Art in Public: Buster Simpson’s Philosophy
By Anna Heineman
Public art is in need of a shot in the arm. Large and obtrusive works are often plopped down in city squares and on college campuses, and seem to have no connection to either the space or the community. Because of this lack of connection, and perhaps the lack of critical discourse discussed about the work placed in the public as well, artwork outside of galleries and museums often fall flat. To remedy this, public art needs not only to be discussed in journals and public forums, it also could benefit from a new philosophy from the artists themselves. One artist who works in the public sector, Buster Simpson, provides some answers for how to enliven art in public spaces.
To give you a brief background about Simpson, he has been working as an artist in the public realm for over forty years. He began his career creating public works for the infamous Woodstock performance in New York, assisted with the very first collaborative public art project with Seattle Arts Commission creating work for the Viewland/Hoffmann substation, and has exhibited art in reputable museums and public places around the planet. In 2009, he was awarded the Public Art Award at the American for the Arts convention, which “honored innovative contributions to and exemplary commitment and leadership in public art.” 1
Therefore, his ideas and philosophies about art in public places carry clout. Simpson believes that we—we as in scholars, teachers, administrators, and others who work in the arts—should refer to the field as “art in public,” and not “public art.” 2
In response to being called a “public artist,” Simpson responded curtly: “I PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE TO BE SINGLED OUT AS A PUBLIC ARTIST. I AM AN ARTIST.” 3 Even though most of Simpson’s works focus on the community, he does not call himself a public artist, for he believes that the term is too limiting. Instead, he says, “I just like to be called an artist; that keeps it kind of vague. That’s the best.” 4 He also questions the existence of “public art.” He claims “there’s art being put in public, but there’s not public artists. When you work in the public, it requires different skills, but you still have to be an artist.” 5 To work well in this field, the artist needs to be quipped with good listening and collaboration skills. The artist is not “making something that will go on somebody’s wall,” as Simpson notes. 6 Rather because the patron consists of a neighborhood or a city, the artist must meet different demands.
These demands, he claims, are different for those who work in public spaces. Artist who work outdoors have a challenge of a multi-dimensional context. The environment, community, and history all surround the work. Moreover, graffiti, decay and time do not benefit art outside the sterile. Again, he explains:
WE ARE NOT HANGING ON WHITE WALLS IN
HERMETICALLY SEALED SPACES, BUT IN THE LAND OF
STREET SMARTS AND ABRASIVE EROSION; THE
CRITERIA NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONTEXT. 7
His key point is to make the work relevant for the space. A Minimalist sculpture depends on the clean, perfect line of the work, looks tacky once graffiti appear the metal. Thus, Simpson’s point is for the artist to make-work appropriate for context of the place. He encourages artists to take this challenge, but also ask administrators and public art officials to “deaccession art in public when it does withstand the criteria it was made to represent.” 8 As he claims, there are many artists who “patronize the public and make cliché infected, feel-good art.”
To remedy this, he encourages artist, who have the tools to adapt, to read the landscape and communicate with community in order to create work appropriate for the space. 9 Simpson has done this throughout many of his public projects. For example, he created a whimsical cistern on a street in Seattle in order to promote rainwater recycling. A particular neighborhood, that Simpson once lived in, had turned a derelict lot into a garden. Bouncing ideas off of each other, they wanted to turn the street into a water recycler, meaning all the rain runoff would be collected for their garden’s use. Image 1
Receiving a city grant, Simpson was chosen as the resident designer, and created a cistern that not only was eye-catching and creative, it was also functional. 10 It captured the rain from the nearby building, collected it in the cistern, and funneled it down the street through a runnel, ending in the community garden. Working with the space and the community, he was able to create a functional work of art that appeased the city and the residents of the neighborhood.
Simpson’s key to creating successful art is communication. Because there are panels of people involved with every decision, he claims, “As a provocateur, trickster, and healer, the artist can stimulate thinking as well as present a visually legible image with a disarming, poignant viewpoint. Artists working in the public must be cognizant of the responsibilities and obligations inherent in shared space.” 11
If the artist either creates work for his or her own agenda, or patronizes the public with elementary work, the art in the public space is disconnected to the community. However, if the artist chooses to recognize the fact that they share a space with the community in the world’s design, they have the ability to create thought-provoking and successful work.Simpson also believes that publically sited art needs better constructive reviews and critiques.
