Good Public Art vs. Bad Public Art

While enjoying the last spectacle of fireworks in Coney Island for the summer, my friend and I both agreed that the caliber of criticism in the New York Times is severely declining. Once the authority on Books, Art and Movies, it seems that their writers are lagging behind and tend to be a bit populist in giving their approval (i.e. their love of the new Will Smith movie Hancock, really? come on!). A great example of this is in the Arts section in a recent piece by Roberta Smith (go figure) regarding the excitement of recent public art projects. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/arts/design/24smit.html

Smith attributes the survival/revitalization of public arts to Jeff Koons. She speaks of him as if he were at triumph Caesar slaughtering the Gauls and claiming all of Europe as his own - to be blunt, she should get her finger out of his ass and stop milking his prostate. In discussing his "Balloon Dog" now on view at the MET(on the roof garden), she writes, "The dogs imbue a greatly enlarged child’s party toy with the tensed stillness of an archaic Greek horse while subtly evoking various bodily orifices and protrusions." Tensed stillness of a Greek Horse? Need we remind her that at no point in the process of creating his work is Koons involved. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I was told that Koons doesn't come up with the idea (ahh! talentless hacks in the art world and the critics who love them always entertain me!). Moving on, Smith then goes on to psychoanalyze the animal and as a result gives too much credit to the artist: "Koons’s art enacts the basic exchange of public sculpture. We literally see ourselves in his alluring reflective surfaces; his buoyant forms reach deep into our childhood with its accompanying feelings of hope and optimism. " The only problem is that this sculpture comes in all different sizes, including outdoor (as seen here), pedestal and even table top (which can be purchased at the MoMA, MET and Whitney gift shops). So, I wouldn't necessarily go as far as saying that Koons is active in the dialogue between viewer and work of art, rather he is active in the dialogue between consumer and cold-hard cash.

Though I think that Smith goes from bad to worse,and even insulting when she states, "He broached weightlessness from the start, first with simple Duchampian ready-mades: plastic inflatable flowers and bunnies; vacuum cleaners set aglow by fluorescent light tubes and sealed in Plexiglas cases; and finally basketballs afloat, embryolike, in aquariums." Yes, Koons is indeed Duchampian but he is a perverted Duchampian. Koons is mainly seeking profit with little to no political commentary on the art world or the world at large. Instead his work is merely a gross exaggeration of Dada and Pop art. He is another example of the "institutional avant-garde." Whereby, his work is only considered edgy and shocking because the art institution that supports him tells us so. What is so edgy about an over size balloon-dog? I am not sure, but it does make a great photo for your facebook page!

Smith only mentions a truly great work s of public art in passing.- among them Mark Wallinger’s 1999 “Ecce Homo,” a life-size figure of Jesus in London's Trafalgar Square. In one of the most widely trafficked spaces in the city, the figure stood outside the National Gallery, located halfway between Parliament and Buckingham Palace. The work occupied the fourth plinth - which has now become a space for cutting edge and very successful contemporary public art. Thoughtful and creative, Koons should be taking notes or at least doing some google based research on this. Wallinger said his sculpture of Christ was not meant to be perverse or tongue in cheek. 'I wanted to show him as an ordinary human being Jesus was at the very least a political leader of an oppressed people and I think he has a place here in front of all these over sized imperial symbols.' Another great work of public art that is completely ignored by Smith also occupied Trafalgar Square's plinth - Marc Quinn's Alison Lapper Pregnant, 2005. Alison Lapper, a friend of Marc Quinn, was born with no arms and shortened legs due to a chromosomal condition called Phocomelia. “I regard it as a modern tribute to femininity, disability and motherhood,” said Alison of Quinn's work. “It is so rare to see disability in everyday life – let alone naked, pregnant and proud. The sculpture makes the ultimate statement about disability – that it can be as beautiful and valid a form of being as any other.” Both sculptures, truly re-imagines the political role of public sculpture -not through humor or wit, but through insightful investigation of the human psyche and relationship between space, art and viewership. The emotions imbued in each of these works are so much more powerful then anything Koons could imagine. I think it would do a world of good for Smith to reevaluate the public art that she has ignorantly ignored.

I am interested in writing more about these two works, but it is now 2 AM and would need to gather my thoughts a bit more . . .