First attempt:

Der eigentliche öffentliche Raum ist in den Köpfen und zwischen ihnen. The real public space is in our heads and between them.
—Thomas Schütte

I have long been fond of Thomas Schütte’s definition of public space. This is not only because of how ingeniously simple it is, but first and foremost because in it lies a certain understanding of our society and of where the most important aspect of creativity can be found. If we believe that public space is also artistic space, then its most important factor is the people who tend to it. The definition also describes how it is possible to connect art with the public and at the same time place it within the context of the world we live in. Art is in some ways an intellectual phenomenon, and it is always dependent on personal experience, participation, and other external circumstances, especially when it comes to active social engagement. Public space, according to Schütte, is the same as artistic space and therefore art is not an isolated phenomenon within it or outside of it—art is always integrated or incorporated into other elements of society. We create the purpose of the space through our actions.

This definition is in many ways useful in connection with discussions on architecture, matters of urban planning and visual art since it concerns people and their actions. It is also useful since it is not constrictive in any way. Quite possibly, it is also easy to reject the definition with the same criteria in mind. It is too abstract to be considered a tenable rule from which to build.

Second attempt:

Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse. / It is necessary to sail; it is not necessary to live.
—Pompey

In the ancient harbor communities of the Mediterranean, this saying by Pompey is well known. It is vital for people to leave home, test their wings and explore what lies beyond the horizon. This is the philosophy of seafaring nations; the harbor is the academy of ideas and discussion. Here ideas come to port and are let loose upon society. It is then not only for practical reasons that harbors are the focal points of coastal cities, but also because they function as melting pots and meeting points with the world. The best harbors of the world are densely structured; they are big; they take different shapes; they are horns of plenty, and it is here that human life blossoms. This is the result of historical progress, and this is how harbors manifest themselves if everything goes well. “Hence and Hither and Thither” is a phrase that can describe the essence of harbor cities.

Third attempt:

Architecture is not art. Art is purposely useless.

Despite the fact that one can easily conclude that the history of art in public space is one continuous story of woe, it is only possible to approach this history in one way: To move on. This is the reality that artists know, and one can say at present that they are trying to respond. They accomplish this in different ways, and one small step in this development is to reach into aspects of human life and culture that used to be reserved for other (art) fields. In actuality, it is possible to turn this around and say that city planners, architects and investors have increasingly attempted to make use of visual artists and their ideas to widen the borders that until now have limited their fields. This, however, is a rare case.

Architecture is not art; neither is urban planning. (Both visual artists and architects may object to this statement, but then they will also have to come up with sound arguments for why this would not be so.) Art is purposely useless in the sense that architecture and urban planning are active and have their own purpose. Visual art, however, is a necessary component in order for architecture and planning to work as a cultural whole. Certainly the criteria for urban planning may be aesthetic, and in the same way a building can be designed. But it is obvious that neither one can be considered a work of art in and of itself. With art in public space stories are created, and their relationships with cultural activities become apparent. The planning of an area or a building itself cannot create a palpable cultural environment. Both are dependent on practical values that do not contain the artistic connections necessary for them to play a role in the environment. In order to enrich the physical urban environment, society needs to flourish and some sort of creativity must be in place. Art is a necessary catalyst, and this is what artists wish to accomplish through their work. In this sense, art is useful; otherwise it is not. There might be a long way to go before all possibilities have been tested to their limits, and we must believe that the cooperation of the creative fields will produce some results. The public’s participation will in turn be the standard by which this will be judged. Art is a pure necessity to urban planning and architecture; without visual art, they would both be nothing more than meaningless engineering.

Fourth attempt:

Much more than just art.
—New York taxi driver commenting on New York City Waterfalls by Ólafur Elíasson (Morgunblaðið newspaper, April 18, 2008)

This is a complex sentence. Taxi drivers are the philosophers of the city. They know its infrastructure better than anyone else and usually know a thing or two about architecture, urban planning and the arts. They boil their thoughts down to the essential; not everyone can offer a response at their level.

But what is much more than just art, when we only look at artistic goals? Perhaps the driver just meant that this was such a good idea that he had no other words to describe it, or maybe he meant that this was a piece of art that transcended what we on a daily basis call visual art? If so, then it is well worthwhile to ask what is meant by this. Perhaps the idea is so good that it reaches beyond the basic principles of the city— the urban planning, the architecture and culture that thrive within it? This means that art has a certain level of value that goes beyond itself, and that art can have a yet unknown effect on the urban environment. It may be so that Ólafur’s work is breaking down walls that have been built between art and society, thus opening up new and uncharted territories. If that proves to be the case—which is to be hoped—then it is obvious that we are standing at a crossroads. In such times it is important that the powers that be give artists free rein.

Is the taxi driver’s remark not proof enough that good works of art are important to society? Perhaps more than most people suspect.