Community Arts and Culture Initiatives in Singapore

Understanding the Nodal Approach

Zdravko Trivic

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000174366
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Teaching Arts & Humanities

What Can Space Do for the Arts?; What Can Arts Do for Space?; and What Can Arts and Space Do for the Community?

Through the lenses of creative placemaking and neighbourhood arts ecology, Trivic re-examines the position of community arts in the spatial, social and cultural landscape. Emphasising urban design considerations of complex interdependent relationships between arts, space and people, he re-explores the role of community-based arts activities in shaping urban neighbourhoods, enriching public life and empowering communities. This is divided into an analysis of spatial opportunities for the arts in the neighbourhood; and a study of the impacts of bringing arts and culture activities into local neighbourhoods and communities, using Singapore's nodal approach as a developed case study. Using spatial opportunity analysis, the book demonstrates a step-by-step procedure for identification and evaluation of the neighbourhood spaces that work best for community arts and culture activities. In the study of impacts, Trivic proposes a holistic framework for capturing and evaluating the non-economic impacts of arts and culture, on space, society, well-being, education and participation.

An invaluable template for arts event organisers and artists to assess and maximise the outcomes of their creative efforts in local neighbourhoods, as well as an important reading for students and practitioners of neighbourhood planning, urban design, and creative placemaking.

1
Community arts and culture – the big picture

Introduction – setting the context

Since the 1960s, and particularly since the 1980s, a number of research and critical writings have emerged focusing on the changing role and position of arts and culture in the public realm and their benefits and impacts on shaping the understanding, the use and the experience of public spaces (e.g., Hall & Robertson, 2001; Kwon, 2004; Miles, 1997; Selwood, 1995; Thompson, 2012, 2015). Such a trend is strongly related to the “emergence” of “public art” and a number of related art forms and genres, including “community art”, but also to “placemaking” and what Ali Madanipour (2006) calls the “new urban revolution”, referring to a renewed interest in urban design and its role in accommodating and fostering political, social, economic and cultural change in contemporary cities.

One of the key challenges these studies continuously face is the complexity of defining the key terms and concepts with which they operate, such as “art”, “culture”, “public space”, “community”, “public art” and “community art”, among others, as they are ever-changing and amorphous phenomena (Graham, 2005). Without intentions to define or redefine these terms, this chapter provides a brief overview of some of these concepts in order to set the context for better understanding the position and the development of community art in general and the community art development in Singapore in particular.

Defining “art”

“Art” and “culture” are particularly “cumbersome” conceptions. In fact, the contemporary philosophy (aesthetics since the 1950s) finds any attempt to formulate the definition of art at best challenging and controversial if not impossible and even useless (Adajian, 2018). The most common definitions of “art” are heavily influenced by the Western model of thought and “Eurocentrism” (Belfiore & Bennett, 2008). According to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Adajian, 2018), definitions of art can be classified based on two key approaches: philosophical (classical or aesthetic) and conventionalist (institutional and historical). In his Philosophy of the Art, Graham (2005) also writes about sociological and normative definitions of arts, all of which he describes as imperfect.

Philosophical or classical definitions¹ attempt to establish one property or feature that all works of “art” must have, such as representational, expressive or formal properties (Adajian, 2018; Graham, 2005). Such views have been strongly challenged, especially upon the emergence of radically different artworks in the twentieth century. While classical definitions might better apply to “traditional” works of art, conventionalist definitions, which reject any essential connection of art to aesthetic, formal or expressive properties, seem to better account for more contemporary art. In this respect, institutional definitions attempt to define art based on whether an artwork is appreciated by the “art-world”, an individual or individuals acting on behalf of a social institution (e.g., Danto, 1964; Dickie, 1974). In historical definitions, what characterises artworks is their standing in relation to earlier artworks (e.g., Levinson, 1990).

According to Graham (2005), sociological definitions of art can be found in several influential movements, such as Marxist aesthetics, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism and postmodernism. For instance, Marxist thinkers focus largely on practical socio-political effects of the art and its capacity to change the world, while the theory of structuralism (Levi-Strauss, 2012) argues for universal and fixed systems of meaning and perceptions which are self-reflected in the art. According to Jacques Derrida’s (1998) theory of deconstruction, art can be found everywhere and anywhere, beyond those things conventionally accepted as “works of art”.

Due to the plurality of definitions and a lack of consensus, some thinkers (e.g., Hegel, Schopenhauer and Collingwood) advocated for the shift from descriptive definitions of the art to more open and normative ones, whereby instead of asking what art is, the main focus is on the question of the value of art (Graham, 2005; Meskin, 2008). Such a shift aligns with the content of this book, which primarily focuses on a range of spatial and social values, benefits and impacts art and culture can bring to specific groups of people and specific contexts.

This is also in line with David Chou-Shulin’s (2010) argument that, in an Asian context, art and aesthetics developed spontaneously, with combined concern with the utility and the lack of rigorous visual concern and control of the aesthetic object. In Asia, art has been tightly connected to human needs, actions and relations, without much focus on developing value out of the objectivity or the autonomy of the aesthetic object – the product, or of critical thought, which is why the classical definitions of art are not quite appropriate here. Each culture has its inherent logic. In order to define art in the Asian context, Chou-Shulin (2010) suggests that the first step would be to identify which traditions are still relevant and then to understand how these traditional practices can go beyond the traditional forms and be meaningful in the present-day context. Similarly, Tan (2011) argues that the concept of “art for art’s sake” has never really existed in the Southeast Asian region. What “governs” contemporary art in Southeast Asia is primarily the relationship an artwork creates with the context of its production and the value it brings to the society.

