Urban Studies, Vol.

42, Nos 5/6, 1001– 1023, May 2005

Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social

Inclusion in Urban Regeneration

Joanne Sharp, Venda Pollock and Ronan Paddison

[Paper first received, September 2004; in final form, January 2005]

Summary. In this article, it is shown how cultural policy, and in particular public art, intersects
with the processes of urban restructuring and how it is a contributor, but also antidote, to the
conflict that typically surrounds the restructuring of urban space. The particular focus of the
paper is on investigating how public art can be inclusionary/exclusionary as part of the wider
project of urban regeneration. The first part of the paper examines examples in which public art
intervention has attempted to generate inclusion. Subsequently, attention focuses more on
examples in which the public art has been perceived as an aspect of cultural domination and has
thus provoked resistance. Throughout, it is argued that the processes through which artworks
become installed into the urban fabric are critical to the successful development of inclusion.

Introduction As it is, the statue remains at its original

site, although as a result of vandalism the
As part of the celebration of Scottish devolu-
tion, implemented in 1999, but also as a sculp- subject often lacks his spectacles and is
ture intended to be a part of the restructuring periodically embellished with graffiti.
of the ‘new Glasgow’, a statue to Donald The story the Donald Dewar statue tells is
Dewar was erected at a prominent location one repeated elsewhere, that public art can
in the city centre. Generally acclaimed as the be read in different ways and that its uses to
‘father’ of Scottish devolution, but also an beautify the city or celebrate its reimagineer-
MP of long standing in the city, a statue to ing do not necessarily enjoy universal consen-
him seemed a fitting celebration of his sus. In this respect, public art is no different
achievements. Moreover, its emplacement at from art in general where matters of taste
the head of a newly pedestrianised area and and preference become paramount. For
immediately outside the new Concert Hall, public art, these issues become magnified pre-
itself a product of the city’s status as European cisely because of its visibility and hence its
City of Culture in 1990, seemed an appro- ‘inescapability’, although reactions to it can
priate gesture to both the city and Scotland. vary from the highly vocal and oppositional
Yet, repeatedly, the statue has been to the unaffected. Time can help to mellow
vandalised, to the point that the city council public opinion to artworks so they become
considered relocating it, or at least, through part of not just the taken-for-granted but also
raising the height of the plinth on which it of the accepted landscape of the city. A few
stands, making its vandalism more difficult. years before the unveiling of the statue to
Joanne Sharp, Venda Pollock and Ronan Paddison are in the Department of Geography and Geomatics, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. Fax: 0141 330 4894. E-mail: jsharp@geog.gla.ac.uk; vpollock@geog.gla.ac.uk; and rpaddison@geog.
gla.ac.uk. The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their comments. All illustrations of artworks in Gateshead are
courtesy of Gateshead Council.
0042-0980 Print=1360-063X Online=05=05-61001 –23 # 2005 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080=00420980500106963
1002 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

Donald Dewar, public opposition had been as can be the remonumentalisation of

vocal to the suggestion made by Glasgow (urban) space (Czaplicka and Ruble, 2003).
City Council to relocate statues from the Where the development of public art as part
city’s principal square. Yet, ironically, the of the repertoire of the gentrification of the
statues commemorate largely forgotten politi- contemporary city lacks the overt political
cal and military figures of the 19th century and symbolism of monumentalism (Levinson,
are symptomatic of the ‘imposed monument- 1998), this is not to suggest that its use is pol-
alism’ of the Victorian city. What Lefebvre itically neutral. Deutsche (1996) argues force-
(1991, p. 143) warned of as the ability of fully how the promotion of public art and
“monumental buildings to mask the will to architecture appears to neutralise politically
power and the arbitrariness of power beneath its use within the city yet masks its political
signs and surfaces which claim to express col- outcomes, particularly on those excluded
lective will and collective thought”, is given from the new image created. Contemporary
added weight through the impress of time trends in public art in the city have tended to
and habituation. eschew monumentalism as it was expressed
Such contradictions underline the different in the 19th century with its thinly disguised
readings public art attracts, but they also appeal to élite interests. Further, much as
suggest how its meaning, for the self and public art and architecture in Rome or
more specifically the self as citizen, can be Florence in the Reformation had been
read as more or less inclusive. Where exclu- fashioned to celebrate the city and in the
sion reflects authoritarian imposition, it is in 19th century became part of the process of
the colonial city that the alienating effects forging the City Beautiful, so its present use,
generated by public art, particularly that cele- in part at least, can be seen as part of the on-
brating imperial control, foster political reac- going goal of beautifying the city. Yet the
tion and the will to decommemorate alien (re)aestheticisation of cities is not an apoliti-
rule. Thus, following Irish independence, the cal exercise; the Hausmannisation of
monumental symbols to British rule in European cities in the 19th century and its
Dublin were successively removed, some- ‘imposed’ nature and socially divisive out-
times by the state at others clandestinely by comes have their parallels in the contempor-
nationalist groups. Yet as Whelan (2003) ary restructuring of the city under what
shows in the case of the most obvious of the Harvey (2000) has described as ‘neolibera-
icons, certainly the most prominent in the lised urban authoritarianism’. Much as histori-
urban landscape—Nelson’s Pillar modelled cal analogy risks glossing over contextual
on its London counterpart—opinions as to differences, what Gunn (2000) has sought to
its fate were divided. Ultimately it was to be demonstrate as the dominance of bourgeois
decided by the bomb. Yet in spite of the values on the landscapes of the cities of north-
overt political symbolism of the pillar, its fam- ern England in the 19th century has come to
iliarity and acceptance as part of the everyday be repeated albeit in a different guise in the
use of the city, as well as appreciation of its bourgeois revanchism underpinning contem-
aesthetic qualities, meant that its removal porary urban gentrification (Smith, 1996).
was not uncontentious. As Whelan has argued What the experience of urban regeneration
continues to repeat is that the uses to which
With the passage of time it became a popular
culture has been employed as part of the
meeting-place and viewing point . . . and a
process of revival can be socially divisive
symbol of the city centre that transcended
leading to what Mitchell (2000) has described
any political connotations (Whelan, 2003,
as ‘culture wars’. As has been widely
p. 206, emphasis added).
remarked upon (for example, see Bianchini,
Such decommemoration is commonplace in 1999; Boyle and Hughes, 1991), cultural plan-
cities emergent from periods of authoritarian ning immediately raises the question of
rule—although not necessarily uncontested ‘culture for whom?’ in which imposition and
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1003

the favouring of particular interests are likely architecture, and in different types of
to engender reaction and resistance. To its urban space?
practitioners, there may be a degree of inevit-
Fundamentally, our concern in this paper is to
ability here, particularly where the reimagi-
offer critical insight into how public art and
neering of cities has become so focused
architecture contribute or otherwise to the
around the winning of mega-events; the
social cohesion of the city. Key to the creation
focused nature of such events may be incom-
of social cohesion is the belief that public art,
patible with the ability to address the diverse
or the processes through which it is produced,
set of preferences represented in the city.
is able to create a sense of inclusion. By this
Yet where ‘culture wars’ arise, their develop-
token, public art should be able to generate a
ment reflects the wider problem (and chal-
sense of ownership forging the connection
lenge) apparent in contemporary urban
between citizens, city spaces and their
restructuring in which the battleground of
meaning as places through which subjectivity
city politics comprises two ‘sides’ of urban
is constructed. Initially, we outline the ration-
entrepreneurialism caught up in the avowed
ale for identifying public art and the critiques
objective of making the city more competitive
that are used to counter the rhetoric underpin-
and the increasing social inequalities that have
ning its adoption. Here, we are concentrating
become so much the hallmark of such cities.
on the visual so excluding those other
In this article, we want to show how cultural
elements of the arts, notably the performative,
policy, and in particular public art, intersects
that other writers have sought to include
with the processes of urban restructuring and
within its definition (Deutsche, 1996;
how it is a contributor, but also antidote, to
Lippard, 1997; Miles, 1997). The main discus-
the conflict that typically surrounds the
sion is divided into two sections looking at
restructuring of urban space. Even restricting
different types of in(ex)clusive practice
our attention to the field of public art, it is
through different case studies. Initially, we
apparent that these intersections are complex
look at examples in which public art inter-
and contextually dependent. Our intention is
vention has been sought inclusively.
to ‘cut into’ the picture through asking two
Subsequently, attention focuses more on
sets of questions linked to the overarching
examples in which cultural domination has
purpose of investigating how public art can
provoked resistance. Throughout, it is argued
be inclusionary/exclusionary in the methods
that in the deployment of public art it is the
through which it has been practised as part of
processes through which it becomes installed
the wider project of urban regeneration.
into the urban fabric that are critical to
inclusion. However, practice also emphasises
—In the deployment of public art, what con-
differences between the motivations underpin-
ditions contribute to or hinder democrati-
ning the use of public art, the scale of inter-
cally inclusive practices? How is local
vention and the perceived importance of it to
participation able to counter top– down
the reaestheticisation of urban spaces.
practices? How do design professionals,
architects and artists, seek to develop
inclusive practices? Is inclusion seen as an
Why Public Art?
end in itself or a means to an end, and by
whom? Public art is not simply art placed outside.
—In what ways have the claims made for the Many would argue that traditional gallery
use of public art within urban regeneration spaces are public in their openness to interested
been inclusive? Under what conditions viewers, while, conversely, others would insist
does inclusion contribute to a sense of that the privatisation of public space has
democratic ownership over the inscription meant that art placed in public space is not
of urban spaces? How does this vary necessarily for all. Thus, public art is art
between different types of public art and which has as its goal a desire to engage with
1004 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

