The concepts, typical practices and influences of public art in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Van Xuguang PhD in Art History Postgraduate student; Department of Industrial Design; Russian State University of Art and Industry named after S. G. Stroganov 125362, Russia, Moscow, Lodochnaya str., 9k1, sq. 44 357899917@qq.com Other publications by this author

Public art is a collection of works of art created specifically for open urban spaces and focused on interacting with the general public, the urban environment and the social context.It should be emphasized that the concept of "public art", used in this study as a basic term, covers historically established artistic practices focused on public perception and the performance of socially significant functions. These practices form the theoretical basis for the emergence of the modern American concept of "public art".The latter term, which has become widespread in the modern academic environment, is mainly associated with a certain typology of art, which was formed in the United States as a result of the implementation of Roosevelt's New Deal policy and the further spread of the American school of art studies in Europe in the post-war period.

First of all, the academic understanding of public art for a long time has been based mainly on theoretical and practical approaches developed in the USA. Special attention was paid to its role and significance in the period after the implementation of Roosevelt's New Deal, as well as the stages of further development and institutionalization.

R. Salvik in his work "Politics in the field of public art - a comparative study" focuses on the transatlantic influence of the American model of public art. In particular, the author notes that in the UK there is a "strong American influence on public art projects," which largely borrow from practices established in the United States, including funding through art institutions, integration with urban regeneration programs, and other structural elements. These data emphasize the predominance of American theoretical and practical frameworks even within the framework of European initiatives in the field of public art^[1]. Cher Krause Knight, in turn, proposed fundamental theoretical approaches to rethinking the essence of public art. It is noteworthy that she defines "public art" not through its spatial affiliation or localization, but as the quality of communicative interaction with the public. In her opinion, in its most public form, art promotes the expansion of opportunities for public participation and allows for multiple, open interpretations, thereby forming a truly dialogical artistic space^[2].

Zhu Kecheng in the article "The historical origin and public manifestation of public Art" emphasizes that most modern researchers associate the emergence of modern public art with the United States, which reflects the prevailing American-centric narrative^[3].However, the author notes that the intellectual origins of public art can be traced back to European Enlightenment thought. The formation of the European public sphere and concepts of publicity in the 18th century laid the conceptual foundation for the future development of public art.In other words, although it was the United States that led the process of institutionalizing public art after the 1960s, Europe provided key early ideas - such as open civic dialogue and memorial culture as a form of collective identity — that anticipated the formation of modern models of public art.The contribution of European countries to the formation and early theoretical formulation of the concept of public art is a fundamental stage that cannot be ignored in the context of studying its historical development. Nevertheless, the European theory and practice of public art had a significant impact on the formation of urban planning strategies, the development of urban sculpture, as well as on the institutional models of the functioning of Public Art as a form of cultural policy.

The emergence of the concept of public art in Europe is connected with the work of the Belgian artist and public figure Eugène Broerman, who in 1892 proposed the idea of "art of regeneration" (L'art Régénérateur) in the hope that art would transform the traditional urban appearance and way of life ^{[4, p.29]}. In 1893, after the founding of the Belgian Association of Public Art, Brerman, being one of its initiators, first used the term "public art" (L'art Public) in an appeal to the government, defining it as "the use of works of art in street and public spaces" ^[5]. His approach to public art was based on the idea that art should go beyond museums and galleries, becoming an integral part of the urban environment. He believed that such art contributes to the formation of cultural identity and the strengthening of public relations. Brerman also noted that public art plays an educational role, increasing the level of aesthetic literacy of the population and stimulating interest in cultural heritage.Thus, Eugene Brehrmann's theoretical views on public art consisted in his desire to make art accessible and meaningful to society by integrating it into public spaces and people's daily lives.

In 1896, the Institut International d'art Public was founded in Brussels, which became one of the first official organizations in Europe dealing with public art. The organization operated on the basis of a paid membership system, seeking to involve the governments of different countries and establish public art committees in these countries. Government officials often held senior positions at the institute.

In 1898, the International Institute of Public Art organized the first International Conference on Public Art (Congrès International d'art Public), to which officials from relevant departments of the participating countries, as well as prominent figures in the field of art and education, were invited. The term "public art" has become officially used in international communications.

Before the outbreak of World War I, four international congresses on public art were held, and the Institut International d'art Public published materials from these congresses on cultural and urban aesthetics, heritage preservation, and education.

