Art and Public Space: Questions of Democracy

Author(s): Rosalyn Deutsche

Source: Social Text, No. 33 (1992), pp. 34-53
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466433 .
Accessed: 23/10/2014 07:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Art
andPublic ofDemocracy
Space:Questions
Deutsche
Rosalyn

I havesaidthatthesurvival
andextensionofthepublicspaceis a political
question.I meanbythatthatit is thequestionthatlies at theheartof
democracy.
"HumanRights
ClaudeLefort, andtheWelfare State"

Judging bythenumberofreferences to publicspace in contemporary aesthetic

discourse,theartworldis "takingdemocracyseriously."Allusionsto public
space have multipliedover the last decade along witha highlypublicized
growthin publicartcommissions,and even themostingenuousaccountsof
public art agree: public space is inextricablylinkedto democraticideals.
When,forinstance,artsadministrators and cityofficialsformulatecriteriafor
placing "art in public places," they routinelyemploy a vocabularythat
invokes,albeitloosely,thetenetsofbothdirectand representative democracy:
Are the artworksfor"the people?" Do theyencourage"participation?" Do
theyservetheir"constituencies?" Publicartterminology frequentlypromisesa
commitment notonlyto democracyas a formof government butto a general
democraticspiritof equalityas well: Do theworksrelinquish"elitism?"Are
they"accessible?"
Whenitcomesto publicart,neoconservative critics,no strangers
to elitism
in artisticmatters,are also out therewiththepeople. Normallysuspiciousof
democratic "excess"-activism,demandsforpoliticalparticipation, challenges
to governmental and moralauthority-which,theybelieve, makes society
ungovernableand endangersdemocraticrule by elites, neoconservatives
nonethelessattackwhattheycall thepublicartist's"arrogance"and "egoism"
in thenameof "access"-the people's access to publicspace.'
Opinionson themostfamousrecentcontroversy overpublicsculpture-the
removalof RichardSerra's TiltedArc fromNew York'sFederalPlaza-also
centered,at leastforopponentsof thework,on theissue of access. "This is a
day forthepeople to rejoice,"declaredWilliamDiamondof thefederalgov-
ernment's Art-in-Architecture Programon theday TiltedArc was torndown,
"because now theplaza returnsrightfully to thepeople."2Supportersof the
sculpture, however,testifying at thehearingconvenedto decide TiltedArc's
fate,defended thework in thename of democracy, upholdingtheartist'sright

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 35

to freeexpressionor portraying thehearingitselfas destructive of democratic

processes.3Others,reluctant to takesidesin debateslikethese,seek to resolve
conflictsbetweenartistsand the users of public space "democratically," by
meansof "community involvement" in theselectionof worksofartorthrough
otherproceduresthat"integrate" artworks withthespaces theyoccupy.Still,
a
despite preoccupation with such problems,the prevailingcategoriesthat
shape public art debates allow littleinterrogation of the definition of public
space, let alone of democracy, with which,everyonesays, public space is
somehowintertwined.
Yet no topicis moreurgenttodaythandemocracy, whichcan be takenseri-
ously in moreways thanone.4The emergenceof thistopicin theartworld,
whetherin a nascentstateor in moresophisticatedeffortsto formulate the
termsof democraticaestheticpractices,corresponds to an extensiveeruption
and diffusion of struggles overthemeaningofdemocracy, in politicaltheories,
social movements, and culturalpractices.The questionof democracyhas, of
course,been raisedinternationally by decisivechallengesto Africanregimes
of racial oppression,Latin Americandictatorships, and Soviet-stylestate
socialism.Widelytoutedas a "triumph fordemocracy," theseeventshave,to
be sure,fosteredthe use of "democracy"as a politicalcatchword,but they
have simultaneously cast doubton thisrhetoric, posingthequestionof demo-
as, a
cracy precisely, question. For some leftists,
uncertainty springsfromthe
discreditbroughtupon totalitarian regimesby democratic protestsand from
thefailureof proposalsfor"concretedemocracy"to appreciatefullythesig-
nificanceof ideas abouthumanrights.Clearly,however,rejectionof socialist
bloc orthodoxy is no reasonto remaincontentwith"actuallyexistingdemo-
cracy."5Needlessto say,powerfulvoices in theUnitedStatesseek to convert
"freedom"and "equality"intoslogansunderwhichtheliberaldemocraciesof
advancedcapitalistcountriesareheldup as exemplarysocial systems, thesole
politicalmodel for societies emerging from dictatorshipsor actually existing
socialism.But thecurrent escalationof economicinequalityto crisispropor-
tionsin Westerndemocracies,coupledwithalarmingcurtailments of constitu-
tionallyguaranteedrights-freespeech,equal employment opportunity for
minorities and women,choice to terminate pregnancy-attests to the dangers
of adoptingsuch an attitudeor of localizingdemocracywithinthe sphereof
government at all. In addition,new social movementsthatnot onlydefend
establishedcivil rightsbutalso declarenew rightsbased on differentiated and
contingent needs-domestic partnership rights,privacyrightsforthe home-
less-diverge fromliberalnotionsof abstract, universalliberties.And,simul-
taneously, leftistpolitical theories such as those of ErnestoLaclau, Chantal
Mouffe, Claude Lefort,Slavoj Zizek, and Jean-Luc Nancy,emergingout of
with
confrontations totalitarianism, propose thatdemocracy'shallmarkis the
disappearanceof certainty aboutthemeaningof "thesocial." Democracythen

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 Artand PublicSpace.:QuestionsofDemocracy

has becomea conceptwhich,filledwithuncertainties, is capable of interrupt-

ingthedominant languageofdemocracysurrounding us. Butifwe tryto oblit-
eratethequestionat theheartof democracyand failto thinkof democracyas
a social practicechallengingtheomnipotence of powerthrough theextension
of specificrights,discoursesof democracycan also be successfully mobilized
to compelacquiescencein new formsof subordination.
StuartHall has describeda mobilizationof thiskindand givenit a name-
"authoritarianpopulism."Hall coinedthephraseto encapsulatethecontradic-
toryfeaturesof Thatcherist Britain,a historicalconjuncture,he contends,in
whichelementsofdemocratic-populist andconservative discourseswerecom-
binedto sanction,indeedto pioneer,shiftstowardauthoritarianism. Such an
articulationof democracytowardtheright,in whichconservative forcesbind
popularconsentto thecoercivepole of statepower,dependson neutralizing
contradictions betweenthepeople and thepowerbloc, antagonisms thatform
thebasis of popular-democratic, as distinguishedfrompopulist,movements.6
Hall describes,forinstance,how Thatcherism placed itselfon theside of "the
people" by,first,collapsinga seriesof individualconcepts-bureaucracy, sta-
tism,collectivism-thatare felt(forgood reason)to be oppressive,and then
counterposing to thema constellationof terms-personalinitiative, freedom,
individualism-withwhichThatcherism, thoughoperatingthroughthe state
apparatusand movingtowarda coerciveformofdemocratic politics,nonethe-
less identifieditself.A shiftfromabove, Hall says, is "harnessed to . . . a pop-
ulistgroundswellbelow."7
Seeminglychampionedby all, democracyis a complex and contested
idea-really a multiplicityof ideas-that belongs intrinsicallyto no single
politicalperspectiveor group.Rather,the languageof democracy-itselfa
public space of debate-is open to different,even antagonistic,uses and
occursin differentcontexts.As I have suggested,we findit in contemporary
discourseaboutpublicartwhere,in a mannerakinto Hall's authoritarian pop-
ulism,democracyhas been largelyarticulatedin a conservative direction.For
if,as so manyaccountsofpublicartcontend,publicspace is democratic space,
whatfuture fordemocracydoes thefollowingdefinition ofpublicart'slocation
foretell?
PublicPlaces:publiclyaccessibleareasofprivatedevelopments
whichare... openandfreely accessibleto thepublicfor12 or
morehoursdaily;orpubliclyaccessible
areaswhichfallunderCity
jurisdiction.8
Citedfroma cityreportdrafted in 1990 to founda "PublicArtProgram"in
Vancouver,BritishColumbia,this descriptiontypifiesthe widelyaccepted
conceptof publicspace circulatedtodayin countlessaestheticand municipal
documents,mostoftenin the contextof urbanredevelopment schemes.The