its audiences and to create spaces—whether authorities, inclusive, community-based pro-

material, virtual or imagined—within which jects appeal because they are generally low-
people can identify themselves, perhaps by cost and yet are perceived to be able to yield
creating a renewed reflection on community, benefits beyond the aesthetic that correlate
on the uses of public spaces or on our beha- with social policy objectives. However, the
viour within them. Public art, then, does not way in which such projects are inscribed
have only to be expressed visually. It can be into regeneration policy has implications, as
expressed in terms of soundscapes, media Phillips (1988) suggests, for the potential of
(non-)places such as the Internet, on televi- the artwork. The arts represent
sion, as well as in material spaces of inhabited
landscapes. However, given the focus here on the more intangible phenomenon whereby
the links between arts and urban regeneration, cultural resources are mobilised by urban
we have chosen to concentrate on the visual. managers in an attempt to engineer consen-
The core examples relate to the urban environ- sus amongst the residents of their localities,
ment, yet consideration is also made of some a sense that beyond the daily difficulties of
that may lie somewhat outwith the urban urban life which many of them might
realm but are integrally related to ideas of experience the city is basically doing
ownership, identity and the creation of space. ‘alright’ by its citizens (Philo and Kearns,
In the UK, as in many other contemporary 1993, p. ix).
Western countries, public art appears to have
an increasingly prominent role in urban Phillips (1988) and Deutsche (1996) have
design. In 1993, around 40 per cent of local been quick to point out that the notion of the
authorities in the UK had adopted a public public should not be regarded as a neat,
art policy of some sorts (Miles, 1997, p. 96) always consensual affair. Many arguments
and since then progressively more cities, like are based on essentialist claims to nature,
Newcastle and Gateshead, have been using identity, place and community. They thus
public art as a keystone in their regeneration fail to acknowledge the contested, fragmented
schemes. Hall and Robertson (2001, p. 7) and mutable nature of these concepts.
cite the general aim of adding an “‘aura’ of Deutsche (1996, p. 270) worries that those
quality”, listing the Policy Studies Institute’s who see public art as leading to the enhance-
summary of the contribution that public art ment of community miss the point in that
can make to a number of contemporary they “presume that the task of democracy is
urban issues: contributing to local distinctive- to settle, rather than sustain, conflict”. Public
ness; attracting investment; boosting cultural space and the controversies surrounding
tourism; enhancing land values; creating public art can only reflect their constituent
employment; increasing use of urban spaces; communities. Hall and Robertson (2001,
and, reducing vandalism. For its advocates, p. 19) argue that the role of public art should
there is an overall sense of the significant be to encourage the sound of contradictory
role that public art can play in culture-led voices—voices that represent the diversity of
urban regeneration, in the economic realm, people using the space—rather than aspire
but also in terms of culture and community. “to myths of harmony based around essential-
It is perhaps the perceived potential of ist concepts”. Phillips further points to the
public art to work on multiple levels and its bureaucracy that so much public art now has
adaptability that gives it such cultural viabi- to negotiate given the intended goals of
lity. Public art not only contributes to the inclusion—from the different committees
visual attractiveness of the city and has the that must examine and accept proposals to
ability to aestheticise urban spaces, but also, considerations of health and safety—that any
through public art, authorities can signal critical edge is lost and the resultant work
their willingness to deal with social and must be bland, engaging everyone but offend-
environmental problems. For many ing no-one. She says
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1005

Isn’t it ironic that an enterprise aimed even of urban growth, an argument which was to
at the least, at enlivening public life is now be tested in different ways in the recent
running on gears designed to evade contro- research project Cities: Competitiveness and
versy (Phillips, 1988, p. 95). Cohesion Research Programme funded by
the Economic and Social Research Council
in the UK. The evidence of the programme
Approaching Inclusion
was far from supportive of the linkage.
One of the more pressing issues characterising Indeed, as the authors to the report summar-
contemporary cities—certainly one which ising the programme suggested, from the
preoccupies much academic and policy evidence of Britain’s ‘successful cities’, such
debate—is how to achieve greater social as London, Leeds, Bristol or Edinburgh,
inclusion in cities which, locked into the
it is clear that competitive success is far
task of enhancing their competitive position
from incompatible with persistent concen-
in an increasingly globalised economy, are
trations of unemployment and social depri-
characterised by deepening socioeconomic
vation and high levels of social and
inequalities and increasing segregation. The
economic inequality (Boddy and Parkinson,
apparent unambiguity of the issue belies the
2004, p. 428).
complications to which it gives rise. How is
inclusion to be defined? How is it to be What the research identified was what has
sought? What are the presumed linkages been empirically demonstrated elsewhere,
between social inclusion and urban economic that urban economic restructuring is often
competitiveness? Such fundamental issues accompanied by deepening socioeconomic
problematise not only how inclusion should inequalities (Sassen, 2001; Madanipour
be formulated within urban policy but also et al., 1998). Even if, as Moulaert et al.
its purpose and benefits—questions that (2003) suggest, the impress of such inequal-
recur within the use of public art as part of ities varies according to the type of welfare
the process of regenerating the city and its regime and the regulatory frameworks
neighbourhoods. through which urban policy is mediated,
As it has been suggested, even the linkages such differences do not negate the uncertainty
between social inclusion and urban economic surrounding the linkages between social
competitiveness are disputed. To some (for inclusion and economic change.
example, Marcuse and van Kempen, 2002), These uncertainties become replicated in
social inclusion, or rather its antonym social debates on the role of public art in urban
exclusion, erodes the ability of the city to be regeneration. Indeed in the case of public
competitive. Cities characterised by deep art, doubts surround not only the contribution
socioeconomic inequalities would be less it might make to urban economic growth, but
attractive to investment capital undermining also to that of social inclusion. Two inter-
their ability to maintain their competitiveness. related factors help to explain the problems:
Further, as an argument to which New first, the contribution of public art is often
Labour’s urban policy has given explicit deliberately symbolic; and, secondly, follow-
support (Imrie and Raco, 2003), social ing from this, there are methodological pro-
inclusion was not only important to the attain- blems in evaluating its impacts. Typically,
ment of economic competitiveness but the outcomes of social inclusion as part of
through the Third Way the achievement of urban policy become expressed in material
both was possible (Giddens, 1998). Not only terms. Most urban policy is aimed at reducing
would the opportunities to participate be material inequalities—for example, through
enhanced in a prosperous (urban) economy, neighbourhood regeneration, the rehabilita-
but also the benefits of growth would trickle tion of sub-standard housing stock, training
down the social hierarchy. Inclusion, then, programmes aimed at reinserting the unem-
becomes a necessary part of a virtuous cycle ployed within the labour market and through
1006 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

the quest to improve the delivery of public Young to the politics of difference and the
services in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. extent to which the overaccentuation of what
As the consequences of public art are per- Fraser defines as cultural injustice has
ceived to be symbolic rather than material, diverted attention from socioeconomic redis-
this tends to increase the conflict surrounding tribution. As important as such debates are
its use, which in turn is amplified by the diffi- (and they become mirrored elsewhere within
culties in measuring the benefits which are the use of culture as a means of urban regen-
claimed for it (Selwood, 1995). There are eration), they should not be allowed to over-
exceptions, notably what Plaza (2000) terms shadow the common ground that exists—the
the ‘Guggenheim effect’: the contribution of commitment to social justice and the contri-
iconic architecture to the generating of urban bution to its attainment through the need for
tourism and more generally to the regener- mutual recognition between groups with
ation of the city. Most public art, however, different preferences, the acceptance of differ-
is more modest in its intervention and scale ence and the role deliberative processes of
and its economic contribution is often mar- political interaction can play.
ginal and typically indirect. The indetermi- Fraser (1995, p. 71) suggests that the pro-
nacy of its economic contribution places cesses through which cultural (or symbolic)
added attention on its imputed non-material injustices tend to arise are fundamentally
benefits. The intangibility and contested “rooted in social patterns of representation,
nature of these benefits, how they contribute interpretation and communication”. Develop-
to building social inclusion, shifts the empha- ing this, Fraser identifies three interrelated
sis from outcomes towards the processes practices commonly associated with cultural
through which public art is produced and injustice. These include non-recognition
how these can foster a sense of inclusion. In which renders groups invisible “via the
other words, it is by focusing attention on authoritative, representational and interpret-
the democratic processes through which ative practices of one’s own culture” and
public art is produced and the extent to disrespect, the routine malignment “in stereo-
which these are inclusive that we can begin typical public cultural representations and/or
to appreciate the role of public art in urban in everyday life interactions”. Both are funda-
regeneration. mental to the overarching injustice of cultural
Recent debates amongst post-modern injustice, of “being subjected to patterns of
political philosophers provide pointers to interpretation and communication that are
how democratic processes can (and should) associated with another culture and/or
be more inclusive. Young (2000) provides a hostile to one’s own” (Fraser, 1995, p. 71).
succinct definition of inclusion as In short, in a democratic society, equal status
must be given to individuals and groups,
a democratic decision (being) normatively
an idea that should saturate its practice
legitimate only if all those affected by it
as well as being apparent in its cultural
are included in the process of discussion
outcomes.
and decision-making (Young, 2000, p. 22).
While these dimensions overlap, the paper
Her emphasis is on the processes through uses each in turn to discuss how public art
which collective decisions are made. Critical has been used to foster social inclusion in
here is that the processes in which discussion the city. Collectively, they provide pointers
and deliberation amongst the multiple groups to what, in public art terms, would define an
and communities comprising the city afford inclusive city, as one giving expression to
equal status to each and that debate becomes the multiple and shifting identities of different
the means of exposing and being more respon- groups, as indicative of presence rather than
sive to difference. Others, notably Fraser absence, and of avoiding the cultural domina-
(1995, 1997) but also Phillips (2004), have tion of particular élites or interests. Such a
taken issue with the emphasis given by mapping represents an ideal. The reality of
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1007

