Communicating Transforming Urban Identity through Public Art Melissa Teng 4/25/14
Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, Powerless Structures—Traces of a Never Existing History, Figure 222. Mixed media, 2001 (at the 7th Istanbul Biennial). Courtesy Galleri Nicolai Wallner, Copenhagen.
Created for Global Urban Lab Rice University: School of Social Sciences & Kinder Institute for Urban Research
Executive Summary The significance of public art stems from its ability to speak about the actual or projected identity of a public space. In times of rapid urban development and contention, public art can prove to be a transparent platform for dialogue. I seek to understand the impact of a contemporary public arts program in Istanbul. As an initial study of existing public art, I examine the dialogue invoked by installations and event series during the 13th Istanbul Biennial, a major international arts exhibition created in 1987, and to what extent this dialogue speaks to the identity of the often sacred public space it occupies. I examine the implementation of the Fourth Plinth Program in London’s Trafalgar Square—a showcase of imperial pride—as a case study for a successful public art program. My findings suggest that there is great opportunity in Istanbul for art in public spaces to generate positive discussion, but the existing social divisions within the art community – between established exhibition spaces and smaller art collectives – must not be overlooked. Along a similar line, in the establishment of a public arts program, the selection of public art should be fairly represented, generally through the creation of a non-‐ biased artwork selection committee.
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Issue ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 What is public art? ................................................................................................................................... 4 What are the benefits of a public art program? ....................................................................................... 5 Economic Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 5 Cultural & Democratic Benefits ............................................................................................................ 5 Research ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Culture of Diversity and Divisions ............................................................................................................ 8 13th Istanbul Biennial ................................................................................................................................ 9 Best Practices: London’s Fourth Plinth Program .................................................................................... 10 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 16
2 | P a g e
Introduction Over the course of four days in August 2013, a retired engineer named Hüsein Çetinel and his son-‐in-‐law painted nearly 200 public steps linking the Istanbul neighborhoods of Cihangir and Fındıklı in rainbow colors. Two days later, Beyoğlu municipality workers covered the stairs in gray, triggering an outcry from residents around the city. The following day, municipality workers joined locals in repainting the rainbow steps, but not before a mass peaceful repainting event was planned and shared via social media. Thousands of posts were tagged #DirenMerdiven or #ResistStairs – an allusion to the June hashtag, #DirenGeziPark (Arsu and Mackey). Meanwhile residents of other neighborhoods responded to the event by joining the guerrilla beautification and painting their own public steps with colorful designs.
Figure 1. R ainbow steps in Findikli
The people of Istanbul clearly react to public art, which creates an opportunity for influence and opens a new avenue of dialogue between the city and the people. Especially with recent disputes surrounding Istanbul’s rapid redevelopment and changing urban identity as a new global city, clear communication with the public is more important Figure 2. R ainbow steps in Findikli than ever. The role of public art is contentious by nature precisely because it inhabits the public space, asking to be subject to public scrutiny and integrated into urban planning. Thus the controversies and dialogue surrounding public art can only reflect the “voices that represent the diversity of people using the space” (Hall and Robertson). However rather than aspire to myths of harmony, one role of public art is to peacefully address and lend sound to these contradictory voices. By extension of being in the public eye, the other role of public art is to stimulate conversation about these issues and to circulate a shared visual vocabulary that is recognizable throughout the public culture (Irvene). As a global city with much diversity in culture, ethnicity and privilege, as well as many citizens taking an active interest in their city, a strategic public art program in Istanbul could be extremely successful in opening dialogue. Widely considered one of the most successful contemporary public art implementations in the world, London’s Fourth Plinth Program is a testament to how radically an urban identity can shift. Annually rotating contemporary art sculptures are installed on the only empty plinth in Trafalgar Square, which was historically a major exhibition space for the British Empire‘s power. Each of the four other major statues installed in the Square, commissioned during the 19th century, blatantly commemorate London’s imperial dominance and naval supremacy. However, the majority of the contemporary sculptures placed on the Fourth Plinth—which are funded by the Office of the Mayor of London—can easily be interpreted as poking fun at London’s imperial history, in an act that could be read as apologetic (Sumartojo). The pieces
3 | P a g e
have also generated conversation about other urban issues such as gender inequality, continued racial tensions, cultural appropriation and rapid urban redevelopment (Ece). With several key similarities between London and Istanbul—an immense cultural diversity, the shadow of imperial legacy, a history of valuing art, and an urgent need for urban redevelopment—a Figure 2. Katharina Fritsch’s ‘Hahn/Cock’ in Trafalgar Square, commissioned by the Fourth Plinth Program in 2013 comparison between the two global cities and how each chooses to represent its rapidly changing urban identity through public art is fitting. I seek to conduct an initial study of the opportunities afforded by a stronger contemporary public arts initiative in Istanbul. I first summarize relevant literature surrounding public art and its relation to urban development, as well as my findings on Istanbul’s current art community to contextualize the study. Then I analyze London’s Fourth Plinth Program as a successful public art program example, which I use as a platform on which to compare the impact of the 13th Istanbul Biennial, one of Istanbul’s major existing art programs. Lastly, I conclude with several recommendations on how public art can be used to improve communication of transforming urban identity in Istanbul’s specific case.
