Photographers face a special issue when presenting existing art that’s exhibited in a public space. The challenge is to avoid stealing someone else’s creation for one’s own gain.
In my view, there is no problem taking a photograph of the art for one’s private enjoyment. But to publish it abroad, as if the photographer had done something creative by copying it, may stretch an ethical boundary.
Unlike personal art or gallery art, public art does not hang in isolation or on a blank gallery wall. So the solution to the public art dilemma is often a photographer’s joy: set the art in its current spatial context.
Because it stands in a distinct location, its existence there makes a comment on that particular context. And at the same time, the location is commenting back on the art.
Contemplating gallery art. Photo by Jerome Conway
That’s the dialogue that makes public art so captivating; see Pensive Woman as an example.
In most cases, the art would not have so powerful an impact if painted on canvas or hung in a gallery. In many of my photographs, I find that bricks, blocks, pavement, and other aspects of the environment, even passers-by, make a crucial statement: this particular art at this moment, in this particular place.
Sometimes shifting the context can have a similar effect. There’s a sculpture of a bull, for instance, standing in the hustle and bustle of Chinatown. But if you isolate just its head and shoulders, removing it from the neon, the noise, and complexities of the city, setting it against a clear blue sky, you can give it a fresh context. To me, the image Red Bull is calming, contemplative.
I believe that presenting public art in-context is an ethical way of photographing it. It both respects the creativity of the original artist and highlights the environment, in a way that enriches our understanding of the art.
Click an image below to see more details.