cities, their social diversity and fluidity, and Public Art Production and Cultural
the power relations underpinning the uses of (In)justice
public art challenge the ability of meeting
1. Non-recognition: Reclaiming Place and
such ideals.
Recognising Past
Our approach is empirical, drawing on
specific examples of how public art has been When working on participatory projects,
used to foster social inclusion in the city. artists are frequently dealing with commu-
The case studies have been chosen to demon- nities who have been marginalised in main-
strate the range of issues surrounding stream urban histories. There is a general
inclusion and public art. No claim is being sense that they have been made invisible
made that the selection is either definitive or within the cityscape and therefore a key strat-
wholly representative. Due to the lack of egy in overcoming this sense of non-
evaluations into the success, or otherwise, of recognition is to render their history visible
public art projects, it is difficult to compose in some form. The very visibility of public
a representative selection of good or bad prac- art and its traditional monumentalism and
tice and whereas iconic or controversial pro- aggrandising of civic ‘heroes’ mean that it is
jects may receive critical and media a prime vehicle through which minority
attention, those at community level are often groups can affirm their history and physically
neglected in this respect. There are many mark their place within the layered histories of
examples of public art and it is difficult to the urban space—the past being a keystone
choose examples without appearing anecdo- upon which to build for the present and
tal. Therefore, a deliberate attempt has been future. As Ron Griffiths has noted
to consider a range of known works from
an important part of the experience of
Europe and North America many of which,
exclusion is a weakened or non-existent
in process as well as product, have become
sense of identity and pride. A key step in
very influential contributing to subsequent
integrating excluded populations into the
debates surrounding notions of inclusion.
social mainstream, therefore, is to assist
That the works discussed are in a number of
them to find their voice, to validate their
cases relatively well-known examples of
particular histories and traditions, to estab-
public art should not be taken to imply that
lish a collective identity, to give expression
they necessarily reflect what might, in social
to their experiences and aspirations, to
inclusion terms, be considered as exemplars
build self-confidence. (Griffiths, 1999,
of good practice. Rather, their selection has
pp. 463– 464).
been made to demonstrate the variety of
public artworks and of the modes through There is a pervasive trend when working on
which intervention can be sought. Further, such participatory projects to seek to, as
the focus on process allows us to investigate Griffiths termed it, “validate their particular
how inclusive are practices, emphasising the histories”. Often the recognition of a particu-
key issue of ownership. Studies elsewhere lar community and their association with a
on community participation have underlined specific place are integral to this process.
the significance of ownership as shaping the Early and influential work in this area was
value in which democratic participation is undertaken by the non-profit arts organisation
held (in the different case of housing, see The Power of Place, which aims to create
Goodlad et al., 2001). Such a sense is apparent memorials or presences in the urban landscape
within the different ‘stages’ through which of Los Angeles to those ‘forgotten’ by domi-
participation takes places from agenda nant histories—for example, the Black slave
setting to policy formulation to implemen- and midwife Biddy Mason (Hayden, 1995,
tation, the critical factor being the extent to pp. 169– 187; Miles, 1997, pp. 177– 178).
which, and how, citizens are included in the Commissioned by the Community Redeve-
processes. lopment Agency and with funding from
1008 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

various organisations including the National the artist has the potential to intervene, to
Endowment for the Arts, The Power of Place interact with the contemporary community,
liaised with the community and produced to research and reveal the past in a subtle
books, posters, a photomural and a ‘Window and intuitive manner. In this, The Power of
of Memories’ showing Betye Saar’s Nostalgia Place has sought to insert itself sensitively,
collages. In addition, Sheila Levrant de creating varied forms of artwork and subtle
Bretteville produced a permanent installation inscriptions in the cityscape. To see its work
Biddy Mason: Time and Place on the site of as insular examples is to undermine the
Mason’s homestead. Such modest interven- ethos of the project. Besides Biddy Mason,
tions into public space restore and pay other projects have included the preservation
homage to the dignity of minority figures of historic buildings in the ‘Little Tokyo’ dis-
and yet, perhaps inevitably, are tainted with trict of the city (Hayden, 1995, pp. 210– 225)
an air of nostalgia just as other monuments and such places create a dialogue through
resound with patriarchal hegemony. which a sense of the urban experiences of
With some projects of this nature, there is minority communities can be felt.
an air of opposition, of reinstatement, of stres- Although a monument or memorial to a sig-
sing an alternative canon when, perhaps, there nificant but neglected historical figure can
is a need to yield more towards a ‘differencing have wide resonances for a minority commu-
the canon’, as the art historian Griselda nity and its recognition at large, working with
Pollock has termed it (Pollock, 1999). As a collective history poses a different chal-
Dorothy Rowe explains lenge. Recovering a neglected collective
history that has little or no presence in hege-
Pollock implies that ‘differencing the
monic histories or traditional museum
canon’ is not about the replacement of one
archives almost forces an artist to take an
set of canonical works by another as
ingenious approach. The onus is specifically
devised by feminism, but that it is a rather
on the communal, the mutual endeavours
more nuanced activity that continually
and the shared struggles. To commemorate
questions the borders of knowledge,
just one individual would undermine the
desires and power (Rowe, 2003, p. 28).
raison d’être of the project. One innovative
There is a danger amongst schemes that aim to response to such a situation was demonstrated
resurrect tangibly histories that they will ico- in Andrew Leicester’s state-funded project
nicise or nostalgically myth-make in a retell- Prospect V-III (1982) in Frostburg State
ing of history. Against this, the nature of the College, Maryland. Again emphasising the
contemporary community requires careful importance of process, Leicester spent time
consideration, necessitating a questioning of visiting mining sites and interviewing miners
its relationship with a particular place and its and their families. The resultant work took
links, if any, with the past. As Lucy Lippard the form of what could be termed an alterna-
has stated tive kind of museum, built in the style of
19th-century mining architecture and
Like the places they inhabit, communities
housing artefacts donated by the miners’
are bumpily layered and mixed, exposing
families. Furthering their involvement,
hybrid stories that cannot be seen in a
members of the local community chose to
linear fashion (Lippard, 1997, p. 24).
provide guided tours, which suggested that
Replacing non-recognition with recognition they had taken ‘ownership’ of the work. As
seems somewhat simplistic and making the well as reinstating a presence in the landscape
invisible visible, too literal. Although and recovering a lost history, Leicester made
through its sheer visibility public art seems the project relevant for the contemporary
an ideal tool through which to restate a pre- community. Leicester’s inclusive process
sence in the urban landscape and, by associ- and the resultant artwork have the potential
ation, its history and evolution, it is here that to function as inspiration for those wishing
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1009