Issue What is public art?
Public art is generally defined as artwork placed within a public space. However the privatization of many public spaces and the “openness” of some conventional galleries are a reminder that the concept of public space is fluid. Rather, a more encompassing description of public art is any art that “has a desire to engage with its audiences and to create spaces— whether material, virtual or imagined—within which people can identity themselves” (Ece). In this study, we specifically discuss public space in an urban context, and public art placed within this space is a means to enliven the space or to respond to the space’s symbolic and physical problems (Sharp, Pollock and Paddison). In referring to “public art,” this initial study also assumes the successful installation of specifically contemporary artwork, though it should be noted that the effective placement of public art within a fitting context is not a simple task.1
1
It is inevitable that installed public art will generate varying reactions, with the place of installation playing just much into the success of the work as the sculpture itself. For example, even the loveliest artworks executed in the studio may generate a reaction that is mainly passive and uncaring because of its poorly chosen location and urban context. Such is the case of “parachute” or “drop sculptures,” which, “[look] as if they had been thrown out of cultural supply helicopters and simply left to lie where they landed” (Grasskamp).
4 | P a g e
What are the benefits of a public art program? Economic Benefits In an analysis of public art’s economic role in Barcelona, one scholar wrote, “The economic role of public art in urban regeneration...is both complex and nebulous. It is complex because it involves the inter-‐relationship between the aesthetic values, the social identity and the economic behavior of a city’s population…It is nebulous because these three domains of aesthetic, social and economic life tend to use separate, almost unconnected, languages for their discourse” (Bovaird). Thus it is unsurprising that the main contention towards public art is that its economic benefits are a function of various indirect benefits—that is to say, difficult to quantify and contestable. Rather, its main economic benefits and consequences, like most arts, are symbolic rather than material (Hall and Robertson). However to cite several material benefits, the Policy Studies Institute in London listed the following urban issues that a successful public art program can address: attracting investment; boosting cultural tourism; enhancing land values; contributing to local distinctiveness; increasing use of urban spaces; reducing vandalism; and creating employment (Selwood). At the core of it, these benefits largely stem from public arts’ role in directly improving the quality of public space experience and increasing the number of social interactions in its public space (Bovaird). Cultural & Democratic Benefits The cultural and democratic benefits of public art can be thought of in two levels: the benefits from the process of implementation and the benefits after the piece is installed into the city space. Inherent in the public nature of the project, both levels boil down to a just sense of shared ownership and inclusion. On the processes level, the selection, funding and installation of public art is a democratic and culturally sensitive process because the public art is inherently a visual intrusion in urban space that aims to be welcomed on some level. For a successful installation, the relationship between the work and its environment must be scrutinized in terms of form (artistic design principles intertwined with urban architectural design principles) and function (invoking a concept or conversation about the city—as critique, humor, irony, idolatry, or subversion—while still appealing to the public space’s identity) (Irvene). In order to select the most appropriate work for the space, the artist must collaborate with representatives from different disciplines from the project’s onset, such that the process wholly caters to and reflects the complex identity of the surrounding communities (Ece). Understandably, local participation should also be included and structured to give recognition to the constituent groups in order to ensure the representation of their interests. On the finished installation level, the openly accessible nature of public art requires that the finished piece continue to communicate a sense of ownership and representation to the community. The main role for a public art piece—besides aestheticizing an urban space—is to stimulate conversation through its projected or actual identity, as well as to circulate a shared “visual vernacular” throughout the surrounding community (Irvene). Especially within a diverse community, this shared public landscape can be a method of social inclusion, serving as a connecting node for local institutions and groups. Other community benefits claimed by
5 | P a g e
