Public art in urban areas offers a window on a city's soul. Art in the form of sculptures, monuments, and other creative expressions can inform us of the ways artists think of the urban environment, the goals of policy makers in art installations, and the way members of the public interact with art and with each other in the city. Taking Singapore as a case study, I argue that contemporary public art has the power to inform place identity and inspire community aspirations. Unlike the hard power of industry, art offers a soft branding approach to imaging the city, its people, and their goals. However, such powers are not limitless, and concerns have also been raised about their publicness and artfulness. The power and powerlessness of public art in Singapore are not unlike those encountered in other cities where artful planning has taken centre stage in contemporary urban redevelopment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsL, 1997A History of Western Art (McGraw-Hill, New York)
2.
Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts, 1989Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the ArtsAdvisory Council on Culture and the Arts, Singapore
3.
Al-KhalilS, 2000, “The monument and the city”, in The City Cultures Reader Eds MilesMHallTBordenI (Routledge, London) pp 103–105
4.
BabonK, 2000, “Spatial anarchy and urban utopias: Public art controversies and urban space”Research in Urban Sociology5111–134
CartesI, 1997, “Art in the urban landscape”Urban Design International2189–198
7.
ChangT C, 2000, “Renaissance revisited: Singapore as a ‘global city for the arts’”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24818–831
8.
ChangT CHuangS, 2005, “Creative destruction at the Singapore River”Asia Pacific Viewpoint46267–280
9.
ChangT CLeeW K, 2003, “Renaissance city Singapore: A study of arts spaces”Area35128–141
10.
DeutscheR, 1992, “Public art and its uses”, in Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context and Controversy Eds SenieHWebsterS (Icon Editions, New York) pp 158–170
11.
DeutscheR, 1996Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
12.
DossE, 1995Spirit Poles and Flying Pigs: Public Art and Cultural Democracy in American Communities (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC)
13.
FinkelpearlT, 2000Dialogues in Public Art (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
14.
ForestBJohnsonJ2002, “Unraveling the threads of history: Soviet-era monuments and post-Soviet national identity in Moscow”Annals of the Association of American Geographers92524–547
15.
GoodeyB, 1994, “Art-full places: Public art to sell public spaces”, in Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions Eds GoldJWardS (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 153–179
16.
HallT, 1997, “Images of industry in the postindustrial city: Raymond Mason and Birmingham”Ecumene446–68
17.
HallTRobertsonI, 2001, “Public art and urban regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates”Landscape Research265–26
18.
HanniganJ, 1998Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis (Routledge, London)
19.
HeinH, 2002, “What is public art? Time, place, and meaning”, in Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates Eds NeilARidleyA (Routledge, London) pp 436–445
20.
HubbardPFaireLLilleyK, 2003, “Memorials to modernity? Public art in the ‘city of the future’”Landscape Research28147–169
21.
HutchinsonM, 2002, “Four stages in public art”Third Text16429–438
22.
JulierG, 2005, “Urban designscapes and the production of aesthetic consent”Urban Studies42869–887
23.
KeithMPileS (Eds), 1993Places and the Politics of Identity (Routledge, London)
24.
KellyM, 2002, “Public art controversy: The Serra and Lin cases”, in Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates Eds NeilARidleyA (Routledge, London) pp 457–469
25.
LeachN, 2002, “Belonging: Towards a theory of identification with space”, in Habitus: A Sense of Place Eds HillierJRooksbyE (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 281–298
26.
LeeW C, 2001, “‘Kitsch-ification’, consumption and Singapore”Broadsheet306–9, http://www.casca.org.au
27.
LeeW C, 2002, “Authenticity, reflexivity and spectacle: Or, the rise of New Asia is not the end of the world”Broadsheet3111–13
28.
LefebvreH, 1991The Production of Space (Blackwell, Oxford)
MilesM, 1998, “A game of appearance: Public art and urban devleopment—complicity of sustainability?”, in The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation Eds HallTHubbardP (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 204–224
31.
MilesMPaddisonR, 2005, “Introduction: The rise and rise of culture-led urban regeneration”Urban Studies42833–839
32.
MilesS, 2005, “‘Our Tyne’: Iconic regeneration and the revitalisation of identity in NewcastleGateshead”Urban Studies42913–926
33.
MITA, 2000aRenaissance City Report: Cultural and the Arts on Renaissance Singapore (Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore)
34.
MITA, 2000binform.educate.entertain@sg: Arts and Media in Singapore (Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore)
35.
NorthM, 1992, “The public as sculpture: From heavenly city to mass ornament”, in Art and the Public Sphere Ed. MitchellW J T (University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL) pp 9–28
36.
PhillipsP, 2000, “Out of order: The public art machine”, in The City Cultures Reader Eds MilesMHallTBordenI (Routledge, London) pp 96–117
37.
PileSKeithM, 1993, “Introduction part 2: The place of politics”, in Places and the Politics of Identity Eds KeithMPileS (Routledge, London) pp 22–40
38.
RavenA (Ed.), 1993Art in the Public Interest (De Capo Press, New York)
39.
ScaseRDavisH, 2000Managing Creativity: The Dynamics of Work and Organization (Open University Press, Milton Keynes)
40.
SchoppertP, undated, “Singapore sweepstakes: Foreign vs local art”, Nuantara essays, http://www.nuantara.com
41.
SchoppertP, 2001, “Kitsch and Singapore public art”, in Focas, Forum On Contemporary Art and Society Ed. DavisL (The Necessary Stage, Singapore) pp 90–117
42.
SenieH, 1992, “Baboons, pet rocks, and bomb threats”, in Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context and Controversy Eds SenieHWebsterS (Icon Editions, New York) pp 237–246
43.
SharpJPollockVPaddisonR, 2005, “Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration”Urban Studies42913–926
44.
SojaE, 1989Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London)
45.
StromE, 2002, “Converting pork into porcelain: Cultural institutions and downtown development”Urban Affairs Review383–21
46.
TeoP, 2003, “The limits of imagineering: A case study in Penang”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research27545–563
47.
The Business Times2001, 21 April (Singapore Press Holdings, Singapore)
48.
TillK, 1999, “Staging the past: Landscape designs, cultural identity and Erinnerungspolitik at Berlin's Neue Wache”Ecumene6251–283
49.
URA, 2002Enhancing Singapore's City Landscape: The Public Sculptures Masterplan 2002Urban Redevelopment Authority, http://www.ura.gov.sg
50.
WhileA, 2003, “Locating art worlds: London and the making of young British art”Area35251–263