to remember excluded communities in if, in the case of The Mughal Tent mobile,
contemporary post-industrial cities. marker of their presence. However, this is
In dealing with public art, it is tempting to not an overt claim for recognition through
focus on place-specific works as public art mere visibility. They overcome Fraser’s
tends to be associated with particular places notion of non-recognition in a tangible but
and situated in certain sites. However, just as subtle sense, trying to increase awareness of
notions of community can transcend specific marginalisation and commemorate histories
geographical locales, so can artworks them- in a manner meaningful for the present. In
selves. In 1991, the V&A initiated the Shaimi- this, a meaningful, democratic process has
ana: The Mughal Tent programme devised by been key to the sustainability of initiatives
Shireen Akbar and aimed at south Asian and apparent in the outcomes.
women and their children. Although encom-
passing broader aims than just recognition,
2. Disrespect: Giving Voice, Countering the
Akbar’s project saw inclusion as a challenge
Stereotype and Rediscovering the Margins
facing society at large and also, sensitively,
as an internal cultural issue as Asian children If giving voice through the vehicle of public
were perceived to be losing a sense of their art can be the means of drawing the invisible
south Asian heritage as they became inte- into the urban narrative, it also has a role in
grated into British culture. Community drawing in those citizens and spaces whose
groups from across Britain were brought to marginalisation stems from other causes.
the V&A to examine aspects of south Asian That is, marginalisation in the city is not just
history using the museum’s collection. As a a product of being invisible. The poor, those
result, they produced a textile panel using tra- living in deprived neighbourhoods, are not
ditional methods but reflecting contemporary so much invisible as inaudible. Stigmatis-
cultural concerns. The panel was then dis- ation, the stereotyping of particular groups
played as part of a tent, inherent in which and the urban spaces they occupy, is a
were ideas of home, transience and travelling commonplace source of marginalisation.
(Rowe, 2003). As well as opening the The idea of giving a community a voice and
museum’s collection to a wider community, overcoming preconceptions was at the core of
the project brought together an immigrant Iñigo Manglane Ovalle’s work Tele-
ethnic group perceived as being isolated Vecindario (1992 –93) for ‘Culture in
from mainstream British culture. Partly to Action’, an outreach project devised by the
help overcome this sense of isolation and to non-profit arts organisation Sculpture
create dialogue between different female com- Chicago (since merged into Chicago Depart-
munities and cultures, those involved included ment of Cultural Affairs’ public art section).
non-Asian women and the project integrated a Curated by the influential curator and writer,
variety of religions. Therefore the project Mary Jane Jacobs, ‘Culture in Action’ was a
attempted to build connections across a mar- deliberate attempt to engage minority commu-
ginalised group and cultivate relationships nities unfamiliar with Sculpture Chicago and
and awareness with other sections of society. the artworld at large. Rather than artists with
The Mughal Tent became an international an international reputation, those chosen
project and has been made accessible via the were known for participatory projects and, in
Internet, its impact rippling out to a much this instance, went through a two-year period
wider community altogether and its form chal- of collaboration with minority groups
lenging traditional conceptions of public art. (Drake, 1994, p. 13). The resultant artworks
All of these artworks were inclusive in took various forms from an altered paint
terms of their target audience and, crucially, chart to a multi-ethnic festival to sculpture
their practice. They addressed communities and chocolate bars. Despite the length of
that tended to be excluded from wider urban collaboration, criticism has been made that
processes and, with them, created a tangible, artists tended to be ‘shipped in’, therefore
1010 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

having little knowledge of the communities attributable to Ovalle’s position as resident-

with which they were working (Hixson, artist. Ovalle inevitably benefited from
1998), and the value of the projects has been pre-existing connections and knowledge and
questioned (Karasov, 1996, p. 25). Still, three yet, as Jacobs herself has noted, it is perhaps
of the eight artists involved were Chicago- oversimplistic to presume that “you’re
based, including Ovalle whose project was making a significant work for a place by
arguably the most successful in the sense of solely selecting people who are full-time resi-
engaging with the local community. dents of that place” (Drake, 1994, p. 13). It is
Ovalle lives and works in the lower- possible to argue that bringing an outsider’s
income, mainly Hispanic neighbourhood of point of view, a fresh pair of eyes free from
West Town, an area riven by gang violence any preconceptions, would be equally ben-
and the problems associated with social depri- eficial. Therefore, emphasis must, again, fall
vation. Working with a community leader and on the implementation of a process, which,
a co-ordinator of a Schools Programme, in this instance, was democratic giving room
Ovalle brought together a group of mostly for multiple voices to be heard.
Latino teenagers, some from rival gangs. It The articulation of numerous identities in
emerged that the teenagers felt misrepresented an artwork, however, can be problematic.
and stereotyped by the media and countering Although Tele-Vecindario recognised the
this became the impetus for their project. various facets of one community, mainly
With the assistance of local video pro- Hispanic, process becomes more complex
fessionals, they formed Street-Level Video when seeking to implement a democratic
and produced a series of films of people in practice and produce an inclusive artwork
the community discussing a range of issues within an extremely mixed neighbourhood.
including gentrification, race and gangs. This In such circumstances, one solution has been
not only formed links between various fac- to facilitate a space for cultural exchange
tions of the community but also bridged gen- rather than impose an artificial, fixed vision
erations. The project culminated in a ‘block of a community through a singular represen-
party’ where 71 monitors were placed out- tation. When there is a shared sense of
doors and broadcast these dialogues to the history, religion, nationality or even loss con-
public at large. Local residents voluntarily tributing to a sense of community, then it is
provided electricity from their homes and perhaps easier to find a common theme or
this wittily and symbolically furthered the direction for an artwork than when a commu-
notions of empowerment central to the nity is multicultural and diverse, and whose
project (Jacobs, 1995, p. 86). The party links lie in their residency on the same site
brought people from across Chicago into the and their situation as a minority within the
neighbourhood, challenged preconceptions, larger social fabric of the city. In such a
and places of street violence became more social context, claims that public art can con-
neutral spaces for exchange and dialogue. tribute to, if not create, community cohesion,
Importantly, Ovalle’s project was not simply seem somewhat ‘easier said than done’ and
a means to counter stereotypes and offer an misguided. As Ash Amin has argued
alternative but homogenised narrative;
instead, it involved a more perceptive com- The distinctive feature of mixed neighbour-
munication of numerous identities within a hoods is that they are communities without
community and encouraged dialogue both community, each marked by multiple and
internally and with wider society. hybrid affiliations of varying social and
A clear sign of the achievement of the geographical reach, and each intersecting
project has been its sustainability; Street momentarily (or not) with another one for
Level Youth Media remains active and the common local resources and amenities.
‘block party’ is an annual feature. It is a They are not homogeneous or primarily
moot point, however, whether this success is place-based communities . . . They are
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1011

simply mixtures of social groups with space, since their opening they have proved
varying intensities of local affiliation, a popular space of retreat in an area underpro-
varying reasons for local attachment, vided with open spaces. They have also
and varying values and cultural practices become a tourist landmark, a positive devel-
. . . Mixed neighbourhoods need to be opment in bringing visitors to a part of the
accepted as the spatially open, culturally city otherwise off the tourist map, and for
heterogeneous, and socially variegated encouraging awareness of the ethnic diversity
spaces that they are, not imagined as of the city. Yet, by being drawn into the rheto-
future cohesive or integrated communities ric of the city’s marketing promotion—
(Amin, 2002, p. 972). multiculturalism as evidence of the city’s
promotional adage as ‘The Friendly City’—
Echoing the sentiments of Hall and Robertson the development courts usurping the commu-
mentioned above, Amin argues that difference nities’ sense of ownership. By this token,
must be an integral part of the process towards social inclusion is not just an aim of urban
inclusiveness. Recognising this, the arts regeneration; it can become also a means for
organisation nva worked with the most ethni- projecting the city’s image.
cally diverse community in Scotland in Glas- The increasing importance given to com-
gow’s Pollokshields district to transform munity liaison in such permanent projects
derelict wasteland into ‘The Hidden requires careful consideration: there can be a
Gardens’. The gardens, in planting, planning substantial difference between consultation
and a series of artworks and events, aimed to and inclusionary practices fostering empower-
reflect the horticultural influences of the ment (Burns et al., 1994; Young, 2000). The
various faith communities in the local area. difference between seeking an opinion,
Crucially, it aimed to be inclusive throughout which might be little more than a public
from initial conception to the final realisation relations exercise, and involving communities
and subsequently (in its on-going manage- more fundamentally in the deliberative
ment). It was a delicate and difficult process process culminating in decision-making
that involved dialogue with a number of com- itself can have profound impacts on the
munities. Key here, particularly in the process creation and reception of a work and the com-
of initiating dialogue between the multiple munity at large. One example is Portsmouth
communities, was the appointment of a com- City Council’s commissioning of Peter
munity facilitator sympathetic to the needs Dunn, most famous for his association with
of local groups. After learning about the area the Art of Change, to produce an art scheme
and its constituent communities, drafts for for a sports and community facility in a
the project were successively discussed deprived neighbourhood. Dunn collaborated
between groups and the artists and horticultur- with the community, other artists, architects
alists hired by nva (a consultancy firm and landscapers to transform the environment
specialising in the field). The participatory based on the principles of Agenda 21. The site
process was critical in which local groups was given unique identity through the design
were encouraged to assume that participation of earthworks, boundary walls, narrative path-
would influence the design and use of the ways and wall hangings and its distinctiveness
space. In other words, by emphasising that was underscored by the landmark sculptural
participation would help to define the nature work the Wymering Tree. Perhaps more
of the proposal, its implementation and, over significant than the development itself,
the longer term, its running, the dialogue however, was the community involvement.
sought to encourage a sense of ownership A community board took control of the man-
and empowerment (Paddison and Sharp, agement of the project so they were not only
2003, p. 11). Although the gardens have given a voice in the aesthetic nature of the
restricted opening hours and this may raise site, but also played an integral and decisive
questions as to their accessibility as a public role in the process and the implementation
1012 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

of strategies. The community involvement in the North by Anthony Gormley has become
both the artistic and policy processes of the iconic not only for Gateshead but also indica-
project demonstrates the potential for the tive of the power that public art can yield as a
community to determine the nature of tool in changing the perception of the ‘post-
the artwork produced and be integral to the industrial’ to the ‘cultural’ city. It is the figure-
changes taking place around them. This head for a scheme throughout the city that has
works well at community level, but the used public art for a variety of purposes (see
implementation of such a process city-wide, Figures 1 –3).
where public art is increasingly being used The Riverside Sculpture Park has reclaimed
as a promotional tool, is more problematic. a derelict industrial site and used it as a means
The incorporation of major public art pro- to bring art to the public. Similarly, Windy
jects into regeneration schemes has become Nook by Richard Cole is a prominent but sym-
a key factor in rebranding a city’s image, pathetic land art feature that has transformed a
especially in post-industrial towns—in the colliery slagheap into an environmental
UK, Glasgow, Birmingham and Gateshead art-site to be used by the community. The
are principal examples where culture, includ- public also encounters art in a series of
ing public art, has been vaunted as a force in schemes at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital
changing each city’s fortunes. The Angel of that explore the potential of the arts in

