An Experience in Constructing a Qualimetric Assessment of the Significance of Urban Art Objects

The article attempts to ensure the unity of views on the implementation of urban art projects in local contexts. The paper aims to discuss the results of a pilot study obtained through a comprehensive assessment of the significance of urban art objects using qualimetric scales. The authors selected seven art objects that meet the four requirements: a) the art objects exist in the urban environment at the time of their assessment by experts; b) the art objects have a high communicative potential, that is, they are interesting to the viewer; c) there are discussions in the media and social networks about the prospects for preserving the art objects; d) the sample is heterogeneous. The experimental group included ten experts, both art theorists and practitioners. The experts were asked to evaluate the significance of each of the art objects by ranking them according to eight “rational” and two “emotional” criteria. The existence of consistency of the experts’ opinions was checked using the concordance coefficient. The pilot study showed that the most significant among the rational criteria for evaluating an artwork were technography (the degree of qualitative impact of the art object on the environment, the degree of the work’s conditionality with the context) and iconography (the uniqueness/brightness of the author’s message). The significance of the other principles (of technology and iconology) is considerably lower, which means that they can be ignored when constructing the final assessment by linear convolution. There was also a fairly high relative significance of the two emotional criteria that had been proposed for the experts’ consideration (the emotional dimension of the work in the artist’s experience and the emotional dimension of the work in the viewer’s experience). The scientific novelty of the research is determined by the fact that a systematic approach to assessing the rational aspects of the artistic interpretation of an urban art object makes it necessary and sufficient to rely on the two methodological principles for evaluating an artwork — technography and iconography. When evaluating the emotional aspects of artistic interpretation, it is necessary and sufficient to rely on the emotional dimension of the work in the experience of the artist and the viewer. The results obtained suggest finding an objective scientific basis for regulating the visual culture of public spaces.

1. Januchta-Szostak A. The Role of Public Visual Art in Urban Space Recognition, Cognitive Maps. Rijeka (Croatia), Intech Publ., 2010, pp. 75—100. DOI: 10.5772/7120 (in Russ.).

2. Walters C.R. Public Art’s “Right to the City”: Determining Various Role Players’ Perceptions, Experiences and Preferences for Public Art in Public Spaces in the City of Cape Town, Semantic Scholar, 2017, Corpus ID: 164642602.

3. Erman O., Boran B. Evaluation of Sculptural Installations in Urban Space: Proposal for a Semiotic Model, Semantic Scholar, 2016, Corpus ID: 49548440. DOI: 10.14812/cufej.2015.009.

4. Trivic Z., Tan B.K., Mascarenhas N., Duong Q. Capacities and Impacts of Community Arts and Culture Initiatives in Singapore, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 2020, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 85—114. DOI: 10.1080/10632921.2020.1720877.

5. Pozdnyakova E.S. Iskusstvo v obshchestvennom prostranstve: Mekhanizmy gosudarstvennogo regulirovaniya: analiz zapadnykh modelei i rekomendatsii dlya Moskvy [Art in Public Space: Mechanisms of State Regulation: Analysis of Western Models and Recommendations for Moscow]. Moscow, Moskovskii Institut Sotsial’no-Kul’turnykh Programm Publ., 2012, 24 p. Available at: http://

6. miscp.ru/assets/docs/public-art-regulations.pdf (accessed 05.03.2021).

7. Phillips P. Out of Order: the Public Art Machine, Artforum, 1988, vol. 27, no. 4. Available at: https://www.artforum.com/print/198810/out-of-order-the-public-art-machine-34653 (accessed 05.03.2021).

8. Lacy S. (ed.) Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle, Bay Press Publ., 1995, 300 p. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/7/7c/Lacy_

9. Suzanne_ed_Mapping_the_Terrain_New_Genre_Public_Art_1995.pdf (accessed 05.03.2021).

10. Hall T. Public Art, Urban Image, Town and Country Planning, 1995, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 122—123.

11. Miles M. A Game of Appearance: Public Art in Urban Development, Complicity or Sustainability? The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Publ., 1998, pp. 203—224.

12. Hall T., Robertson I. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates, Landscape Research, 2001, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5—26. DOI: 10.1080/01426390120024457.

13. Deutsche R. Alternative Space, Rossler M. If You Lived Here: The City in Art, Theory, and Social Activism. Seattle, Bay Press Publ., 1991, pp. 45—66.

14. Generalova A. Why the Businessman Oleg Lukyanov Makes Street Murals with Copies of Botticelli and Nikas Safronov, Sobaka.ru, May 22, 2019. Available at: http://www.sobaka.ru/

15. entertainment/art/91004 (accessed 05.03.2021) (in Russ.).

16. Garage Owner from Wales: ‘I Was Happier before Banksy Came’, BBC News. Russkaya sluzhba [BBC News. Russian Service], January 7, 2019. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/russian/

17. features-46783788 (accessed 05.03.2021) (in Russ.).

18. Dye J. “I Have A Dream” Newtown Mural to Be Heritage Listed, Sydney Morning Herald, December 4, 2014. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/i-have-a-dream-newtown-mural-to-be-heritage-listed-20141204-11zv7f.html (accessed 11.08.2020).

19. Gusarova Yu. Is Street Art Compatible with Museums and Galleries, Snob, 09.06.2016. Available at: https://snob.ru/selected/entry/109189 (accessed 05.03.2021) (in Russ.).

20. Apushkina L.D., Nikitchenko S.A. Public Censorship in Modern Art (On the Example of Street Art), Molodezhnyi vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta kul’tury [Youth Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture], 2019, no. 2 (12), pp. 177—180 (in Russ.).

21. Sudakova O.N. Urban Art: The Territory of Social Interests or Talking about a New Form of Aesthetics, Trudy instituta biznes-kommunikatsii [Proceedings of the Institute of Business Communications]. St. Petersburg, 2017, vol. 1, pp. 160—166 (in Russ.).

22. Olsson K. Cultural Built Heritage as a Strategy, City and Culture — Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability. Kalmar, 1999, pp. 430—443.

23. Vilchinskaya-Butenko M.E., Rozhkov N.N. An Approach to the Problem of Urban Art Objects Comprehensive Assessment Using Qualimetry Methods, Observatoriya kul’tury [Observatory of Culture], 2020, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 74—87. DOI: 10.25281/2072-3156-2020-17-1-74-87 (in Russ.).

24. Rozhkov N.N. Kvalimetriya i upravlenie kachestvom. Matematicheskie metody i modeli: uchebnik i praktikum dlya akademicheskogo bakalavriata [Qualimetry and Quality Management. Mathematical Methods and Models: textbook and practical course for academic undergraduate studies]. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2019, 167 p.