advocates include the contribution to a civic identity; a means to address community needs; a provider of educational value; and a promoter of social change (Hall and Robertson). Public art can also serve as a means of communication between the public and authorities. Through carefully selected artwork, authorities “can signal their willingness to deal with social and environmental problems” (Sharp, Pollock and Paddison). On the other hand, disagreements in “social patterns of representation, interpretation and communication” through public art can unearth conflicting ideals about “regimes of visibility,” the role of public space and the trajectory of urban identity transformation (Irvene). Ultimately it is important to realize that the installation of public art within the urban landscape is inevitably a political exercise—a product of the artwork’s visibility and ability to influence how locals perceive their urban environment (Selwood). Many of the official discourses on public art pieces are focused disproportionally on particular interpretations of the artwork (“its ability to instill civic pride and to contribute to local distinctiveness”), with the intended transformation of the urban space more often discussed than the actual result (Sharp, Pollock and Paddison). In theory, there are many economic, cultural and democratic benefits to public art. But with the inherently contentious nature of public art within the urban arena, there must be room for the actual identity of the finished installation for the public to be at odds with the intended identity, symbolic or cultural, by the authorities.
Research My research covers three broad subjects: the history and composition of Istanbul’s art markets and community, the success factors of a contemporary public art program, and the impacts of rapid urban regeneration due to global forces on local urban identities. While there is large body of literature available on Turkey’s growing economic status as a global city, there is significantly less literature circulated outside of the country on Turkey’s emergence in the global contemporary art markets. The body of accessible literature shrinks further still when looking at the contemporary art market only in Istanbul – a product of a new market for producers and consumers as well as a small body of authors with deep global reach. Thus to understand Turkey’s contemporary art market and community, my methods consisted largely of in-‐person interviews, conversations and observations while in Istanbul. These were supplemented by a literature review of online news articles from local sources, individual or organization blogs and websites, and some academic journals and books sections found in the Istanbul Research Institution. While in Istanbul, I was fortunate to interview or converse with Dr. Oğuzhan Özcan, a Professor in Koç University’s Department of Media and Visual Arts and a leading researcher in interactive media design (a very recent contemporary arts and design field); M. Özalp Birol, the General Manager of a leading cultural center in Istanbul, Pera Museum; and Ray Cullom, the Executive Director of Istanbul’s new multi-‐venue Zorlu Center for the Performing Arts, opened in 2013. Each of these interactions was recorded for reference and led to new resources that would have been difficult to find without the local knowledge. I was also able to present my research topic to and hear feedback from Dr. Korel Göyman, a Senior Scholar from the Istanbul
6 | P a g e
Policy Center. His perspective as a scholar outside of Istanbul’s art community and as the former Undersecretary in the Turkish Ministry of Tourism was useful in revealing how Istanbul’s academic and political intelligentsia understand Istanbul’s public art and the contemporary art community, with public art being an endeavor for the whole community. Unfortunately my visit to Istanbul did not coincide with the 13th Istanbul Biennial, which was held from 14 September to 20 October, 2013, so I was unable to collect observational or informational data personally, instead relying on information from the event website, detailed program guide, event press and thorough analyses of the event. I was, however, able to observe many examples of Istanbul’s street art – a form of democratic public contemporary art – especially in the main areas Istiklal near Taksim Square, Tünel, and Karaköy. While in London, I made multiple attempts to arrange interviews with Yesim Turanli, the founder of Pi Artworks, an Istanbul-‐based contemporary art gallery, which expanded to a new London branch in October 2013. As the first Istanbul gallery to send roots into London’s mature and globally connected art scene, Pi Artworks believes the expansion reflects the promise and demand for Istanbul’s contemporary art (Esman). Ultimately we were unable to meet, but Turanli has already conducted numerous interviews for online journals and newspapers that I was able to collect the desired information without problem. In London, I was enrolled in a course studying the city’s changing global identity, which afforded multiple academic site visits to London’s Trafalgar Square and Fourth Plinth, led by Dr. Anthony Gristwood, Principal Lecturer on global cities and modern London in the CAPA International Education program. Not only were the course discussions and readings useful in revealing the cultural