From 1907 to 1912, the institute published the French magazine L'art Public, which summarized the work done and formulated the goals of public art as the definition, protection and dissemination of the "public interests of art." Public art was considered as a set of methods and actions aimed at achieving these goals.

Initially, public art practices covered the use of art works on the streets and in the public sphere, but later they were expanded to include art education in families and society; professional art education; teaching art in professional and industrial schools; educational activities in museums and exhibitions; the development of urban design, architecture, protection of historical sites and natural landscapes; theatrical art, performances and festivals; legislation on the protection of public art; as well as documentation and dissemination of relevant materials ^{[6, p.5]}.

These public art practices were mainly focused in the fields of education and urban/rural space formation, emphasizing the importance of art for human development.

Despite the fact that the publication of L'art Public and international congresses on public art were interrupted due to the First World War, and not all the proposed initiatives were implemented in practice, the formulation of the goals of the "public interest of art" marked the formation of the concept of Public art. This belief system continued to influence subsequent thinking and actions in the field of public art.

In 1917, the French Free College of Social Sciences (Le Collège Libre des Sciences Sociales) opened the Academy of Public Art in order to promote higher education in this field, combining it with technical training in urban planning, which allowed Public Art to serve as a means of restoring the urban environment after the war ^[7].

Typical practices of public art in Europe at the end of the 19th century

At the end of the 19th century, Europe was experiencing a clash of concepts of the masses and elites, traditions and modernity, local and global, internal and external. The initiators, guided by the values of "justice, beauty and peace" ^[8], developed a multifaceted interpretation of the "public interests of art".

In the field of education, the public interests of art were understood as a social aesthetic responsibility aimed at achieving justice and beauty. This was expressed, in particular, in the protection of social justice in relation to the landscape, the promotion of traditional aesthetic principles in practical application, as well as in ensuring wide access to art to create social well—being - with the aim of "decorating people's souls so that even ordinary people can become a spiritual aristocracy" ^{[9, p.74]}.

In the field of spatial design, the public interests of art were interpreted as the need to protect local features (sauvegarde des sites), with an emphasis on "avoiding the creation of styles alien to local geography" ^{[10, p.26]}.

Typical public art practices during this period served as a guideline for practical activities, mainly embodying the principles of social aesthetic responsibility and an emphasis on local specifics.

1. Public art practices as a manifestation of social aesthetic responsibility

1.1 Awareness of art sanitation and management of urban and rural landscapes

In early Europe, criticism of Public Art focused on the transformation of urban and natural landscapes, which were exposed to "mediocre, crude symbols" and "abuse of aesthetics" under the influence of the "economically motivated and blind" onslaught of commercial capital. The importance of art sanitation as a means of combating capitalism and industrialization, which are destroying urban civilization, was emphasized, as well as the need for the bourgeoisie to realize its responsibility for maintaining a civilized environment.

The concept of "art sanitation" arose from the desire of state policy to ensure the quality of life in an urban environment and by the end of the 19th century had become synonymous with the management of urban and rural landscapes. During this period, local Public Art committees drew attention to how commercial advertising spoils the visual landscape, and began to interact with government agencies, reaching a consensus on cultural aesthetics, tourism and urban impact, based on the long-term benefits of art sanitation. As a result, appropriate protection, regulation and sanctions measures were developed, which began to be introduced into society through the education system.

The Swiss Committee for Public Art, in collaboration with the Historical Society and the Commission for the Protection of Landscapes, created the Ligue pour la Beauté, whose goal was "to preserve the characteristic features of towns and villages, as well as to protect destroyed picturesque landscapes and historical monuments" ^{[11, p.25]}.

However, in practice, landscape regulation soon turned into a conflict with the state: despite the fact that the initial task of the Beauty League was to encourage the authorities to create a policy to counter the destruction of landscapes by commercial advertising and limit actions that violate art sanitation, the state began to use taxation and fines primarily as a tool of fiscal pressure. This led to the substitution of a socially significant goal with a system of "paid admission by license", causing a new wave of criticism from the Beauty League.

Thus, efforts to protect and rethink urban and rural landscapes reflected the basic principles of public art about the "public interest" and contributed to the formation of its critical spirit, directed against the destructive tendencies of modern reality.

1.2 Traditional aesthetic principles serve a real application among the masses

Influenced by the arts and crafts movement founded by William Morris and his design workshop ^{[12, p.32]}, early European proponents of public art, on the one hand, criticized the banality and lack of originality in popular culture, emphasizing the need to return to traditional aesthetics in order to normalize aesthetic standards; on the other hand, They expressed dissatisfaction with traditional art forms, reproaching them for their isolation from social reality and lack of applied significance.