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 37

report'sallusionsto seeminglyempiricalreferents tellus, above all, that"pub-

lic space" and "the public" exist and thattheirmeaningscan be localized
withinprecise physicalsites or determinate groupsof people. But like all
objectifying that
descriptions purport to uncover themeaningof objectsthem-
selves, this passage disavows its own constitutive relationto thoseobjects.
Consequently, it fosters an of
acceptance actuallyexistingpublic spaces as,
self-evidently,"public."
Given the natureof contemporary urbantransformations and of the new
publicsitestheydevelopforart,thismessageis perilousfordemocracy.For
redevelopment programsare profoundly authoritarian, technocraticmecha-
nisms,transforming citiesto facilitatecapitalaccumulationand statecontrol.
They massivelyprivatizeland,destroyconditionsof survivalforhuge num-
bersof cityresidents, insulateland-usedeterminations frompublicdecision-
makingprocedures, withdraw public resources from social servicesand chan-
nel them into subsidies for business, create economically and racially
segregatedcities,and,concomitantly, redeveloppublicspaces-frequentlyas
amenitiesforluxurydevelopment-intocorporate- and state-controlled areas.9
Withinthisprocess,thepresenceof"theaesthetic"-whether embodiedin art-
works,architectural style,urbandesign,or museums-helpsgive redevelop-
mentdemocraticlegitimacysince,like "thepublic,""art"oftenconnotesuni-
versality,openness,inclusion."Public art,"combiningthetwo terms,comes
doubly burdened as a figureof universalaccessibility.
Indeed, literature aboutpublicartroutinely invokesthesedual connotations
whileacceptingwithout protestthatpublicspace is easilycompatiblewithpri-
vate propertyand statecontrol.It thusimplicitlysupportsthe exclusionary
rightsof property as well as repressiveand disciplinarypowerexercisedin
public spaces in theformof curfews,surveillancesystems,policing,control
through design,and forcibledispossessionof users.Articlesdevotedto prob-
lems of public space oftenreconcilecontradictions betweentheinclusionary
connotations of theterm"public"and exclusionary practicesin urbanspaces
bygiving "the people," as users of publicspace, a traditionalistrepresentation.
The people,forinstance,are cast as believersin an objectivemoralorder,in
religiousnotionsof good and evil,or in fixedconceptsof unchanging human
nature.As politicalissues are displaced intoconventionalmoralabsolutes,
authoritarian populismlinksup withanticrimecampaignsand crusadesfor
"public decency" whichroutinelyprovidedemocraticjustificationforthe
imperatives of surveillanceand exclusionin publicspace.
Take a recentNew YorkTimesarticlewhich,in a textbookexampleof such
unitary representations ofthepublic,upheldwhatitcalled "The Public'sRight
to Puta Padlockon a PublicSpace."'o Parallelingtheobjectifying use of such
termsas "community" and"public"in certaintypesof artdiscourse,theTimes
described a small, community-run park in GreenwichVillage-Jackson

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

Park-and a groupof neighborhood residentswho had decided to lock the

at
park night. The City Parks Department, lackingtheresourcesto close the
parkitself,welcomed"public"helpin achievingitsaim: theevictionofhome-
less people fromthepark.Supportfortheself-evident rightness of thisgoal
issues fromtheassumptionthaturbanspaces possess "proper"uses isolated
fromhistoricaland social contingencies as well as fromthebroaderorganiza-
tionof cityspace. But,as I have arguedelsewhere,thepresenceof thehome-
less in publicplaces todayrepresents themostacutesymptom of theconflict-
ual and uneven social relations-not the essential, unitaryneeds-that
transformed New YorkCityduringthemostrecentepisodeof its redevelop-
mentin the 1980s." At thattime,housingand servicesforhugenumbersof
residentsno longerneeded in thecityeconomywere destroyedas, through
gentrification-including thegentrification ofparks-space was allocatedto
profit-maximizing development thatprovidedthephysicalconditionsto meet
theneedsof a new international economy.Yet in a negationof even thesem-
blance of debateover the veryissue it is purportedly addressing-a contest
over the meaningof publicparks-the New YorkTimescolumnconfidently
announcedthat"thepeoplewhoholdthekeysare determined to keepa parka
park." And a housed residentof the area declared: "There is no reasonforany-
one to be hereafterdark."At thesemoments,whenthemeaningof "public,"
"use," and "publicuse" are removedto a realmof objectivity locatedoutside
public debate altogether,the homeless are not only evicted froma park.
Strippedof whatHannahArendtcalled "the rightto have rights,"theyare
deniedaccess to thedefinition of thepublic,an evictionwhich,we mightsay,
closes downpublicspace.
Is itpossibleto speakwithassuranceof a publicspace wheresocial groups,
evenwhenphysicallypresent, are systematically denieda voice? Does anyone
"hold thekey" to a publicspace? Whatdoes it mean to relegategroupsto a
sphereoutsidethepublic,to bar admittance to thediscursiveconstruction of
thepublic,and,in thisway,prohibit participation in thespace of publiccom-
munication?Failure to recognizethehomelessas part of the urbanpublic;
disregardof thefact thatnewpublicspaces and homelessnessare bothprod-
uctsof redevelopment; therefusalto raise questionsabout exclusionswhile
the an
invoking conceptof inclusionary publicspace: theseactsratify therela-
tionsofdomination thatclose thebordersofpublicplaces no matter howmuch
theseareas are toutedas "open and freelyaccessibleto thepublicfor 12 or
morehoursdaily."Once an essentialbasis of coherenceis attributed to public
space-whetherthatfoundation residesin thesupposedpossessionbythepub-
lic of objectivemoralvalues or in the factof simplyliving,housed,in the
immediatevicinity--that space is converted,and not in an economicsense
alone,intoprivateproperty. To theextent,thatis, thattheunityofpublicspace
dependson repressing-onestablishingas externalto "thepublic"-the dif-

