Art + Social Movement =Public Spher

Makiko Horita

Summar

The aim of this paper is to show how the interaction between art
and politics contributes to shape the public sphere.
Connected with social movement, art becomes free from the
con nement of the academism of art institutions and the private
realm of hobbyists, and begins to actualize its potentiality for
transforming society. This connection enables art to gain
autonomy from dominant social power such as capitalism or
administrative power, which are questioned by social movement.
The political cause of the social movement itself alone can
threaten the independence of art, degrading it to a mere
instrument to convey the political message. To prevent this, I
would like to introduce a new type of social movement which is
characteristic in its decentralized, explorative stance towards
achieving its goal. In this formulation of social movement,
everyone can contribute to the reinterpretation and deepening of
the goal, thus creating their own way of expressing it.
The combination with art also bene ts social movement. Coupled
with art, political movements gain celebratory character. They
become non-sectarian, less self-righteous and more inviting for
diverse people. Room for multiple interpretations, which art
enables, creates a democratic platform that is more accessible to
people with diverse viewpoints.
Based on the case studies of two examples which embody the
mixture of art and social movement, I would like to show how this
interaction constitutes the public sphere that meets the changing
demands of society.  

1
fi
y

fi
e

How Art helps to create Public Spac

Makiko Horit

Introductio

Public Space tends to be a subject of homogenization in terms of

its aesthetic character as well as surveillance by powers controlling
it, whether it is a government authority or commercialization.  On
the other hand, Guerilla Public Space struggled for by recent social
movement, such as “Occupy Wall Street”, tries to emancipate such
spaces into a people’s place, where the actions done by everybody
there contribute to the de nition of it.
What is Public for us is never a self-evident matter. We should
always update the de nition of Public to re ect the progress of our
political and social ideas. Any given public space should be a
subject of examination to determine whether it truly represents
the Public of the moment. If it does not, art can be an e ective way
to make the factor which con nes the realization of people’s
desire for the public life visible, and it encourages them to break
down the con nement. A Japanese artist Nobuho Nagasawa said,
“Public Art is no longer about putting art in a public place but it is
about the Art of making places public”1.
In this paper I analyse an example of such art, which I call
Activism Oriented Public Art, to investigate the possibility of
empowering standard activism aiming to realize public space by
theories and experiences gained by it. Coupled with art, political
movement gains explorative, less self-righteous and open-ended
character, which creates a democratic platform that is more
accessible to people with diverse viewpoints.
Based on the case studies I have been conducting since last year
in San Francisco, the city which has often been the birthplace of
such movements that have grown globally and are still productive
in this sphere, I’d like to show how this interaction between art
and social movement constitutes the public sphere that meets the

1 Nobuho Nagasawa: Public Statement

2
n

fi
fi
fi
fi
 

fl

ff
 


changing demands of society. The latest movements characteristic

of this city will be introduced and analyzed.2

(Park)ing Da

A good example of a Public Art Activism is the “Park(ing)Day”, an

artwork founded by ‘Rebar’ in 2005, a collective of artists, activists
and designers based in San Francisco. It is a DIY art project where
people are encouraged to rent a public parking spot for one day
and reclaim it as a park

It originally started with a single parking spot in 2005, which

aroused a lot of interest after they had posted a photo document
of the event on their website. Rebar treated the idea itself as open
source, and applied a Creative Commons license: as long as it was
not used for pro t, they encouraged people to replicate and
reinterpret it. Then many people began sending photos and videos
of their own installations and actions in the parking space in their
neighborhood. Recognizing its potential to become a big
movement, Rebar assured the integrity of the project by the
synchronization of the day (mid-September annually) and
announcements and documents collected and shared by a website
and a Google map. Videos and photo documents of their Park(ing)s
will be collected and shared on the website, and we can visit
Park(ing)s far away afterwards virtually. The (Park)ing Day began
to spread around the world rapidly. In 2011 there emerged 975
(Park)ings in 162 cities in 35 countries on 6 continents. 3