significance of the Square and Fourth Plinth, but the course’s site visits allowed us to observe how the public continues to react to the Square and to a class putting the Square on a pedestal. Altogether, I studied how the Fourth Plinth Program and contemporary art in London reflect the city’s changing urban identity through discussions led by Dr. Gristwood and through observations from Trafalgar Square, the world-‐class Tate Modern art museum, and living in the city for the semester. These studies were supplemented by a review of the large body of work dedicated to analyzing the Fourth Plinth and Trafalgar Square in relation to London’s imperial heritage and globalized future. For the remainder of my research on contemporary public art in Istanbul and London, I relied on published material from the press, academia, official programs, and individual and organization interviews and recounts. This included news articles from both local and international newspapers, academic journal articles from art history to cultural geography, and interviews and blog posts reacting to Istanbul’s Biennial or London’s Fourth Plinth Program. Official programs or website descriptions included reports by the Mayor of London’s Office and the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, the group that founded the Istanbul Biennial. The breadth of research spans local, national and international sources. It necessarily incorporates sources from multiple disciplines, from art history and studio art to economics and sociology to urban planning and architecture. The last task of my research was to create a framework for understanding “public art” as a concept and practice. As mentioned, “public art” can be a nebulous concept, which some
7 | P a g e
might find a reason to undermine its significance. Thus it was important to understand the significance of public art during urban redevelopment.
Findings Culture of Diversity and Divisions Name the European Cultural Capital in 2010, Istanbul is shaped as much by its thrice-‐ imperial heritage as it is by its rich diversity in religion, ethnicity and privilege. One scholar and long-‐time resident of Istanbul attributed part of the city’s international draw to “a certain disorder and diversity both in the social makeup and behavior,” part of which undoubtedly stems from the dynamic changes to Istanbul’s urban identity in its ascent to “global city” status (Erzen). Between its never truly homogenized population of 14 million and growing competitive influence on the world stage, Istanbul has struggled to balance its desire for rapid urban redevelopment and maintaining its local urban identity. In an interview for the documentary, “Ecumenopolis,” Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan summarized, “In order to be a ‘global city’…it’s as important to be a cultural, artistic, and commercial center as it is to be financial center” (Azem). Istanbul’s current position as an artistic center is unclear. On the international markets, the city is represented by the Istanbul Biennial—one of the most successful among all global Biennials in terms of visitor count and artists represented—as well as a small but growing number of largely privately funded museums, galleries and design fairs. Istanbul’s arts scene has traditionally been dominated by the fine arts, with a prominent Western influence, but the establishment of the Biennial by the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts has solidified the city’s foray into the contemporary arts (Erzen). Despite the limited financial and institutional support, so resolute has been the push in Istanbul’s art market that the International Business Development Director at Christie’s, a major interactional art auction house, labeled Turkey a “growth market” in 2011, advising that the term, “emerging market” was no longer appropriate (Hewitt). At the same time, the Program Director of the new Zorlu Center for the Performing Arts expressed some difficulty in attracting locals to their shows, believing that demand for theater in Istanbul’s small middle class had to be induced. Yet the mass interest and participation in public expressions of creativity, such as the rainbow stairs in Findikli, show that there is a local interest in public art. This chasm between those in higher societal positions (curators, managers and academics in all fields) and those in lower societal positions (students, art collectives, etc.) was apparent throughout my research. Dr. Özcan from Koç University, working in the new field of interactive digital media, cited more communication with his international colleagues working in the same field than with the local only-‐burgeoning design industry. As popular as the Istanbul Biennial seems, many of the local art collectives in Istanbul–which largely only publish in Turkey—protested the most recent 13th Biennial, whose theme addressed the social issues of urban redevelopment and art’s role in the public sphere (Fresko). The collectives accused the Biennial’s major financial sponsors of being the perpetrators of urban transformation
8 | P a g e
themselves, revealing a deep-‐seated social divide rooted in urban redevelopment and globalization.