Proponents of Public Art promoted the integration of traditional aesthetic principles with real life, seeking to introduce art into everyday practice — through architecture, object design and production, directing mass aesthetics. Their goal was not to please the tastes of the general public, but to rationally satisfy the artistic needs of society, emphasizing aesthetic value and functionality.

Professor Louis Cloquet, Dean of the Faculty of Civil Engineering at Ghent University, as well as an artist and public figure, participated in the Workers' Houses project in Belgium, where he sought to introduce elements of the Gothic style into the architecture of everyday environments. He actively developed social initiatives and educational programs aimed at reviving traditional art, advocating the formation of a civilized environment through "simple but sacred art", rejecting excessive decorativism ^[13]. The leadership of public art in the field of mass aesthetics represented a kind of elitist filtration between traditional art and mass culture: by eliminating banal elements of mass production and aspects of traditional art isolated from society, they sought to refine artistic experience and adapt it to real-world application. This allowed the formation of aesthetic norms recognized by the elite and their implementation in architecture, street environment and industrial design.

1.3 Providing opportunities for the masses to get in touch with art through public spaces and civic education

In the second half of the 19th century, European city authorities sought to create an everyday living space with aesthetic taste, encouraging the masses through the experience of elite life to perceive accepted aesthetic norms and virtues.

At the end of the 19th century in Paris, as part of the development of the defensive infrastructure and the park system, territories for boulevards, urban parks and open spaces were prioritized. The adopted urban planning methods and spatial aesthetic principles served as a model for other European cities.

In the process of creating urban spaces as artistic objects, sculptors, artists and architects translated the cultural identity of the city, exerting a subtle influence on the daily life of the population. The Belgian sculptor Constantin Meunier introduced the image of a working man into urban monumental sculpture ^{[14, p.103]}, reflecting the spirit of the city through the figures of representatives of the people. At the same time, government agencies, together with the church, art organizations, and other structures, published publications and pamphlets on public art, overcoming barriers to the dissemination of spatial art. This contributed to the expansion of opportunities for the general public to get acquainted with the objects and initiatives of the urban art space. In addition, the development of artistic civic education provided the masses with the opportunity to participate directly in the creation of art. At the Third International Congress on Public Art, a proposal was put forward to introduce art lessons into school education, both at the primary and secondary levels. It was proposed to include such disciplines as visual arts, music, dance, acting, etc. By initiating the construction of public and outdoor theaters, the state supported the development of collective story productions and art festivals, seeking to attract the masses to participate in stage performances in order to educate future artists. Thus, education in the field of public art strengthened the initiative of the masses in thinking about art, turning them from passive spectators into active participants in the artistic process.

2. The development and influence of the concept of Public Art in early Europe

Although the term "Public art" became generally accepted in Europe and the United States after the middle of the 20th century, the concepts and practices of "monumental art", "municipal art" and "art in public space" in the European context gradually formed the basic structure of public art in the late 19th century. These early practices spread worldwide through various channels in Europe, such as colonization, exhibitions, and art education systems, and became an important source for countries around the world to create their own concepts of "public art."

2.1 The definition of the public good by elites and the ideologies and practices generated by it

The International Institute of Public Art (Institut International d'art Public) continued the traditions of European elite organizations by attracting leaders of states and city administrations to the governing bodies of public art committees through a membership system. This model has contributed to the institutional support of initiatives and activities in this area. Within this organizational structure, elite circles had a significant influence on the formation of discourse. Although the goals put forward by city managers, such as "creating an international scene to strengthen the city's identity, reputation, and international influence," could be presented as focused on the "public good," in practice, Public Art often became a tool for expressing the interests of the elite. This was especially evident in cases where the "public good" meant values and norms defined by the elite and imposed on the masses as a "proper condition." In this context, Public Art did not so much reflect the needs of society as it formed expectations about the thinking and behavior of citizens.

After the First World War, the Academy of Public Art at the French Institute of Social Sciences focused on the social aesthetic responsibility of Public Art, the main purpose of which was to awaken a sense of responsibility to society among representatives of all social strata. This concept is called "social art" ^[15].

Almost simultaneously, in Chicago, the concept of Public Art was integrated into the urban movement for the aestheticization of the urban environment. Within the framework of this movement, works of art were placed in public spaces, and mass artistic events were organized aimed at introducing urban order and virtues into the collective consciousness. These efforts have helped strengthen the citizens' sense of belonging and civic mission towards their city and community, and have been defined as "civic art."

