We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Appointed - chosen by one person or a small group of people. Some positions in government are filled by people who are appointed by other public officials. Supreme Court justices, members of the President's Cabinet, and directors of many federal agencies are appointed by the President. All people appointed by the President have to be approved by the Senate, through the confirmation process...
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia reportedly asked the above question to Benjamin Franklin, who had taken part in the secret deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His response underscores the responsibility that citizens have in maintaining this experiment known as The United States of America, the success of which rests upon civic engagement.
The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement finds in their report, Civic Engagement and the Changing Transition to Adulthood:
“Today’s young adults are less engaged in civic and political activities than their predecessors were 30 years ago. One reason, we argue, is that other aspects of young adulthood have also changed dramatically….As a result, it is not surprising that voting and other forms of engagement are also being delayed. The delay is nevertheless harmful because young adults lose political and civic influence and opportunities to develop skills and networks.”
Unfortunately, rates of civic engagement have been fading for decades this Wallethub study explores evidence of a growing lack of political engagement among all Americans. Why has this once-cherished American value declined in the last fifty-odd years, and what can we do to reinvigorate it? Why is civic engagement so important?
Listen to The Civic Leader Podcast for an audio version of this brief.
Running for local office is one of the best ways to make a difference in a community, but most people don’t know where to even begin. In Austin, Texas, it’s not so difficult with the ATXelerator program . The program seeks to identify, educate, and support local civic leaders and the general public regarding public policy and service, and its three-month program specifically trains and educates potential candidates for local offices such as city councils or local boards and commissions. Mentors in the program are current or former elected officials and community leaders, who teach participants classes on various issues pertaining to communities from land use and economic development to social equity and homelessness.
What makes the ATXelerator program stand out is its tech-accelerator model – like Shark Tank , but applied to local politics . Participants are immersed in the world of government operations and issues facing their community, and end their experience with a pitch that allows them to propose a policy platform that they would advocate in a hypothetical race. Regardless of the route participants take after they complete their training, the program seeks to give citizens the tools they need to “ handle the big issues that growing cities face .”
Why it Matters
Democracy – and in our case, a federal republic – depends on citizens’ participation. When citizens are engaged, they can exchange ideas, invest in finding solutions and employ civilized discourse to address the issues facing their communities. People have the freedom to participate in and influence government policy, acting as a check on the government. The media are also present and independent of government influence, and provide equal access to information. All of this unites people under a shared purpose , which builds trust, empathy, and human connections, and support bases.
See this TED talk about civic engagement and how one expert is making it “sexy” again:
This resource was part of our Election 2020 collection, designed to help you teach about voting rights, media literacy, and civic participation, in remote and in-person settings.
We live in a time of great tension and conflict in democracies around the world. Elections in 2016 and 2017—in England, the United States, France, and Germany—have both revealed and exacerbated deep divisions within these societies, raising fundamental questions about the strength and fragility of democracy. In this lesson, we start to help students understand these challenges by examining the idea of democracy itself.
As we seek to define democracy, we might also consider the relationship between a democratic government and the freedom and liberty we expect it to provide. In a speech given in 1944 by federal judge Learned Hand to 150,000 newly naturalized citizens in New York’s Central Park, Hand remarked:
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. 1
Like Judge Hand, political scientists today view democracy as a multidimensional concept and look at more than a country’s leaders, laws, and constitution to assess its health. They also study a variety of other factors, such as a society’s culture and institutions, both of which are created by the people and shaped by history. Culture includes a society’s “moral universe,” its unwritten rules of right and wrong, of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Those unwritten rules can influence the choices of leaders, especially when breaking the rules will offend enough citizens to cost the leader public support. Institutions include courts, political parties, government bureaucracies, schools, unions, professional organizations, industries, and other organizations through which large groups of individuals collectively influence the lives and opinions of citizens and the choices of leaders.
In this lesson, we will help students think about the definition of democracy and then consider how it might relate to the communities and culture in which they live and participate. In later lessons, we'll look more closely at what strengthens and weakens democracy.
- 1 : Learned Hand, Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand, ed. Irving Dilliard (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952).
- Create a Working Definition of Democracy
- Begin by asking students to brainstorm words or phrases they associate with the word democracy. What comes to mind when they hear the word democracy? Students can record their ideas in their notebooks.
- Next, pass out the reading What Is Democracy?. Read each quotation aloud (or ask students to do so). Then give students a few minutes to reflect on the quotations on their own, adding to their brainstorming from the previous step. Ask: What new information and ideas do these quotations give you about what democracy can be?
- Ask students to share their brainstormed lists with each other in pairs. Encourage them to borrow ideas from each other, or to refine their ideas based on what they learn from their classmates. Then have students share some of their ideas aloud. Write these ideas on the board to create a class brainstorming list.
- Because democracy is both a concrete form of government and a societal aspiration, it is important for students to know that they are trying to define something that is hard to define. Instead of trying to create one definition for democracy, lead students through the following steps:
Explore the Relationship between Democracy and Community
Progressive reformers made the first comprehensive effort within the American context to address the problems that arose with the emergence of a modern urban and industrial society. The U.S. population nearly doubled between 1870 and 1900. Urbanization and immigration increased at rapid rates and were accompanied by a shift from local small-scale manufacturing and commerce to large-scale factory production and colossal national corporations. Technological breakthroughs and frenzied searches for new markets and sources of capital caused unprecedented economic growth. From 1863 to 1899, manufacturing production rose by more than 800 percent. But that dynamic growth also generated profound economic and social ills that challenged the decentralized form of republican government that characterized the United States.
The Progressive movement accommodated a diverse array of reformers—insurgent Republican officeholders, disaffected Democrats, journalists, academics, social workers, and other activists—who formed new organizations and institutions with the common objective of strengthening the national government and making it more responsive to popular economic, social, and political demands. Many progressives viewed themselves as principled reformers at a critical juncture of American history.
Above all else, the progressives sought to come to terms with the extreme concentration of wealth among a tiny elite and the enormous economic and political power of the giant trusts, which they saw as uncontrolled and irresponsible. Those industrial combinations created the perception that opportunities were not equally available in the United States and that growing corporate power threatened the freedom of individuals to earn a living. Reformers excoriated the economic conditions of the 1890s—dubbed the “Gilded Age”—as excessively opulent for the elite and holding little promise for industrial workers and small farmers. Moreover, many believed that the great business interests, represented by newly formed associations such as the National Civic Federation, had captured and corrupted the men and methods of government for their own profit. Party leaders—both Democrats and Republicans—were seen as irresponsible “bosses” who did the bidding of special interests.
In their efforts to grapple with the challenges of industrialization, progressives championed three principal causes. First, they promoted a new governing philosophy that placed less emphasis on rights, especially when invoked in defense of big business, and stressed collective responsibilities and duties. Second, in keeping with these new principles, progressives called for the reconstruction of American politics, hitherto dominated by localized parties, so that a more direct link was formed between government officials and public opinion. Finally, reformers demanded a revamping of governing institutions, so that the power of state legislatures and Congress would be subordinated to an independent executive power—city managers, governors, and a modern presidency—that could truly represent the national interest and tackle the new tasks of government required by changing social and economic conditions. Progressive reformers differed dramatically over how the balance should be struck between those three somewhat competing objectives as well as how the new national state they advocated should address the domestic and international challenges of the new industrial order. But they tended to agree that those were the most important battles that had to be fought in order to bring about a democratic revival.
Above all, that commitment to remaking American democracy looked to the strengthening of the public sphere. Like the Populists, who flourished at the end of the 19th century, the progressives invoked the Preamble to the Constitution to assert their purpose of making “We the People”—the whole people—effective in strengthening the federal government’s authority to regulate society and the economy. But progressives sought to hitch the will of the people to a strengthened national administrative power, which was anathema to the Populists. The Populists were animated by a radical agrarianism that celebrated the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian assault on monopolistic power. Their concept of national democracy rested on the hope that the states and Congress might counteract the centralizing alliance between national parties and the trusts. In contrast, the progressives championed a new national order that completely repudiated the localized democracy of the 19th century.
