Journals / İDEALKENT / 2013 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 10

The ‘Publicness’ of Public Art: Access, Actor, Interest Approach

Kamusal Sanatın ‘Kamusallığı’: Erişim, Aktör, Fayda Yaklaşımı

Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
220–255
Publication Date
2013-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the final section, the article concludes the discussions on the three dimensions of publicness of public art.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Once we think of public art, a series of questions come to our mind: What is the ‘publicness’ of public art?
📊
Key Findings & Data:Taking a glance at the literature of the ‘public’ and ‘private’ terms, it uses the three criteria of ‘access’,’actor’ and ‘interest’, put forth by Benn and Gaus in 1983 to define these concepts, and it seeks to define and discuss the ‘publicness’ of public art.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the final section, the article concludes the discussions on the three dimensions of publicness of public art.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kamusal sanat · kamusal mekan · kamu

Abstract

Once we think of public art, a series of questions come to our mind: What is the ‘publicness’ of public art? Is any public artwork exhibited in a public space ‘absolutely’ public? Could a public artwork be ‘more’ or ‘less’ public than any other? Is it possible to define the extent of publicness of an artwork with different forms of representation? This article, focusing on the question of ‘publicness’ of public art, aims to find out answers to these questions. Taking a glance at the literature of the ‘public’ and ‘private’ terms, it uses the three criteria of ‘access’,’actor’ and ‘interest’, put forth by Benn and Gaus in 1983 to define these concepts, and it seeks to define and discuss the ‘publicness’ of public art. This research ultimately aims to provide with a model or an empirical instrument to be used specifically in the fields of urban planning and design. The article is composed of four sections. The first section discusses the accessibility of public art, the second part focuses on the actors of public art and the third section widely explains the multiple interests which public art serves for. In the final section, the article concludes the discussions on the three dimensions of publicness of public art.

Özet

Kamusal mekanda sanattan bahsedildiğinde aklımıza bir dizi soru gelir: Kamusal sanatın ‘kamusallığı’ nedir? Kamusal mekanda sergilenen herhangi bir sanat eseri ‘mutlak’ kamusal mıdır? Bir kamusal sanat eseri, diğerine göre daha ‘az’ ya da daha ‘çok’ kamusal olabilir mi? Kamusal mekanda farklı temsil biçimleriyle sunulan sanat eserinin ne kadar ‘kamusal’ olduğu tanımlanabilir mi? Ölçülebilir mi? Bu makale, kamusal sanatın ‘kamusallığı’ sorunsalına odaklanarak, bu sorulara cevap aramayı hedeflemektedir. ‘Kamu’ ve ‘özel’ kavramlarıyla ilgili yazına hızlıca göz attıktan sonra, bu kavramları tanımlamak için Benn ve Gaus’un 1983’te ortaya attığı ‘erişebilirlik’, ‘aktör’ ve ‘fayda’ ölçütlerine dayanarak, kamusal sanatın kamusallığını tanımlamayı ve tartışmayı hedeflemektedir; özellikle kent planlama ve tasarım alanlarında yapılacak araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek bir araç (ya da model) sunmaya çalışmaktadır. Makale dört ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümünde, kamusal sanata erişim, ikinci bölümünde kamusal sanatın aktörleri ve üçüncü bölümünde ise, kamusal sanatın çok yönlü faydalarına bağlı olarak ‘kamusallık’larının nasıl değişebileceği tartışılmaktadır. Sonuç bölümünde ise, kamusallığın üç boyutuna bağlı olarak yapılan tartışmanın sonuçları özetlenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERCAN, M. A. (2013). The ‘Publicness’ of Public Art: Access, Actor, Interest Approach. İDEALKENT, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 10, 220–255. https://ajindex.com/articles/109824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akkar Ercan, M. (2007). Public spaces of post-industrial cities and their changing roles. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 24(1), 115-137.
  2. Akkar, M. (2005). The changing ‘publicness’ of contemporary public spaces: A case study of the Grey’s Monument Area, Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Design International, 10, 95-113. Annabel Jackson Associates (AJA) (2007). Evaluation of Public Art: A literature Review And Proposed Methodology. Final evaluation report to Yorkshire Culture. http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/yorkshireimages/2007AJAEvaluationofPublicArtLiteratureReviewPublicVersion.pdf (14 Mayıs 2013).
  3. Arendt, H. (1958).
  4. The Human Condition. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
  5. Arendt, H. (1997). The public and the private realm. S.E. Bronner (ed.) Twentieth Century Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 21-26) London and New York: Routledge. Augé C. & Augé P. (1955). Larousse Dictionnaire Encyclopédique. Paris: Libraries Larousse-Paris VI. Beech, D. (2005). Sloganeering. http://www.hewittandjordan.com/work/assets/slo ganeering. pdf (14 Mayıs 2013).
  6. Beech, D., Hewitt, A., Jordan, M. (2008). The economic function of public art is to increase the value of private property. http://freee.org.uk/works/the-economic-function-of-public-art-is-to-increase-the-value-of-private-property/ (13 Mayıs 2013).
  7. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition and Jürgen Habermas. C. Calhoun, C. (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 73-96). London: MIT Press.
  8. Bianchini, F. (1993). Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies. F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (eds.) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience (pp. 21–47) Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  9. Carmona, M., Heath, T. Oc, T., Tiesdell, S. (2003).
  10. Public Places, Urban Spaces. Amsterdam, London: Elsevier. Benn, S.I. & Gaus, G.F. (eds.) (1983). Public and Private in Social Life. London, Canberra: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  11. Brandao, P. (2003). Apocalyptic – Integrated 20 notes of “parallel thought” on public space and economy, and some new types of public spaces. Public Arts and Urban Design, Interdisciplinary and Social Perspectives, Barcelona: MACBA, 162-168.
  12. Cameron, S. & Coaffee, J. (2005). Art, gentrification and regeneration—from artist as pioneer to public arts. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(1), 39–58.
  13. Cow Parade (2011). Cow Parade websitesi: cow.parade.com. (16 Mayıs 2013).
  14. Crilley, D. (1993). Mega