Thus, the practice of Public Art has generated two key paradigms.:

• Art as a management tool is the use of aesthetics and landscape design in order to form aesthetic norms and tastes among various social groups.;
• Art as a means of conveying meanings is the use of urban art objects, public events, and art education to convey political or other ideological messages, appealing to the audience's interest in art itself.

Both paradigms have had a lasting and lasting impact on the development of public art on a global scale.

2.2 Public art practices in urban space as a reflection of political ideas about the public good

Early European public art practices covered such areas as urban space formation, urban environment management, and art education. However, due to the wide range of directions and the variety of activities carried out, the conceptual clarity of the very concept of Public Art decreased. After the First World War, in the context of the urgent need for urban reconstruction, public art temporarily acquired the status of a professional and technical tool in the field of urban planning and architectural design. At the same time, it focused not only on the systemic and scientific aspects of planning, but also on the artistic expression and humanitarian content of the created urban environment. Subsequently, the goals of the "public good in art" were reoriented towards the development of urban spatial aesthetics. Major cities in Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom have begun to develop public policies that confirm the legitimacy, necessity, and procedural mechanisms for introducing Public art into the urban environment, including financial support measures. Terms such as art, art-in-architecture, and art in city space were used to specify the forms of artistic practice. Over time, it is the politically supported sculptural objects, murals, and architectural decorative elements that have become the most recognizable and enduring forms of Public Art. In 1948, a sculpture exhibition was held in London's Bassett Park, organized by representatives of the National Committee together with the artist Henry Moore. The central theme of the event was the discussion of the relationship of sculpture with the surrounding spatial environment. From that moment on, Public Art and its interaction with space became the subject of art criticism and analysis.During the period of the Republic of China, the ideas of Public Art were already reflected in the urban planning plans of large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. These ideas were proposed by leading Chinese planners, including Zhu Qikang and Dong Daew, which attests to the early influence of European public art on shaping China's urban environment. In the late 1970s, Chinese sculptors began to purposefully study the experience of European cities. Inspired by what they saw, they put forward the concept of "urban sculpture", which became the forerunner of the Chinese version of Public Art. In this context, special attention was paid to such signs of the "public" as openness and accessibility of public space, interpretability of artistic images, as well as common associations between works of art and collective perception, which together formed the spirit of Public Art.

2.3 Cooperation and rivalry caused by the alignment of public interests by many participants

At that time, European public art organizations, together with government agencies, developed a landscape management policy, which can be considered as a form of coordinated interaction between government representatives and other stakeholders — the church, educational institutions and art associations. Representatives of urban planning structures, financiers and artists were involved in the practice of public art, and the concept of "public good in art" was no longer uniquely defined exclusively by government agencies. As the processes of urban renovation and renovation develop, the coordination of the interests of various participants becomes more and more difficult: local managers are focused on creating a positive image and strengthening local influence, operators are focused on economic efficiency and investment attractiveness, artists are focused on creative self—realization and artistic expression, and the urban public is focused on aesthetic perception of space and emotional inspiration from art. All these aspects significantly influence the implementation of the concept of "public good in art" within the framework of specific practices. The forms of Public art are becoming more diverse again: numerous new forms are emerging in the urban space, which to a certain extent reflects the ideals of early European public art. In recent years, the development of public art in China has also been based on the principles of coordinating the interests of many participants, especially in the context of the transformation of the urban environment, accompanied by the emergence of new spaces and actors. Among them are representatives of government bodies, art institutions, residents of urban communities, specialized social groups, commercial companies, universities, as well as other non—profit and commercial organizations. These actors are actively involved in the organization and implementation of public art projects, contributing to the strengthening of its social functions in such areas as urban image formation, community development, civic identification and understanding of current social issues. At the same time, in some cases, artistic and spatial aesthetics are on the secondary plane or even ignored. In addition, the implementation of public art projects within the framework of urban renewal is influenced by industrial and economic factors. In some cases, this raises doubts about the relevance of such initiatives to the public interest, as stakeholders seek access to increasingly valuable public spaces and resources. In this regard, the discussion of the concept of "public" is increasingly associated with the need to protect public interests and ensure "fairness" in a competitive environment between multiple actors. It also encourages an in-depth study of such phenomena as market consumption, gentrification, and social justice ^{[16, p.23]}.