Expansion of Space for Peopl

2 This research is founded by Grants-in-Aid for Scienti c Research of the Japan

Society for the Promotion of Science.
3 http://parkingday.org/archive/

3
y

fi
.

fi
 


As a form of activism, one simple rule makes the e ect very

visible: to transform the parking space on either side of the street
into a park. It ensures participants directly confront the tra c of
this so called public space dominated by automobiles. And they
expand the territory of what they believe to be truly Public at the
frontline, however tiny and temporal the advance might be.
Through this confrontation, the contrast of two di erent worlds
becomes visible for passers-by. They must think about whether we
want a space for automobiles, a symbol of privatization and
fragmentalization of modern life, associated with environmental
pollution, risk for accident, a convenient life with nancial burden,
or a place for people and green, and a slow life in which we have
enough time to hang around. The vision also provokes thoughts
about which side they want to be on, and they become aware of
the choices they are confronting in their own decisions every day,
in which direction they want to shape the future.

While people pay money to rend unintentionally the parking

space for it, “Park(ing) Day” is criticized for being non-threatening
to the system of spatial commodi cation, and for working
completely within market rules.4 However, I would like to point out
that the whole gesture of obeying market rules so obediently—
when participants put their own pocket money into parking
meters, taking satisfaction with such a tiny space of asphalt—is
nothing less than ironic. The very attitude of the obedience to the
market rule exposes paradoxically the harsh situation of modern
urban life, how dominant privatization is, and how marginalized
public space for human beings has been made. We have to pay
money and buy a temporal private space to do something truly
public in a so-called public space! It makes us to reassess and
rethink the every day situations which we take for granted. The
sense of humor breaks down the line which determines what is
commercial and what is subversive.

4 Blaine Merker: Taking Place―Rebar’s absurd tactics in generous urbanism. In:

Je ery Hou (edit.): Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of
Contemporary Cities.

4
ff

fi

fi
ff
ff
ffi
 


It actually triggered discussion about the quality of public streets

in San Francisco, which led to some transformation of space for
automobiles into permanent parks, Parklets, designed by Rebar
also. This transformation was initiated by the city administration
as well as by the private sector. So, we can call “Parking Day”
Public Art in Nagasawa’s sense, that is an art which makes the
place public

Expansion of Space by Peopl

However, the success of the (Park)ing Day is rst and foremost

due to its decentralized DIY character. By this character the
(Park)ing expands not only space for people, but also space by
people which might be more unusual than that in today’s public
space. Sharing video and photo documents on the website seems
to promote a competitive atmosphere which motivates people to
invent an original installation or performance. They began to
interpret the transformation of the parking space to a park in their
own way. The tiny spaces actually began to serve as a venue for
an extraordinary range of creative, engaging, and entertaining
activities. Services and events, such as free concerts, weddings,
bike repair shops, yoga, meditation spaces and community health
clinics were held. This demonstrates their talents, skills and
experiences to create what they believe a truly public space is, one
which re ects their own values, causes and circumstances.

Since everybody can participate in it at the nearest parking space

in their own neighborhood, access to movement becames easy
both physically as well as mentally. It enables people to bring their
everyday life into the (Park)ing. The Critique of Everyday Life” in
the sense of Henri Lefebvre 5 can be practiced there and the use of
space which is otherwise dominated by pragmatism and
commercialism can be diversi ed. It gives streets a human face

5 Henri Lefebvre: Critique of Everyday Life, Verso, 2008.

5
fl
.

fi
fi

and a sense of life like we nd in the streets in South Asian

countries.

The participants give all kinds of clues to their personal life

stories in their performances and installations in the (Park)ings, In
this way the cause of the movement never degrades into an
abstract cliche. As a passersby visits various (Park)ings in
succession, he makes connections among them, while he also
brings his own life stories to each of them. In this way each of
these collective stories will also be integrated with the common
cause of the whole event, about the transformation of the space
from parking lot to park, about what comes next to the car
society. Public Space is rede ned as a river of collective stories
into which personal stories of numerous people ow.