In their quest for national community, many progressives revisited the lessons of the Civil War. Edward Bellamy’s admiration for the discipline and self-sacrifice of the Civil War armies was reflected in his enormously popular utopian novel Looking Backward (1888). In Bellamy’s utopia, men and women alike were drafted into the national service at the age of 21, on the completion of their education, where they remained until the age of 45. Bellamy’s reformed society had thus, as his protagonist Julian West notes with great satisfaction, “simply applied the principle of universal military service,” as it was understood during the 19th century, “to the labor question.” In Bellamy’s utopian world there were no battlefields, but those who displayed exceptional valour in promoting the prosperity of society were honoured for their service.
Bellamy’s picture of a reformed society that celebrated military virtues without bloodshed resonated with a generation who feared that the excessive individualism and vulgar commercialism of the Gilded Age would make it impossible for leaders to appeal, as Abraham Lincoln had, to the “better angels of our nature.” His call to combine the spirit of patriotism demanded by war with peaceful civic duty probably helped to inspire the philosopher William James’s widely read essay The Moral Equivalent of War (1910). Just as military conscription provided basic economic security and instilled a sense of duty to confront a nation’s enemies, so James called for the draft of the “whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature,” which would do the rugged jobs required of a peaceful industrial society.
James’s proposal for a national service was not as ambitious as the one found in Bellamy’s utopian society moreover, James called for an all-male draft, thus ignoring Bellamy’s vision of greater gender equality, which inspired progressive thinkers such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman. But both Bellamy and James expressed the core progressive commitment to moderate the American obsession with individual rights and private property, which they saw as sanctioning a dangerous commercial power inimical to individual freedom. Indeed, progressive presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and the philosopher John Dewey, strongly supported America’s entry into World War I, not only because they believed, with President Wilson, that the country had a duty to “make the world safe for democracy,” but also because they acknowledged that there was no moral equivalent for the battlefield. Most progressive reformers held a common belief in civic duty and self-sacrifice. They differed significantly, however, over the meaning of the public interest and how a devotion to something higher than the self could be achieved.
What Are Examples of Civic Responsibility?
Examples of civic responsibility include voting, picking up litter, participating in local government and volunteering in the community. Civic responsibility refers to actions that are not required by law but are helpful to the community and involve citizens working for the common good.
Civic responsibility can also include helping promote community activities, encouraging corporate giving to help the community, working to register voters, advocating for the needy, obeying all laws and behaving in an ethical manner. Activities that fulfill civic responsibilities typically fall under the categories of respecting laws but dissenting when necessary, establishing balance between the responsibilities and rights of citizens, addressing social problems, working to include all citizens in the democratic process, questioning government, using community resources wisely, and negotiating differences among citizens.
The concept of civic responsibility was first recorded in ancient Rome, where citizens wanted to make contributions for the good of the whole society. The idea was included in the U.S. Constitution, and by the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea was commonly manifested through volunteer participation in fire departments and public works projects.
Civic responsibility differs from civic duty, which consists of actions that are legally required of citizens. Examples of civic duty are paying taxes, registering for the draft, attending school and serving on juries.
Defining Public History: Is It Possible? Is It Necessary?
For all the talk of public history that we have been hearing for more than 25 years, it is a little awkward that historians are still uncertain about what "public history" might actually mean. Even the National Council on Public History (NCPH) has had difficulty defining the term. After considerable internal discussion, NCPH board members recently suggested that public history is "a movement, methodology, and approach that promotes the collaborative study and practice of history its practitioners embrace a mission to make their special insights accessible and useful to the public." That only triggered further debate among members. Everyone, it seems, has a different definition. 1
Academics tend to think of public history as a field of study, like one of the nearly 300 specialized subjects that the American Historical Association lists when it asks its members to identify their research and teaching interests. More socially engaged historians, on the other hand, consider public history a calling designed "to help people write, create, and understand their own history." 2 Still others believe public history should influence the formulation of public policy. But a majority probably just defines the field by the workplace: academic history, they assume, is practiced within the university, public history elsewhere. So perhaps it is fruitless to seek consensus on a single definition. When all is said and done, public history may even be like jazz or pornography: easier to describe than define, and you know it when you hear it or see it.
