Public Disgrace or Public Pride

Asynchronous Seminar. October. November 2012

• How important is it that public artwork is relevant to the communities in which it resides?
• How will artwork of this nature be discussed in years to come?

The new work by Damien Hirst entitled  'Verity' that has recently been installed in Ilfracombe

is a monumental statue of a pregnant woman in bronze. It is causing polarised views amongst the residents and visitors of the area, but is this the purpose of the public art of today?

How will contemporary art be summed up in one hundred years time and will Verity be seen as typical of the way artists are working at this time?

……….

Eleanor:

31^st October 2012

Most communities are initially fairly resistant to public art which descends upon them. In time, the piece tends to become a landmark, people identify with it, and it becomes part of the place and loved.

I seem to remember we debated Maggi Hambling's Scallop in the MA before? Or possibly that was another conversation:

Maggi Hambling and Aldeburgh Scallop sculpture attack:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12309777

In the case of the Scallop, the piece is much more sympathetic to it's setting than Verity, and the damage is less protest than vandalism.

I initially think that Verity is fairly ugly and irrelevant to the area. Perhaps the piece says a few things, and it can be read within the continuum of Hirst's practice, where he inverts bodies and expectations. To me it appears a rather unresolved mixture of traditional monumentalism and his gallery based works - an unpeeled Boudicca or Britannia. Just because the piece references others - Degas' dancer and so on, does not mean it also brings with it that credibility.

Whether or not Verity is an integrated piece, everything here relates to the filter of context and place.

I am wary of being too cynical about Verity, as I feel almost duty bound to come down on the side of art, whatever it is, but it makes it difficult to make the case

……….

3^rd November 2012

In debates such as this we make points not really to position ourselves, but to test positions and ideas, and often statements we make are more exploratory than a fixed polarisation of a stance.

We can hold opposing and contradictory views of something, and so while perhaps finding Verity inappropriate to the area also applaud the very idea of testing the context of work.

We could be glad not to be confronted by Verity from our kitchen window each day while finding it a reason to visit Illfracombe.

Points are not countermanded by counterpoints - insights are not negated by opposing views - all these arguments and views coexist. One of the functions of public art today is to host such debate and ask open questions. The councilors of Illfracombe made a knowing choice of commissioning Hirst rather than Hambling or Gormley, knowing that it would raise issues and controversy.

……….

6^th November 2012

That must be totally right Clare - not everything is art, and Amelia is also right that going to a gallery is through choice. The more we look at this, the more a fine and delicate touch paper it seems to be.

Now, I haven't met the guy, but Anish Kapoor is reputed to have something of an ego also. His works are totally individual and an expression of his own creativity - some people like them and some do not, and yet he still seems to serve the case of public art, perhaps by merging abstract and natural form in ways we can all choose to interpret and enjoy differently.

Hirst seems to serve something other than this - more of a foisting upon viewers in your face take it or leave it imagery. 

With Kapoor you have choice, or multiple choice, as there is no definitive explanation, and the works' meaning includes those ascribed by viewers. Hirst is a polarising artist in that you are included if you "get it" and excluded if you don't. 

Personally I would much rather see a Kapoor from my house, as it may challenge, but also leads into pondering and more abstract connections.

Artist borrow - that's it, but I'm beginning to see the point people make about Hirst that he is not an artist at all, but a really great combiner of other people's ideas. To digress further - I do think he has make some eloquent work, but Verity is not that creative really. Brings to mind recent seminar about looking back - Verity is all about looking back and other artists' insights.

..........

12th November 2012

Perhaps it is a good time to think on what we would do as artists were we to gain such a commission. Would we do a Hirst,a Kapoor, a Gormley, a Hambling, or something completely different.

Although you can never please everyone, and that would not be my aim, I'm sure that personally I would aim to make something sympathetic to the area. On closer inspection I would hope for other layers of meaning and challenge.

Richard Wilson is someone who makes public art from a different point of view

Turning point - churning a building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7j-unaZA1Y