No more Public Art! Here. It is said. I don’t agree with myself. But I feel that way, in a way. Recently, the city officials in Turku put the statue of Lenin in a plywood box to wait for its removal. I´m a little bit sad for that – not because I would want to commemorate the legacy of Soviet Union and their imperial practices, but for the simple fact that Lenin’s statue used to be one of the most vandalized public monuments in Turku. A kind of a bulletin board for quick political messages. There is a certain value in being the most vandalized statue. I have a beautiful picture of that Lenin with red lipstick. In a way, vandalism brings new ideas to old statues. Queer Lenin - yes. I find it weirdly interesting that a man named Laszlo Toth malleted Michelangelo’s Pieta in Rome claiming to be the Christ. Or that one of the Henry Moores disappeared from the hills of England and was probably cut into pieces and sold as scrap metal. It’s terrible, yet fascinating! Modern-day iconoclasm. It becomes clear that not all artworks are artworks for all.

Historically there has been three reasons to erect artworks in public areas. To signify an important historical event; to state the importance of an important individual; or to illustrate the commitment of the authorities towards culture, humanistic values and arts.(r.2) There has been three methods for doing so. Erecting artworks wherever they fit; designing artworks for a certain specific site; and designing artworks in a collaboration with the users of the artwork – as in situation specific art.(r.3) Altogether, the reasons for the existence of public artworks seem to be rather instrumental, and the methods have been affected by the long tradition of public monumental art that has celebrated stability instead of temporality. Public artworks are usually designed to be long lasting. Life cycles are measured by decades instead of months.

If we were to consider that the backbone of public art is rooted somewhere within the logic of monument, what are the incidents, individuals, or places we want to commemorate? Next to the statue of Alexander and Karl Johan, a performance artist Marcio Carvalho conducted a different kind of a monument, a monument of living people discussing and performing alternative possibilities for a public sculpture.(r.8) I can vaguely remember a festive gathering of people, a form covered with a blue sheet that was brought in, and the new statue was uncovered. A chair. A human being sitting on a chair. Stagnation of the polished bronze imperialists was briefly run over by a negotiation, a dialogical attempt to understand our multifaceted society from a human point of view.

I came across a posting in Instagram stating a happening called Creosote Orienteering. Nothing but that. The word “Creosote” gave it away for me – it’s a poison that has been used to saturate the railroad ties. You were to send a message for the organizing party to receive more information. I did, and got some vague maps and photos of a train yard just outside the city center. Artists Ville Ruuska and John Sundberg had made a site-specific artwork in the semi-public site that they held important. A site that they knew very well. The train yard itself is not allowed to the public, but random people are tolerated. It has become a place for dog walkers and others just loitering around. Another kind of a public space within the city. Without commerciality, shopping, tended parks and walking paths. With an exciting hint of danger, trash and chaos.

In Lasnamäe suburb in Tallinn the streets align in geometric patterns like a maze. Architecture is very pragmatic. The buildings are huge blocks of concrete with asphalt pavements. Vegetation is delimited next to the kindergartens, edges of buildings and parking lots. But again, just outside the wall of buildings, in the outskirts of the area, another kind of environment kicks in. Large grass fields with trails to unknown places. Huge electric masts and a blue sky. Wasteland, a space in between, a non-place.

As I previously suggested, there has been three reasons for art to be in public places, and those reasons have been mainly considered from the authorities’ point of view. To strengthen the establishment. To guide people’s attention. I´m forced to ask myself whether that kind of art is really needed or not. Some say that art is needed to enliven the cityscape. Why wouldn’t decent architecture, well designed green areas and traffic planning do the trick? As Creosote Orienteering and our little intervention in Lasnamäe quietly suggested – at least for me – we need more public spaces that strengthen peoples creative potential and agency within the city. I think this could be a new description for public art, a constantly changing monument for the city itself.