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 39

ferencesand conflictsas well as the outright injusticesof urbanlife,public

space becomesan appropriated territorysubjectto,ratherthanrepresenting the
limitof,regulatory power.
Increasingly, commentators aid thisappropriation by announcing thatpub-
lic spaces are, indeed,contestedratherthanharmoniousterrainsbut,at the
same time,denyingthe legitimacyof thesecontestations. One historian,for
instance,applauding the "Jackson Park solution,"noted that,althoughurban
analystsfrequently ignore such problems, "what the homeless crisishas made
unavoidable,is the clash of values createdaroundcontestedspaces."12But
describingthe decisionto lock JacksonPark as the "reclamation"of public
space from"undesirables,"he portrayscontestsover urbanspace as a war
wagedbetween,on theone hand,representatives ofpublicspace's realusers-
in thiscase, Friendsof JacksonPark-and, on theotherhand,its enemies-
homelesspeople. Seemingto acknowledgepublicspace as conflictual yetdis-
avowing the social that he
conflicts producespace, portrays the homeless as
of
bringers conflict and thus shores up, by means of an to
appeal objective
meaningsoutsidepublicdebate,a visionof an essentiallycoherentspace that
mustbe reclaimed.
Recently, artistsand criticseagerto counteract thepowerexercisedthrough
neutralizing ideas of thepublichave soughtto reappropriate the conceptby
defining publicspace as a realm ofpoliticaldebate and public as workthat
art
helps create such a space. For thispurpose,they have sometimes had recourse
to thecategoryof "thepublicsphere,"a termwhichin itsgeneralsensedesig-
nateseithera setof institutions through whichthestateis heldaccountableto
citizensor a space-though notnecessarilya physicalor empirically identifi-
able terrain-ofdiscursiveinteraction. There,peopletalkto each other,gener-
ate politicaldiscoursesthatmaybe in principlecriticalof thestate,and con-
structand modifypoliticalidentitiesin encounters withothers."The public,"
in contrastto,letus say,an artaudience,does notexistpriorto butemergesin
thecourseof thedebate.
Introducedinto art discourse,the conceptof the public sphereshatters
mainstream categorizations of publicartand also circumvents theconfusions
plaguingsomecriticaldiscussionsof publicart.Transgressing theboundaries
thatconventionally dividepublicfromnonpublicart-divisions,forinstance,
betweenartworksplaced indoorsversusthosethatare outdoorsor between
state-sponsored versusprivatelyfundedart-it excavatesotherdistinctions
which,neutralizedby prevailingdefinitions of public space, are essentialto
democratic The
practice. publicsphere idea replacesdefinitionsofpublicartas
art thatoccupies or designs physical spaces and addressesindependently
formedaudienceswitha definition ofpublicartas a practicethatconstitutes a
publicbyengagingpeopleinpoliticaldebate.Anysitecan be transformed into
a publicor,forthatmatter, a privatesphere.In addition,thepublicspherecon-

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

ceptcounteracts themostnaivetendenciesin artcriticism to equatethepublic

withthestate,drawinga crucialdistinction betweenthetwo.It also thwarts the
abilityto use publicart-with its connotations of universalaccessibility-to
legitimateexistinglocationsas democratic.Withthepublicrealmdefinedas
an inclusionaryarena of politicalparticipation, a spherehavingto do with
rights and social legitimacy, artsadministrators can less easilyignoreeitherthe
displacement of social groups from public space or the conflictsof public
space while continuing to describe it as "accessible." Finally,as Alexander
Kluge emphasizes,not only is thepublic sphere(or, forKluge, the opposi-
tionalpublicsphere)produced.It is "a factory fortheproduction ofpolitics."13
Neithera universaldomainthatmustbe protectedfrompoliticsnor,as in lib-
eral formulations, a politicalrealmdividedfromtheprivateone of economic
laws, thepublicsphereof discourseis invokedby leftistsnotonlyto protest
therightsofprivateproperty butas theequivalentof politicsitself.
its
Still,despite usefulness, reference to "thepublicsphere"or to "thepub-
lic function of artas theconstitution of a politicaldebatingpublic"is in itself
hardlysufficient to democratizepublicartdebates.These phrasescan harbor
theirownauthoritarianism. Conceptsofthepublicspherevaryand someofthe
mostinfluential criticaldefinitions sharewithconservative notionsofthepub-
lic a faiththatfundamental interests and strugglesunifythepublicrealm.In
this way,theybringprivilegeback into the democraticpublic realm.And
althoughtheconceptof thepublicspheredistinguishes betweenpublicspace
and thestatewhileerodingthedepoliticizing divisionserectedbetweenpublic
and nonpublicart,the public sphereidea can shoreup otherpublic/private
dichotomies.Historically, public/private polarizationshave servedas a means
of hierarchicaldifferentiation in whichthepublic sphereis appropriated by
treating certainsocial relationsas fundamentally publicand devaluingothers
as essentiallyprivateorbydefining thepublicsphereas a losttotality. Endow-
ingpublicspace with a positiveidentity, these acts withdraw decisionsabout
themeaningofthepublicfromtherealmofdebateand so defend,in thename
of the public,a privatespace thatavoids immersionin thepoliticalworld.
Giventhepersistence of thistendency in criticalformulations ofpublicspace,
there is one of
question democracy we should take more seriously:Can public
space be describedso thatitescapes appropriation altogether?

II

Nowwhatis thatpointofviewon everything andeverybody,

thatloving
gripofthegoodsociety, ifnotan equivalent ofomnipo-
ofthephantasy
ofpowertendstoproduce?
tencethattheactualexercise
"PoliticsandHumanRights"
ClaudeLefort,

"Who is to define,manipulate,and profitfrom'the public'?"'4 Five years ago,

when Craig Owens asked this question at a panel discussion in New York City

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 41

on "theculturalpublicsphere,"a new sensitivity to issues of thepublicwas

emerging in theartworld.Hal Foster,whohad organizedthepanelas one ofa
seriesof discussionssponsoredby theDia ArtFoundation,listed"thedefini-
tionofpublic,historicalandpresent"amongthemajor,recurrent issuesin con-
temporary artcriticism.5"Severalimpulsescontributed to thetopicalityof the
public theme.Most widespread,perhaps,was thedesirefeltby manyartists
and criticsto intervenein themassiveeconomicprivatization ofartproduction
and circulationthatmarkedthe 1980s-the artmarketexplosion,attackson
public funding,growingcorporateinfluenceon exhibitionpolicies-and to
interruptthelegitimating rhetoricof "thepublicgood" or "publicprotection"
that,as Owens observed,frequently surrounded theseevents.But at leasttwo
otherfactorsdirectedthe artworld's attention to "the definition of public."
One was the imperative, describedearlierin thisessay,to createpublic art
projectsthatwould counteractthe pseudo-publicart and privatizedpublic
spaces thatwere vigorouslypromotedthroughout the decade by real-estate
developersand municipalgovernments as an arm of urbanredevelopment
projects.The second,seemingly remotefromtheconcernsofwhatis generally
called "public art,"was the explorationof the public, ratherthanprivate,
natureof meaningand subjectivity thathad been takingplace throughout the
late 1970s and 1980s in thosepostmodern artpracticesoftengroupedtogether
undertheheading,"thecritiqueofvisualrepresentation."
Each of thesepursuitsfocuseson a different aspectof theproblemof "the
public" and each raises-again, differently-questions aboutspatialpolitics.
Yet criticsgenerallytreatthetwoas isolated,evenantagonistic, ventureswith
fewpointsofintersection. Andwhereasthefirst project figuresprominently in
art-world discussionsaboutpublicspace, workon subjectivity in representa-
tionis virtually unrecognized there,as ifit has no bearingon theoriesof pub-
lic artor,worse,divertsattention fromthe"real" and mostpressingproblems
of public space. Across the fullspectrumof conventionalpoliticalopinion,
some artcriticismfashionsits categoriesof public artand public space by
ignoringor trivializingtheissuesraisedby suchwork.
No doubt,someof thisneglectstemsfromdifficulties in graspingjust how
critiquesof representation linkup withissues of publicspace, problemsthat
spring,in turn,frombiases in thewaytheterms"public"and "space" arecom-
monlydefined.By thesame token,artworks thatsupporturbansocial move-
mentsor explicitlycriticizethe characterof art's newlyredevelopedurban
sitesseem self-evidently "public"because theybringintoplay morefamiliar,
empiricalconcepts publicnessand spatialpolitics.Againstofficialandneo-
of
conservative explanationsof redevelopment as a processwhichprovidespub-
lic space and, moreover,returnsthe cityto the public,these worksdefend
notionsofa publicrealmthatareformulated in distinctoppositionto all facets
oftheprivatization andbureaucratization of cities:privately ownedland,tech-
nocraticand quasi-publicdecision-making processes insulatedfrompublic
accountability, profit-maximizingdevelopment, spatialdivisionintoprivileged

