Cultural policy has produced divergent intentions underlying the direction of public art since its advent in Western Europe in 1945. Literature has feebly demonstrated the extent to which differentialities in cultural policy have affected the production of public artworks over time and space. This paper fills this gap as regards Amsterdam and Ghent, cities that are situated in different national institutional contexts. It shows dissimilarity—in that one finds a relatively higher number of public artworks, more spatially dispersed and more diversified public artworks in Amsterdam than in Ghent, which is particularly a result of institutional differences—and similarity between these cities, in terms of initiatives by local communities and arts actors, irrespective of the local policy context. These results provide insight into policy concern with public-art production and the everyday practices and cultural traditions that underpin it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlthusserL, 1971, “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses”, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays translated by BrewsterB (Monthly Review Press, New York) pp 127–186.
2.
AnciauxB, 1999Beleidsnota Cultuur 2000–2004 [Arts policy document 2000–2004] Ministry of the Flemish Community, Brussels.
3.
BianchiniF, 1999, “Cultural planning for urban sustainability”, in City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability Ed. NyströmL (Swedish Urban Development Council, Kalmar) pp 34–51.
4.
BianchiniFParkinsonM (Eds), 1993Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience (Manchester University Press, Manchester).
5.
BoekmanE, 1939Overheid en Kunst in Nederland [Government and the arts in The Netherlands] (Hertzberger, Amsterdam).
6.
BrymanA, 2008Social Research Methods (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
7.
CartiereC, 2008, “Coming in from the cold: A public art history”, in The Practice of Public Art Eds CartiereCWillisS (Routledge, New York) pp 7–17.
8.
CartiereCWillisS (Eds), 2008The Practice of Public Art (Routledge, New York).
9.
ChangT, 2008, “Art and soul: Powerful and powerless art in Singapore”Environment and Planning A401921–1943.
10.
City of Ghent, Ghent2002Cultuur als Dwarsligger: Cultuurbeleidsplan 2002–2007 [Culture as obstructionist: Cultural policy plan 2002–2007].
11.
City of Ghent, Ghent2008Er Stroomt een Nijl door Gent: Cultuurbeleidsplan Gent 2008–2013 [A Nile streams through Ghent. Ghent cultural policy plan 2008–2013].
12.
DeanM, 1999Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (Sage, Los Angeles, CA).
13.
DecaveleJ, 1992Gebuurteleven en Dekenijen te Gent 14de–20ste Eeuw [Neighbourhood life and deaneries in Ghent, 14th–20th century] (City Archive, Ghent).
14.
ElshoutDVan HemelA, 1991Kunstenstadin Delen. Amsterdams Kunstbeleidna de Binnengemeentelijke Decentralisatie [Arts city in parts. Amsterdam arts policy after the intramunicipal decentralization] (Boekman Foundation, Amsterdam).
15.
FaludiA, 2005, “The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning”, in Comparative Planning Cultures Ed. BishS (Routledge, New York) pp 285–307.
16.
Flemish Government Architect, 2006Kunst in Opdracht 1999–2005: Kunstopdrachten Begeleid door de Kunstcel van de Vlaamse Bouwmeester [Art by order 1999–2005: Art commissions guided by the art cell of the Flemish Government Architect] Ministry of the Flemish Community, Brussels.
17.
FoucaultM, 1991, “Governmentality”, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality Eds BurchellGGordonCMillerP (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 87–104.
18.
Ghent Department of Arts, 2006Kunst in de Publieke Ruimte. Visie en Praktijk [Art in public space: Vision and practice] (Sintjoris, Ghent).
19.
HallTRobertsonI, 2001, “Public art and urban regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates”Landscape Research265–26.
20.
JansenW, 1995Kunstopdrachten van de Rijksgebouwendienst na 1945 [Art commissions of the Government Buildings Agency after 1945] (010, Rotterdam).
21.
KuypersP, 2000, “Twee modellen? Over verschillen en overeenkomsten tussen het Nederlandse en het Vlaamse cultuurbeleid” [Two models? Of dissimilarities and similarities between Dutch and Flemish cultural policy], in Kunst, Markt en Macht [Arts, market and power], Eds GielenPTacheletK (Flemish Theater Institute, Brussels) pp 38–43.
22.
KwonM, 2004One Place after Another: Site-specific Art and Locational Identity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
23.
LaermansR, 2002Het Cultureel Regiem: Cultuur en Beleid in Vlaanderen [The cultural regime: Culture and policy in Flanders] (Lannoo, Tielt).
24.
LandryC, 2008The Art of Citymaking (Earthscan, London).
25.
LandryCBianchiniF, 1995The Creative City (Demos, London).
26.
Lucie-SmithE, 2003The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms (Thames and Hudson, New York).
27.
MichalskiS, 1998Public Monuments: Art in Political Bondage 1870–1997 (Reaktion Books, London).
28.
MilesM, 1997Art, Space and the City (Routledge, London).
29.
MilesM, 2007Cities and Cultures (Routledge, London).
MitchellW (Ed.), 1992Art and the Public Sphere (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
32.
Municipality of Amsterdam, 2009Buitenkunst: Beieidskader Kunst in de Openbare Ruimte Amsterdam 2009–2015 [Exterior art: Policy framework art in public space, Amsterdam 2009–2015] Municipality of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
33.
MartiniusOosterbaan W, 1990Schoonheid, Welzijn, Kwaliteit: Kunstbeleid en Verantwoording na 1945 [Beauty, welfare, quality: Arts policy and justification after 1945] (Gary Schwartz/Sdu, The Hague).
34.
PollockVPaddisonR, 2010, “Embedding public art: Practice, policy and problems”Journal of Urban Design15335–356.
35.
PotsR, 2006Cultuur, Koningen en Democraten. Overheid & Cultuur in Nederland [Culture, kings and democrats. Government and culture in The Netherlands] (SUN, Nijmegen).
36.
RoseG, 2001Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials (Sage, London).
37.
SchrammeA, 2006, “Gewikt en gewogen: Cultuurnota & Kunstendecreet” [Weighing the pros and cons: Cultural memorandum and arts decree]Boekman76 (Summer) 32–39.
38.
SelwoodS, 1995The Benefits of Public Art: The Polemics of Permanent Art in Public Places (Policy Studies Institute, London).
39.
SenieHWebsterS, 1998Critical Issues in Public Art. Content, Context, and Controversy (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC).
40.
SharpJPollockVPaddisonR, 2005, “Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration”Urban Studies421001–1023.
41.
StrauvenF, 2001, “How Belgium got its present look: A short history of Belgian town and county planning”Sartoniana14114–134.
42.
SwyngedouwE, 2005, “Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state”Urban Studies421991–2006.
43.
TurnerJ, 1996The Dictionary of Art (Macmillan, London).
44.
Van Der HoevenQ, 2005De Grens als Spiegel: Een Vergelijking van het Cultuurbestel in Nederland en Vlaanderen [The border as mirror: A comparison between the cultural order of The Netherlands and Flanders] (The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague).
45.
YúdiceG, 2003The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
46.
ZebrackiM, 2011, “Beyond public artopia: Public art as perceived by its publics”Geojournal doi:10.1001/s10708-011-g440-9.
47.
ZebrackiM, 2012, “Engaging geographies of public art: Indwellers, the ‘Butt Plug Gnome’ and their locale”Social and Cultural Geography forthcoming.
48.
ZebrackiMVan Der VaartRVan AalstI, 2010, “Deconstructing public artopia: Situating public-art claims within practice”Geoforum41786–795.