Figure 1. Public art and deprivation in Gateshead. Projects have focused on waterfront sites although
these include several of the most deprived wards (defined on basis of socioeconomic and health
indicators). The council has also sought to distribute public art works more widely in Gateshead.
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1013

Figure 2. Angel of the North (1998), by Antony

Gormley. Photograph courtesy of Gateshead
Council. Figure 3. Rolling Moon (1998/90), by Colin Rose.
Photograph courtesy of Gateshead Council.

healthcare. Alongside iconic pieces by Quays and the building of the Millennium
renowned artists, including Richard Harris, Bridge linking Gateshead’s Quays to those
Andy Goldsworthy, Colin Rose and Richard recently refurbished in Newcastle. Together,
Deacon, the public is invited to participate in the cities, which made a joint (but unsuccess-
events such as the annual sculpture day. The ful) bid for the 2008 European Capital of
iconic and community aspects are not Culture nomination, aim to create a centre
wholly mutually exclusive, however, and for cultural excellence with prestige residen-
over 1400 children at 30 schools were tial and leisure developments. Here, the com-
involved in work connected with Gateshead’s bination of iconic visual emblems, art and
Angel. Many of the artworks are concentrated architecture, have gone some way to crafting
in areas of social deprivation and this high- the city as a cultural landscape.
lights how public art has been used as a tool It must be recognised that, although many
to reaestheticise areas within a city as well policy documents and participatory projects
as the city at large. Implicit in this is the appeal to overarching terms such as ‘commu-
notion that public art can bring economic nity’, ‘identity’ and ‘place’, the general
and social benefits alongside the aesthetic. conformity of sentiment belies the complex
Their award-winning public art programme situations facing artists, cities and their multi-
has evolved alongside several more iconic farious communities. The general lack of eva-
projects within the city centre including the luative measures in community programmes
conversion of old flourmills into the Baltic means that it is difficult to outline measures
Arts Centre, the development of Gateshead of ‘good practice’, make affirmations of
1014 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

what constitutes a ‘successful’ intervention or enhance the image of the city, repackaging it
add credence to the claims made about public as a commodity for consumption in the post-
art’s social impact. As urban regeneration industrial age (see Urry, 2001). Public partici-
initiatives attempt to transform cities, public pation is generally not high on the agenda in
art itself seems to be undergoing a transform- this form of ‘authoritarian populism’, a Victor-
ation, moving from traditional civic monu- ian image of city leaders knowing what’s best
mentalism towards seeking a more socially for the city and for its citizens. In claiming to
inclusive and aesthetically diverse practice. be a signifier for the city as a whole, of course,
Rather than impose or enforce inclusion, it it hides the inclusions and exclusions inherent
has to be intuitively and sensitively sought, in any singular vision for a community.
recognising the importance of difference and Furthermore, the ever-increasing use of
the vitality in diversity. When working with notions of inclusion through public art works
inclusive projects, the emphasis seems to lie in urban regeneration efforts makes one
with the process rather than the product. important assumption: that these processes
This may raise questions about the artist are compatible. However, as Malcolm Miles
deferring to the community, artistic integrity has argued, due to the very nature of capitalist
and aesthetic quality. It challenges institutions development, it is not always possible to draw
and funding bodies to consider the worth of public art into development in a way that is
intangible as well as tangible outcomes, tem- equally beneficial to all parties
porary as well as permanent products. Tra-
Developers do not develop in order to con-
ditional notions of the artist as creative
struct the ‘city beautiful’. They construct
genius have to be reassessed and the artist
the city beautiful in order to conceal the
has to find a position between ingenious
incompatibility of their development with
creator and creative facilitator. The use of
a free society (Miles, 1997, p. 130).
culture in the reastheticisation of the urban
environment also brings the danger that From such a perspective, any sense of invol-
areas, as they become more attractive places vement with the process then is inherently
in which to live and work, experience gentri- linked to collusion with forces that are funda-
fication. Communities, places and process mentally more interested in capital investment
are integral but intricate components of the or maintaining social order than with improv-
artwork. The extent to which each is con- ing the lives of residents of a city. Certainly,
sidered and the manner in which their critics of Glasgow 1990 City of Culture
inclusion is sought and managed has profound were quick to point out the benefits to industry
implications for the aesthetic and social out- and investment in the city but that, for the
comes of the completed project. majority of Glaswegians, nothing had
changed (Boyle and Hughes, 1991). Not dis-
similar criticisms have arisen in other cities
3. Cultural Domination and the Arts of
as Broudehoux (2004) has demonstrated in
Resistance
The Making and Selling of Post-Mao
Works such as Gormley’s Angel of the North Beijing. For others, there is a problematic of
or monumental architecture that signal a where public space is—in contemporary
city’s distinctiveness (for example, London’s cities, the spaces where people meet are
‘gherkin’ building, Glasgow’s Scottish Exhi- increasingly being commodified so making
bition and Conference Centre, Birmingham’s truly grassroots expressions in public space
mirrored Selfridges store or the competition more difficult (Mitchell, 2003; Phillips,
between global cities to own the world’s 1988). Therefore, it is debatable whether
tallest building), demonstrate the importance public art can ever be wholly inclusive,
of reworking the skyline as an attempt to refa- especially within urban regeneration where
shion the image of the city as a whole. Such complex factors of public space, commerciali-
developments are clearly intended to sation and commodification, and cultivating
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1015

an iconic cultural cityscape are intimately people’s opinions of the development (Dunn
entwined. In this environment, public art, and Leeson, 1993; Bird, 1993). These large
rather than participating in an inclusive posters displayed local versions of place in
agenda, can function as an oppositional or the landscape of regeneration, refusing to be
resistant force, highlighting excluded groups hidden behind the reworked image. They
and visualising protest to dominant regener- aimed to write people and their history into
ation schemes. the landscape rather than an aesthetic
focused around property and heritage.
Other expressions of resistance to this rede-
4. Resistance and Regeneration
velopment took the form of vandalism and
As opposed to the usual iconic permanence of graffiti. To some, as a form of cultural
art prominent in regeneration schemes, these expression, graffiti are giving a voice to
interventions tend to be temporary and take those who do not own the capital and build-
a variety of forms. ings upon which billboards are mounted, and
For instance, the redevelopment of the so cannot legitimately write up their messages
London Docklands in the 1980s stimulated a onto the urban landscape. It is a way in which
battle for land and for visibility that was those who have been passed over by regener-
articulated through the nature of the visual ation can write themselves back into the land-
landscape in art. The reimaging of the land- scape, refusing to conform to the new urban
scape, however, neither accepted nor accom- order. Some feel that, although we are “as
modated all: local people felt that not only much creatures of the public realm as the
had they been dispossessed by the new devel- private realm, we find ourselves silenced
opments but that they had been written out of whenever and wherever we might create
this new landscape. Developers talked in meaning to share with others” as public
terms of a ‘virgin site’ for development, space is tightly controlled by capitalism and
erasing the resident population and those the capitalist state (Luna, 1995, np). Graffiti
who had lived there in the past. The gentrified and culture jamming (the addition of slogans
landscape romanticised a particular part of the to billboards and advertising to subvert the
area’s history, focusing on middle-class intended message) draw attention to the
cultures of consumption rather than working- power and meanings inscribed into the urban
class cultures of production from the area environment. Its artists are attempting to
(just as was later to occur in Glasgow where denaturalise the taken-for-granted landscapes
the rewriting of the city’s landscape in terms that we each use on a daily basis, asking us
of Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the to be aware of the power relations that work
Glasgow School of Art were seen to be at through this mundane space (Cresswell,
the expense of working-class cultures of 1998; Deutsche, 1996).
‘Red Clydeside’ and social struggle (Boyle Some have incorporated this politics of
and Hughes, 1991)). In addition, the new opposition into their approach to creating art
developments privatised space: waterfront in the city—for instance, Krystof Wodiczko,
walks became private property, high walls particularly in his series of Projections.
were erected around new development and These nighttime projections of images onto
the Docklands Highway ran through the prominent buildings and statues were used to
Trade Unions building and local housing. challenge the meanings of the landscape
One of the attempts to rewrite silenced com- elements that dominate contemporary cities.
munity back into landscape was through the Thus, in projecting a swastika onto the South
Docklands Community Poster Project which African embassy in London 1985, missiles
visualised narratives of community presence onto war memorial columns and images of
back into the redeveloped landscape through disability onto heroic statues, Wodiczko was
the use of billboards showing aspects of asking the viewer to think about what it is
local history and identity, and expressing we choose to memorialise in our landscapes,
1016 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