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

centersand marginalized peripheralzones, statecontrolof publicplaces that

toleratelittleresistanceto officially
approveduses, raciallysegregatedneigh-
borhoods,commodified housing.
Not surprisingly, artistshopingto offsetor infiltrate the new public art
industry with criticalpublic work have sometimes allied themselveswith
urbansocial movements protesting redevelopment, and home-
gentrification,
lessness. Two exhibitionsrecentlymountedin Torontoand New York,The
PowerPlant's"Housing:A Right"(1990) and MarthaRosler's installations at
the Dia Art Foundation, "If you lived here . . . " (1989), exemplify such
alliancesand demonstrate a twofoldrelationship betweenartand spatialpoli-
tics.16Each projectcombinedurbanand aestheticdiscoursesin supportof
struggles thatopposetheprovisionofhousingas an interest-profit-andthat
fight,instead,to establishhousingas a right.As responsesto redevelopment,
to theglobal reorganization of capitalaccumulation forwhichredevelopment
has been a vehicle,and to thesocial conditions-likehomelessness-thatthe
reorganization has generated, suchprojectsare about urbanspatialpolitics-
the social relationsof subordination thatshape the organizationof space in
advancedcapitalistsociety.But to countertheinstrumental use of artby real
estate,corporations, and citygovernment in theredevelopment process,they
soughtto transform the artworld'sown spatialrelationsas well. Since art's
supposeduniversality and autonomy-actuallya constructed relationof exte-
riorityto otherspaces-has permitted "the aesthetic"to legitimateall kindsof
oppressive economic and politicalsystems, these projectsattempted to "go
public"by eroding the aura of isolationerected around artinstitutions.Spon-
soredby artorganizations housedin redevelopedurbanneighborhoods, they
encouragedaudiencesto recognizethatthesocial problemsof thecity,often
consideredextraneous to art,actuallyconstitutesomeoftheconditionsofart's
currentexistence.By organizingpublic meetingsand utilizingbillboardsor
newspaperinserts, theytransgressed thebordersof theartgallery,linkingitto
othersitesandreachingoutto newaudiencesin thehopeofconstituting a pub-
lic thatwouldcritically debatethehousingquestion.
In part,then,theartworldhas conjuredtheconceptof"thepublic"to con-
testtheappropriation ofthatcategorybyforceslegitimating newpublicspaces
and a new publicartthathave less to do withthedemocratization of thecity
thanwiththeimposition ofnewformsof subordination. Some artistsandcrit-
ics have turnedtheirattention to theliteratureof urbanstudiesand especially
to materialisturbantheoriesthatanalyzetheproduction of space as a conflict-
ual processofdomination andresistanceto domination undercapitalismrather
thanas a naturalor technologicalprocessexpressingthe needs of a unified
society.Urbantheorycontributed to thedevelopment of a genuinelysite-spe-
cificpublicartthatdrawsattention to andencouragesdebateaboutthepolitical
strugglesstructuring public art'surbansites.Worksuch as KrzysztofWod-

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 43

iczko's real-estateand homelessprojectionsin New Yorkand Bostondisrupt

theapparentstabilityof newlygentrified and redevelopedpublicmonuments
or cityspaces.17Interestin "thepublic"and "theurban"grewrapidlyand in a
complementary relationship on theleftwingof theartworldin the 1980s as
dual antidotesto theroleplayedby aestheticist conceptsof artand bynatural-
izing concepts of urban in
growth affirming the redevelopmentprocess.
Againsttheauthoritarian characterof new physicalpublicspaces-spaces of
exclusion-and againsttheauthoritarianism inherentin theconceptofthepub-
lic as a homogeneousgroup-a coherenceachievedby expellingconflicts-
artistsandcritics,allied withhousingactivists,soughta moredemocraticidea
of publicspace.
There is no inherentcontradiction betweenthe challengethatthis work
raises to authoritarian spatialarrangements and the goals of artistsengaged
withquestionsof visual representation. On thecontrary, thetwo projectsare
likely overlapand,sharing objective politicizingspatialrelations,are
to the of
difficultto separatein thefirstplace. Still,as I suggestedearlier,criticsoften
classifythemas discreteand incompatible ventures. True,workon thepolitics
of visionemphasizesless recognizableconceptsof publicnessand of spatial
politics.Yet,it was preciselytheseconceptsthatHal Fosterinvoked-or so it
seemsin retrospect-whenhe calledhis Dia discussionabouttheculturalpub-
lic sphere,"The Birthand Death of the Viewer:On thePublic Functionof
Art."What"definition ofpublic"does thistitlesignal?Fornearlytwodecades,
postmodern practiceshave challengedessentialistnotionsof art'suniver-
art
sality,firstinsistingthatit is in theact of viewing,notin thepossessionof an
autonomousaestheticproperty, thatthemeaningof imagesarisesand,second,
definingviewersas "sociallyconstructed" subjects.Postmodern explorations
of theimagefixedtheidentity of imagesandviewersin a "publicspace,"out-
side themselves, in a setof relationswithotherelements.Practicesusingcon-
temporary feminist ideas about subjectivityremovedthe relationalsystem
itselffromessentialism-fromdetermination bya stable,centralelement-by
locatingmeaning not in a social realm exteriorto visual imagesor outsidea
of
complex representations altogether but in the subject'srelationshipswith
images.Looking, these is a of
practicesdemonstrated, process "public vision."
Artistsengaged in critiquesof visual representation, such variedartistsas
Mary Kelly,CindySherman,Silvia Kolbowski,Connie Hatch,and Barbara
Kruger,notonlyinvestigated how imagessignifymeaningsin frameworks of
use and social practice.They also analyzedtherole thatvisionplays in the
mechanismsof identification throughwhichsubjectsrepresent themselvesas
universal,coherent, totalbeings.
Used in connectionwithsuchwork,thetermpublic space does notdesig-
natean empirically identifiable orevena space producedby social rela-
terrain
tions.Nor does public space referonlyto concreteinstitutional sites where