Chances are, the term "public history" would have seemed superfluous when the American Historical Association was founded in 1884. At the time, the AHA sought to professionalize history, make it more scientific, and build and serve audiences among local historical societies, teachers, amateur historians, and just about anyone who was interested in the past. This changed when the AHA evolved into a more strictly scholarly association, leaving the business of communicating with the public to museums and historic sites, community organizations, history buffs, and of course the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH), which split from the AHA in 1940. The birth of the public history movement in the 1970s was, arguably, a response to the rift that had grown between historians and a call for the profession to return to its more public roots. 3
However we define or describe it, public history seems to have established itself in just a few short years&mdashcertainly on college campuses, where many diverse public history programs have helped invigorate a profession arguably at risk of becoming overly self-absorbed and even irrelevant. Graduates of these programs, and of history programs generally, have found more and more work outside the university: in the historic preservation and museum fields, in community history projects, in government agencies, even in private businesses&mdashand wherever they have gone, these young historians have raised professional standards and enhanced the way people understand the past.
Thanks in part to university-trained historians in the National Park Service, for example, the agency now interprets Civil War battlefields in the context of the war's causes and effects, not just as hallowed fields of valor on which military strategists competed against each other in deadly games of chess. 4 In New York, Philadelphia, and Providence, private and public institutions have teamed with community activists to let people in on the news that slavery was once a very real part of their cities' histories. Preservationists have worked to preserve cultures as well as buildings and expand their audiences beyond the privileged few. Rapidly changing technology has enabled historians, especially younger ones, to work with electronics experts, graphic designers, educators, and others to bring good, professional history to a public that would have been hard to envision even a few years ago.
The question is: if historians in and out of the academy are trained in the same institutions, if they share an educational mission, and if they produce work that holds up to professional scrutiny, then what is the difference between public historians and more traditional ones? Perhaps it is simply the fact that public historians work with and for people outside the profession, and academics, particularly the ones in places that only accept a narrow definition of history-related work as a factor in tenure and promotion decisions, toil mainly among themselves. This would, however, miss the point. The relationships that historians have with their audiences are not so simple. Many would rightly agree with Michael Frisch, who once famously suggested that historians and their audiences learn from each other and share authority for creating a more meaningful and usable past. On the other hand, some public historians cede too much authority to the public. John Durel and Anita Nowery Durel, for example, recently suggested (in an essay published in History News, the newsletter of the AASLH) that nonprofit historical organizations such as museums and historic sites adopt a business model based on meeting audience expectations. In their view, audiences would be composed primarily of institutional members and affinity groups. Instead of historical interpreters, sites would employ "facilitators" of peer learning to help members experience the "spirituality" of historic places. Proponents of "civic dialogue" contend that, just as there are many valid feelings about a work of art, then so are there many historical "truths." Everyone, they assume, understands the past as authoritatively as everyone else&mdashand, in AASLH Chair Barbara Franco's words, the "role of the historian or scholar in civic dialogue must be focused on creating safe places for disagreement rather than on documenting facts or achieving a coherent thesis." 6
This notion appears generously democratic to its advocates, but arguably a historian's professional expertise does not limit democracy. It enables it. 7 That is, in a rational society in which we take "from each according to his ability" and give "to each according to his need," people may be equal, but they do not all have the same abilities. Physicians tend to the sick, for example, architects design buildings, and historians research and interpret the past. There are many different kinds of historians, of course, but the good ones recognize that in a democracy understanding, interpreting, and communicating history brings with it a heavy burden of responsibility. One has only to recall Orwell's insight that "he who controls the present controls the past he who controls the past controls the future."