2.4 Public participation, stimulated by the choice and search for public interests by the masses

Public art in public space was initially focused on establishing communication with the audience, including with an unprepared audience ^{[17, P.71]}. Despite the fact that some early European works of Public Art expressed admiration for the image of the masses, criticism and the desire for control remained the dominant attitude towards mass culture within the framework of early European Public Art. The masses were perceived primarily as a single collective, rather than as a collection of individuals — as objects that should be trained, controlled, and guided. Their aesthetic preferences were often assessed as banal, and their subjective perception and participation in artistic creation were either ignored or deliberately excluded from the process. It can be argued that the contribution of early European public art was primarily to take art beyond creating and serving the interests of a limited circle of people. However, in that historical period, the relationship between the masses and the so-called "public good" was largely interpreted through the prism of elite beliefs and values. With the growth of political subjectivity, economic potential, innovation activity and the socio-cultural influence of the broad masses, the boundaries between the elite and society gradually began to blur. Under these conditions, the masses themselves have acquired the ability to participate in shaping and defining the concepts of "public interests." Artists began to strive for a compromise interpretation of the features and demands of mass culture, gradually integrating its elements into the semantic structure of their own artistic works. At the same time, the masses themselves began to actively explore new forms of participation in defining public interests and expanding their content. Initiators and operators of Public Art projects began to actively encourage the participation of the general public in the development of concepts, interpretation and critical understanding of works. The masses were involved in the analysis of artistic images and thematic structures, in an attempt to reveal their deep symbolic meaning, in the search for personally significant associations, as well as in correlating the idea of "public good in art" with their own spiritual and aesthetic experience. Discussions about the "public" in the context of the participation of the general public consider categories such as "accessibility of space" and "equity of interests" as key prerequisites. This allows us to understand how art influences various social groups, as well as how it guides people's spiritual activity and associative thinking. In this context, the educational activities of the International Institute of Public Art in the field of education have played an important role, influencing the formation of value orientations and stimulating an active search for the "public good in art" on the part of the masses themselves. Under the influence of artistic creativity and educational initiatives in the field of aesthetic education, the level of aesthetic literacy of the general public has increased significantly. In the process of perceiving art, viewers became more aware of its potential to awaken deep reflection and form critical thinking. It can be argued that the discussion of socially significant topics based on elements of mass culture has contributed to the expansion of the public sphere of art. The independent choice and search for public interests on the part of the masses have become an important factor in the realization of the concept of "public good in art" at the spiritual and cultural level, which, in turn, is one of the key values of public participation in public art.

Conclusion

An analysis of historical sources relating to the period of the formation of the term "Public Art" suggests that the practice of Public Art in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a guiding influence on its development and international relations around the world. Moreover, there is reason to believe that it was during this period that the conceptual basis for recognizing Public Art as an independent and universal cultural concept was laid. The widespread international dissemination of these ideas contributed to the institutionalization and consolidation of the concept of Public Art in the global cultural and urban discourse. To date, the assessment of the boundaries and value of Public Art continues to be guided by a common understanding of the goals of "public interest in art." However, the very concept of "public interest in art" is interpreted in different socio-cultural and political contexts, which contributes to both meaningful diversification and the dynamic development of public art practices. It should be noted that the concept of "public", which is widely discussed today, did not initially occupy a central place in the early concept of Public art, but was the result of a theoretical generalization and analytical filtering of stable features of artistic practice. At the same time, the content of Public Art itself continues to be in the process of continuous development and transformation, reflecting changes in public relations, aesthetic attitudes and institutional models. Today, in the process of development of both urban and rural areas, there is an increase in the number of policies, initiatives, spaces and organizations designated by the concept of "Public Art". The study of the origins and fundamental goals of this concept in a historical context contributes to the formation of a continuous and systematic picture of knowledge about Public art, becoming the key to its deep understanding. Historical and theoretical analysis allows not only to interpret the accumulated experience and value orientations of Public Art more accurately, but also contributes to a more conscious and appropriate application of this concept in modern conditions. This, in turn, supports the processes of localization of public art practices and contributes to the formation of sustainable mechanisms for their implementation in various socio-cultural contexts.

To summarize, although a single and mature term "Public Art" had not yet been formed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the practice of public art during this period, focused on monumental sculptures, urban improvement, municipal art, public education, etc., had a lasting impact on the world. on many levels, including language, institutions, ideas, cities, and artistic paradigms. He laid a solid foundation for the professionalization, institutionalization, socialization and aestheticization of world public art, as well as opened a historical space for the diverse development of modern public art in a global context.