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

meaningsare manufactured and circulated.It designatesinsteadtherelations

structuringvision and discourse themselves.Artdealingwithissues of repre-
sentationengagesin spatialpolitics,then,whenit questionsthestrategiesof
localization,or interiorization,typicalof authoritarian discourses.To localize
meaning and identity-to assert that they are confined in discretesites and
determinate origins-is to denytheworldlyrelationsthat,in theabsence of
transcendental sourcesof truth,bothconstitute meaningsand, crucially,put
themat risk.Of course,feminist critiquesalso rejectedthenotionthatfemi-
ninityis an intrinsic property of femalepersonsand exploredit insteadas a
position in social relations of difference,a positionwhose subordination
allowedidealizedimagesofmasculinity. Andworkthatutilizedfeminist ideas
aboutimagesquestioned,alongwithfeminist practices in other disciplinesand
the
movements, spatial constructs of radical social theories that makegender
of
or sexualitytheauxiliary relations assumed to be fundamentally political.
Moreover,by investigating theimageas itselfa relation,theychallengedthe
subordination of thepoliticsof representation to anotherpoliticssituatedout-
side-a modelthatleaves theimageperse politicallyneutral.
At thispoint,artists'interrogation of the politicsof localizationmerges
withfeminism'slong-standing inquiryinto the "location of politics."The
assertionoffeminism as a requisitemodeofpoliticalcritique,of sexualdiffer-
ence and genderas relationsthatare irreducibleto some morebasic social
relation,and of visionas an independent objectof politicalanalysis-all dif-
ferentfromothercritiques, relations,andobjects-casts doubton theexistence
of an a prioriprivilegedplace fromwhichto transform society.The public
space thisworkinvestigates-therelationalspace whereidentities, including
theidentity ofpolitics,areconstituted and modified-is,in thissense,a demo-
craticone,freeof absolutistprivilege.
BoththeprojectsI have outlined,workdealingwithurbanspatialpolitics
and workon thespace of representation, entaila recognition thatthecategory
of "the public" and its attendant categories-publicsphere,publicfunction,
publicart,publicintellectual, publicspace-are discursiveobjectsratherthan
transparentdesignations ofgroups,realms,activities, places,orentities.Butas
a discursiveformation, "thepublic"is notsimplya category"susceptible,"as
CraigOwens warned,"to appropriation by diverse--evenopposed-ideologi-
Its constitution
cal interests."18 as a category, presupposing a distinctionfrom
"theprivate,"is a politicalrelationin whichrelationships are drawn,exclu-
sionsenactedand,in theprocess,subjectspositioned.The important question
withwhichOwensleftus-"Who is to define,manipulate, andprofit from'the
public' today?"-calls thenforanotherquestion:Who is thesubjectofpublic
space?
Yet criticsoftenignorethisquestiondespitea generaleagernessto appro-
priatethetermpublicfrommainstream andneoconservative domination. To be

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 45

sure,"thepublic"now appearsregularly in criticalartdiscoursewhere,instead

ofthesiteofuniversalinterests andtruths thatmustbe protected frompolitics,
publicspace andpublicartstandforpoliticization itself.But whatkindofpol-
itics?Increasingly, we hearthatart'spublicnessis ensuredby thewillingness,
as one advocateputsit,of "progressiveartists"to respondto thenecessityof
supportingthe goals and identitiesof community movementsand of those
formsof social strugglethatareelsewheregroupedundertheheadingof "new
social movements"-feminist, gay,AIDS activist,ecological, etc.19 Promot-
ing"civic consciousness" through "politicaleducation,"theseactivitiesrepre-
sentthe"recoveryof thepublicfunctionof art."20Anotherculturalscholar,
writingin a recentissue of Social Textdevotedto thepublicsphere,concurs:
by "servingtheneedsof particular communities and simultaneously publiciz-
ingtheirpracticeforwideraccess," artistsare "recovering thepublicfunction
of art."21
This criticwas assessingart'spublicfunction in lightof current neoconser-
vativeand New Rightefforts to eliminatepublic artsfundingin the United
States.How,he asked,has theartworldcontestedconservative effortsto pri-
vatize the public sphere?Rejecting,as complicitwiththe depoliticization
inherent in notionsof aestheticautonomyand universalpublic values,those
liberalresponsesthatdefendtheabstractfreedomof theartist,he concluded
thatthemostviable contestations come fromartistsalignedwithnew social
movements, artists,who,in his words,"dispensewiththeframe"by working
outsideconventionalartinstitutions. In so doing,theyhave "recoveredthe
public function of art." Restricting definition
the of institutions
to,on theone
hand, "the market (galleriesand auction houses tacitlysupportedby museum
practice)"and, on the otherhand,nonprofit foundations governedby expert
panels he, like manyartcritics,believes thatthe basis of the "recovery"of
art'spublicfunctionlies in opposingthese"systemsof exclusion"by trans-
forming "thematerialconditionsof theinstitution: meansof production, dis-
tribution,reception, and so on." Without
publicity, thistransformation,no pub-
lic functionis possible.
Therecan, I agree,be littledoubtthatartinvolvedin new social move-
ments,"aesthetic practices by which group identityand ethos are formed," are
Certainlytheyshouldbe namedas such to dispute
crucialpublicpractices.22
conservativeaestheticmandatesfortheprivatization of thepublicrealm.But
does theimperativeof takinga standagainstJesseHelms or HiltonKramer
requirethepositioningofparticularartpracticesas theprivilegedoccupantof
public space? Or do recategorizations
of public artthatare reluctantto dis-
pensewiththeframeofrigidpublic/private dichotomiesruntheriskof gener-
thoughnot necessarilyin the mostmaterial
atingalternativeprivatizations,
sense?What,forexample,in theabove-mentioned accountsoftherecoveryof
art'sthreatenedpublicdimensionis in dangerof disappearing fromthepublic

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

realm?Whathas happenedto thatotherset of artpracticeswhich,as I sug-

gestedearlier,also formeda principalimpetusforthe redefinition of artas
public:postmodern, and,especially, feminist work on images,subjectivity,and
vision as themselves,precisely,public? Such work,says one critic,has no
practicalfunctionbecause it is locatedin a space thatis "outsidesocial func-
he writes,"theartworldis separatedfromsocial func-
tioning.""Regrettably,"
tioningby a complex mechanismthatdefines'disciplines' in the artsand
humanities"and which,"fragmenting knowledge,while distancingit from
practical circumstances. . . drains the aesthetic of any practical dimension."23
Workon the"politicsof representation," if it is situatedin an artinstitution
and directedtowardan artaudience,he continues,"promotesan illusionof
culturalpracticethatis sociallydisinterested
andnonpolitical."24
Again,thesecondcriticagrees:"The 'politicsofrepresentation' engagedin
by this type of art ... [t]his play on the constructednessof images . .. does not
necessarilylead to changingthe conditionsthatproducedthemin the first
place."25
Withinthisperspective, thegalleryand museumappearas theantitheses of
are
publicspace.They private for two reasons. In thefirstcritic's
view, theaes-
theticistideologiesunderlying theprestigeof artinstitutions separateartfrom
society understood as a totality. Art institutionsthen are not simplyneutraliz-
ing systemsbut"fragmenting" and
forces, fragmentation, assessed negatively,
is presupposedto constitutea withdrawalfroman all-embracingspace of
social practiceand public life. Secondly,aestheticism onlyexpressesat the
culturallevel a foundation--"the conditionsthatproduceimagesin the first
place"-of social meaning.Whencriticsassumean essenceofart'spublicness
in thetransformation of basic materialconditionsor in allianceswithsocial
movementsthatare heldto participate in a totalsocial practice,theirsupport
for artiststheybelieve are recoveringart's public functionoccurs at the
expenseof otherpracticeswhosedifferent politicalconcernstheydisparageas
private.The particularcasualtyof theeither/or construction of the public I
citedabove,theartistheld up as a foilagainstwhichpublicnesscan be mea-
sured,is thephotographer, CindySherman,whose"deconstruction of socially
constructed representations of womenin patriarchal society,"theauthorcon-
tends,may"challengetheauthority of representation" butare easily accom-
modatedwithintheinstitution.
In thename of the public,such a positionresurrects as an unquestioned
the
assumption verypolarization-between the formal operationsof images
and a politicsexertedfromtheoutside-thatfeminist critiquesof representa-
tion,establishinga constitutive linkbetween images and sexuality,questioned
fromthestart.To disagreewiththispositionis notto denythatimagessignify
meaningswithininstitutional structures. However,workon thesexualpolitics
of imagesproblematizes (as practicesalignedwithnew social movements also

