Which were the main conclusions of the conference on Friday [20th of April]?

The main conclusion of the conference was that it is necessary in Bucharest a debate about public space, a multi-disciplinary debate which should involve both culture professionals and local authorities. The participants at the conference brought examples for the way in which art can activate this debate and can present a pulse for the state of democracy. As the projects developed by artist Olaf Metzel showed, art in public space aims at creating a situation in which the inhabitants of the city are challenged to become active partners in the discussion about their city and to acknowledge this city as “theirs”. Presenting the heated debates generated by his projects, the artist showed that the public’s reaction constitutes at least half of the substance of a work in public space.
The participants at the round table in the second part of the conference developed further on this idea and underlined the necessity of determining the inhabitants of Bucharest to get used (again) with the fact that the city is a dynamic place which they should create through their (re)actions. The difficulty of persuading public authorities that critical projects of art in public space can transform the city’s inhabitants from passive spectators to active citizens and can thus contribute to the development of a democratic society was mentioned by the participants, obtaining permission for this kind of projects being a long and difficult project anywhere, not just in Romania. What is more important though is the responsabilization of those who should decide the way in which public space is administrated and organized.

How do you think you’ll manage to establish connections between the artistic milieu and authorities? At the conference you invited both the mayor and the director of the Romanian Cultural Institute. How was their presence justified (more than their being partners in the project)?

As this project is not an isolated artistic event and adresses the city’s inhabitants as citizens who are participating in the creation of a democracy, it is essential the participation of personalities who have an important role in public institutions. Their invitation to participate in the project follows not just an image aim, but also tries to involve these institutions on long term in the project. As there was noticed at the conference, for the moment this kind of initiative comes most often from the part of the foreign cultural institutes, but it is necessary that it becomes a constant concern of local and national authorities and institutions, even that it becomes permanent in the form of an independent institution for public art.

More than a successful project, do you think the effort of curators and artists will be seen concretely in what we call « Bucharest’s public space »?

A successful project always has concrete results, these can already be noticed for the project in Bucharest in the interest which the project created for the cultural personalities of the capital. The aim of this project is not however “the embellishment” and furnishing of the city, that’s why the results will be measured through the degree in which the city’s inhabitants become more aware of their role in configuring public space as a medium in which they interact with the others more than with an ensemble of buildings and streets, in which the city is a frame for social relations.
In the view of Horia-Roman Patapievici, the Romanian sense of mimicry towards successful actions will determine the replication of this project, but this can be seen positively, and even more, it has to be understood not as a formal reproduction, but as a model of critical attitude which, if practiced constantly, can withdraw the public space from the political and commercial interests and make it re-enter the property of inhabitants.

An interview realized by George Onofrei with Raluca Voinea, for
Suplimentul de Cultură  Nr. 125, 28 Aprilie-04 Mai 2007