and which experiences, events and narrations amongst the debates surrounding the use of
of history are silenced (Wodiczko, 1999). culture in urban regeneration attention needs
Artists such as Wodiczko also seek to rep- to be paid to economic redistribution. Works
resent those in the urban landscape who like those of Wodiczko and Rakowitz high-
cannot represent themselves. As the light the problematic notions of inclusion in
Docklands example showed, there are many schemes of urban redevelopment.
who are marginalised by processes of redeve-
lopment, or who are displaced by the
5. Problems of Process
processes of regeneration (Smith, 1993).
Wodiczko developed the Homeless Vehicle In practice, the division between public art
Project, a mobile vehicle for homeless initiated by authorities and grassroots
people to use to sleep, wash and keep their approaches is much messier than it may
belongings in. It made homeless people seem. State-sponsored projects now almost
visible, drawing them out from their naturalis- always include a community element, while
ation as an accepted (if unfortunate) part of the some artists who have previously worked
modern urban landscape (Smith, 1993). The with grassroots projects now work for both
vehicle became a talking-point between ‘top– down’ and community-led projects (for
pedestrians and the homeless, and its con- instance, the Art of Change). Critical artists
sciously missile-like design made compari- claim that their work establishes a conversa-
sons between the US government’s spending tion between the spaces and the people who
on social welfare and defence unavoidable. inhabit them. This is perhaps questionable:
Michael Rakowitz similarly exposed the who really has a conversation? To what
relationship of homelessness to urban devel- extent does this rely upon an élitist language
opment in his ParaSITE series which placed of art and politics? On the other hand, art
inflatable constructions over heat vents of that is developed through the effort of local
buildings to provide homeless people insu- governments and other local development
lated and private spaces where they could agencies does not necessarily turn out the
exist—parasitically—alongside the modern way that was intended, alternative meanings
buildings. As he put it and practices might emerge, people can rein-
scribe images with personal and local
While these shelters were being used, they
meaning. As mentioned earlier, this makes
functioned not only as a temporary place
clear the importance of understanding the
of retreat, but also as a station of dissent
processes through which public art is made
and empowerment; many of the homeless
and placed within different parts of the city.
users regarded their shelters as a protest
When this fails, it can promote interesting
device . . . The shelters communicated a
debates over issues, but can also be intensely
refusal to surrender, and made more
demoralising for the communities involved.
visible the unacceptable circumstances of
The complexity of the processes through
homeless life within the city (Rakowitz,
which public art is made meaningful to differ-
2000, pp. 234– 235).
ent communities is perhaps most (in)famously
Clearly, the homeless vehicle project and seen in debates over Richard Serra’s Tilted
ParaSITE are not solutions to homelessness Arc (see Senie, 2002). The work was sited in
and the other negative social products of Federal Plaza, Manhattan in 1981 as one
urban redevelopment. Their role as a cultural of the last in the Kennedy-inspired Art-
product of the city is to make visible the nat- in-Architecture programme to bring art into
uralised relationships that are established public spaces. Serra, an artist known for his
through the built form, to amplify “the proble- ‘anti-environmental’ works, saw his sculpture
matic relationship between those who have as challenging the bourgeois bureaucratic
homes and those who do not have homes” spaces that usually contextualise the display
(Rakowitz, 2000, p. 235). As Fraser argued, of artwork—in this case, the sanitised,
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1017

alienating square created by the meeting of to the community, or any consideration

two blocks of the Federal Building. The sculp- except the pursuit of art, can contribute to
ture was constructed from Corten Steel, 120 the common good (Gablik, 1995; quoted
feet long, 12 feet high and 2.5 inches in in Miles, 1997, p. 90).
width. Covered with a surface of brown rust,
Tilted Arc bisected the square, tilting off For post-Tilted Arc work, there has been less
both its horizontal and vertical axes (Blake, in the way of ‘parachuted in’ artists (but see
1993, p. 261). Serra challenged this order Public Art Review Special (July/August
through a sculptural form that refused to 1998) Public Art: Fail) and, instead, context
offer a reconciliation of architecture and and community involvement are increasingly
sculpture but instead revealed “a conflicted important. However, this is not to say that
space that lays bare its internal divisions to these tensions have disappeared (regardless
its inhabitants” (Blake, 1993, p. 254). of how inclusive the intentions are).
There was a great deal of opposition to the Furthermore, while properly managed
sculpture. Some saw it as too oppressive, too processes can help to maximise a sense of
big, too dominant or too rusty. New Reaganite ownership and even empowerment, if these
federal leaders used this popular opposition to processes are interrupted for whatever reason
push for the removal of the artwork as part of this can have negative consequences for the
an attack on the National Endowment for the communities involved and for future attempts
Arts and radical art more generally. These at community participation. An example of
right-wing opponents assumed that public this was the Five Spaces, public spaces devel-
opposition meant that, like them, the public oped by artists and architects with commu-
rejected Tilted Arc in favour of the previous nities around Glasgow as part of Glasgow
environment of the square. This was not 1999 (UK City of Architecture and Design).
quite the case. On the whole, it appeared Although the Five Spaces were to be one of
that public opinion was in agreement with the ‘flagship’ events, when 1999 arrived they
Serra’s critique of the alienating square but enjoyed a much less significant public
not the aesthetic form he had adopted. They profile than the other spectacular (and centra-
found the sculpture as sterile as the space it lised) events, Homes for the Future and the
sought to subvert. One worker said “I do not design centre the Lighthouse. While the
care to be challenged on a daily basis by Lighthouse took nearly half of Glasgow
something designed to be hostile” and 1999’s budget of around £27.5 million, the
another concluded that “What we need . . . is Five Spaces was allocated less than one-
something to enliven our lives, not something tenth of it. Media coverage of the Spaces
which reinforces the negativity of our work was similarly less prominent than for the
lives” (Blake, 1993, p. 284). Lighthouse and Homes for the Future, so
This raises important questions about that, when asked at the end of the year, very
artists’ responsibility to community. Some of few visitors, Glaswegians or even design pro-
the most artistically successful and challenging fessionals could name the Five Spaces as a
work may not be easy to live with. While it is prominent feature of the programme (DTZ
possible to walk away from a work in a Pieda, 2000).
gallery, once works are incorporated into A ‘trial run’ of spaces was implemented in
lived spaces they cannot always be avoided. 1997, when the artists took up their residen-
cies and developed plans for the spaces. This
What the Tilted Arc controversy forced us aimed to develop a process through which
to consider is whether art that is centered communities could become involved in the
on notions of pure freedom and radical selection of the spaces and the kind of work
autonomy and subsequently inserted into to be included. Each of the designated com-
the public sphere without any regard munities was located around the city, often
for the relationship it has to other people, in challenging environments. For some, the
1018 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

excitement of the Five Spaces was that, for the manage, or, as a result of their exclusion
first time, the communities themselves were from the decision-making process, choose
being asked for what they wanted rather than not to.
‘experts’ telling them what they needed. A great deal of the good that was done
Process was central to this project to ensure through these projects—of bringing people
that there was community involvement—and in to feel a sense of communal ownership, of
therefore hopefully a sense of ownership—in making networks and so on—has been
the resulting spaces. Initially, there were to undone. Harding explains the problems that
be over 20 of these spaces chosen by emerge when acts of vandalism are not
Housing Associations around the city. The immediately righted—and here we could
initial cut took the number to 15, then to 11 also add other forms of decay such as flood-
and then, well into 1998, the number was ing, breaking of light bulbs and problems
reduced to 5. For those who had been expect- with water features, all issues plaguing the
ing their space to be developed, this was a Five Spaces.
major blow and perhaps reinforcement of the
When this happens, what was initially a
sense that their community was marginal to
focus of local pride quickly degenerates to
the city. Even for those communities which
the point where people become even more
did have their spaces developed, the culture
disheartened than they were before.
of uncertainty and experiences of being let
Rectifying the damage done by vandals
down before meant that community leaders
immediately sends out a clear message to
were unwilling to involve the community
people in deprived areas that their welfare
until the funding was absolutely assured by
is just as important to the authorities as
which point there was not sufficient time for
the well-being of people living in affluent
proper participation.
circumstances (Harding; quoted in
Glasgow 1999 were determined that all the
Gordon, 2002, np).
spaces would be delivered in 1999 (all but one
were) and so they put in place a property man- However, leaving things in decline reinforces
agement firm to deal with the arrangements of the image of a community in similar trouble.
making the space. Here, institutional power The story of the Five Spaces emphasises the
heavily influenced the process –governance importance of good process for the success
framework. The day-to-day ownership of the of public art, but also makes clear just how
project was taken away from the Housing fragile process can be, that it is “seemingly
Associations for the sake of efficiency. Many capable of derailment at any juncture for a
Housing Association members felt that this variety of reasons” (Nikitin, 2000, np).
pushed them out of the decision-making The infamy of the Tilted Arc controversy,
process and there has consequently been a and others like it, has meant that community
loss of ownership, which has impacted the involvement and consultation are now
maintenance and management of the Spaces. central to the process of siting and producing
Long-term problems are emerging because works. However, this does not mean that
of this interruption of the process and lack of inclusion is necessarily achieved. Quite how
consideration to sustaining the Spaces— it is that ‘the community’ should be involved
Glasgow 1999 did its job and disbanded can, in itself, become an exclusionary prac-
whereas the Spaces remain. The Housing tice. Often, the same members of the commu-
Associations were not consulted about small, nity become involved and consequently others
everyday issues and consequently, in one may feel further marginalised in light of these
instance, the landscaping in one of the activists’ participation. There is also often a
Spaces has been easily vandalised. Two spatial and temporal essentialism in defining
years’ labour was arranged for upkeep, but community. While city-centre art works are
now it is up to the Associations to make seen as serving the whole city, when attention
arrangements, which it appears some cannot turns to public art in more marginal areas,
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1019