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 47

do) the boundariesthatsequesterthe institution fromits outside.Aestheti-

cism-the doctrine, crucialto theillusionoftheartinstitution's neutrality,that
aestheticvisionis thedisinterested perception of unifiedform-is challenged
bytheimplication of "pureform"in thesexualpleasuresoflooking,and these
pleasures,as JacquelineRose holds,are in turnpartof an aesthetically extra-
neous politicalspace.26To acceptRose's formulation on
thatwork thesexual
politicsof imagesrepresents a challengeto establishedinstitutions, one has to
accept,of course,thatvision and sexual difference are public matters.Yet,
withintheparameters of a notionofthepublicdefinedby a single,controlling
elementor committed to the"restoration" of a unifiedsocial practice,workon
thepoliticsof imagesis notonlyexpelledfromthepublic spherebutimpli-
catedin itsloss. Worklike Sherman's,in thisview,nourishestheinstitutional
frame,since its content-imagesand sexual difference-remain, at heart,a
nonpublic matter.
Is it reallypossible to sever the artworldand the aestheticrealmfrom
"social functioning" and "thepublic"?Whatconceptofthepublicenablesthis
separation?And whatdoes it mean to say thata "fragmentation" of spaces
destroysthepublic sphere?Some criticssupporttheirdislikeof "fragmenta-
tion" by comparingtheirown objectionsto importantcritiques-such as
EdwardSaid's "Opponents,Audiences,Constituencies, and Community"27-
of the role thatacademic expertiseand disciplinaryspecializationplay in
depoliticizing knowledge.But theymistakenly concludefromthesecritiques
thatpoliticizedknowledgemust,bycontrast, "restore"theultimatecoherence
ofpoliticallife.Transferred intopublicartdebatesas thesine qua nonof art's
publicness,doesn'tthisconclusionendowthepublicspherewithan identity as
an originalunity,turning 'thepublic' intowhatBruceRobbinscalls a "mythic
plenitudefromwhichthedisciplinesmustthenceaselesslyand vainlylament
theirimpoverished exile?"28And doesn'tthisaccountof thepublicas a lost
realmof wholeness-a conceptthatgives rise to beliefsin a singularpublic
functionforart--entailits own politicsof representation, positioningwork
withspecificand different functionsas partial,thereforefragmenting forces?
A similarlogic informs theidea thatthepoliticsof imagescan be reduced
to "conditionsthatproducedthemin thefirstplace," conditionswhose alter-
ationconstitutes thefoundation ofpublicactivity. For doesn'tthislocalization
of meaningin basic objectivestructures smuggleback intoartdiscourse,but
now in the name of the verypublic space thatwas introducedto counter
authoritarian notionsof thepublic,theassertionof a uniquespace of politics
thatfeminist theoriesof representation initiallyrejected?In thisway,encour-
agement of art's public functions becomes a mediumforrepresenting as a
polarity the similarity I first observed between two kinds of artpractices,
admittedly different butbothcommitted to developinga criticalpublicspace.
Harmonycannotbe restored, however,by simplyreuniting them,sincein the

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

processof elaboratinga definition of thepublic,criticswho polarizethetwo

have divergedfromthepremiseon whichthefeminist politicsof representa-
tionconceivedwhatI called a democraticpublicspace-the absenceofexter-
nal groundsof meaning.
The oppositiondrawnin recentartcriticismbetween,on theone hand,the
politicsof representation and,on theotherhand,theallianceof artwithspe-
cificsocial movements depends,we have seen,on a priordistinction: thestrict
demarcationof thepublic sphere-identifiedas political,singular,whole-
fromtheprivate-seen as fragmented and nonpolitical.It is hardlysurprising
thatsuch a distinction surfacesby consigningsome feministtheoriesto the
privaterealm;thismerelyconfirms feminism'slong-standing suspicionofthe
spatial relationsthatstructure the public/private divide and of the subjects
who,identifying withthepublicas a unity,police it.In thenameof an essen-
tiallocationof politics,women,of course,butfeminism, too,have repeatedly
beenforcedintoprivacy.The questionofthelocationofpolitics,encapsulated
in thefeminist slogan"thepersonalis political,"is reproduced again,as Bruce
Robbinsobserves,in a "tensionwithintheconceptof 'the public' betweena
tight,authoritativesingleness(thepublicas objectof a questfora universal
collectivesubjector a privilegedarenaof struggle)and a relaxed,comfortable
pluralism(public-nessas a quantityspreadliberallythrough manyirreducibly
differentcollectivities)."29
That the questionof the locationof politicsresidestodayat theheartof
criticalconceptsofthepublicsphereshould,however,remindus thattheques-
tionof who is to definethepubliccannotbe directedsolelyat conservative or
mainstreamdiscourse.Nor are the attendant of
questions manipulation and
profitirrelevant whenassessingcriticalideas of publicness.As NancyFraser
notes,"In contemporary politicaldiscourse,the 'private'and the 'public' are
powerfultermsthatare frequently deployedto delegitimatesome interests,
views,and topicsand to valorizeothers... to restrict theuniverseof legiti-
mate public contestation."30 Indeed,as conceptsof "the public" and, as we
shallsee, "theurban,"havebecomecriteriaby whichto measureaestheticpol-
itics,certainkindsoffeminist practiceshavebeenpositionedas nonpublic.Or
rather,throughtheconsignment of feministworkon subjectivity to privacy,
otherpracticesemergeas public ones. Criticalvoices in the artworld,then,
can no moreaffordto formulate ideas aboutpublicartby uncovering therela-
tionsof domination disavowedby liberalor conservative notionsthantheleft
in generalcan confinediscussionsofdemocracyto exposingthemystifications
of bourgeoisdemocracywhileignoring theundemocratic character of someof
itsowntheories.To concentrate on distinguishing affirmative conceptsof "art
in publicplaces" fromcriticalones of "theculturalpublicsphere"andexhaust
theapprehension of othercontestsover"thepublic,"is to runtheriskofrein-
statingthepublic as a realmof puritythatcan be rescuedfromdistortions.