(Park)ing Day not only brings everyday lives to the streets, the
opposite is also true: it promotes the expansion of publicness into
life, while it o ers each participant a good opportunity to re ect
on the publicness of our everyday lives. Which ideas, hobbies,
experiences or talents that I nurture every day are worth sharing
with passers-by, some of whom are total strangers on the street?
Do I live only in my private realm for myself or my family? Is there
no bud of publicness in my life? (Park)ing o ers a space where
“personal is political”. It can be called Activism oriented Public Art
in the sense of the internal expansion of publicness into the
private realm. Our imagination, spontaneity and con dence are
dramatically reclaimed.

Indicator of direct democracy in public spac

From a political point of view, this diversity of spontaneous

expressions shown in a public space can be an indicator of
democracy. If centralized powers which value one viewpoint over
others, control or manipulate us from the outside and exert an

ff

fi
fi
e

ff
fl

fi
fl
 


in uence, there is no plurality of expression, only uniformity. In

art projects, the artists tend to play the role of controller.

Rebar don’t control anything except that the (Park)ing should not
be used for personal pro t. That is a requirement of the Creative
Commons license. But this isn’t the kind of rule which
standardizes and reduces diversity of expression. On the contrary:
the prohibition against pro t sweeps out the attitude to see
everything from the view of private necessity, comfort and
satisfaction which are also very uniform. Sweeping out this
attitude, the (Park)ings are for the most part ensured to be
created for their own sake, for the “Public Happiness”6of sharing
the best thing each person believes that they are able to o er the
society. Thus, the expression becomes a good vessel for
disclosure of identity of the person who creates it. It gains a
spontaneous character and power to initiate new beginnings. As
there are no identical persons, as many worlds as the number of
the participants can be presented in that manner. In this way the
participants able to demonstrate what is important to them to
satisfy their individuality. This successfully diversi es the
expression.

When we think about direct democracy seriously, we should

begin with empowering people’s spontaneous expression. Because
there is no room to begin a dialog if people have the same
opinions. From an educational point of view, diversity of
expressions shown in a public space is crucial in this point. For, no
matter how open and energetic a public space is, if it is only lled
with business people rushing into their workplace or with window-
shoppers, it does not even occur to anyone that they can do things
other than consuming, making money or ful lling responsibilities
for it. If people were surrounded by such things and activities
which inspire them far more than things in shopping malls, they
would nd various―de nitely more autonomous― ways to spend
their free time. Before trying to realize a participatory democracy

6 Hanna Arendt: The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, 2012.

7
fl
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi
fi

ff
fi
 


viewed in terms of competing dialogues and perspectives, what we

urgently need is a democracy viewed in terms of interaction
among di erent senses of values represented intuitionally as
various styles—visual and sound elements in the public space.
Pluralization on the level of perception makes the condition under
which pluralization of viewpoints emerge and dialogue among
them begins. Exactly that constitutes the common world and
ensures the publicness of our lives. That is why Hanna Arendt
wrote:

(・・・)the reality of the public realm relies on the simultaneous

presence of innumerable perspectives and aspects in which the
common world presents itself and for which no common
measurement or denominator can ever be devised. (・・・
Under the condition of a common world, reality is not
guaranteed primarily by the “common nature” of all men who
constitute it, but rather by the fact that, di erences of position
and the resulting variety of perspectives notwithstanding,
everybody is always concerned with the same object. If the
sameness of the object can no longer be discerned, no common
nature of men, least of all the unnatural conformism of a mass
society, can prevent the destruction of the common world, which
is usually preceded by the destruction of the many aspects in
which it presents itself to human plurality.7

Thus, Park(ing) Day” reclaims the public sphere in a double

sense. It transforms a space for automobiles―the symbol of
private life itself―into a public space, a park. The way that the
participants don’t do this inside galleries or in art festivals but in a
city site actually used as a parking space in everyday life,
occupying it suddenly with insurgent, guerrilla tactics, assures the
direct, open interaction between art and society. But more
importantly, the very way in which people reclaim the public
space―totally decentralized yet consolidated―realizes the ideas of
the public sphere as “the simultaneous presence of innumerable