there is a sense of a number of unchanging and need for developing appropriate forms of
spatially discrete communities existing in a evaluation. Rather than an evaluator’s post-
neat patchwork across the city. Inclusive production critique, however, there is a clear
approaches to designing public art—work- need for evaluation to take place throughout
shops, meetings and so on—can ensure owner- the process—from the inception, through the
ship by those in that community and hence process to the final work. Assessment needs
encourage care and lessen the likelihood of to be made of the process and its success in
vandalism. However, as communities within being ‘inclusive’ as well as the governance
cities are not water-tight spaces, this will not structure through which it is implemented.
prohibit members of nearby neighbourhoods Such evaluation has the potential to ensure
from (mis)using the public art too. Similarly, that a meaningful process would yield a mean-
approaches that draw in community members ingful outcome and that problems of process
at one time cannot ensure that future commu- are overcome.
nity members will still feel a sense of owner-
ship over the product. As Senie (2003)
suggests, this requires a critical rethinking of
Conclusions
notions of site-specificity. She argues that as
“a public site invariably undergoes seasonal In a critique of the uses of culture in the rein-
and/or developmental changes, any work vention of Barcelona that is all the more
would logically have to be frequently or refreshing precisely because of the frequency
periodically redesigned to remain specific” with which the city is cited as a role model,
(Senie, 2003, np). Once again, process, here Balibrea (2001) has argued that the consensus
defined in the long term, is central to success. over the city’s development needs to be chal-
Perhaps too much is expected of public art. lenged. As significant as have been the
Too quickly, a number of critics have blamed achievements of the city, and particularly of
these projects for not making enough of a the municipal government, in physically
difference. John Calcutt ridicules such transforming the metropolitan area including
expectations run-down inner-city areas as well as the water-
front and harbour, and in bolstering its econ-
Expecting public art to solve social pro-
omic competitiveness, particularly as a
blems is either naı̈ve or cynical. In attempt-
tourist and convention centre, such achieve-
ing to critically evaluate public art projects
ments have been accompanied by increasing
such as Five Spaces we should bear in mind
social polarisation and the development of
that fact that the production of art arises
peripheral estates whose residents have
within and is subject to many of the same
endured a worsening quality of life in both
social, political and economic pressures
the 1980s and 1990s. The absence of any sig-
that affect its reception (the increasing pri-
nificant dissent (‘culture wars’) particularly
vatisation and commercialisation of the
over flagship projects may be read as
public sphere, the fragmentation of unified
support for change. But it may also be read
social and political agendas into the special-
as false consciousness in which “the
ised concerns of competing interest
production of consensus [as] the principal
groups—each with their own social and
means of legitimising domination and of
cultural priorities, and so on) (Calcutt,
co-opting potentially critical citizens” has
2002, p. 11).
been able to convince the citizens that their
Calcutt is not suggesting that public art such interests are equivalent to those of dominant
as the Five Spaces is somehow put beyond cri- economic classes (Ripalda, 1999; Esquirol,
ticism, but that it is impossible for such works 1998; quoted in Balibrea, 2001).
to transcend their social, political and, perhaps While such alternative interpretations can
most importantly in the case of urban regener- themselves be challenged, their value lies in
ation, economic context. This again points to a unmasking the rhetoric that surrounds the
1020 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

use of culture—including the benefits claimed influence of agency at this juncture means
for public art—in urban regeneration. Here, that how we perceive and interpret the inter-
the ‘Barcelona model’ represents something position of public art varies as Jameson recog-
of an extreme precisely because of the fre- nises and as was apparent through the Donald
quency with which it is cited, although exem- Dewar statue. Inevitably reactions to public
plars of ‘good practice’ elsewhere are art will vary. But even amongst those whose
routinely identified as ‘success stories’. For reaction to public art is more passive or ‘com-
urban regeneration agencies, the search to placent’, its effects on the definition of the self
repeat the ‘Guggenheim effect’ has become and the self as citizen are real, if unarticulated.
a mantra through which the reinvention of The power of interpellation of public art is
the city is to be realised within which public both a source for consensus and conflict
art, and particularly iconic design, occupies within the reinscription of place. Within offi-
a critical position. cial discourse, the benefits of public art are
As the literature attests, it is too easy for both expressed in its ability to instil civic pride
policy-makers and academics to focus dispro- and to contribute to local distinctiveness, yet
portionately on the more spectacular, particu- the ability of public art to be seen as at odds
larly the iconic, in its ability to reinscribe with its intended symbolism emphasises its
place. A blinkered gaze risks the failure to contentious nature. The play of inclusion in
identify the different scales at which public public art operates at two interconnected
art has come into play just as it tends to give levels in the ways in which it is read as part
emphasis to particular representations of it. of city space and the processes through
As various examples have demonstrated, the which it is implemented. Sufficient experience
use of public art is no more confined to the exists to demonstrate that the two are con-
major cities as it is only to those spaces in nected, suggesting that a sense of ownership
them whose (re)valorisation has become part is a key component of inclusion. Yet neither
of the hegemonic project of fashioning the is fixed precisely because of the multiplicity
competitive city. In the interstices—in those of ways in which public art is read and the
places and spaces which are ‘outside’ the fluidity of urban societies that defy the unity
dominant discourse of international competi- of community.
tiveness that characterises the big city—the As much as this is suggestive of the import-
recognition of the contribution of public art ance of participation within the process of the
to the reinscription of local place has become production of public art, its advocacy will
commonplace through the work of artists and need to take account of the problems typically
community groups, as well as by the state encountered in its practice. How local partici-
acting through local agencies mindful of the pation is structured to give adequate recog-
agenda of inclusion. nition to different local groups and how
It is important to remember here that, deliberation is conducted to ensure that these
regardless of the scale and type of interven- interests are able to have their voice heard
tion, the installation of public art within the and listened to are both fundamental to the
urban fabric is inevitably a political exercise. practice of inclusive democratic processes. In
Thus, as Jameson has argued, buildings both, experience of local participation high-
lights the problems likely to arise: the extent
interpellate me—[they] propose an identity
to which it can be dominated by a relatively
for me, an identity that can make me
small number of local activists, the reluctance
uncomfortable or on the contrary obscenely
to become involved and the problems in ensur-
complacent (Jameson, 1997, p. 129).
ing that meetings are conducted on the basis of
Much the same could be said for public art. equality and mutual respect and recognition.
The roots of this effect lie in its visibility, Even, then, in the interstitial banal spaces in
which in turn influences how we perceive which everyday life is locally lived within
the urban environment. Admittedly the cities, the installation of public art needs to
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1021

be sensitive to local diversity. Its use needs to Model’, Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies,
be aware that inclusive democratic practices, 2(2), pp. 187–210.
far from producing consensus—through BIANCHINI , F. (1999) Cultural planning for urban
sustainability, in: L. NYSTROM (Ed.) City and
which some common sense of local pride Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustain-
can be produced amongst diverse groups— ability, pp. 34 –51. Stockholm: The Swedish
may become an agonistic process. The exer- Urban Environment Council.
cise of participatory democracy through rec- BIRD , J. (1993) Dystopia on the Thames, in: J.
ognition and respect and the avoidance of BIRD , B. CURTIS , T. PUTNAM ET AL. (Eds)
Mapping the Futures, pp. 120– 135. London:
domination opens up the space for conflict Routledge.
reflecting the diversity of local voice. The BLAKE , C. (1993) An atmosphere of effrontery:
reinsertion of public art in the city reveals Richard Serra, Tiled Arc, and the crisis of
how its use, and the language through which public art, in: R. FOX and T. J. LEARS (Eds)
it is advocated, can be appropriated, no more The Power of Culture, pp. 247–289. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
so than in those revalorised spaces that are BODDY , M. and PARKINSON , M. (2004) Competi-
identified as key to the (re)definition of the tiveness, cohesion and urban governance, in:
competitive city. It is in the banal urban M. BODDY and M. PARKINSON (Eds) City
spaces in which everyday life is constructed Matters: Competition, Cohesion and Urban
and experienced in particular that the advo- Governance, pp. 407–432. Bristol: Policy Press.
BOYLE , M. and HUGHES , G. (1991) The politics
cates of public art have been able to argue of the representation of ‘the real’: discourses
(and demonstrate) how the insertion of from the Left on Glasgow’s role as European
public art can aspire to be inclusive as City of Culture 1990, Area, 23(3), pp. 217–228.
process if not necessarily as outcome. BROUDEHOUX , A. (2004) The Making and Selling
Yet the capacity of public art to foster of Post-Mao Bejing. London: Routledge.
BURNS , D., HAMBLETON , R. and HOGGETT , P.
inclusion is at best partial, able to address sym- (1994) The Politics of Decentralisation: Revita-
bolic more than it is material needs. Whether lising Democracy. London: Macmillan.
this means that public art has become an CALCUTT , J. (2002) Rack and ruin: the misplaced
unwitting agent in the overprivileging of cul- aims of public art, Matters, 15, p. 11.
tural justice at the expense of socioeconomic CRESSWELL , T. (1998) Night discourse: producing/
consuming meaning on the street, in: N. FYFE
redistribution is a moot point. However, this (Ed.) Images of the City: Identity and Control
argument not only exaggerates the influence in Public Space, pp. 268– 279. London:
of public art on economic regeneration, but Routledge.
is itself an overeconomistic interpretation of CZAPLICKA , J. J. and RUBLE , B. A. (Eds) (2003)
the meaning of urban citizenship. Composing Urban History and the Constitution
of Civic Identities. Washington, DC: Woodrow
Wilson Center.
DEUTSCHE , R. (1996) Evictions: Art and Spatial
References Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DRAKE , N. (1994) Making it happen: a dialog with
AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS (ND) Animating Mary Jane Jacob, Public Art Review, 10, 5(2),
Democracy Initiative: Profiles and Cast pp. 13–15.
Studies—Tele-Vecindario (http://www.americ DTZ PIEDA CONSULTING (2000) Evaluation of
ansforthearts.org/animatingdemocracy/resource_ Glasgow 1999: UK City of Architecture and
center/profiles_content.asp?id ¼ 185; accessed Design. Glasgow.
28 June 2004). DUNN , P. and LEESON , L. (1993) The art of change
AMIN , A. (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural in the Docklands, in: J. BIRD , B. CURTIS , T.
city: living with diversity, Environment and PUTNAM ET AL. (Eds) Mapping the Futures, pp.
Planning A, 34, pp. 959–980. 136–149. London: Routledge.
ANDERSEN , J. and SIIM , B. (Eds) (2004) The Poli- ESQUIROL , J. M. (1998) La frivoldad politica
tics of Inclusion and Empowerment: Gender, del final de la historia. Madrid: Caparros
Class and Citizenship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Editores.
Macmillan. FRASER , N. (1995) From redistribution to recog-
BALIBREA , M. P. (2001) Urbanism, culture and the nition? Dilemmas of justice in a post-socialist
post-industrial city: challenging the ‘Barcelona age, New Left Review, 212, pp. 69 –93.
1022 JOANNE SHARP ET AL.

FRASER , N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical LIPPARD , L. (1997) The Lure of the Local: Senses
Reflections on the Post-socialist Condition. of Place in a Multicentred Society. New York:
London: Polity Press. New Press.
GABLIK , S. (1995) Connective aesthetics: art after LUNA , J. (1995) Eradicating the stain: graffiti and
individualism, in: S. LACY (Ed.) Mapping the our public spaces, Bad Subjects, 20 (April)
Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle, WA: (http://www.hiphop-network.com/articles/graffi
Bay Press. tiarticles/graffitiand publicspace.asp; accessed
GIDDENS , A. (1998) The Third Way. Cambridge: 28 June 2004).
Polity Press. MADANIPOUR , A., CARS , G. and ALLEN , J. (Eds)
GOODLAD , R., DOCHERTY , I. and PADDISON , R. (1998) Social Exclusion in European Cities:
(2001) Citizen participation in urban govern- Processes, Experiences and Responses.
ance. Policy Paper 4, Scottish Executive. Depart- London: Jessica Kingsley.
ment of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow. MARCUSE , P. and KEMPEN , R. VAN (Eds) (2002) Of
GORDON , G. (2002) When art goes public, Scotland States and Cities: The Partitioning of Urban
on Sunday 16 June (http://news.scotsman. Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
com/archive.cfm?id ¼ 653692002; accessed 22 MILES , M. (1997) Art, Space and the City. London:
October 2002). Routledge.
GRIFFITHS , R. (1999) Artists organisations and the MITCHELL , D. (2000) Cultural Geography: A
recycling of urban space, in: L. NYSTRÖM (Ed.) Critical Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban MITCHELL , D. (2003) The Right to the City.
Sustainability, pp. 460–475. Karlskrona: New York: The Guilford Press.
Swedish Urban Environment Council. MOULAERT , F. Swyngedouw, E and RODRIGUEZ ,
GUNN , S. (2000) The Public Culture of the Victor- A. (2003) The Globalized City. Oxford: Oxford
ian Middle Class: Ritual and Authority and the University Press.
English City. Manchester: Manchester Univer- NIKITIN , C. (2000) Making public art work,
sity Press. Sculpture magazine online (www.sculpture.org/
HALL , T. and ROBERTSON , I. (2001) Public art and documents.scmag00/april00/pub/pub.htm;
urban regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical accessed 27 July 2004).
debates, Landscape Research, 26(1), pp. 5–26. PADDISON , R. and SHARP , J. (2003) Towards demo-
HARVEY , D. (2000) Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh: cratic public spaces. On-line papers, Department
Edinburgh University Press. of Geography and Geomatics, University of
HAYDEN , D. (1995) The Power of Place: Urban Glasgow (http://web.geog.gla.ac.uk/online_
Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, papers/rpaddison001.pdf; accessed 27 July 04).
MA: MIT Press. PHILLIPS , A. (2004) Identity politics: have we now
HIXSON , K. (1998) Icons and interventions in had enough, in: J. ANDERSEN , and B. SLIM (Eds)
Chicago and the potential of public art, Sculpture The Politics of Inclusion and Empowerment:
Magazine, 17(5) (www.sculpture.org/documents/ Gender, Class and Citizenship, pp. 36–48.
scmag98/chicgo/sm-chcgo.htm; accessed 28 June Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
2004). PHILLIPS , P. (1988) Out of order: the public art
IMRIE , R. and RACO , M. (2003) Urban Renais- machine, Artforum, December, pp. 92 –96.
sance? New Labour, Community and Urban PHILO , C. and KEARNS , G. (1993) Selling Places.
Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
JACOBS , M. J. (Ed.) (1995) Sculpture Chicago: PLAZA , B. (2000) Evaluating the influence of a
Culture in Action. Seattle WA: Bay Press. large cultural artifact in the attraction of
JAMESON , F. (1997) Absent totality, in: C. D. tourism: the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao
DAVIDSON (Ed.) Anyone, pp. 124–131. Cam- case, Urban Affairs Review, 36(2), pp. 264–274.
bridge, MA: MIT/Anyone Corporation. POLLOCK , G. (1999) Differencing the Canon.
KARASOV , D. (1996) Is placemaking art?, Public London: Routledge.
Art Review, 15, 8(1), pp. 24–25. RAKOWITZ , M. (2000) ParaSITE, in: J. HUGHES
LACY , S. (Ed.) (1995), Mapping the Terrain: New and S. SADLER (Eds) Non-plan: Essays on
Genre Public Art. Seattle, WA: Bay Press. Freedom Participation and Change in Modern
LEFEBVRE , H. (1991) The Production of Space. Architecture and Urbanism, pp. 232–235.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Oxford: The Architectural Press.
LEVINSON , S. (1998) Written in Stone: Public RIPALDA , J. M. (1999) Politicas Postmodernas:
Monuments in Changing Societies. Durham, Cronicas desde la Zona Oscura. Madrid:
NC: Duke University Press. Libros de la Catarata.
LEVITAS , R. (1998) The Inclusive Society? Social ROWE , D. (2003) Differencing the city, in: M.
Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke: MILES and T. HALL (Eds) Urban Futures, pp.
Palgrave Macmillan. 27– 34. London: Routledge.
 JUST ART FOR A JUST CITY 1023

SASSEN , S. (2001) Cities in the global economy, in: SMITH , N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier.
R. PADDISON (Ed.) Handbook of Urban Studies, London: Routledge.
pp. 256–272. London: Sage. URRY , J. (2001) The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.
SELWOOD , S. (1995) The Benefits of Public Art. VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM (ND) Shamania
London: Policy Studies Institute. Microsite (http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/
SENIE , H. (2002) The Tilted Arc Controversy: microsites/shamiana/voice.htm; accessed 13
Dangerous Precedent? Minneapolis, MN: Uni- July 2004).
versity of Minnesota Press. WHELAN , Y. (2003) Reinventing Modern Dublin:
SENIE , H. (2003) Responsible criticism: evaluat- Streetscape, Iconography and the Politics of
ing public art, Sculpture, 22(10), no page Identity. Dublin: University College Dublin
numbers. Press.
SENIE , H. (2004) Absence in presence: the 9/11 WODICZKO , K. (1999) Critical Vehicles: Writings,
memorial design, Sculpture, 23(4), no page Projects, Interviews. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
numbers. YOUNG , I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of
SMITH , N. (1993) Homeless/global: scaling places, Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
in: J. BIRD , B. CURTIS , T. PUTNAM ET AL. (Eds) Press.
Mapping the Futures, pp. 87 –119. London: YOUNG , I. M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy.
Routledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.