public sphere

The word "public sphere" dates back to the eighteenth century, when Kings could address their subjects in places that were classified as public. The subjects include the private domain, which was distinguished by trade and communal work. On the other side, the police, the ruling class, and the feudal authority made up the public realm. Because the individuals in this case were private spheres, they were only able to express their worries with their leadership and political tendencies at the gatherings in public areas. By the medieval ages, the public sphere in Britain had changed, providing a platform for the "private" sphere to check political dominance and leadership. As commerce increased and the need for long distance news and the “literary public sphere,” came to birth as it was a forum through which the bourgeoisies could discuss matters of art and literature.

The concept public sphere does not only refer to the physical locations and spaces that make up the public spheres by also includes openness or publicity as a component of the public sphere. The term public sphere is not merely limited to the physical appearance of the public but also the radicalization, openness and autonomy of the private people. The public sphere combines the rationality of the open discourse and also the autonomy of the private people. The concept of the public opinion, therefore, is not just the public or the universal conduciveness that permits people to share their ideas (Fotiadi 112). Since individual in the private people are autonomous and distinct, in public spheres and public opinions there is no hierarchy and all people are equal. In the public sphere people should contribute to a certain opinion as private entities.

Controversies

The Public sphere does not refer to a timeless era of the society but rather touches on the different eras and their social activities. During the feudalization or the liberal era that commenced from the middle ages to the 19th century, the concept of the public sphere deeply contrasted from the medieval ages. While the middle ages defined and treated the public sphere as a forum for debate the medieval ages treated the public sphere as a dispute. The mediatized era on the other hand treats the public sphere differently as people are merely spectators of the internet and mass media. The bourgeois family was the onset of the public sphere through the interaction and development of the basic family units which served as intimate hubs and supportive communities. As the 19th century approached the values of the family became public debates although they were still control and influenced by the bourgeoisies. Habermas. Springer Link. Habermas, the public sphere and democracy. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137373311_2.

The collapse of the private sphere was gradual and it occurred due to the state intervention into the private affairs of the bourgeoisie’s family. As the state gradually intervened and got involved in social programs, merging of market power and through economic regulation, it undermined the power and will of the influential families. The public and private sphere did not cease to be as they only changed their roles and functions. According to (Gilman-OpalsKy 82), the proponents of the public sphere controversies argue out that the common notion of the public sphere was shaped by the bourgeoisies. It is, therefore, not logical for the bourgeoisies to have shaped the public sphere which predated their activities.

Influence

The pioneers of the concept of public sphere agree that the public sphere has been influential in both scientific and social areas of research. However, the concept of public sphere finds its niche and originality in matters relating to public opinion, modern communications and democracy among other concepts. Public spheres are a common element in matters pertaining to democracy and civil societies. It is through the public sphere and the rise of the public opinions that most civilized societies and cultural set ups find their bearing and connection to political debates and opinions (Fotiadi 139). The public sphere has equally drawn the line between the previous bourgeoisies, civil society, democracy and political opinions in many social set ups.

Socially engaged art

Socially engaged art refers to the case where human beings interact socially to come up with ideas that form social art. Just like the other forms of art, in the social engagement, it is the human activities and creativity that stands out in its own autonomous nature to produce an artistic outcome. Social practice artists have a mandate to synchronize their work with the prevailing social, economic and political situations and the public practice itself. Gilman-OpalsKy (78) states that, socially engaged artists also should bear in mind that every society holds divergent opinions concerning on identities and social practices. The guiding principle of the socially engaged artists should be to standardize their creations and projects to target the intended audience and purpose as well as to be inclusive of the different societal ideologies.

The term publics is ambiguous and is often used to refer to a general populace and also the distinct identities that are different and coexistent at the same time. According to Fotiadi (201), the ambiguous definition of the concept public has resulted to exclusivity and misinterpretation of some of its intended audiences and hence distorts the original meaning. In an attempt to decipher and develop comprehensive creations, in the field of socially engaged art, the artists often have to consider a number of factors that include identity and education that help develop and attach a deeper meaning to the artists, their creations and the intended audiences.

Identity

The public and the public sphere often have different identities and affiliations that define them and their actions. For socially engaged artists to fully understand and fulfill the inner desires of different audiences, they have first to have a form of identity and affiliation that will be the guiding principle in satisfying the needs of their intended audiences which are diverse. It also important to factor in that different audiences often have different and multiple identities. An example in the case where one is a student, a worker, a parent and a politician at the same time (Gilman-OpalsKy. 118) It is the identities that people and the artists ae that summaries their definition of who is or is not covered in the category of the public. An identity will guide a socially engaged artist in understanding his daily interaction with art and in relation to his community and cultural affiliation.

Education

The level of education or education attainment is a measure of intelligence, knowledge and skill that influences the artists, social interaction, job and social status. Education is paramount in socially engaged art because it enables the artists, gain knowledge and emotional values as well as develop a form of affiliation to the society and the public sphere as a whole. It is through education that the socially engaged artists gin knowledge of the community’s needs and hence influence the public sphere through influencing the individuals who form the private entity. In Social Movements, Public Spheres and the European Politics of the Environment Hein-Anton (230) states that socially engaged artists are pillars of knowledge as they pass their knowledge to different audiences through the public spheres. An example is the Musée Précaire Albinet, that was spearheaded by Thomas Hirschhorn and the venue was Aubervilliers, located in the outskirts of Paris.

