Umění a město: Trvalé veřejné umění v Praze po roce 1989

15119 Ústav urbanismu

In this paper I focus on the controversy of permanent public art as well as its possible benefits. There was a strong advocacy for permanent public art from the 60s to 80s. From the mid-80s the critical writings target unfulfilled hopes for social change that permanent public art was expected to generate and controversial role in urban regeneration. Since the 90s, the importance of community-based art and temporal interventions have been emphasized. New genre public art is seen as the way of social change; to be truly “for people” and “from people”. It is more independent of the political, economic and cultural powers and underpins the democratic values. The often mentioned polarities of “permanent – temporal” public art are followed with determinations as “instrument of power – critical to the power structures”, “object-oriented – public concerned”. Considering specific historical context of the Czech Republic, the lack of any kind of official support has significantly influenced the post-communist development in this area. The role of public art is not yet established. Among political and economic actors there is little awareness for professional questions and clear awareness of benefits. From the perspective of built environment, I trace four functions of public art and its potential in cultivation of public space.

Detail

15119 Ústav urbanismu

V tomto příspěvku se zabývám tématem trvalého umění ve veřejném prostoru, které bylo umístěno na území Prahy v rozmezí let 1989 - 2015. Se změnou politického režimu byla zrušena institucionální podpora a legislativa, která zajišťovala vysokou produkci nových realizací. Doposud neexistuje strategie či vize magistrátu ani jednotlivých správních obvodů Prahy, která by podporovala vznik a umisťování uměleckých děl. Výsledky mapování trvalého umění ve veřejném prostoru Prahy prezentuji z hlediska jejich četnosti v jednotlivých správních obvodech, prvotní funkce a vizuální typologie. Popisuji a interpretuji dvě díla, která jsou v mnoha ohledech sobě protipólem. Zajímá mne zejména odpověď na otázku, jak se díla vztahují ke svému kontextu z hlediska prostoru, architektury, dějů, estetiky a významu. Přispívají díla k identitě místa? Do jaké míry jsou nové realizace místně specifické?

Detail

15119 Ústav urbanismu

Permanent public art is one of the layers of the city. In the Czech Republic the practice of public art dramatically changed after1989. All the legislative and institutional support that regulated and ideologically controlled this domain was abolished. New strategies and policy have not yet been established. However, new permanent public art is still installed into the cities. This contribution analyses three phases of the process leading to the new art in the city. Claims, context and art itself are three elements of the whole. They have equal importance. Theoretical understanding of claims, context and art can lead to the precise articulation of future claims, appropriate expectation and better evaluation of benefits. Claims are specific in time and space. Claims, often expressed by the subjects initiating the process of creation, represent mental soil. They are formulated in official strategies (general level) or discussed for the purpose of a specific work. The importance of context developed significantly in the last decades. Context is considered a crucial element in the meaning of public art. Location of important public art, monuments and memorials requires a complex approach and the involvement of artistic professionals, architects and preservationists. Art in public spaces lays on the intersection of different forces: artistic individuality and public interest, sensitivity for actual issues as well as long-term values.

Detail