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RosalynDeutsche 49

And iftheunityof thepublicsphereis believedto be theproductofa founda-

tionof the social whichgovernsall politicalrelations(forwhichappeals to
"thematerialconditionsof art'sexistence"oftenstandin), thenpracticesthat
addressother,incommensurable relationsor reflecton theirown relationswill
emerge,and be rejected,underthesignsof fragmentation and privacy.
Still,it is particularly ironicwhencriticsdividethepoliticsof aligningart
withnew social movements fromthepoliticsof vision.This divisionfailsto
considerthatboth-new social movements and postmodern theoriesofrepre-
sentation-have challenged foundationalistsocial theories,questioning,
amongotherthings,the premisethatclass politicsensuresthe unityof the
emancipatory struggles. Isn't it inconsistent to rejectone practiceforthevery
quality that also defines the other,approvedpractice?To asserttheexistenceof
a foundationdetermining the meaningof images which mustbe changed
beforeartcan be publicwhilecelebrating new social movements thatassume
an independence ofsucha foundation? These movements represent newforms
of politicalidentity distinguished by theirdifference fromtraditional political
movements,by theirdistancefromoverallsolutions,and theirdemandsfor
new,specificrights.Antagonistic to the universalisms of formaldemocracy,
they refuse submission to regulatory powers in the form of politicalparties
abrogating to themselves the authority to exclude specificityand difference
underthe bannerof an essentialpolitical interest.To be sure,this refusal
invitesaccusationsthatnew social movementsare divisiveforcesmenacing
theharmony-orpotentialharmony-ofpoliticalstruggle.But iftheidea of a
preconstituted harmonyis understoodas the fictionof subjectswho tryto
escape partialityby identifying withan image of the social plenitude,then
"fragmentation" can be restorative. It allows theperceptionof conflicts, het-
and
erogeneity, indeterminacy in the a
social, precondition of the search for
new kindsof commonground.
Whencriticswho supportnew social movements positionfeminist workon
representation as nonpublicbecause it is "fragmented," "isolatedfromsocial
practice,"or peripheralto the basic "conditions"producingimages, they
underminethe verypoliticsof difference which,in otherways,theyvigor-
ouslydefend.Theythusend up in partialalignmentwiththemoreinfluential
rejectionsof thepoliticsof difference containedin thetheoriesof postmod-
ernismproposedby such scholarsas FredricJamesonor,morerecently, the
urbangeographer,David Harvey.31 Jamesonand Harvey,sharingthe wide-
spreadcommitment to public space, tryto fosterthe appropriation of space
fromcapitalistdomination. Bothauthorsdeplore"fragmentation" in thename
of an urbanspatialpolitics,thediscourseintroduced intotheartworldin tan-
dem withdiscussionsof "thepublic"to help forgemoredemocraticconcepts
ofpublicart.Unlikemanyartcritics,however,Jamesonand Harveyappreciate
thesimilarity betweennew social movements and postmodern explorations of

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

images.Each development, theyargue,springsfroma confusionof our per-

ceptualapparatusand,in turn,perpetuates confusion.The troubleoriginates,
however,in theglobal spatio-economic restructuring thatconstitutes thethird
of
stage capitalism. A new international spatialnetwork, made possible by
technologicaladvances,facilitates capitalaccumulation and,at thesametime,
precipitatesa crisisof representation, overwhelming our abilityto perceive
capitalism'sexploitative operationsandto represent thetotality. Unableto dis-
cerntheunderlying coherenceof socialreality, thesubjectis blindedto itsown
politicalplace--equatedwithclass consciousness-and so cannotinitiatethe
actionnecessaryto transform society.
As Harveyconcludes,followingJameson, "Postmodernism is nothingmore
thantheculturallogicoflatecapitalism,"a component, in otherwords,ofcap-
ital's fragmenting effects.Politically,fragmentation appearsas a proliferation
ofnewpoliticalidentities withno adherenceto a norm;aesthetically, fragmen-
tationappearsas a focuson imagesratherthanon a realityor history believed
to underliethem.(For Harvey,too, CindySherman'sphotographs exemplify
postmodernism's "complicity.") Thus,thequestionsthatpostmodern practices
have raisedaboutuniversalizing thoughtand foundational totalitiesas, them-
selves,formsof subordination become,in Harvey'sand Jameson'sanalyses,
complicit with capitalism. Whereas some postmodernworkon images sug-
gests thatit is the very condition of representation to be in crisis since no
underlying presenceguaranteestruth, Jameson believes thata trulyradicalart
practice should help end thecrisisbyproducing coherent images-"cognitive
maps"-of thesocial whole.The space ofaestheticpoliticsis therevelationof
thereal space ofpolitics.
Whattheseexplanations disavowis thespace fromwhichtheyspeak.Is it a
public space? Claimingto observetheessence of a socio-spatialreality,the
subjectsof suchaccountsare elevatedto a positionoutside,notin,theworld.
Accordingly, othersaredemotedto secondary rankor worse.Withintheterrain
of Harvey's urban discourse,for instance,wherepolitical realitycan be
reducedto unevenspatio-economic arrangements, and thehomeless(products
of thesearrangements) become the privilegedfiguresof political-public-
space,efforts to talkabouturbanspace differently aretantamount to escapism,
quietism,complicity. Feministswhoanalyzetheimageofthecity,forinstance,
notas an objecttestedagainstobjectiverealitybutas a relationwitha viewing
subject(an approachwhich,in my view, is essentialto understanding and
changingcurrent representations of and attitudestowardhomelesspeople) are
accusedof callousnesstowardpoorcityresidentsand setup as enemiesofthe
homeless.32Farfetchedas such a conclusionmay sound,its logic is hardly
unfamiliar in thehistoryof radicalsocial thought. Whencriticsadoptit,how-
ever,they invoke the homeless less to promote social justicethanto provethe
superiorpenetration of theirown social vision.

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deutsche
Rosalyn 51

Fortunately, we have conceptsof publicspace thatthwartsuch ambitions.

Claude Lefort,forone, associatespublic space withthehistoricaladventure
thatTocquevillecalled "thedemocratic revolution." ForLefort,thedestruction
of monarchicalpower instituteda radicallynew formof societyin which
poweris no longerbelievedto derivefroma transcendent source.A vacuum
opens up at the spot where the essential unity society-emanatingfrom
of
God-was once embodiedin thefigureof theking.Poweris now believedto
residein "thepeople"-inside thesocial itself.Because thepeople no longer
possess an absolutedefinition, however,power"is linked"in thedemocratic
moment"to the image of an emptyplace."33"Power becomes and remains
democraticwhenitprovesto belongto no one."34Andwiththedisappearance
of an objectiveguarantorof power,guaranteesof social unitydisappearas
well. It is thenfroma negativity thatthepublic space comes intobeing,the
space where human beings speak to each other,constructsociety,and form
political identities through thedeclarationof rights.Whatis recognizedin the
publicspace is the legitimacy ofdebate,a debatein whichno one can seekthe
support of an external judge.
Totalitarianism, theruinof democracy,attempts to fillthevoid createdby
thedemocratic revolution, banishtheindeterminacy ofthesocial,andrestorea
substanceto social coherence.It endows"thepeople" witha basic identity, an
essentialinterest or"oneness,"withwhichthetotalitarian stateidentifies
itself,
therebyclosingdown thepublic space.35For thepublic space is thelimitof
such tutelarypower.It is the space wherepeople declarerightsand which,
paradoxically, is constituted through thedeclaration.A fixedpointofaccess to
a
politics, uniquespace of the political,an essenceof social reality:theseare
obstaclesto thespreadofpublicspace whichis alwaysin gestation.
The extensionof public space requires,instead,a proliferation of social
movementsorganizedaroundirreducibly differentpoliticalidentities,a het-
erogeneity ungovernable by a predetermined norm.Those who advocatethe
allianceof artwithnew social movements are perfectlyrightto call suchcol-
laborationsa public practice.But whentheysay thatit is public because it
restoresa fundamental unityor addressesan absolutesourceofpoliticalmean-
ing, claims that can be advancedonlyby failingto recognizeotherswithin
publicspace, they close thebordersof theverypublicrealmwhoseopenness
theywant to defend. This closuredependson a rigiddistinction betweenthe
publicand theprivatewith,in one sense,theprivateunderstood as a place of
differences and thepublicas a privileged,unitarysphere.But it also assumes
theexistenceof anotherprivilegedplace outsidethepublicdebatefromwhich
the sovereignsubjectobservesthe elementunifyingthe public sphere.The
rigorof thispublic/private distinctionis whatworkon subjectivity in visual
representation threatens that and
byinsisting identity meaning are formed in a
public space and the
therebyquestioning possibility of external viewpoints.