13th Istanbul Biennial The 13th Istanbul Biennial was held from 14 September to 20 October, 2013, in five separate venues and drew in a record 300,000 visitors (IKSV). The lead curator Fulya Erdemci, as with all Biennial curators, was appointed by an international advisory board and was tasked with developing a conceptual framework according to which an international group of artists and projects could be invited to form a comprehensive exhibition. Erdemci chose the theme, “Mom, am I barbarian?” for the 13th Istanbul Biennial. The concept of “barbarian” refers to the “absolute other,” or the weakest and most excluded in society; the overall theme refers to art’s potential in destabilizing deep-‐seated discourses in the public domain (in order to create a space for the “absolute other”), as well as the public domain’s potential as a political forum (IKSV). Appropriately for the theme, the 13th Biennial repurposed public buildings that were left temporarily vacant by urban transformations as exhibition venues. Since its inception in 1987, the Istanbul Biennial has drawn in world-‐renowned artists
and invited them to use the city’s sacred architectural landscape as their canvas through its Public Program. While the 13th Istanbul Biennial did have a Public Program2—including the main event series, “Making the City Public,” which was comprised of talks, panel discussions and performances on the “very real and violent transformations of urban neighborhoods in Istanbul”—it chose to cancel or move many of its public art pieces indoors (IKSV). Speculators were split between seeing this move as a show of respect to the Gezi Park protests about urban transformation just three months prior, or as a symbolic acquiescence by the organization and sponsors to remove this discourse from the public sphere. In the introductory “Curator’s Text” in the 13th Biennial guide, Erdemci explained, “We were…convinced that ‘not realizing’ [the projects in the public domain] is a more powerful political statement than having them materialize under such conditions” (Erdemci). In one visitor’s opinion, though the Biennial aimed to examine ways in which ‘publicness’ was being transformed through urban redevelopment in Istanbul and across the world, the Biennial’s statements were overshadowed by the Gezi Park protests three months before, which “already showed in a spectacular war with graffiti, street art, Figure 3. Performance artist Erdem Gündüz stood silently photography and other visual media” the for eight hours d uring the Gezi Park protests, facing a importance of public space “in terms of social portrait of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey struggles, art and politics” (Kayabali). 2
th
The 13 Istanbul Biennial Public Program was titled “Public Alchemy” and had three event series: Making the City Public, Public Address, and Public Capital. Speakers from Istanbul and other international locations were invited to speculate on the relationships between urban transformation, the invention and suppression of public space, and capitalism.
9 | P a g e
Another visitor who had been part of the Gezi Park events pointed out the relative difficulty in relating to the modern artworks exhibited during the 13th Biennial, which were meant to convey messages of public space and its social struggles, compared to the several public art pieces created during the Gezi Park events (Ersoy). Though perhaps more due to the extremely conceptual nature of contemporary gallery artwork, it is still telling that a disconnect exists between the artwork meant to discuss urban transformation in public spaces and the ordinary visitors who may be the most impacted by these urban transformations—which brings up the question, who is the Biennial targeting? Given the varying reactions in official Biennial press releases and international art magazines compared with local reviews in online blogs, it appears the public art program of the Biennial has only penetrated into the global public rather than the local public. However many performances and artworks created during the Gezi Park events (“The Standing Man,” a public piano performance, and the painted Findikli rainbow steps) incited mass public reaction and international press. Erdemci introduced the 13th Biennial Guide by discussing the significance of the Gezi Park events; one thing the Gezi Park events did prove was the potentially transformative influence of public art over the locals in the public sphere.
Figure 4. German pianist Davide Martello draws a mass crowd with a p erformance in Taksim Square, where protests took place the night before
While many art pieces in the 13th Istanbul Biennial truly conveyed inspiring, informative and thought-‐provoking messages about urban transformation, public space as a political arena and art’s role in the public sphere, the lack of public sense of ownership and inclusion prevents the Biennial from communicating its message to its full potential.
