Art and Public Space: Questions of Democracy

Judging by number of references to public space in contemporary aesthetic discourse, world is taking democracy seriously. Allusions to public space have multiplied over last decade along with a highly publicized growth in public commissions, and even most ingenuous accounts of public agree: public space is inextricably linked to democratic ideals. When, for instance, arts administrators and city officials formulate criteria for placing art in public places, they routinely employ a vocabulary that invokes, albeit loosely, tenets of both direct and representative democracy: Are artworks for the people? Do they encourage participation? Do they serve their constituencies? Public terminology frequently promises a commitment not only to democracy as a form of government but to a general democratic spirit of equality as well: Do works relinquish elitism? Are they accessible? When it comes to public art, neoconservative critics, no strangers to elitism in artistic matters, are also out there with people. Normally suspicious of democratic excess-activism, demands for political participation, challenges to governmental and moral authority-which, they believe, makes society ungovernable and endangers democratic rule by elites, neoconservatives nonetheless attack what they call public artist's arrogance and egoism in name of access-the people's access to public space.' Opinions on most famous recent controversy over public sculpture-the removal of Richard Serra's Tilted Arc from New York's Federal Plaza-also