近日與上海的友人談起公共藝術，她們跟我說，上海沒有甚麼公共藝術，我頓時感到有些詫異。上海作為中國最活躍的藝術城市之一，藝術區、美術館建了，藝博會、雙年展辦了，可是沒有公共藝術？我由此想到的是，近二十年，文化產業的概念在國內發展迅猛，可我們的文化生產和消費卻跳過了公共藝術所能提供的教育環節；一座城市單靠幾座美術館，是否真的足以引起大眾對文化創意的重視？
文化藝術的價值談論起來有時候非常抽象，但當人們參與藝術的時候，藝術給人帶來的感染和衝擊，都是非常直接的。因此，推動藝術最有效的方法之一，莫過於讓人親身參與藝術活動，而公共藝術提供的正是這樣的機會：城市就是藝術和創意的舞台，居民無需走進美術館，就可以欣賞和參與藝術活動，這對城市藝術氛圍的塑造以及文化消費群體的培養，自然有莫大的好處。
記得數年前，筆者遊覽紐約，印象最深的不是大都會博物館，也不是百老滙的音樂劇，而是一件在曼哈頓的哥倫布圓環（Columbus Circle）上實現的公共藝術，名為「發現哥倫布」。像多數城市的廣場一樣，這個廣場中心矗立著一座偉人的雕像，它是城市的座標，歷史的紀念，但可能從來沒有人近距離地欣賞過這一座哥倫布像，因為它如此高高在上。藝術家於是圍繞著雕像臨時建造了一座小房子，觀眾登上台階，進入小房子，就可以近距離地觀看哥倫布像。這樣的作品給人以全新的視角看待歷史上和城市中那些本已固化的事物，它也賦予了藝術更積極的社會意義：不是安躺在美術館裡等待被觀賞，而是直接地介入到城市生活之中，與空間和歷史對話，跟生活在此時空中的人對話。
也許有人會說，藝術本來就是特定時空的產物，但問題是隨著藝術產業過度商業化甚至是資本化的發展，藝術品往往離了藝術家原來創作的時代和環境，成為消費和慾望的對象，先別說那些在拍賣會以天價購買藝術的人到底是否懂得欣賞藝術，就是簇擁地來到美術館、站在梵高和畢加索名畫跟前的我們，又能與作品有多少真正的對話？這種藝術與人、與生活、與社會的脫離，迫使六、七十年代的美國藝術家敲碎美術館與畫廊的白牆，重新走到大街上。
也是在此期間，美國一些重要的公共藝術機構相繼成立：一方面是許多州份和城市開始推動百分比藝術計劃（Percent for Art），規定公共建設必須投放百分之一的費用購置公共藝術；另一方面是民間非營利機構的成立，比如公共藝術基金（Public Art Fund）和創意時代（Creative Time）。這些機構的出現，不僅提供了資源，也搭建了社區協作的平台，令公共藝術得以滲透美國大小城市。
然而，公共藝術借助公共資源實施，進入公眾視野，自然也要接受公眾的審視。既要啟發思考，又要使觀眾接受及認同，這依仗的就不僅是藝術家的創意和願景，還必須考慮社區參與的制度、公共教育的落實等等。如此是要道出，公共藝術，遠不只是把藝術品從美術館搬進城市中而已。
原載於 C2文創誌 第二十四期
During my recent discussion about public art with friends in Shanghai, I was quite surprised when they told me there was actually little public art in Shanghai. As one of the most active artistic cities in China, Shanghai has arts districts, galleries, arts expositions, and arts biennials, but with the exemption of public art? This reminds me that our cultural production and consumption have skipped the educational link provided by public art while our concept of cultural industry has been developing rapidly in the past 20 years in Mainland China. Is it really adequate for a city to attract public attention to cultural creativity only by a few galleries?
Talking about culture and arts may prove, more often than not, to be quite abstract, but when people physically participate in arts, the appeal and impact that arts gives them is extremely direct. Therefore, one of the most effective ways to promote arts is to allow people to personally participate in arts activities, and public art can provide exactly such an opportunity: a city is the stage for arts and creativity. The residents can enjoy and participate in arts activities without the necessity of going to art galleries. This, of course, offers tremendous benefits for the shaping of the artistic atmosphere of the city and the cultivation of the cultural consumer groups.
I remember visiting New York some years ago. What impressed me most is not the Metropolitan Museum of Art, nor the Broadway musicals, but the public art materialised at the Columbus Circle in Manhattan, called “Discovering Columbus”. Like the squares in many other cities, the statue of a great figure stands at the centre of the square, a landmark of the city and a memory to history, it is the statue of Columbus, but because of its lofty height, no one has ever come close to enjoy it. Some artists then built a temporary shed surrounding the statue. People may go up a few steps and enter the shed to see the statue of Columbus at close quarters. Such a piece of art gives people a completely new perspective to view those fossilised things and matters in history and in the city. At the same time, it gives art a more positive social meaning: it is not placed in the art museum waiting to be enjoyed. Instead, it exerts itself directly into city life, integrating with space and history, and communicating with the people living in such a time and space.
People, perhaps, may say art itself is basically the product of a specific time and space. But it seems that following the development of artistic products being over-commercialised or even capitalised, artwork often dissociates itself from the original time and environment of the artists, and turns itself into an object of consumption and desire. Let alone whether those people who buy artwork at auctions at astronomical prices can appreciate art or not, how many of us who flock to art galleries and stand before the masterpieces of Van Gogh and Picasso can really communicate with the artists’ work? The dissociation of this kind of art with people, with living, and with society has forced American artists in the 1960s and 1970s to break down the white walls of art galleries and march into the streets again.
And it was at this very time that some important public art organisations in America were founded one after another: many states and cities began to promote the Percent for Art Plan and demand public facilities to invest 1% of their expenditures on purchase of public art on the one hand; and civilian non-profit-making organisations were established, like the Public Art Fund and Creative Time on the other. The emergence of these organisations not only provided resources, but also built a platform for community collaboration, making it possible for public art to penetrate into cities of various sizes in America.
However, public art using public resources comes into the sight of the public must naturally accept the examination of the public. It must inspire thoughts, and at the same time make itself accepted and agreed with by the public. Not only does it depend on the creativity and vision of the artists, but it should also consider the system of community participation, the implementation of public education, and others. From this, it should be said that public art is not merely a matter of just moving artwork from the galleries into the streets.
Source: C2 Issue 24