After seeing "You Can't Keep a Down Man Good" I went looking for more of the pieces featured in the Lakeshore Sculpture Exhibit (LSE). I found a few, most of them located on former sites of Lincoln Park Community Art Initiative (LPCAI) public sculpture contest winners. That initiative, begun by 43rd Ward Alderman Vi Daley, lasted about 5 years, from 2002-2006, and exhibited work of 10 artists per year, with a number of repeat exhibitors. Some of the
sculptures from the LPCAI are still installed, including this "Renaissance Man" at Burton and Wells by Boban Ilic from the 2003 exhibit. Many of the remaining LPCAI sculptures have been replaced recently by sculptures in the LSE, like this
"Water" by Michael Young, sponsored by the Old-Town Triangle Association near Clark and Wisconsin St. at the edge of the park. It's a brushed aluminum sculpture of intertwined flat strips in a curved configuration about 9 feet tall. It resembles the surrounding trees more than it does water, and even calls to mind the way wind might move through gaps in the branches. I'm not sure why it is titled "Water" or why it is placed in this particular place. Many of the LSE sculptures seem plopped down on their respective sites without consideration of the characteristics of the exact location. "Moment" by Thomas Scharff at the corner of Lincoln
and Fullerton and "Abduction" by Ron Gard at Wells and Burton are examples of this plop art problem as well. The artists didn't know where/if their sculptures would be displayed when they made them. When the site
locations for groups of sculptures are chosen by a contest jury, neighborhood association or alderman's committee it can present problems for the way each sculpture interacts with its space, and the way the public interacts (or doesn't) with a sculpture. Then again, it could make for a more interesting public art, to open up the process (concept> construction> selection> installation> reception) to the public. If the public can actually participate at any point in this process, the sculpture can be more meaningful to that particular public. However, in the case of the LSE this effective perpetuation of the Modernist "plop art" model by parties more interested in conveying a neighborhood's wealth through culture than in truly engaging a public in meaningful art is counterproductive to an effective urban public sculpture, distilling out as it does anything that could potentially be deemed controversial, offensive, dangerous, ugly, or even thought-provoking. What is the purpose of putting these studio sculptures out into the public arena? Is there a way to contextualize a sculpture post-production into an urban environment? Is site-specificity important to our city's neighborhoods, or are chambers of commerce and aldermanic offices more concerned with simply having art displayed IN their districts than having art made FOR their people?
sculptures from the LPCAI are still installed, including this "Renaissance Man" at Burton and Wells by Boban Ilic from the 2003 exhibit. Many of the remaining LPCAI sculptures have been replaced recently by sculptures in the LSE, like this 
"Water" by Michael Young, sponsored by the Old-Town Triangle Association near Clark and Wisconsin St. at the edge of the park. It's a brushed aluminum sculpture of intertwined flat strips in a curved configuration about 9 feet tall. It resembles the surrounding trees more than it does water, and even calls to mind the way wind might move through gaps in the branches. I'm not sure why it is titled "Water" or why it is placed in this particular place. Many of the LSE sculptures seem plopped down on their respective sites without consideration of the characteristics of the exact location. "Moment" by Thomas Scharff at the corner of Lincoln
and Fullerton and "Abduction" by Ron Gard at Wells and Burton are examples of this plop art problem as well. The artists didn't know where/if their sculptures would be displayed when they made them. When the site
locations for groups of sculptures are chosen by a contest jury, neighborhood association or alderman's committee it can present problems for the way each sculpture interacts with its space, and the way the public interacts (or doesn't) with a sculpture. Then again, it could make for a more interesting public art, to open up the process (concept> construction> selection> installation> reception) to the public. If the public can actually participate at any point in this process, the sculpture can be more meaningful to that particular public. However, in the case of the LSE this effective perpetuation of the Modernist "plop art" model by parties more interested in conveying a neighborhood's wealth through culture than in truly engaging a public in meaningful art is counterproductive to an effective urban public sculpture, distilling out as it does anything that could potentially be deemed controversial, offensive, dangerous, ugly, or even thought-provoking. What is the purpose of putting these studio sculptures out into the public arena? Is there a way to contextualize a sculpture post-production into an urban environment? Is site-specificity important to our city's neighborhoods, or are chambers of commerce and aldermanic offices more concerned with simply having art displayed IN their districts than having art made FOR their people?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment