Review of Year in Review

I have just received my download of the 2011 Year in Review selections and presentations and went over the whole show again. Having worked to improve the process, I was interested to see how the results held up from the perspective of a month after the conference.

On the PAN Council Committee we had long discussions, attempting to come up with improved categories and selection criteria. The three jury members proceeded to ignore both, but they did this in an intelligent, thoughtful and provocative manner. Lesson: it is important to come up with rules for Public Art that can only be ignored intelligently.

The work selected and the way it was presented was better, more interesting and instructive than what we got the year before. So what do the selections tell us about the state of public art?

I am going to say something here that invites rebuttal and discussion among us, please respond. With only a handful of exceptions, the work selected, presumably representing the work we produce, is moving closer toward ephemeral entertainment and commentary. The selections were clearly lively, fun to watch. But few places shown are likely to l become lasting, energizing facilities for a city or community. Very few of the places will be visited or looked at in 5 or 10 years. While the awkward phrase “Placemaking’ is gaining currency among public art circles, very few of the projects chosen would qualify as such. Are we then content to only comment and entertain, or do we have a bigger, deeper and longer range role in shaping our complex culture, evolving cities and stressed environment?

Lajos Heder