How Public Art Generates Identity and Humanizes Cities

Introduction: Art as Rhetorical and Cultural Force

A key component in persuading individuals to follow a certain path is the establishment of a vision. Speeches are viewed as a means to persuade an audience; likewise, images can be just as convincing as verbal rhetoric. Art plays a rhetorical role, making viewers believe in the authenticity of that which is represented. Cultural and social values, as well as famous historical occurrences, are often reflected in artworks. Seeing art that reflects ideals, values, and lived experiences may prompt spectators to reckon with a reality that might otherwise have been neglected. This kind of art, at the very least, drives individuals to challenge large societal problems, thereby increasing the likelihood of reactive action by the community (Howard & Hoffman, 2013).

The nature of public art is not merely aesthetic; cultural, political, and social issues contextualize publicly located art forms. For example, public sculpture is shaped by, as well as defines, its spatial position, and is therefore a component of a societal dynamic wherein the processes by which an individual defines oneself are not limited to forming distinctions between oneself and others, but extend to things and objects — and to the very places and spaces where they are located (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983). This applies not just to space in the local environment, but to entirely built identities — such as cities and towns — as well. In Leeds, a major city in Northern England, such background variables have facilitated examination of the changing relationship between the city and public art, particularly with publicly positioned sculptures (Remesar, 2000; Haley, 2014).

A majority of geographical public art engagements revolve around numerous connected claims pertaining to its place-making capacity. An initial claim is that public art can facilitate the economic progress of regions, cities, and localities. Art installation in public zones was increasingly justified, by the 1980s, in relation to its assumed role in urban revitalization. The essential idea was that investors and tourists would be drawn in by artworks. Literature on creative cities has more recently revived this argument, depicting urban art as an enticement for creative people (Schuermans, Loopmans & Vandenabeele, 2012).

What It Means for Public Art to Humanize Cities

One sign of a quality public area — one that different kinds of individuals use at different times of day and night — is that it is a flexible space capable of accommodating numerous activities, both spontaneous and planned. Such a space can transform over time to facilitate new uses, thereby continually energizing the location (Proshansky et al., 1983). A range of diverse activities taking place across a city's public spaces suggests that it still has much to offer in terms of energy, creativity, spontaneity, and liveability. Those who pass through these spaces play dual roles: unlike passively watching others' experiences on television, film, or video, the individual present in a public space is personally participating — however ordinarily — in shared civic life (Howard & Hoffman, 2013; Remesar, 2000).

Some cities have a range of quality public places, such as parks, squares, lakes, public gardens, and plazas. While some spaces are green and expansive — with pathways, lakes, smaller paved areas for events and exercise, cafes, restaurants, and informal shops — others are simply small spaces, paved or unpaved, where individuals can walk, sit, cycle, skate, watch others, or play. Some spaces are overly small and suitable only for a few minutes of rest before continuing to one's destination. Others are mostly empty at certain times of day, packed in the early morning and through the evening, while still others are perpetually bustling with people, partly because of their easy access and central location (Efroymson, Thanh Ha & Thu Ha, 2009; Schuermans et al., 2012).

Conclusion: Public Art, Identity, and Social Possibility

Broader ideological and cultural issues exist in regard to public art, including the implicit tension between the conservatism of social institutions and public communities on one hand, and the necessity to provide opportunities for aesthetic risk-taking and creative experimentation on the other. Cities and public spaces are constructs that both determine and are determined by cultural and social identities, as well as by sociocultural practices; within these constructs, the role of public art can be dominant.

The opportunity accordingly exists to develop systems of public art in any city that can dramatically elevate ideas about art itself, about public places, and about the traditional delineation of private and public, of the corporate and the domestic. Such systems can also address issues relating to gender, class, and age (Efroymson et al., 2009), making public art not merely a decorative endeavour but a genuinely transformative civic force.