7 Hanna Arendt: The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, 2012, p. 57.

ff
ff
)

perspectives and aspects in which the common world presents

itself”.8

Now I’d like to investigate the possibility of empowering standard

activism aiming to realize public space by theories and
experiences gained by (Park)ing Day

Problems in Activis

Sociologist John Holloway in “Change the World without taking

Power” called this unity of projection and realization “Power-to”-
our power to do things individually as we saw in “(Park)ing Day”.
An ideal condition of a democratic society without any oppression
is that everyone exerts his “Power-to” and nobody is objecti ed
and externally forced to do things. But our world is full of these
external forces which oppress our “Power-to”. He called them
“Power-over”. The pro t incentive of capitalism is an example of
such a “Power-over” under which people in this world su er.
Whenever we compromise our personal ideals and produce
something which is more lucrative, but might damage the
environment, our “Power-to” is oppressed by the “Power-over”.
Thus, a struggle for anti-capitalism or true democracy is
essentially accompanied by recovery of our “Power-to”, power of
self-determination.

But the dilemma we are caught in is that the very process of the
struggle to establish the democracy degrades our actions to a
mere means to attain this goal. “Power-over” can also prevail in
the activism against “Power-over”. Those elements of struggle
which do not appear to contribute to the achievement of the aim
are either given a secondary importance or must be ltered out
altogether. Holloway says, “so many ways of expressing our
re ection of capitalism, so many ways of ghting for our dream of
a di erent society are simply ltered out, simply remain unseen

8 ibid.

fl
ff

fi
fi
.

fi
fi
ff
fi



when the world is seen through the prism of the conquest of

power”9. Then monotonization begins to prevail, such as the
repetition of expressions in mass demonstrations

This monotonization also excludes people who share the aim but
want to stay themselves and explore the goal more deeply. It can
be a fatal blow for the richness of the struggle, because those who
are excluded are likely to be the people who have the most
“Power-to” such as artists and intellectuals. When we want to
extract the most of the creative “Power-to”, we should radically
consider freedom of expression in activism.

However, this violence over people’s “Power-to” is inevitable as

long as we try to take on the power outside us rst and then
change the world. For, it causes division between the aim and the
means. The means and the process become instrumentalized for
the sake of attaining the aim

Creating the world in which we want to liv

Instead, I propose a kind of a Copernian change during which we

concentrate on not seeking power outside us, but nurturing our
power within us. That is our “Power-to”. The purpose of nurturing
the “Power-to” is to utilize it to create the world in which we want
to live around us. There are two simple reasons for doing this.
Firstly, only you can create the world which you want to see. We
can’t entrust the work with those who are in power or who are
trying to take power. Secondly, social change means in the end
creating a new world. This principle is also applicable to those who
want to take power for social change, as long as taking power
doesn’t degrade into the end itself. Then why do they waste so
much time on power games?

In this context it is surprising how perfectly the platform of

(Park)ing Day is arranged. Decentralization of power which is

9 John Holloway: Change the World Without Taking Power, Pluto Press, 2005, p. 16.

10
.

fi
 


crucial tomobilize the most of every participant’s “Power-to” is

assured by the the frame of each parking space. Inside this frame
is an independent territory of each participant where he can
celebrate a new beginning of a world which he wants to see. Even
though it might be as tiny as a parking space for one car,
collectively it will enact a big change. The point is that the space is
lled with genuine “Power-to”.

Spontaneity as a condition of solidarity

However, doesn’t social movement become too amorphous to

make any change when each person refuses to be a means to
attain an aim and remain independent?

When we expand “aim” to “world”, it is possible. A world can be

created by a collaboration of the spontaneous “Power-to” of each
participant. Contrary to attaining an aim, making a world doesn’t
necessarily require instrumentalization of people and process,
because it has open-ended character and allows unity of process
and aims. Then we should rede ne social movement from a mere
means of reaching a political aim to a collaborative process of
creating the world in which we want to live

As in the Occupy Movement, diversity of expression in a social

movement is often accused of having an unclear goal. However, if
we stop de ning clarity only through uniformity of the formulation
of the goal, and rather express clarity through the solidarity in the
collaborative creation of the world, it becomes comprehensible.