Best Practices: London’s Fourth Plinth Program A global city in every sense, London has one of the most mature art markets in the world, with quite literally thousands of museum exhibitions, galleries, collectives, performance houses, and public or street art works—many of which cater to an audience well-‐versed in contemporary art. Feeding this international creative force is an inherent understanding that “culture is a powerful force, promoting understanding and a sense of identity” (Sister City Program). In an effort to celebrate and enhance London’s immense cultural resources, the Mayor of London developed a Culture Strategy surrounding three factors: i) ii) iii)
Cultural and creative force – understanding that the city’s creative and cultural sectors are significant in generating revenue per annum, creating employment, and bolstering cultural tourism; Diversity – understanding that multiculturalism and a reputation for diversity is a major asset; and Growth – understanding that population growth requires support from enhanced and sustainable cultural infrastructure. 10 | P a g e
Though not without its many social injustices, as in all rapidly transforming global cities, London struggles with balancing major redevelopments of its urban landscape and maintaining cultural heritage, as well as balancing international prosperity and social inequality at home (Zukin). In an official statement, the Mayor of London stated, “Far too many of London’s citizens are socially excluded and poorly represented. Culture and creativity have a unique potential to address some of these difficult social issues” (Sister City Program). With the full support of the Mayor of London and most citizens, public art has been formally tied to city’s political and social fabric since the Second World War. The Arts Council of England adopted an Art in Public Spaces scheme in the mid-‐1970s, where an allocation of public building funding went to the arts (formally adopted into policy in 1990). In 1982, the Art & Architecture conference at the London ICA sparked conversation about the value of art in regeneration and collaborations between artists and architects in development became fashionable. Today, the quality and sustainability of the urban environment are top governmental priorities, and there is a broad recognition of the role the arts and culture play in creating high quality public realms (Sister City Program). A major component of London’s comprehensive public art program is the Fourth Plinth Program, a sculpture project under the auspices of the Mayor of London. The UK’s most high profile public art commission, international artists are awarded the commission to create a site-‐ specific, temporary sculpture to be displayed for eighteen months in the heart of London’s sacred and rather dark imperial heritage, Trafalgar Square. The other major statues in Trafalgar Square depict naval generals and royalty who collectively invoke ideals of bravery, military prowess, wealth, slavery and a brutal ability to conquer and suppress.3 The installation of seemingly whimsical contemporary artworks on the Fourth Plinth (such as Elmgreen and Dragset’s “Powerless Structures Fig. 101”) have prompted national discussions about tolerance, diversity, national identity and public space (Sumartojo). The Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square was originally designed by Sir Charles Barry in the 1840s, with the intention of displaying an equestrian statue. Due to insufficient funding, the plinth was left empty until 1998, when the Royal Society for the Arts, Figure 5. Elmgreen and Dragset's 'Powerless Structures Fig. 101', Manufactures and Commerce commissioned by the Fourth Plinth Program in 2012. Elmgreen and temporarily commissioned three Dragset also created the artwork featured on the title page for Istanbul’s th contemporary works for display on 7 Biennial. the plinth. With the renewed interest in the plinth’s future, the government established an independent committee that 3
The other prominent statues in Trafalgar Square include: Nelson’s Column, depicting Admiral Nelson following victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, which cemented British naval supremacy against the French and Spanish for over a century; General Sir Charles Napier, known as the brutal Commander-‐in-‐Chief in India who conquered what is now Pakistan for Britain; Major General Sir Henry Havelock, known for his brutal recapturing of Cawnpore from rebels during the Indian Rebellion in 1857; and King George IV, who was known for many extravagant beautification projects in London.
11 | P a g e
unanimously voted to continue the series of commissioned contemporary artworks from internationally renowned artists. In 1999, the Mayor of London took responsibility for Trafalgar Square and the Fourth Plinth Commissioning Group was created to guide a public arts program for the Square. Historically a space for protests, demonstrations and rallies, today Trafalgar Square is a proper public space that encourages an involved and informed public, stimulating public interest and provoking debate. One goal of the Fourth Plinth Program is to provide a sense of public ownership and inclusion. To widen social inclusion during the selection of artwork for the Fourth Plinth, the Mayor formed partnerships with schools and organizations, such as the National Gallery and Arts Council England, to promote awareness of this inclusion. The Mayor also announced public Initiatives, including an interactive website, public exhibition, school visits, grass-‐roots level community work in London’s boroughs, live debates and a student competition themed around public space and contemporary art (Simons). The truly public environment surrounding the Fourth Plinth artwork selection saw an enormous media interest, with coverage both criticizing and praising the nominated sculptures. Over ten thousand locals responded to a public consultation on the finalist sculpture choices. Although the final decision on the selection of commissioned artists was not put to a public vote, comments from the public were an important element in informing the Commission’s decision. Broadly known as one of the most significant art projects in public space realized in London, the Fourth Plinth reflects the city’s accepting, actively inclusive and democratic public art vision (Ece). While every installation is not universally appealing or understood – in the nature of contemporary art – it is widely understood that the Fourth Plinth Program represents a permanent shift in Trafalgar Square from an institutional, imperial power to a place of populism and democratic representation. In a direct visual dialogue—more clearly read than a written urban policy—the Fourth Plinth artwork conveys and is a reminder in the public sphere of the openness of authorities to listen to social and political issues.
