrain of resources for domain of art in Public Culture. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration creates the condition of relativity within arts, which can help to expand the process and product of arts.
LANGUAGE
Personally, art in Public Culture is a language, a visual one that can extend human knowledge and communication beyond the limitation of text-based language—the intention of original makers of Virtual Reality systems, for example. Even the tradition of absolute, individualized, authentic and unique arts could also be looked as a visual language after all, from its condition of being a form of expression, regardless to their overwhelmingly subjective nature, or as a commodity for privileged ownership and investment within the contemporary hyper art markets. Yet, my view of art as a visual language is about the one that can operate in cross disciplinary mode, between, and within, the fields of studies that are largely of text-based investigations in writings and data. Graphic illustrations and charts used in other fields are the initial indicators of the need to visualize our knowledge. Data mining, information design and dynamic mappings are some of the more current examples in the urgency to visually present, or to navigate through, information over load resulting from the recent advancements in technological tools. Art, together with architecture, is the preeminent visual language that can serve well both as a language and mediating tools for interdisciplinary collaborations.
I hope that the above list of what I defined as the “feature” of art in Public Culture can set certain structure for our course, and its investigation of WHAT IS PUBLIC CULTURE? However, one fundamental question is if Public Culture is a theory and practice of art?
For this, we should first note that Public Culture is titled differently from Public Art or Art in Public Places, two previous but now ineffective practice of art in relation to the public. For instance, the preciseness of the term “Art in Public Places” literally specifies that this type of art be located in places that are open to the public use. Beyond this initiating protocol, the practice was quiet lenient as to if these work really did had any context, research and process that occurred within the public realm at all. The demise of Art in Public Places may be from the fact it really did not make art anymore public beyond a transition from equestrian statue to so-called “turd in plaza,” and did not change nor innovate art itself. An example of this is Richard Serra’s “Titled Arc” at the Foley Square in New York City that was removed due to public complaint. This was proven as his work since then found better ‘homes’ amongst museums, collections and private commissions.
Public Art, as a term, is comparably less defined. Dropping the location judgment of Art in Public Places, it became more open to a much broader theory and practice of public art, you might say. Without a precise definition on its domain, Public Culture, by a chance, may have given us a necessary period of theoretical gestation for art of public relevancy to become less formalistic and absolute. Indecisiveness about itself has allowed a wide range of practices toward the idea of process, including ephemeral existence of art. The importance of research of context and subjects also gained importance, along the line of engagement of artists within larger social and physical territories, such as communities, cities and global, and ‘interventions’ occupied a household position in Public Art. In return, through the enlargement of artistic practices, and subsequent migration of aesthetics into other territories of knowledge and practices—social and community works for instance—Public Art also lost the defensible ‘parameter’ of itself, leading to the end of its relevance. With the dissolving of Public Art into other domains, it is now reasonable for art begin to speak about Public Culture, a complete adoption of art by culture.
Therefore, Public Culture, at present time, is very nebulous idea in regard to art, leaving us out in the open as to how art would find a place in Public Culture. My point is that Public Culture is not exclusively about a theory and practice of art, rather it is a much larger notion in which art must find its role as a participant, along with other disciplines. And its quiet possible that even the notion of Public and Culture should be examined separately, followed with the relational understanding between them, before we could construct the full potential of what Public Culture could become.
ISSUES [points or matters in debate, for examples]
SUBJECTS [person, object or places, for examples]
CITIES
This is an important ‘subject’ for my own work. Although it may not be qualify as an independent ‘feature’ of art, it certainly is in Public Culture. Its ability to be relational to all ‘features’ Public Culture, makes city function as a fundamental territory in which all human activities and knowledge can be found; more specifically, in the realms of culture, economy and politics. In addition, city is incredible cinema that is grandly present in fully 3- dimensional, with constantly changing backgrounds, colors, audio and scents, not to mention that all actors in this movie is fully interactive and dangerously live. For me, it is the greatest visual project ever created, possibly even forever. If not, then it is the foremost form of Public Culture.
City is also the most relevant and truthful document of our history in progress, as it remains unedited by historical or political manipulations. The destruction or modification of historical or political edifices within the city self-records such act, thus leaving nothing hidden, as we navigate through our past, present and future in a timeless state, but in real-time. Thus, it is no surprise that art has taken increasing engagement with the notion of city and urban landscape, through the curatorial works of Catherine David, Okwui Enwezor, Hans Ulrich Obrist and Hou Hanru, including your dear professor.
No comments:
Post a Comment