Consider for a moment that most historians know that the Founding Fathers were more influenced by the Enlightenment than by the Bible, that the Holocaust really happened, and that Saddam Hussein never planned the attacks of September 11th. There are, of course, lots of people who understand things differently. Why? Possibly because they are influenced by those who interpret the past more loudly&mdashif less rationally&mdashthan others, often on radio, television, and the internet, or in churches, bars, and political campaigns. If we have learned nothing else in recent years, it is that history is very powerful and can be dangerous in the wrong hands, whether in local communities or the nation's capital. It seems that in an idealized marketplace in which everyone is his or her own expert and all ideas are equal, self-proclaimed champions of democracy can legitimize their potentially unlimited authority, not by grounding their truth in objective, scientifically determined facts, but by concocting and selling self-serving histories that play on public fears, prejudices, and greed. Of course, not all ideas are equal. Historians know this, and from time to time one wishes that they would be more willing to do the hard work it takes to establish the same authority with non-historians that they hold among themselves. In an ideal world, historians could help sanction and limit social and political power by ensuring that the understanding of the past on which the public shapes its future is factual, accurate, comprehensible, meaningful, useful, and resistant to cynical manipulators who sell snake oil as historical truth.
None of this provides us with a single definition for public history, although it does suggest that, in a democracy at least, the discipline's practitioners are educators who neither deny their expertise nor keep it to themselves. Whether they work in classrooms, museums, or historic sites, they listen respectfully to the people with whom they share authority and learn from them&mdashbut in the end, they take responsibility for making the final edits on a community's (or a nation's) historical narrative. Isn't this what those 19th-century historians had in mind when they founded the American Historical Association? Isn't it ironic that the public history movement will have succeeded when we return to a time when the need for a definition of "public history" is once again superfluous?
&mdashRobert Weible, a former president of the National Council on Public History, is state historian and chief curator at the New York State Museum.
1. Cathy Stanton, "'What Is Public History?' Redux," Public History News 27:4 (September 2007).
2. Ronald J. Grele, "Whose Public? Whose History? What Is the Goal of a Public Historian?" The Public Historian 3:1 (winter 1981), 46.
3. For a glimpse into early relations between academics and state and local historians in AHA, see Ian Tyrrell, "Good Beginnings: The AHA and the First Conference of Historical Societies, 1904," History News 59:4 (autumn 2004), 21&ndash24. The Organization of American Historians, meanwhile, was not the predominantly scholarly group it is today when founded as the Mississippi Valley Historical Society. It, too, promoted close relationships between scientifically and nationally minded academics and regionally oriented historical society members. See Ian Tyrell, "Public at the Creation: Place, Memory, and Historical Practice in the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 1907&ndash1950," Journal of American History 94:1 (June 2007), 19&ndash46.
5. Michael Frisch, A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990).
6. John Durel and Anita Nowery Durel, "A Golden Age for Historic Properties," History News 62:3 (summer 2007), 7&ndash15 and Barbara Franco, "Public History and Civic Dialogue," OAH Newsletter 34:2 (May 2006), 3.
7. See Kevin Mattson, "The Book of Liberal Virtues," The American Prospect, 17:2 (February 2006).
In many respects, civic republicanism remains a still underdeveloped political doctrine. Further work is required in all the areas discussed above, and there are many issues central to the concerns of contemporary political theorists and philosophers that contemporary civic republicans have only recently begun to examine. Among the latter, there are now at least initial treatments of multiculturalism (Laborde 2008 Lovett 2010 Honohan 2013 Bachvarova 2014), education policy (Peterson 2011 Hinchliffe 2014 Macleod 2015), and intergenerational justice (Beckman 2016 Katz 2017) among other topics, though substantial work certainly remains to be done. Nevertheless, civic republicanism is a dynamic and growing field, which stands to make continuing positive contributions to debate in contemporary social and political theory.
Public Art Definition, History, Types
In theory, the term 'Public Art' (community or municipal art) denotes any work of art which is designed for and sited in a space accessible to the general public, from a public square to a wall inside a building open to the public. In practice, however, since a significant percentage of such artworks end up hidden away in storage, or in private government offices, a more accurate definition might go something like this:
Public art is an umbrella term which includes any work of art purchased with public funds, or which comes into the public domain (by donation, or by public display, etc.) irrespective of where it is situated in the community, or who sees it.
Wrapped Reichstag, Berlin (1995)
An example of empaquetage, a new
form of public postmodernist art.
The Spire of Dublin,
known as 'the spike'.
Contemporary Public Art
by Ian Ritchie RA.
The Spire of Dublin is 120 metres
high, 3 metres in diameter at the
base. This outstanding piece of
public art in Dublin is designed
to sway in the wind and reflects
the light of Irelands sky.