When each person exerts their full “Power-to” as an independent

artist to create the world he wants to see, and nobody is
objecti ed or instrumentalized, a joyous atmosphere emerges
which becomes a seedbed for solidarity, co-operation and
willingness to contribute to the public wellbeing. This is something
which the people being totally fragmentalized by working a
compulsory manner under a “Power-over”, have never dreamed of.

11
fi
fi
fi

fi

This paradoxical coexistence of individual subjectivity and

solidarity might be formulated in a heroic belief that there is
something nobody but I can contribute to the creation of the world
I want to see

“Power-to”, freedom to do things creatively, is a vital base for

solidarity and cooperation. It is the condition of spontaneous
expansion of public space from the bottom up

Rede nition of Succes

If we think about freedom of expression in social movement so

radically, we should give up all elements of exclusiveness such as
sectarianism and self-righteousness. In this context to win means
not to overwhelm an enemy, but to make the world we create as
inclusive as possible for all kinds of “Power-to”, in which even an
enemy can be convinced to participate.

Some of the recent social movements show a lot of elements that

indicate evolution in this direction. Even the Critical Mass, the
apparently aggressive activism which highjacks a street by bicycles
is aware of this point. When bicyclists trying to ght with cars
became conspicuous, Chris Carlsson, one of the founders of the
Critical Mass, distributed a billet saying,“ Car drivers are not the
enemy, but our natural allies! (...)The point of Critical Mass, in my
opinion, has always been to create an inviting, celebratory space
that is so contagious that people who might not bike much are
irresistibly drawn to trying it out”.10 And exactly this inviting, all-
embracing and celebratory point brings victory, not damaging
cars! In case of violent confrontation, making a retreat works more
positively, not because we are fearful, but because we don’t want
to waste the time which should be used for creating a more
inviting and celebratory space. I would call it an assertive

10 Chris Carlsson: Protest or Celebration or Something Deeper Still?

http://www.nowtopians.com/my-writings-and-appearances/protest-or-celebration-or-
something-deeper-still

12
fi
.

fi



withdraw. Even in an obviously physical confrontation, power of

expression makes social movement win as a ower put in a gun
especially in this information society where images prevail in light
velocity. It is actually a battle of creativity and sensibility in
communication. Art as the essence of nonviolent activism is being
gradually acknowledged

Sidewalks for Peopl

Now I’d like to introduce another case study of a social

movement inspired by the method of the (Park)ing Day, to prove
that the above strategy actually works as a social movement

The Sidewalks for People is a social movement against the Sit-lie

law, which prohibits people to sit or lie on the sidewalks in San
Francisco from the hours of 7am to 11pm. According to Andy Blue,
one of the founders of the movement, “this unthinkable law for
one of America’s most allegedly liberal cities has been passed
through congress due to a fear of homeless youth in Haight
Street”11. But as the intensi cation of the protest movement
against the law shows, not all people shares this fear. For
traditional San Franciscans, these young people in Haight Street
are a part of the city’s tradition, which symbolizes the tolerance
and all-inclusiveness of the city as a home of dissidents and drop-
outs. Only the middle and upper-class people, who recently make
up a larger proportion of the city population due to the Dot-com
boom and the real estate industry doing business with them,
shared and ampli ed this fear. This is the fear of confronting the
otherness, I would say. And exactly that fear is the most damaging
element against the public sphere, where unexpected encounters
and diversity are celebrated. Andy Blue says, “With the right of the
people to exercise basic freedoms in public space at stake, we

11Andy Blue: Contested Public Space: on the Sidewalks of San Francisco and
around the World, Term Paper for History and Politics of Global Issues in San
Francisco City College, January 24, 2010 (unpublished).

