Art: A Response to the History of the Culture and Power of Parks
“As we produce nature, so do we produce social relations”
(Katz and Kirby, 1991: 268).
Parks and green spaces have always been a source of release and relaxation for me. Growing up, I often played on the street right outside my home with friends in the neighborhood. It was only on specific occasions that we ventured to parks. Park days were reserved for special outings with mom, a friend’s birthday party, a picnic, or a game which is why I came to value those outings. The freedom of not having to look both ways before crossing was liberating. Now as an adult when picking my current residence, living within walking distance to a park was on my checklist of must haves. I make it a point to be out and about in green spaces on a run, socializing, reading, or reflecting. I was fortunate to find a place where it is impossible to not see a park or playground in my travels. When presented with the task of finding a location for my visual project, my natural default was to focus on parks. How were they developed? What cultural value do they represent?
I then began thinking of spaces I have seen on my runs through the neighborhood or on my travels to and from work. It hit me one day on the bus ride home when I saw a child playing in a park that seemed to be decorated with metal butterflies. My attention was immediately drawn to the sculptures and mosaics that adorned the vibrantly color play lot. Being an artist, myself, I was fascinated by the use of art within that space. Art has always been a part of my life and I have often connected fond memories to crafts and art projects. One of my fondest memories was when my mom was taking art classes when we lived in San Francisco. A few times a week we would meet her at one of the art studios after school. Whatever new medium she was learning she would take the time to teach us, and it if was simple enough we could make our own. I have had a strong bond with art ever since and it is always something I find myself being drawn to.
By Clair Lane from cpag.net
I began to reflect on how in the past six years I began to notice an increase in the amount of public art that began to pop up around my neighborhood of Edgewater. The overpasses to Lake Shore Drive were redesigned as a community project and now have colorful mosaics (pictured above) that shimmer at the reflection of every passing headlight. A few vacant store lots have become temporary galleries for neighborhood art initiatives. In this observation I landed on the concept of the utilization of art in parks. At first I began to investigate this connection in relation to how the community introduces its children to the culture of the neighborhood. However, utilization of the arts in theses spaces only scratched the surface. I wanted to also challenge my existing perceptions, so that I was not naturally defaulting to my own biases and experiences in my own social context.
The more I read on the general development of the parks, the more I began to uncover the complex history of their existence. Upon initial site visits it was not immediately apparent that these spaces were charged and riddled with ideologies from a racially segregated past and struggles of power. I find now that the art and the layout of my sites exist and continue to do so with this past in mind. The art I photographed are pieces that scream to an ideology of inclusivity. This was something that I noted in my first observations, but upon second viewing, found more meaning in once the history was revealed. The mosaics and sculptures are visual representations of the history that these parks have survived. Art in this instance is not just a connection to a community, rather I argue it is a response to and a reminder of a racially charged history. Public parks are representations of power in that parks were and are a resources developed and controlled by the dominant socioeconomic and ethnic group further making evident the idea that “power gets legitimated through schemas” (Griswold 2012:169).
History of Chicago Park Development
“The exclusion of the poor and people of color was also a hallmark of the US national park system; these parks were founded upon middle- and upper-class sensibilities and eugenicist ideologies about pristine wilderness” (Mels, 2002: 137–38).
Parks historically have been developed to be spaces primed for social interactions, development of cultural identity, and anchors for community development (Byrne and Wolch, 2009: 743). Foucault’s (1977: 1980) investigation of the ‘park idea’ is one that seems to explain the exact nature of this development and focuses on the creation of parks being one that stems from a ‘socio-natural’ project. In the creation of parks, developers are modeling their ideas and plans based on “socio-ecological and ethno-relations of power within cities” (Byrne and Wolch, 2009: 745). It is the idea that parks are created for very specific purposes and it is these purposes that historically have shaped the way we view and utilize parks.
Bryne and Wolch provide the etymology of the word ‘park’ (enclosed, captive nature) to show that the idea of parks were at first meant to be exclusive. Parks were only developed for the elite. They were the flush spaces of leisure for Greek and Indian aristocrats (745). The English created residential green spaces specifically for hunting and gaming (photo on the left) that later became public spaces after conflicts developed and the Royal parks were then open to the public.
In the Ninetieth Century public heath issues were raised in terms of diseases (like cholera and typhoid), which were linked to presence of swamp and wetlands. It was then decided these health issues could be solved with the creation of parks are green spaces. Many families were also displaced in the creation of these parks and green spaces (Byrne and Wolch, 2009:746). The areas that were most commonly swampland were minority occupied wetlands. It was then argued that access to such green spaces allowed people to be “uplifted” and would in turn make them “morally” proper, which then lead to the ideology that parks gave the “power to overcome anarchy, immorality, crime, and indolence (Byrne and Wolch, 2009:746). Thus, creating a new way of seeing the park experience. Parks became a solution and further connections developed in terms of social inclusivity.