Anchored in granite the 'Spike'
is built entirely from stainless steel
which has been shot-peened to
enable it to reflect light. All in all
a wonderful piece of visual art
for Ireland's capital.
HISTORY OF VISUAL ARTS
For a list of important dates about
movements, schools, famous styles,
from the Stone Age to 20th Century,
see: History of Art Timeline.
Most of the public art which has survived from Antiquity consists of various types of stonework - that is, funerary monuments, statues and other religious or architectural sculpture. Today, however, the category of public art includes a huge range of works from the fine, decorative and plastic arts. As well as architecture and sculpture, it includes painting, stained glass, ceramics, mosaics, and tapestry, as well as numerous forms of contemporary art, such as Earthworks, Assemblage, Installation art and Performance (along with its associated Happenings), to name but a few. It includes transient displays, such as Andy Goldsworthy's Snowballs (London, 2000), temporary exhibitions (eg. Faberge Eggs), or temporary architectural constructions to celebrate particular events (eg. the Millennium Dome in London).
Locations & Sites For Public Art
Sites for municipal art are typically located in urban centres and may include squares, plaza or pedestrian areas, main thoroughfares, the approaches to public buildings such as government offices, law courts, municipal utilities and transport centres, airports, museums and libraries, university or college campuses and so on. In addition, public artworks may be sited inside national or local government offices, as well as churches or other public places of worship.
Some public artworks (environmental earthworks) may be located in remote areas other types of public art (holograms, firework displays) may be projected onto the night sky. Computer art is becoming an integral feature of the latter.
For more information, see:
History and Styles of Architecture.
CATEGORIES OF ARTS
For painting and drawing,
see: Fine Art.
For sculpture and assemblage,
see: Plastic Art.
For ornamental designwork,
see: Decorative Art.
For crafts and design,
see: Applied Art.
History of Public Art: Origins
Greek cities were early advocates of the edifying virtues of religious and social art (predominantly sculpture), capable of being viewed and appreciated by the community at large. A supreme example of public art in Ancient Greece is the Parthenon (c.447-422 BCE) on the Acropolis at Athens. Later, Roman authorities erected mass-produced statues of the Roman Emperor in all corners of the empire, in order to demonstrate the majesty of Rome. This concept of communal aesthetics or propaganda was vigorously implemented by Pagan as well as later Christian communities. The Roman church, influenced by the Eastern Church, produced the glorious Ravenna mosaics, while Rome celebrated the end of the Dark Ages with the construction of great medieval, romanesque and gothic-style cathedrals of France, like Chartres, Rheims, Amiens and Notre Dame de Paris. Adorned with beautiful religious art including statues, mosaic art, relief-sculpture, altarpiece art, and stained glass art, these monumental buildings were public works of art, designed to inspire the community with their grandeur beauty andreligious devotion. For details, see Medieval Sculpture (400-1000) Romanesque Sculpture (1000-1200) and Gothic Sculpture (c.1150-1280).
Renaissance Public Art (c.1400-1600)
But undoubtedly the golden era of public art was the Italian Renaissance, whose artworks - unlike those of the Northern Renaissance - were sponsored entirely by the church or civic authorities. Giotto's Scrovegni Chapel frescoes at Padua, Donatello's bronze statue David, and Michelangelo's marble sculptures Pieta and David, bear witness to this upsurge in Christian art.
Baroque Public Art (c.1600-1700)
The 17th century witnessed the last great religious propaganda campaign, waged by the Catholic Church to regain its majesty and authority following the Reformation. This Catholic Counter-Reformation used a dramatic style of Baroque art in its architecture (eg. the renovated St Peter's Basilica Rome, and its approaches), and an inspirational form of Biblical art in its sculpture (eg. The Ecstasy of St Teresa, Cornaro Chapel, Rome, by Bernini), and in its paintings (eg. works by Rubens, Caravaggio and Velazquez) in order to communicate its message to churchgoers across Europe.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, partly due to the reduction in patronage by the Catholic Church, public art in the West was largely confined to the commemoration of Bishops, Kings and other secular heroes (eg. Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square London, or the Arc de Triomphe in Paris), and new works of urban architecture. In America, this was exemplified by public architectural masterpieces like the Capitol Building and the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC St Patrick's Cathedral New York (1858-79, by James Renwick) The Statue of Liberty New York Harbour (1886, designed by Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi). (See: American Architecture for more details, and for designers, see: American Architects.) In Europe public art was exemplified by a wide range of structures such as the Neo-Classical National Gallery London the spectacular Neo-Gothic UK Houses of Parliament (1839-52, designed by Sir Charles Barry) Paris Opera House (1860-75, designed by Charles Garnier) the Eiffel Tower (1887-89), designed and engineered by Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923) and Stephen Sauvestre and many others. See also: 19th Century architecture.