There needs to be “more effort and responsibility on the part of conferences to educate the greater public about art in public.” He claims that it is up to us as the educators to in turn educate the public about “art as idea, art as process, and that failure can also be a process of art.” 12 Of course, art as idea and art as process are nothing new. However, art novices perhaps have not learned how to look, to metaphorically pay the price of admission, to involve themselves with looking so that they can fully comprehend the work at hand. Simpson’s work is highly educational in that regard; for he incorporates these concepts that are normally see only in museums. He does this by including signage, plaques, or other references for the viewer. For instance, his Host Analog in Portland, Oregon, is at first glance, a segmented log with trees growing from the decaying wood. Images 2, Image 3
It does not look like a typical public work of art, except for the signage included around it. If a viewer takes the time, they can read about many different elements relating to this idea. Simpson took this naturally felled log from a nearby forest, brought it to the city center (outside of the city’s Convention Center), to juxtapose the time it takes to cut down a tree to the time it takes to grow a forest. He included images of his daughter growing up over the years next to the tree, along with pictures of ancient Greek ruins that mirror the falling of a great column to the falling of a great tree, and images of loggers that eat from a great log table in a forest. In this seemingly simple design, Simpson incorporates art as idea and art as process for the viewer. He is able to entice both the art aficionado who revels in artistic complexity and the art novice who perhaps though contemporary art was only paint splattered on canvas.
Similar to how signs explain art, we too, need to explain the importance and complexity of public art to the larger community. Simpson suggests that conferences could provide panels to discuss how to create outreach to public schools. 13 He believes an educated public, as the patrons of our public art, will make intelligent decisions about “the environment around them, be it urban design, music or art.” 14 If we educate the public, by way of conferences or community meetings, or through classes in public schools or higher education, we can raise the bar of what is expected for art in public.
Conclusion
In conclusion, how do we as teachers and administrators educate about artistic complexity in public spaces? Signage, for one, is a simple answer. Explain the work that is out on the street. Curators add signs for museum exhibitions: why should not art in the public come with an explanation or analysis as well?
Also, Simpson encourages us to be more discerning about what is put in these places. His motto is to place “work that works, in the public realm.” 15 To make art “work,” Simpson, personally, focuses on creating a visual message. He does not aim to place an aesthetic object in the public domain. Instead, he creates work that connects with the people and the place. By making the work, Simpson’s public art is often well received by the commissioning bodies and the communities who live with it. Thus, if we encourage other public artists to follow suit, perhaps a higher quality of work will end up in public spaces.
By having more public reviews or critiques of artists’ work before the design ends up in the public realm is also a proactive way of attaining high quality art. Having a mix of people–and not just art history scholars—evaluate public work will also benefit the community. Moreover, choosing an artist who is willing to work with the community and the space is also key. It is important to choose a person who will put their artistic ego aside and incorporate what the community is looking for to enliven their space.
A work in public can educate, inspire, and provoke; however, a work in public can also sit there passively. It is up to us to encourage our art students, our art administrators, and public art choosing panels to challenge our public, and not just pacify them. By following Simpson’s suggestions, I believe we can aspire to commission public art with a capital A.
______________________________________________________________________________________
1 I was present at the 2009 Americans in the Arts Conference in Seattle and witnessed him receives the award. The quote is from the conference pamphlet.
2 Buster Simpson, Letter to Author, August 22, 2010.
3 Ibid.
4 Robin Updike, “Expanding the Canvas for Public Art—Agitator Buster Simpson’s Works are Of the People, and For the People,” Seattle Times, January 18, 1998, E5.
5 Personal interview with Buster Simpson, June 26, 2009.
6 Ibid.
7 Buster Simpson, Letter to Author, August 22, 2010.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Carlyn Geise, “Denny Regrade to Belltown,” in Belltown Paradise, eds. By Brett Bloom, Ava Bromberg, and Anthony Elms (Chicago: White Walls, 2004), 32.
11 Buster Simpson, “Portland South Waterfront Greenway: Conceptual Schematic Design Phase,” artist statement, August 2004, 2. Found online at
http://www.bustersimpson.net/portlandgreenway/portlandgreenway.08.23.04.pdf
12 Buster Simpson, Letter to Author, August 22, 2010.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Sue Spaid, Ecoventions: Current Art to Transform Ecologies (Cincinnati, OU: Contemporary Arts Center, 2002) 89.
Bibliography
_____________________
Geise, Carolyn. “Denny Regrade to Belltown.” In Belltown Paradise, eds. By Brett Bloom, Ava Bromberg, and Anthony Elms. Chicago: White Walls, 2004.
Simpson, Buster. “Portland South Waterfront Greenway: Conceptual Schematic Design Phase,” artist statement, August 2004, 2.
Spaid, Sue. Ecoventions: Current Art to Transform Ecologies. Cincinnati, OH: Contemporary Arts Center, 2002.
Updike, Robin. “Expanding the Canvas for Public Art—Agitator Buster Simpson’s Works are Of the People, and For the People.” Seattle Times, January 18, 1998, E5.
Tags: Anne Heineman, Buster Simpson, Public Art, Public Art Award, Seattle Arts Commission, Woodstock