Age

For many socially engaged artists, age is a key factor when targeting specific audiences and performing in public spheres. For artists, age touches on the cognitive abilities and the experience that an artist acquires along the way as he strives to embrace people from different generations. When creating projects, artists should consider the age factor which should in turn address the digital proficiency, suitability of the language and comprehension of the artistic concepts. Tino Seghal for instance, created his project This progress in Britain that was successful as it was accommodative of people from different generations and of different ages. Socially engaged art forms often target certain age groups mostly the youth and hence use the public spheres as the to influence and impact on the society (Jordan et al 80). Most public sphere comprises of people from different age groups which force an artist to harbor the divergent opinions and perceptions through creating an al inclusive project.





Race and ethnicity

In most public spheres, people often relate and interact on the basis of race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity frequently touch to matters pertaining to a common originality or ancestry and might not be based on biological experimentation. People from different racial and ethnic placements habitually find commonalities in issues relating to art and the public spheres. The African Americans for instance relate more to the graffiti and hip hop culture and hence socially engaged artists from other backgrounds might not be able to relate to the street culture of the African American people. Public spheres are also racially distinct especially with the dawn of the mass media. Artists often align themselves with their cultural and racial inclinations so as to target the intended audience (Fotiadi 150). The racially propagated public spheres have shaped the political, social and economic outcomes in many societies and hence remain a determining factor for social artists and the success of their projects.

Art in the public sphere

Contemporary art has shifted in many forms and often finds a conflicting stance through the way that art relates to the public sphere. Contemporary art forms are not only a replica of public institutions and public spaces but also engage issues of social and technological engagements. As a result of art’s interaction with the public sphere there are several emerging issues that relate to demographics, public opinions and political actions among other factors (Fotiadi 196). Some of the proponents of contemporary art include Chantal Mouffe who have since linked art to the issues of public opinions, democracy and political orientations. The contemporary art’s main theme is relational aesthetics which closely relates to collaboration, collective action and participation of the public sphere. Public art has embraced public opinions and incorporated them in the previous artistic performances to emerge with a distinct art form that is both expressive and theoretical.

The modern forms of social arts are equally interactive and has, therefore been branded as an art of participation and “social turn.” Through the mass action and the use of the public sphere, socially engaged art is no longer limited to displaying but rather initiates some forms of participation and interaction from the audiences. Art, therefore, has found a new way of incorporating the general social techniques, economic stances and political action. However, the critics of the new trends of socially engaged art argue out that, this type of art removes antagonism in art thereby undermining the competitive nature of arts (Fotiadi 230). According to the critics, art has taken a conflicting role and has emerged as a political tool that is subject to manipulation and alteration thereby losing its originality and core values. Public art has casted a shadow on the autonomy of the artists as it is branded as a genre of its own. In the public sphere, mostly events are given names and hence the names sell out more than the artists or the art work itself.

The political functions of the public sphere

The public sphere has presented conflicting results and debates concerning its rationality. The proponents of the inclusion of art as a component of the public sphere like Jordan, Melanie & Miles (150), assert that the authenticity of the public sphere is essential and possible. One of the best ways of restoring this authenticity is through indulging the private individuals in the public sphere in debates that touch on technology and bureaucratic adjustments. An example could be the case of the advancement in technology in the line of weapon manufacturing and public expenditure in relation to the tax payer’s money. The public sphere could, therefore merge and reconcile all the conflicting parties through economic growth and stability which serves the interests of all conflicting parties.

The contemporary form of socially engaged art that comprise the public sphere has brought conflicting and derogative perceptions of the authenticity of socially engaged art. The public sphere which is combination of people who form the private sphere introduces new perspectives like sociology, economic perspectives and political will in art. Since every public is a combination of people with different interests and opinions, socially engaged art attempts to unite the conflicting interests of the different participants who comprise of the public. However, the public sphere embraces more the aspects of public opinion, culture and political stances which undermine and overshadow the central intentions of socially engaged art. A great emphasis is placed on the public sphere and public events that are ongoing as opposed to the artistic creations behind them. With the improvement in technology, political will and mass action among other factors, socially engaged art is gaining pace and recognition as a new field of art that has potential for analysis and growth.















Works cited

Fotiadi, S.E. The Game of Participation in Art and the Public Sphere. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2011. 

Heo, Chul. Production, Art and the Public Sphere: Critical Studies in Television. , 2004. 

Gilman-OpalsKy, Richard. Unbounded Publics: Transgressive Public Spheres, Zapatismo, and Political Theory. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008. 

Heijden, Hein-Anton . Social Movements, Public Spheres and the European Politics of the Environment: Green Power Europe?Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Jordan, Melanie, and Malcolm Miles. Art and Theory After Socialism. Bristol, UK: Intellect, 2008. 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137373311_2