Public Art During the 20th Century
As stated above public art during the 20th and 21st century has dramatically widened in function, form and media. Political developments have widened the function of public art for propaganda purposes. Perhaps the most blatant modern example of public art being used for political purposes concerns the Socialist Realism art movement, launched in Soviet Russia by Joseph Stalin to support the country's drive for industrial self-sufficiency after 1927. Socialist Realism aimed to glorify the achievements of the Communist regime through a ubiquitous display of monumental heroic style posters, painting and sculpture.
Meantime, the German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was staging photographic exhibitions designed to demonize the Jew in society, and a huge public art exhibition in Munich of banned modern painting and sculpture called Degenerate Art. His attempted genocide of the Jews spawned a new genre of Holocaust art and public memorials.
In Mexico during the 1920s and 1930s, painters like Diego Rivera (1886-1957), David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974) and Jose Clemente Orozco (1883-1949) helped to create the Mexican Murals movement, during which public buildings were decorated by large-scale fresco painting, typically with a nationalist political message.
Art forms promoted by the Chinese authorities before, during and after the Cultural Revolution (1966-68) also fall into this category of overtly political public art. And sometimes, urban art forms such as street murals are created as a protest by minority groups against certain laws or political authority. During the 1970s and 1980s, the cities of Belfast, New York and Los Angeles witnessed this type of public art, which was designed to reinforce a political agenda.
Arguably the most novel form of 20th century public art, Land Art is exemplified by the monumental earthworks, such as Spiral Jetty created in Utah (1970) by Robert Smithson, and the encirclement of eleven Florida islands in pink fabric (1983) by Christo and Jeanne-Claude (b.1935).
Arguably the most open and available type of public art, 20th century building design has been dominated by Skyscraper Architecture, shaped by ever taller towers.
This term, derived from the Italian word 'graffio' meaning, to scratch, refers to illicit 'street art' sprayed or painted on buildings, in public urban areas, by freelance 'street artists'. Probably the four most famous street painters are Keith Haring (1958-90), Jean-Michel Basquiat (1960-88), Banksy (b.1973-4) and David Wojnarowicz (1954-92), all of whom have enjoyed mainstream commercial success. One of the new contemporary art movements, graffiti street art includes territorial graffiti, aggressive guerrilla art (now referred to as 'post-graffiti art'), and stencil graffiti. By comparison, the term 'street art' encompasses traditional graffiti imagery, as well as wheatpasting, sticker/street poster art, video projection, and street installations. It is commonly employed to differentiate contemporary public-space artwork from territorial or guerrilla graffiti, and visual vandalism. Neither of these forms of freelance 'artwork' fall within the definition of government sponsored Public Art. For more, see Graffiti Art.
Recent public art has also included traditional works such as commemorative sculpture, architectural sculpture (eg. Ian Ritchie's Spire of Dublin known as 'the spike'), pure sculpture (eg. the Chicago Picasso), murals (eg. the UN building's tapestry copy of the oil painting Guernica (1937) by Pablo Picasso).
The 'Chicago Picasso', an untitled monumental sculpture by the Spanish master Pablo Picasso (1881-1973), is one of the most famous pieces of municipal art. This familiar landmark, dedicated on 15 August 1967, and situated in Daley Plaza in the Chicago Loop, stands 50 feet tall, weighs 162 tons and cost $351,959.17 to install. Picasso himself waived all fees. The sculpture was made by United States Steel Corporation (Gary, Indiana) before being disassembled and transported to its Chicago resting place. The exact subject matter of the sculpture remains unclear.