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 Artand PublicSpace: QuestionsofDemocracy

ErnestoLaclau has suggestedthatthe main task of postmodernculturein

democraticstruggles is "to transformtheformsof identification
andconstruc-
thatexistin ourcivilization."36
tionof subjectivity Whenworkon thepolitics
of imagesdirectsattention to processesof viewingand to thefantasystruc-
turesthrough whichsubjects,in relationswithimages,identifywithwholeness
and fleefromdifference, shouldn'twe welcomesuch workas extensionsof
public space? Especiallyif we wantto preventthe conversionof thepublic
sphereintosomeone'sprivatesphere.

Notes
1. See, forinstance,Eric Gibson, "JenniferBartlettand the Crisis of Public Art,"New
Criterion 9, no. 1 (September 1990), 62-64. Neoconservative devotion to the rightof
access to public space generally serves, of course, as a rationale for eliminatingpublic
fundingfor the arts, a position outlined in Edward C. Banfield, The Democratic Muse:
Visual Artsand thePublic Interest(New York: Basic Books, 1984).
2. Quoted in theNew YorkPost, 17 March 1989.
3. For a discussion of the language of democracyused duringthe TiltedArc debate see
Rosalyn Deutsche, "Tilted Arc and the Uses of Public Space," the Design Book Review
(Winter,1992).
4. See StuartHall, "Popular Democraticvs. Authoritarian Populism: Two Ways of 'Tak-
ing Democracy Seriously,'" in The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherismand the Crisis of
theLeft(London and New York: Verso, 1988), 123-49.
5. This phrase comes fromNancy Fraser. See her "Rethinkingthe Public Sphere: A
Contributionto the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy," Social Text25/26 (1990),
56-80.
6. In makingthisdistinction,Hall draws on theworkof ErnestoLaclau who, in his Pol-
itics and Idealogy in Marxist Theory(London and New York: Verso, 1977), distinguishes
genuine mobilizations of popular demands and discontentsfrompopulist mobilizations
whichat a certainpointare recuperatedintostatist-ledpolitical leadership.(See StuartHall,
"AuthoritarianPopulism: A Reply to Jessop et al.," in Hard Road to Renewal, 150-60.)
Hall succinctlysummarizesthe differencebetween the two at the end of his essay, "Popu-
lar-Democraticvs. Authoritarian Populism" (see note 3). Referringto the radical right,he
concludes: "What gives it thischaracterare its unceasingeffortsto constructthemovement
towardsa more authoritarian regimefroma massive populistbase. It is 'populist' because
it cannot be 'popular-democratic'"(146, my emphasis).
7. Hall, "Reply to Jessopet al.," 51.
8. DraftDiscussion Reportby the Social PlanningDepartmentabout "A Public ArtPro-
gramforVancouver,"1 June1990.
9. For analyses of redevelopment,see Rosalyn Deutsche, "KrzysztofWodiczko's Home-
less Projection and the Site of Urban 'Revitalization,"' October 38 (Fall 1986), 63-98; and
"Uneven Development: Public Art in New York City," October 47 (Winter 1988), 3-52;
and Neil Smithand PeterWilliams, "From 'Renaissance' to Restructuring: The Dynamics
of ContemporaryUrban Development,"in Neil Smithand PeterWilliams,eds., Gentrifica-
tionof theCity(Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 204-24.
10. Sam Roberts,"The Public's Right to Put a Padlock on a Public Space," New York
Times,3 June1991, B 1.
11. Deutsche, "Uneven Development."
12. Fred Siegel, "Reclaiming Our Public Spaces," CityJournal 2, no. 2 (Spring 1992),
41.
13. Alexander Kluge, "Film and the Public Sphere," New German Critique 24-25
(Fall/Winter1981-82), 213.

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rosalyn Deutsche 53

14. Craig Owens, "The Yen forArt,"contribution to a discussionentitled,"The Birthand

Death of the Viewer: On thePublic Functionof Art,"in Hal Foster,ed., Discussions in Con-
temporaryCulture(Seattle: Bay Press, 1987), 23. I have citedonlypartof Owens's finalsen-
tence,which reads: "And the question of who is to define,manipulate,and profitfrom'the
public' is, I believe, thecentralissue of any discussionof thepublic functionof arttoday."
15. Hal Foster,"Preface," in Foster,ed., Discussions in ContemporaryCulture.
16. The Power Plant,Toronto,Ontario,"Housing: A Right,"22 June-3September1990;
Dia Art Foundation,New York, "If you lived here. ... A Project by Martha Rosler," 11
February-11June, 1989. For documentationof "If you lived here... ." see Brian Wallis,
ed., If you Lived Here. ... The City in Art, Theory,and Social Activism: A Project by
Martha Rosier (Seattle: Bay Press, 1991).
17. For an analysis of Wodiczko's real-estateand homeless projections see Rosalyn
Deutsche, "Architectureof the Evicted," Strategies3 (1990), 159-83.
18. Owens, "Yen forArt," 18.
19. David Trend,"Beyond Resistance: Notes on CommunityCounter-Practice,"After-
image (April 1989), 6.
20. Ibid.
21. George Yiidice, "For a Practical Aesthetics,"Social Text25/26 (1990), 135.
22. Ibid., 136.
23. Trend,"Beyond Resistance,"4.
24. Ibid.
25. Yuidice,"Practical Aesthetics,"135.
26. Jacqueline Rose, "Sexuality in the Field of Vision," in Sexuality in the Field of
Vision (London: Verso, 1986), 231. Barbara Krugerquoted this passage as an epigraphto
her contributionto the Dia panel discussion "The CulturalPublic Sphere," where Kruger
and Douglas Crimpinsisted,in different ways, on therelevanceof sexualityto issues of the
public sphere.
27. Edward W. Said, "Opponents,Audiences, Constituencies,and Community,"in Hal
Foster,ed., The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on PostmodernCulture(PortTownsend,Wash.: Bay
Press, 1983), 135-59.
28. Bruce Robbins, "Interdisciplinarity in Public: The Rhetoricof Rhetoric,"Social Text
25/26 (1990), 115.
29. Bruce Robbins, Introductionto "The PhantomPublic Sphere" (special issue), Social
Text25/26 (1990), 4.
30. Nancy Fraser,"Rethinkingthe Public Sphere."
31. See FredricJameson,"Postmodernism,or The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism,"
New LeftReview 146 (July/August 1984), 53-92, and David Harvey,The ConditionofPost-
modernity:An EnquiryintotheOriginsof CulturalChange (Oxfordand Cambridge,Mass.:
Basil Blackwell, 1989).
32. See Rosalyn Deutsche,"Looking at Homelessness,"in GreenAcres: Neo-Colonialism
in the UnitedStates (St Louis: WashingtonUniversityGalleryof Art,forthcoming).
33. Claude Lefort,"The Question of Democracy," in Democracy and Political Theory
(Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1988), 17.
34. Claude Lefort,"Human Rightsand the WelfareState," in Democracy and Political
Theory,27.
35. Claude Lefort,"Politics and Human Rights,"in The Political Forms ofModern Soci-
ety:Bureaucracy,Democracy, Totalitarianism(Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1986), 251.
36. ErnestoLaclau, "Building a New Left,"in New Reflectionson theRevolutionof Our
Time (London and New York: Verso, 1990), 190.

This content downloaded from 149.156.89.220 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:29:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions