For this blog post, you will write about two works of public art. Both must be art works that (1) we did not see together as a group (though it’s fine if we read about them); (2) that you yourself visit and photograph in person; and (3) that differ in some meaningful way from one another.

Your blog post this week will be a comparative analytical essay of at least 750 words. (It will be graded, unlike the last post, which is Pass/Fail).

In your essay/post, you will include one or more photos of each art work. In addition to an actual picture, you will also verbally recreate each art work and each site by creating an ekphrasis: that is, a verbal picture, a description so vivid that you conjure the work of art for the mind’s eye of the reader. Even a reader who had never been to this site, and never seen this work of art, could get a strong sense of its visual and spatial elements from your words alone. (For an example of an excellent ekphrasis, see Kwon, p. 56; the first two paragraphs of your reading for class).

Description–ekphrasis–is the beginning of meaningful analysis. Your ekphrasis will, here, be augmented by a further layer of critical attention: you will analyze each artwork in depth, using Miwon Kwon’s One Place after Another as a lens. Questions to consider for each artwork include:

  • Which of Kwon’s three paradigms for public art does each artwork fit? Or does it fit none of them–and, if that’s the case, how would you categorize this work of art, and why?
  • How does the work of art interact with its site–the space in which it is situated? Is it indifferent to the site? Integral to it?
  • How does the work of art interact with the people passing through the site, or the larger community in which it’s located?
  • Does the artist’s identity, here, matter? How about the funding body that made the artwork possible? Is knowledge of the artist and funding body available, or invisible, as you view the art?

In a final paragraph, you will reflect on the differences between the works of art you’ve encountered; how is the configuration of artwork and space, and site and community, meaningfully various across these different works of public art?

Finally: give your post an inviting (or witty, or delightful, or informative!) title. DO NOT call it “Blog post #2” or “Public Art essay.” Titles are a marvelous opportunity: to signal your topic and argument, and to draw the reader in. Don’t waste it!

*

A NOTE ON STRUCTURE: Most of you will likely write about one artwork first, then the other, and then produce a sythesizing conclusion. Within your discussion of each work, for some of you, ekphrasis and critical analysis will go hand in hand; for others, you will (for each work) probably write one part first and then the other. I do not dictate structure for this post, and if you deviate from these patterns, that’s fine–in your writing for this class, the form of the essay should serve its function. If your larger point or points are better served with an innovative, surprising structure, go for it.

Write vividly. Make us see what you see!