A normative approach to art and culture is also useful to better understand the unstable position of community-based arts in reference to well-established “high” or “fine” arts, as discussed in the following sections.

Arts in public space – what is “public art”?

It’s free. There are no tickets. People don’t have to dress up. You can view it alone or in groups. It’s open to everyone.

(Penny Balkin Bach, as cited in Green, 2012, para 2)

Some elements of public art can be traced back in history, with monuments, memorials and sculptures being important parts of cities, expressing and celebrating specific political, ideological, economic or religious events, people or conditions of the time (Bianchini, 2013). However, the term “public art” or “art for the public” that we predominantly refer to today was first coined by the American National Art Foundation in 1967, which was prompted by the social, political and cultural changes of that time (Cartiere & Willis, 2008; Qadri, 2016). The term has since been used to broadly describe all types of artwork, be it permanent, temporary or transient, which are installed or performed in spaces other than museums or galleries and that are open to the general public (Kwon, 2004; Miles, 1997; Zebracki, 2011).

Public artworks are typically site specific and often celebrate the distinctiveness of the particular environment, its local heritage and cultural identity, as well as other themes relevant to people and places (Landcom, 2008). They are usually located in public spaces, such as squares, plazas, parks or pedestrian streets, but also within publicly accessible buildings, such as government offices, airports, libraries, university campuses or shopping malls, among others. However, besides the physical location, it is rather the relationship between the public art content and the audience, and the message an artwork conveys and to whom that is as important, if not more critical (Knight, 2008; Weber, 1994). According to Cartiere and Willis (2008), in order to qualify as public art, an artwork must fulfil at least one of the following criteria: be located in a place which is physically or visually accessible to the public; be concerned with the public interest; be maintained for or used by the public; and be funded from public sources. In addition to these qualities, Landcom (2008) proposes that public art should enrich specific local culture and identity and thus contribute to the creation of a distinctive sense of place, prompt meaningful dialogues between the past and the present, react to environmental challenges and promote safety.

Contemporary public arts

While the phrase “public art” typically evokes images of solid, static and permanent structures (such as sculptures or murals, for instance), these encompass only a small portion of what is regarded as “contemporary public art” (Umbanhowar, n.d.). Contemporary public art has dramatically widened in form, scope and diversity of media during the late twentieth century, which makes it very dynamic and difficult to define (Cartiere & Willis, 2008; Kwon, 2004). It has moved beyond permanence and solidity and being merely a feature of the landscape to include more ephemeral and performative works. Contemporary public art rather examines the ideas of personal and community engagement, the context and re-contextualisation of places, while stimulating the exchange of ideas and shared identities within communities.

According to Januchta-Szostak (2010), the ways in which an artwork in a public space is perceived and accepted can take two major forms – the “visual landmark” and the “collective anchor point”. Visual landmarks may amuse and entertain, stimulate interest and interaction, as well as provide temporary engagement. On the other hand, collective anchor points enhance mental acceptance and social identification with the work of public art and thus construct deeper interaction and become part of users’ mental maps (Lynch, 1960; Ursic, 2015). A higher level of social integration through arts and culture in public spaces can be achieved through: collective participation in arts and culture events, adequate spatial arrangement of interactive art pieces to encourage social interaction, and through community engagement and collaboration on arts and culture projects (Januchta-Szostak, 2010).

In spite of considerable diversity and expansion, arts in public spaces occupy an ambiguous and underrated position in both the art world and cultural policies (Obuljen, 2002). They continue to be marginalised and “under-appreciated” as the arts with a lowercase “a”, as well as judged against the criteria that are intended for the art in museums and galleries – the Arts with a capital “A” (Jacob, 1995; Lacy, 2008). According to Adams and Goldbard (2005, p. 3), even the conventional art forms, such as painting, film or dance, once employed in the field of community cultural development are often regarded as “a marginal manifestation of mainstream arts activities”.

The debate about the high and the low art can be traced back to the eighteenth century, when the concepts of fine art and craft were established (Plescher, 2013). Fine art typically refers to work contemplated purely for its aesthetic properties, Art with a capital “A”, which is expressed through specific art forms, such as sculpture, painting, classical music, architecture or poetry, and typically associated with formal art venues and institutions (Fisher, 2005; Kristeller, 1992a, 1992b). Craft, on the other hand, denotes a work possessing some kind of function or utility. It is also argued that while high art questions and challenges participants’ expectations, low art aims at comforting, entertaining and satisfying the desires and expectations of the masses, and it is therefore “dilu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of key abbreviations
• 1 Community arts and culture – the big picture
• 2 Impacts of arts and culture: what impacts and how to measure
• 3 Neighbourhood Arts and Culture Impact Assessment (NACIA)
• 4 Spaces for the arts – what can space do for the arts?
• 5 Activation of space through the arts – what can the arts do for space?
• 6 Arts and community: what can the arts and space do for the community and vice versa?
• 7 Neighbourhood spatial opportunities for the arts – Singaporean heartlands
• 8 Impacts of arts and culture – learning from Singapore
• 9 Conclusion – supporting community arts and culture development and building creative neighbourhoods
• Index