Michelle's Response to Excerpts from T&DCA

This week’s excerpts from Theories & Documents of Contemporary Art discussed the justification and validity of art within public spaces. When an artist creates a piece of work for a community, his/her internal or external sourcing is not only challenged by the social interactions needed to collaborate with a neighborhood, but he/she must face the criticism and feedback during and after its creation.

            “The artist is transformed in the process of creating public art. He must abandon his private self-examination to speak as a citizen in society, and to become a voice for others. He is rewarded in becoming an artist for the people, by gaining a living relationship with the people”(271). John Pitnam Weber’s murals required members of communities he was working in to help him create a piece that would be unique to each neighborhood. I related to these reflections because of my own personal experiences in painting a mural for an inner city public space. Weber stresses that a public mural is more than just the artist’s vision, but the community’s as well. He also highlights the aspect of community connection. If the form of public art becomes accepted, the piece can transform into a valuable piece of work that a community will protect and take pride in.

            Weber addresses the role of art within public spaces and the valuable interaction it can have in stemming a greater appreciation for art in members of that community. Another aspect of creating art is the ability to raise questions about society and the culture one lives in. Through these questions, an artist provokes the viewer to think. In some cases the artist’s provocation sparks more than reflection. Andres Serrano’s’ “Piss Christ” for example, outraged Senator Jesse Helms enough to address congress to make the National Endowment for the Arts reevaluate its criteria and procedures in selecting artists to support. Helms’ own interpretation of the “Piss Christ” made it offensive to him and the Christian faith. This heated discussion not only raises the question of what is acceptable art, but also highlights the restrictions laid upon art due to who is funding it.

            Both Weber and Serrano created art intended for the public to view. In both cases, each artist was funded by an external source and was given certain liberties as an artist. It is through these public interpretations of the liberties an artist takes which can either be praised and rewarded or quite oppositely rejected and condemned.