The mixing of classes was something that Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux valued because they could see that this would mean the ability work toward “democratic inclusiveness” (Byrne and Wolch, 2009:746). However, given the social climate of the time, racial conflicts were abundant and conflict increased. Byrne and Wolch noted that in Chicago’s Lincoln Park race riots broke out starting from the parks and spilling over into the surrounding neighborhoods. In further research the only connection I could make at this time was that they were noting the Chicago Race Riots of July 27 — August 2, 1919, which were the result of a conflict caused when a white man began to throw stones at black residents in an effort to get them to leave the beach/recreation and remove themselves from the water/area.
Eugene William, a black male, ended up drowning as result of the stoning, and because of the refusal of a policeman to arrest the man responsible a riot ensued. The conflict spread to West Chicago, the Loop, the surrounding areas, and lasted for days — the heaviest within the first three. In the investigation by the Commission on Race Relations titled, The Negro in Chicago: A Study of Race Relations and a Race Riot, this incident took place at the 29th street beach, but its ripple effect was seen throughout Chicago. Lincoln Park is not mentioned specifically, but it may have been lumped in with the surrounding riots. The days of riots left thirty-eight dead, of that thirty-three were black and fifteen were white, and the first two deaths occurred within two hours of the riot’s commence. A total of 537 people were injured.
After the riots the Commission of Race Relations offered solutions to improve upon and alleviate the tensions and pointed out several inconsistencies. They called upon equal rights and privileges for blacks, as they demanded to be treated like other citizens. Parks varied drastically from one area to the next depending on the ethnicity of the neighborhood. What they noticed was that whereas there were parks designated for the black community, they were limited by “some circumvention of law” (Commission1922:614). According to the Commission of Race Relations report out of 127 parks, thirty-seven were in or near black neighborhoods, twenty-three of these spaces were playgrounds, which are attached to schools, fourteen of the twenty-three were in black areas and the remaining nine near black areas. On top of that, thirteen of them had a ten percent usage by blacks and only one has more than ten percent usage (1922:616). In other words, yes there were parks for black residents, but the numbers are not reflective of people who actually use the park and the locations are not public open spaces like white areas.
The riots were the result of existing racial tensions reaching their breaking point; yet the fact that they stemmed from recreational spaces, like parks and not on the streets of the neighborhoods, provides a rich history and development of the culture of parks as well as the representations of dominant group using space to demonstrate control over the less dominant group, thus resulting in exhibition of power.
“Communities, whether relational or spatial, still collectively represent themselves through patterns of meanings embodied in symbols, meanings that shape attitudes and actions”
Wendy Griswold (2012:179).
I would like to now disclose my observations of my sites in an effort to establish a collective identity within these spaces. It is imperative to understand how each space I visited identifies itself in order to begin the later discussions as to how art is responding to the underlying narrative of power set for by the history of park creation and developmen. Within my observations I have to take into context my own narrative and the perceptions I have developed within my own social context. In being the observer I have to keep this in mind and call upon reflexivity to do so (Harper:2012).
The two parks I choose for my field sites were Berger Park and Margate Field House. I came to settle upon these two parks because I was looking to do a comparison to see if there were significant changes in park development from one park to the next based on location. One park is only a few blocks south of Rogers Park in North Edgewater and the other is south in Uptown on the east. I immediately went to the internet to see what the community has said about the parks. We are a society that loves to voice our opinions and what better way to see what people think?
In researching yelp reviews online these seemed to be the two parks with the most amount of reviews. Most of the reviews were about the facilities in the field house (the gym; the hours) and less about the playground itself. I was hoping from a bit more community insight in terms of why they love to go there.
Both parks are located within the 48th ward and both follow the standard of park style that was developed by Burnham & Co. the Olmsted Brothers, which was one that incorporated a field house, stressed education opportunities and was suited for the ever-changing weather of Chicago (Julia S. Bachrach, Chicago Park District).
The first site, Berger Park is a budding park campus, I dare even call it a cultural campus, with a focus on community building activities. This park was dedicated to Albert E. Berger (1900–1950), who was native to Chicago, and it was originally part of the Bureau of Parks and Recreation until 1959 when it was handed over to the Chicago Park District. The focus of this park was to meet the needs of the residents in the high rises on Sheridan Rd. The land houses two mansions that were converted from the old neighborhood that now serve as the recreational building and as the cultural center. It is widely known for its various art and creative classes, as well as its theatre and music programs(Chicago Park District).
The set up and design of this space is more focused on creating an entire environment. By that I mean it is more enclosed and as you walk through you are moved further and further away from the street; thus creating space away from the hustle and bustle of the traffic on Sheridan Rd. Within moments you are detoured and listening to the sounds of waves crashing on the rocks to the east. This entrance takes you through the campus past the recreation centers to the open space of the playground. I believe this was intentional as it creates a feeling of exploration.
The families in attendance appeared to be a diverse group. There were several churches in the area that speak, I think to the diversity of the area. Below is a map of the surrounding churches. There are a few Catholic, Methodist and Greek Orthodox locations.
The art in this space is more intentional and deliberate as if to serve the function of a culture aesthetic and is less about functionality. The image below is of a metal sculpture that greets you before entering the playground from the south entrance.
