Postscript: 'News from the front'

Objects in a landscape:Heroic sculpture in Sculpture Park, Budapest which houses monuments from the Communist era

This short piece was written by Graham King, Special Projects Officer for Westminster City Council. Graham set down these thoughts while on holiday earlier this year. In the course of his work Graham has been involved in the procurement of public art of national important and in the development of policies and strategies for public art in key areas of central London. He draws on this experience and that of living in Lewes, East Sussex. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

The summer of 1999 saw the return in triumph from the Tate Gallery or Rodin's The Kiss to the town it spent the first part of the century in, Lewes, East Sussex. This was the home of the art connoisseur EP Warren who had commissioned the piece. After his death it was ignominiously stored by a cautious and neglectful Council after fears it would incite either World War One soldiers or young girls to sexual abandon, it was eventually sold to the Tate Gallery. Presumably the morals of Londoners and visitors to a gallery were considered as already being beyond temptation or redemption.

Over 70,000 visitors attended the show in the Town Hall adding to the town's not inconsiderable delights (castle, ruined priory, two museums, an annual bonfire celebration and a brewery) and leading to a campaign to celebrate a former resident in 2000, the radical revolutionary pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, better known in the Lewes of 1760's as a customs official. This initiative raises the question, often raised in Westminster, is the art to be traditional and figurative (unfortunately Paine was ugly) or contemporary (modern era) and non-figurative? The local paper will no doubt soon be filled with this local passion which is only aroused every autumn when the huge bonfire celebrations with their anti-papacy imagery are argued as either traditional (i.e. Victorian) and therefore acceptable or unacceptable anti-Catholic and therefore not.

In this perennial debate very little attention is, sadly paid to the bonfire as a memorable public art exhibit with its regalia, ceremony and history acting as a microcosm of popular culture over the centuries-truly 'public' art in a public place, for in a busy year a 5th November in Lewes can attract 50,000 to the parade.

Even more intriguing than the Rodin, the Paine or bonfire are three 20th century pieces in the town, which are the more standard pieces any town can expect to have. The standard war memorial is mundane as a piece of art but important as a mark of remembrance. A large bronze helm, by Enzo Plazzota, now lies neglected in a children's playground adjacent to the priory ruins. It only dates from 1964 and commemorates Simon de Montfort's defeat of the King and the emergence of a parliament in 1264. The name of the benefactor, Sir Tufton Beamish M.P. is almost more a work of art than the piece itself!

Thirdly on a roundabout is a large concrete ammonite representing either what was found when the tunnel was dug through chalk for an early 1970's relief road or to celebrate Lewes as the home of Dr Gideon Mantell the scientific discoverer of fossil type and a contemporary of Paine.

These pieces represent the typical 20th century experience of public art, which can be found across the country. The question is how can the tradition of making a mark on the environment be extended and the quality of the work increased? A second consideration is the maintenance and management of such artefacts.

The lesson of wasted opportunity to address these concerns can be seen in nearby Brighton. Here permanent contemporary pieces of work, inappropriate to their location on the seaside, promenades and shopping centres compare poorly with the excellent regular activities of the local "Same Sky" company delivering, through festivals and parades, great public exhibitions of art and craft with community involvement on a regular basis.

Curiously the consideration of these, basically urban, matters merged whilst on holiday during half term in the rural fastness of Swaledale where this was written. Two walks gave me further ideas on the subject.

Perhaps one of the most glorious rural environments in England is to be found on the high path from Keld to Muker which passes a former house "Crackpot Hall" now ruined and only minimally restored with Millennium lottery funding, which in this very remote spot had to be marked. A slab, not seemingly of local stone, is inappropriately and poorly sited with a metal plate, which is also hard to read. There is no art, craft or even responsiveness to environment to denote the work. It is in this crassness, this waste of effort, this unnecessary 'advertisement' of man's impact on either natural or built environment that I want to distil the criticisms of public art.

Luckily in a nearby dale, Ravenstonedale in Westmoreland just over the Yorkshire boundary from Swaledale provided a sign of hope. By the village school, crafted from odd pieces of timber was a larger than life rendition of a bird catching fish. The siting, use of materials and design were very well thought out and executed. I have no idea if it had a purpose, it did not need such justification, it just looked like it adorned and informed, it belonged.

This is not to say that all art works should be so respectful of their surroundings as to be non-controversial or "in-keeping". But it is in support of a view that wants to see any work, particularly if it is being carried out with public funds and for some reason, thought through in respect of the considerations listed below.

For a start as W.G. Hoskins "The Making of the English Landscape" clearly sets out there are no natural environments in England, they are all man-made whether in London, Sussex or the Yorkshire Dales. Therefore there is a fundamental need for any client, designer or regulator to be concerned over the type of mark they are intending to make and the implications of the action. These considerations are not always served by either the artistic response, the planning system and certainly not by the lottery or EC procurement directives.

Public Art still suffers from the problem of who is the client, what is its purpose and what 'strings' are attached to any funding to much of what can be considered public art.

It can be characterised by concerns such as:-

• too public/self evident

• has no respect for context or setting

• no artistic perception, inspiration, creativity

• unsuitable materials or lack of craft in execution

• too much like an advert for its funders.

From this I would suggest you could start to consider best practice.

• 'Who' is it for, do 'they' want it?
  

  • whose art

  • who is the client

• what is the context/setting?

  • who regulates

• involvement of artists & craftsmen

  • who does it

• suitable materials

  • what's it made of

• 'who' is going to look after it?

  • do they want it!

I would welcome a debate on these, admittedly prosaic and pragmatic thoughts, rather than have to wade through more policies, procurement OECD procedure, artists self-justification or on the bizarre bureaucracy of the lottery.
In the discussion we might reach the agreement on who should be responsible for the context of a work and resist giving the misplaced sense of the over-riding importance of making a mark, just because we can. #