Public art at Kwong Fook I Tsz
Note: Yes, I know the writing is dry, but there are some pretty harsh criticism out there regarding this work that I want to stay sombre.
This entry reflects on i-dArt’s recent work that displays an enlarged version of the work of an artist with mental disadvantages on the outer wall of the Kwong Fook I Tsz(廣福義祠/百姓廟) in Hong Kong.
The comments below are compiled from over one hundred and thirty Facebook comments in response to i-dArt’s posting of a photo of the completed work. With the exception of a few Facebook users, many comments are short and disjointed. The general consensus is that the work is not appropriate to the site and of poor artistic quality. An analysis of the comments illustrates the range of reactions from a mixed audience and raises important questions regarding art that is situated in a locality, displayed as part of a heritage building.
Overview and Overall Comments
i-dArt (愛不同藝術) recently took part in a revitalization endeavour of the Kwong Fook I Tsz. The temple, a Grade 2 Historic Building, was built in 1851 and later used to hold sick locals during the colonial era, this led to the founding of the Tung Wah hospitals and social services.
i-dArt is a team that provides art programme for Tung Wah’s service users, including art training and programmes in rehabilitation centres. They operate exhibition spaces in several locations and represent a number of committed artists trained through their service at various commercial art events.
…has perhaps underestimated the complexity of working in the more unpredictable location of an open neighbourhood
From this background, it seems that i-dArt is more experienced in working with an institution-based individuals and communities, and has perhaps underestimated the complexity of working in the more unpredictable location of an open neighbourhood. Moreover, the public relations fallout is compounded by its Facebook posts, first of which announces the work in an exciting tone that invites people to visit and check-in there by taking selfies, and a second one that unsuccessfully respond to the waves of criticisms.
A related point is the choice of artist. i-dArt has in the past adapted the work of artists to murals and design that received praise. Yet the complexity of this project requires substantial research and preparation that is unique to public art works. A collaborating artist with experiences making public art and working with individuals with mental disadvantages could make this project work.
Method and Selection of Comments
The comments were accessed on Facebook on Feb 14th, 2018, one week after the original post was posted. Since this is not a quantitative analysis, the number of comments reviewed is only approximate.
It is uncertain why even though the organization stated that the work was only temporary, numerous respondents believe that the site has been permanently changed, thus fuelling their criticism. At least more than half of the comments are simple statements that demand the restoration of the original outlook. There were also curses and derogatory comments towards those involved in the project.
The comments are categorized into various areas. These are the ones that are included in this discussion:
· The original wall is better.
· Artistic interest cannot override other concerns.
· The work is inappropriate to the location.
· The work is disconnected from heritage/culture.
· This work is disrespectful to the religion.
· This work is disconnected from the people of the community.
· This work is disconnected from the people with relatives laid to rest there.
· The style is inappropriate.
· The work is of poor artistic quality.
· The work is nice but inappropriate to the location.
· Unsuccessful preservation.
· Work at this site should not be to meet tourist culture.
· This situation will not happen in other countries or to other religion.
The most frequent comments are under the categories: ‘The work is of poor artistic quality’, ‘This work is disconnected from heritage/culture’ and ‘This work is disrespectful to the religion’. The following are isolated comments but opens important considerations: ‘This work is disconnected from the people of the community’ and ‘The work is nice but inappropriate to the location’.
To give Facebook users the benefit of the doubt, it is assumed that the comments were given in the motivation to provide a satisfactory resolution.
Compilation and Reflection of the Facebook Comments
Why is this work not ok? Several points can be derived from the comments:
(a) The comments state that there is a symbolic dimension to the location that is not satisfactorily reflected in the work.
(b) The comments state that the aesthetic of the work is not suitable to the location.
(c)The comments state that people most connected to this location deserves greater consideration regarding works displayed.
(a) and (b) are by far the most frequent categories provided. While most users simply stated that the work was aesthetically unpleasing, several users explained that the work looks nice and would be suitable elsewhere. The new work is strongly text-based, with bold colour patches and lacks detail. The text is not written in any tradition styles that might connect with the heritage of the location. The lack of detail and ornamentation in the work deaden the dense history of this location that bridges religion, folklore, communal life and public health. The new work is a pop-art-ish collage with its own merit, but unsuitable to the location.
The lack of detail and ornamentation in the work deaden the dense history of this location that bridges religion, folklore, communal life and public health.
Regarding (c), one comment clearly stated that the outlook of the temple should consider first the people of the community. Several comments heavily criticized the roles of the head of the Tung Wah organization and team responsible of this work. Some comments criticized the positioning of the temple as a casual tourist check-in location. Several comments expressed that the work is offensive to those who honour their ancestors (先人) at the temple.
It is worth considering who should have a bigger say in the outlook of the temple: Frequent ‘users’ of the temple? Local residents? Members of the temple’s governing board? Religious personnel of the temple? A public artist or historian hired to design or advice its new outlook? It is interesting to note that less than one percent of the comments under analysis indicated that they belong to any of the aforementioned group. Thus, beyond these proposed groups that are connected through use, geographic vicinity and legal status, most people who commented either felt their views to represent the interests of the aforementioned groups, or felt that they share in the heritage of the location, and are thus entitle to a share in its decision.
Concluding Advice from the Public Arts
Cher Krause Knight provides some insight into this situation in Public art: Theory, practice and populism.
First, from American artists’ development in working in social settings, she describes a phase when cities and communities formed committees to discuss and commission public art works. While this method provides accountability, it has often resulted in poor and uninspiring work when taken without steps to ensure the committee is able to form an informed decision. Also important is whether or not relevant stakeholders are included. As mentioned in the introduction, while i-dArt has made strives in working with people of various disadvantages in an institution setting, it is quite different when the context is a heritage building and its locality is intertwined with the work.
Second, this work is temporary. This point is not meant to excuse any parties of the current situation, but is raised to highlight the nature of public art. Knight suggests that the duration of public art works can affect how the site is engaged in good and bad ways. Permanent works strive for relevance to a wider audience for decades down the road, but “such works are also prone to play things too safely, trying to sidestep controversy by avoiding any offenses now or in the future” (pg. 140). On the other hand, temporary work can be more experimental and edgy both content and form-wise because people know that this is temporary. As such, an important question is, what work does the community want next?
…one step from ‘what we do not want at this location’, to ‘what we want at this location’
In the fast pace world of social media where massacres and earthquakes compete for attention, this incident at the Kwong Fook I Tsz will undoubtedly be forgotten soon by many. But it would be unfortunate if the lesson of this incident is forgotten, for the comments gathered on Facebook is just one step from ‘what we do not want at this location’, to ‘what we want at this location’.