Contemporary Public Art
Famous contemporary exponents of public art include the following artists (works): Louise Bourgeois (Maman, 1999, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao) Jean Tinguely (Stravinsky Fountain, 1983, Pompidou Centre forecourt) Claes Oldenburg (Apple Core, 1992, Israel Museum, Jerusalem) Bruce Nauman (Green Light Corridor, 1970, Samuel R Guggenheim Museum NY) Richard Serra (Tilted Arc, 1981, Federal Plaza, New York) Mark Di Suvero (Storm Angel, 1973-4, Square Chabas, Chalon-sur-Saone) Antony Gormley (Angel of the North, 1994-8, Gateshead, UK) and Anish Kapoor (Cloud Gate, 2004, Millennium Park, Chicago).
Percent For Art Schemes
In recent times, municipal authorities have developed new fund-raising policies, relating to the construction of publicly financed buildings, namely the Percent for Art Scheme. This typically involves the reservation of 1 percent of the construction costs of the project (up to a fixed maximum amount), for the purchase of artworks which are then displayed to the public.
Art Museums - The Greatest Modern Public Art
Arguably the finest public art of the modern era comprises the global network of public museums and art galleries. These institutions provide two quite separate artistic benefits to the community. First, they can have exceptional architectural beauty, as exemplified by the Pompidou Centre in Paris, or the Bilbao Guggenheim.
Designed by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, and built 1971-7, this temple of postmodernist art houses the Musee Pompidou, the French museum of contemporary art. This large free-spanning steel-framed structure is a perfect example of how aesthetic architecture can constitute public art.
As well as their architectural beauty, museums hold huge collections of prehistoric art, paintings, sculptures, prints and other works on paper, ceramics, mosaics, glass art, metalwork, tapestries, illuminated manuscripts and calligraphy, as well as contemporary forms like Assemblage, Installation and Video art. Among the best art museums with the greatest collections of art open to the public are: The Uffizi Gallery Florence, The Hermitage Museum St Petersburg, the Louvre Museum Paris, the Prado Madrid, the Pinakothek Museum Complex Munich, the Victoria and Albert Museum London, and of course the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Samuel R Guggenheim Museum, and the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
For more information about community or municipal art, see: Homepage.
The Apostles of Jesus
However, the primary definition of apostle applies to a singular group of men who held a supreme role in the early church. The apostles were Jesus Christ's 12 closest disciples, chosen by him early in his ministry to spread the gospel after his death and resurrection. In the Bible, they are called Jesus' disciples until the Lord's ascension into heaven. Thereafter, they are referred to as apostles:
Jesus assigned these men specific duties before his crucifixion, but it was only after his resurrection—when their discipleship had been completed—that he appointed them fully as apostles. By then Judas Iscariot had hanged himself and was later replaced by Matthias, who was chosen by lot (Acts 1:15-26).
How Fraternal Organizations are Established
Fraternal organizations date back into the early history of society and their intent and function have evolved over time. Some early fraternal organizations were based on faith-driven precepts that encourage cooperation and support among members within the group. While the concept of a fraternal organization is derived from the idea of brotherhood, and many organizations continue to be exclusively comprised of men, memberships do not necessarily have to be restricted by gender.
It is possible for fraternal societies to qualify for tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(8). In order to do so, the organization must have a fraternal purpose, meaning the intent of membership is based on a common bond and have a substantial program of activities. The group must operate under the lodge system, which requires a minimum of two active entities, which include the parent organization and a subordinate branch. The branch must both be self-governing and chartered by the parent organization.
The fraternal organization must also provide the payment of benefits to members and their dependents in the event of injury, accident, or other calamities.
Domestic fraternal organizations might also be exempt under Internal Revenue Code 501 (c)(10) under largely similar criteria with several differences. In this instance, the organization must not provide payment of benefits to its members for injury, illness, and other calamities. However, the organization can make arrangements with insurers to offer optional insurance to the membership.
The organization, in this case, must commit its net earnings exclusively toward charitable, literary, religious, educational, fraternal, and scientific endeavors. The organization must also be domestically organized within the United States.