Art for Whom / What?

A gargantuan blob of metal pieces thrown together stands unapologetically in front of the POSCO building in the heart of Gangnam, an affluent district of Seoul, as referenced by the song “Gangnam Style” more than a decade ago. I have been told how the song became a global mega-hit, but I believe that the sculpture – worth $1.5 million – by Frank Stella wasn’t received so well by the public when it first was erected. My father told me (when we were driving by the site) that the sculpture was an eyesore back then and is still now. Simply put, he said, “It isn’t attractive.” When asked why the sculpture was erected in the first place, he said that the city enacted a law that at least 1% of the construction fund for a new building at a site should be allocated for an artwork, whether it is a sculpture or some kind of an artwork that serves the public in some way. 

The question, therefore, is what does it mean to “serve” the public? We need to look into the definition of art and what is the nature of serving. Evidently, the company POSCO, the world’s 6th largest steel producing firm, decided to commission a world-famous artist, Frank Stella, to come up with a creative piece that would best represent the ideals of the company. For those who prefer to saunter down the tony neighborhood of Gangnam on Sunday afternoon for a latte with friends, the sculpture is not the most eye-friendly piece to look at. After its erection, the piece has shown some ageing, as metals undergo a different chemical process in its deterioration. But, given that it IS a public artwork, after all, can we blame the artist or the work itself for its physically transitory process? 

One of the issues that the public has towards understanding art itself is that art should “please” the eye, but not necessarily “educate” the mind. People generally don’t watch films that complicate their thoughts or view an artwork trying to explore ideas that they haven’t encountered before. People’ outing on weekends in search of films or artworks – for those who just want to fill their time – are generally in need of pleasant exposures, not anything that would complicate their inured ways of thinking. Hence, they find it difficult to be challenged by artworks that contest their preconceived notions. At best, people’s minds would budge a little to try to understand something they are not familiar with, but still, not by a big margin. 

Unlike learning math or physics problem sets, those which require learners to overcome their own ignorance, artworks aren’t something to overcome by any means. They believe that artworks only operate within their understanding or awareness. They cannot fathom an artwork to be difficult because if they don’t seem pleasant to the eye, the artwork isn’t doing their job. Only when a financial value is assigned to an art, do people try to cope with their ignorance, that they NEED to overcome ignorance. Financial value on art dictates one to admit to his/her ignorance. 

But sadly, by that account, we can only admit to our own ignorance only in the system of economics. The law of economics is a guaranteed adjudicator of art in this contemporary society. For centuries art has been closely tied with commissions, but now art is strictly under the spell of capitalist drives.  On the one hand, the public SHOULD be thankful that the city has mandated art to be integral to private companies’ incentives, but that ideal is as tricky as a parent giving cash for a child’s getting an “A” on an exam. It is difficult to say that such an incentive can be the best method to motivate people to develop their creative interests.

Yes, public artworks in Seoul sometimes seem like strange forts that mark the city’s zones, as if they become strange beacons from lighthouses, ensuring safe passages for ships and boats to find their destinations safely. But these markers are also absolute in their own proclamations, sometimes no different from a dictator at the pulpit announcing his shocking visions for the people.