Recommendations During a public panel discussion titled, “Agoraphobia” during the 13th Istanbul Biennial, curator Fulya Erdemci stated that one of the problems of urban transformation was the near-‐ nonexistent room for negotiation. If public art is to be used as a means to communicate during urban transformation (between the public and authority, and between the constituent public groups)—as it has great potential to do—negotiation, democratic representation, social ownership and inclusion are crucial for a successful implementation. Only then will art in a public space be able to strengthen the locals’ ties to the city and its culture. The very nature of public art, especially in extremely diverse cities with conflicting public agendas like Istanbul and London, reflects the “voices that represent the diversity of people using the space,” and as such, require proper negotiation and representation to function without conflict (Hall and Robertson). By lending voice to contradictory perspectives and allowing the public art to circulate an informed and diverse visual vernacular through the community, the public space will be able to create a “homogeneous” culture without losing its diversity. As a city that has never quite homogenized, with a large population of citizens taking an active interest in their
12 | P a g e
city’s development, Istanbul has immense potential to use public art to establish an honest dialogue during the process of urban transformation. Using London as an example, a strategic public art program in Istanbul would require the establishment of an independent, autonomous commission who would be responsible for the selection, funding and implementation of the public art piece. Their members could be comprised of experts from various relevant disciplines (visual arts, architecture, urban planning, sociology); representatives from public and private institutions working in the visual arts; and members from the government. For this commission to function democratically and transparently, various discussion platforms—similar to the initiatives the Mayor of London took for the Fourth Plinth—should be created to reach as many people within the “public sphere” as possible. The most important aspect for Istanbul is the inclusion of local participation and representation from all constituent public groups—especially considering the apparent disconnect in the culture—so as to account for the city’s immense diversity. The inclusion of democratic practices into public art implementation can produce a sense of local pride, which while not entailing a consensus, does show recognition and respect without domination and encourages the inclusion of a healthy diversity and conflict into the artwork (Sharp, Pollock and Paddison). This study only broaches the subject of public arts in Istanbul. Further field studies, interviews, surveys and focus groups, as well as a fair statistical analysis, should be conducted to verify claims made about urban identity. Specifically, further studies should be conducted on extent of impact of individual art pieces on urban identity, in both Istanbul and in London’s Fourth Plinth Program. While this is an initial study, several limitations included a mostly literature-‐ and conversation-‐based research. Further interviews with relevant people directly involved in the complex process of urban transformation and public art implementation would be highly useful. Though their similarities in complex diversity and global city status merit a comparison, a direct comparison between London and Istanbul should be done carefully, given their many social and historical differences. Finally, it should be noted that as simple as it is to discuss general public art, it is important to understand the many nuances within public art itself. Each piece is different and should be analyzed separately.
