My views on “public art” and “art is public spaces” have changed drastically. I now feel that “art in public spaces” is primarily about\u00a0exporting preexisting\u00a0institutional frameworks to new sites and colonizing foreign\u00a0cultures. The elements of the non-institutional\u00a0environments will always surrender to art: The less culture there is at\u00a0a site,\u00a0the more easy it is to colonize it\u00a0using\u00a0artworks.\u00a0A singular art object can fold\u00a0the unprotected wilderness into itself and take control of its surroundings (A cross on top of a mountain etc). When art is made for the insides the institutions, it is met with more resistance and its structure is opened for negotiations. It is more easy to evaluate and compare artworks inside institutions. They may be more democratic spaces then I have previously thought! Institutions are dependent on\u00a0gatekeepers who maintain status quo and reject works which they deem unfit.\u00a0The act of rejecting something is actually articulating and making the inner values of the institution open for public debate. The wilderness cannot reject art. I should start to offer my artworks to established institutions. That would be the only way to benchmark their values.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
My views on “public art” and “art is public spaces” have changed drastically. I now feel that “art in public spaces” is primarily about\u00a0exporting preexisting\u00a0institutional frameworks to new sites and colonizing foreign\u00a0cultures. The elements of the non-institutional\u00a0environments will always surrender to art: The less culture there is at\u00a0a site,\u00a0the more easy it is to colonize … <\/p>\n