Paper short abstract:

The paper will explore on concrete examples the problematic function of contemporary arts in public space.

Paper long abstract:

Utopia by its very origin was a vision, a systematical daydream: playful Renaissance literature provided a visionary "nowhere" for critique of and imaginary experiments with the actual reality. During the Enlightenment this literary genre gradually developed to philosophical tractate and a serious plans for social engineering. In all their variants they provided models for spatial organization of the perfect society: from the phalansteries of Fourier, via the geometrical departmentalization of France and the "Haussmann-ization" of Paris, up to Courvoisier's "the city of tomorrow' utopias moved closer to urban planning - they envisioned articulated urban units, models of ideal distribution of working and resting zones, transport routes, private and public spaces etc. .

In the meantime the modern public sphere emerged and moved into opposite, non-spatial direction. Starting from French salons and English teahouses it transcended all concrete forums and expanded toward ideal communicative space of huge social agents (humankind, civilization, Europe, nations, classes, races etc.).

Given these two centripetal historical developments - can public space be utopian today? There are opinions, insisting that contemporary public arts are the only possible agent of such secondary "utopeanization" of public space, capable of including freedom, flexibility, and imagination in it.

But is that really the case? Contemporary arts have problems of their own: narcissism and scandals, pressure of arts markets, self-isolation (although on global scale) into professional networks having little to do with public mission and external audiences.

The paper will explore on concrete examples the problematic function of contemporary arts in public space.