13 | P a g e
Bibliography Arsu, Sebnem and Robert Mackey. "The New York Times." 3 September 2013. With a burst of color, Turkey's public walkways become a focus of quiet protest. 17 April 2014 <http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/with-‐a-‐burst-‐of-‐color-‐turkeys-‐public-‐walkways-‐ become-‐a-‐focus-‐of-‐quiet-‐protest/>. Bovaird, Tony. "Public Art in Urban Regeneration: An Economic Analysis." Urban Regeneration: A challenge for public art. Ed. Antoni Remesar. Barcelona: Edicions Universitat Barcelona, 1997. 116-‐127. Burdett, Richard. "Istanbul: city of intersections." Urban Age (2009). Cavaniglia, Consuelo. Non-‐Permanent & Ephemeral: Public Art Project. Perth Cultural Centre, Government of Western Australia. Perth: Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, 2010. Cullom, Ray. An Introduction to the Zorlu Center for the Performing Arts Melissa Teng. Istanbul, 5 March 2014. Ece, Özlem. Art in Public Space: Proposed Models & Recommendations for Istanbul. Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts. Istanbul: IKSV, 2011. Ecumenopolis: City Without Limits. Dir. Imre Azem. Prods. Günay and Anspichler. 2011. Erdemci, Fulya. Curator's Text. 13th Istanbul Biennial Guide. Istanbul: IKSV; Yapi Kredi Publications; Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2013. Ersoy, Özge. "Firing Up, Fading Out: Reflections on the 13th Istanbul Biennial." Nafas Art Magazine (2013). Erzen, Jale. "Art in Istanbul: Contemporary Spectacles and History Revisited." Orienting Istanbul: Cultural Capital of Europe? Ed. D. Gokturk, L. Saysel and I. Tureli. London: Routledge, 2010. 216-‐233. Esman, Abigail. "Yesim Turanli Opens Pi Artworks Branch in London." Cultural Affairs 11 September 2013. Fraser, Nancy. "From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a 'Post-‐Socialist' Age." New Left Review (1995): 69-‐93. Fresko, Lara. "istanbul: Welcoming the Unthinkable." Art Review (2013). Grasskamp, Walter. "Public Art." Art in the City: An Italian-‐German Tale. Ed. Florian Matzner. Berlin: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 1997. 333. Hague, Cliff and Paul Jenkins, Place Identity, Planning, and Participation. London; New York: Routledge, 2005.
14 | P a g e
Hall, Tim and Iain Robertson. "Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates." Landscape Research 26.1 (2001): 5-‐26. Hewitt, Paul. "Developments in the Emerging Art Markets: A Global Overview." ArtInsight. London: Art Radar, 2011. IKSV. The 13th Istanbul Biennial Ended. Press Release. Istanbul: Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts, 2013. —. The 13th Istanbul Biennial Public Programme Begins: Making the City Public. Press Release. Istanbul Technical University. Istanbul: IKSV, 2013. —. The Conceptual Framework of the Istanbul Biennial Was Annouced: 'Mom, Am I Barbarian?'. Press Release. Istanbul: IKSV, 2013. Irvene, Martin. "The Work on the Street: Street Art and Visual Culture." The Handbook of Visual Culture. Ed. Barry Sandywell and Ian Heywood. London & New York: Berg, 2012. 235-‐278. Jacob, Sam. "Trafalgar Square's Fourth Plinth." Icon Eye 55 (2008). Kayabali, Yaman. "Review: 13th Istanbul Biennial." 28 October 2013. Exhibition Critique. 12 April 2014 <http://www.exhibitioncritique.com/2013/10/28/review-‐13th-‐istanbul-‐biennial>. Orer, Bige. "Survey Biennials, pt. I." OnWeb. Flash Art Italy. 2014. Pinter, David. "Arts of urban exploration." Cultural Geographies 12.4 (2005): 383-‐411. Selwood, Sara. The Benefits of Public Art. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1995. Sharp, Joanne, Venda Pollock and Ronan Paddison. "Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration." Urban Studies 42.5/6 (2005): 1001-‐1023. Sim, Stuart. Irony and Crisis: A Critical History of Postmodern Culture. Cambridge: Icon Books, 2002. Simons, Justine. The Mayor's Fourth Plinth Commission. White Paper. Greater London Authority. London: Mayor's Office, 2005. Sister City Program. Public Realm in London: An Oveview. White Paper. New York: The Sister City Program of the City of New York, 2005. Sumartojo, Shanti. "The Fourth Plinth: creating and contesting national identity in Trafalgar Square, 2005-‐2010." Cultural Geographies 20.1 (2013): 67-‐81. Zukin, Sharon. "The City as a Landscape of Power: London and New York as global financial capitals." Global Finance and Urban Living: A Study of Metropolitan Change. Ed. L. Budd and S. Whimster. London: Routledge, 1992. 195-‐223.
15 | P a g e
Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Istanbul Research Institute for their kindness and endless patience in helping me find resources, as well as every individual who gave some of their time to help me begin broaching Istanbul and London’s complex art community. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Emerson, Abbey Godley, Ipek Martinez, Dr. Nia Georges, and Rice University’s School of Social Sciences for their constant support and for this incredible opportunity to study, interview, and live in these two aggressively transforming cities.
16 | P a g e