13
fi
e

fi
fl
.

believed we needed to do something positive to counter the

climate of fear. We wanted to exercise and celebrate our right to
use public space in a very positive way that would highlight some
of what the city would be losing were it to pass the sit-lie law”.12

What positive things did they do? Inspired by the (Parking) Day,
originated in the same city- Andy Blue was a frequent participant
in it- he encouraged people to create events on their own initiative
or to participate in events on the sidewalks throughout San
Francisco

The events ranged from concerts and knitting parties to taking a

bath in a handmade bathtub.13 It went far beyond a negative
protest and resistance movement. Because the ways to participate
in the event were fully at their disposal, the movement itself
engaged in explorations and experiments about the wide range of
activities that can be done on the sidewalks, and the whole event
looked like a showcase for the richness of street culture in San
Francisco. Andy Blue says that, the group who initiated the
movement has a plan to continue this periodically, which means
not only the permeation of the activism message, but also the
enabling the accumulation of the street culture in the city through
the practice of this movement. The message of the social
movement and the realization of the message, awakening
problems and showing alternatives—are inextricably united and
happen at the same time

Despite the diversity of the expression shown in this movement,

the participants maintain a strong solidarity in their purpose. They
love the street culture tradition of San Francisco, its freedoms, its
spirit of generosity, and its all-inclusiveness. All of them were
anxious about the city losing these characteristics and becoming
like other cities in the US, where monetary power under pro t
principles is getting more and more dominant. It is becoming
more like cities lled with people who are adherent to the

12 Ibid.
13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-O6KeFdtUg&NR=1

14
.

fi
.

fi

cleansing of the otherness, which is beyond their middle and

upper class value system. Against these value systems, they were
united. The “positive” character of the movement in its full sense
and its cultural richness and diversity was exactly what was
needed to break down the negative barrier of fear.
The Sidewalks for People in 2010 was a big success, with more
than 1,000 participants. It was also rich in the diversity of the
participants. According to Andy Blue, people of all kinds of social
classes and ethnic groups went out on the sidewalks to take part
in the events. One of the striking di erences between the
Sidewalks for people and other social movement events in San
Francisco which Andy Blue has taken part in, was that many people
who had never participated in political movements had taken part
in this one. They are creative people, artists and intellectuals who
have certain political interests but had never dared to participate
in social movement events before, because they don’t like the
rigorous, monolithic manner in which such events are ordinarily
conducted. Leaving the maximum room for freedom of expression,
to determine on their own what they can do on the sidewalks and
how they should do it, was exactly what was needed to attract
them. Now they feel their thoughts and creativity will be rightly
appreciated
This example of social movement shows that diversity of the
actions and an exploring attitude toward the cause doesn’t hurt
the solidarity and the identity of an activist movement.
Although it couldn’t stop the law, I would say it was a success in
the sense that it could show a new type of social movement which
realized people’s desire for public life, empowered the people and
the street culture in San Francisco

Conclusio

In conclusion, I am going to summarize what social movement

organizers can be learned from (Park)ing Day

1, Necessity of a common image for our future world, which is

simple and understandable for everybody, but allows multiple
interpretations and deeper explorations, such as transformation of
a parking space into a park.

15
n

ff
.

2, Necessity of organizing tactics which can mobilize the highest

amount of “Power-to” of any participant. A DIY event works well in
which the organizer o ers only a good platform, to give
participants an opportunity to create the world, leaving the way
of how to actually participate in it fully at their disposal. How
spontaneously, honestly, without alienation can each person
express themselves in the given space becomes crucial.

3, Tolerance to otherness: a humorous atmosphere for example

makes people tolerant and open to odd and unexpected
encounters. What might be considered o ensive under other
circumstances will be accepted as interesting in this context.
Humor dramatically empowers inclusiveness and diversity of
expressions.

4, Intensity of interaction: how intensively and deeply can the

expressions interact with each other, creating a collaboration.
Being together in a geographical space is essential, but using
various forms of information technology supplements it as well.

16

ff
ff