There was a family, two parents and a child, taking pictures with the Metal sculpture. They were explaining to the child what it was made of and asking him what he saw and thought. It was an interactive walk to the park for them. They moved from one interesting object to the next. The child’s inquisitive nature was a lucky observation in that he often pointed my eye, just in overhearing, to other pieces that were present, yet subtlety displayed, in the space. The family was enganged and learning and it was evident to me that this was something that may not be specific to this family. These scupltures exisit because the culture of the neighborhood is one on educating others and learning from expierences of new ideas.
Aside from the large metal sculpture there is no other art that stands out without traveling the grounds. For example, if you continue north on the path you are taken beyond the playground and around to the beach access. En route you then find a concrete bench that is decorated by mosaics of flowers and other abstract designs (see left). This is not something you readily see beyond the play ground equipment. There is a large replica of a pirates ship, fitting for the beach that blocks your view from the entrance on the south. Traveling further down the path there is the back patio of the Cafe. Here there are seemingly random hangings of frames and objects. Alas, this was the last of the hidden gems. Art in this space served some function in the bench, but other than that provided inquisitive conversation.
Overall I did not feel as though I was experiencing something more than a comfortable setting. It was a nice park and it was full of items to look at, but other than the old mansions there was nothing that outwardly spoke to the history of the location.
If I were to identify a collective identity for this location I would have to say that it has perhaps established itself as an area that is surrounded by a community that is interested in establish cultural value. The art is not tagged or identified and they are not pieces that outwardly state their purpose of make a transparent connection. That is not to say that all art has to do so, but the pieces in this park do not have a connection to one another other than location and perhaps being something that was donated. Again, not something that is viewed as a negative, but it is appears that it is more about an appreciation of art and not that there is a specific connection to the community.
The second site is Margate Field House, which is now part of the extended Lincoln Park and its rich history, originally it was a small public cemetery where they used to bury those who died from small pox and cholera. The graves were shallow and this raised a lot of issues for residence as mentioned in the history, once it was know the dangers to public health, people demanded the removal of the bodies (Chicago Park District).
The land was converted to Parkland in 1850 and ten years later 60 more acres were acquired. Swain Nelson, a well-known nurseryman, assisted in the redevelopment of the park. In 1869 after the creation of three park commissions South, West and Lincoln Park the remaining bodies were moved and the land made into parkland. In 1934 the commission merged into what is now known as the Chicago Park District and Lincoln Park was then expanded to Foster Avenue. The park in total is currently 1208 acres (Chicago Park District).
The Margate Field House sits off of Marine Drive. It is a narrow little street with moderate traffic and a solid CTA presence with the 146 and 136 bus routes. It sits further away from the street and the playground borders a safe distance from South Bound Lake Shore Drive.
The playground is not readily visible as it is nestled behind the field house. As you walk around the perimeter of the building there are no visible representations of art; however, this was the park I saw from the bus on the way home with the metal butterflies, so I knew there were pieces somewhere. As I looked around the building I stumbled upon a mosaic on the side of the building (pictured below). It was nothing too dramatic, a simple, decently sized, work, but the message caught my eye.
The words youth, hopes, dreams, love, ideas, and peace stick out and draw you into the work. It was clear what the park’s initiative was. The field house is facility that focuses on the engagement in the arts and in building a community that fosters understanding. Right away I was drawn to the image of love. Two figures of varying complexion. It is a very deliberate placement of tile and meant to express a powerful image of inclusivity and acceptance. Each piece of glass or ceramic is strategically placed to display a united front. Nowhere is there any indication of gender either. These are very generic figures. It is a very powerful image, but I did wonder why it was on the side of the building until I realized I was standing on the driveway to the parking lot in the back. All who park here have to pass by it. The image is also south facing which is the widest part of the park and where there are the most fields for playing. The placement was intentional in that it was placed where it would have the majority of viewers.
There were sections that were clearly made by individual hands. There is a very different message here regarding the idea of collective identity. The project was completed by community artists as well as youth artists, which displays welcoming and collaborative effort to the surrounding community. The use of mosaics all around seems to be a common theme around the parks in my neighborhood. Mosaics are a very deliberate choice in that if you are looking for a representation of how so many different aspects can come together to make one beautiful work, this is the way to accomplish that.
Each mosaic appears to have been a collaborative effort and there is something very heartwarming about that. Whereas this park does not seem to have more art than the previous one, the collective identity of unity is one that is far more visible and deliberate in its approach.
“Power is the ability to get one’s own way. Whether the “one” is an individual, a group, a category , or a nation, when we say one has power, we mean that he can do what he wants and get what he desires, regardless of whether other people agree or disagree.”
— Wendy Griswold (2012:163–164)
The art I photographed are pieces that represent an ideology of inclusivity or at least a collective identity that is representative of the community. The more I researched, the more meaning I found that the mosaics and sculptures are visual representations of the history that these parks have endured. Art in these spaces serves as a connection to a community, and I believe that it is a response to and a reminder of a racially charged history.
Public parks are representations of power in that parks were and are a resources developed and controlled by the dominant socioeconomic and ethnic group. It is the dominant group that decides where they are built, how they look, and at one point who can utilize it. When you think about it, even in designating a park’s location, one can determine who can use it. If it is a park that requires a car to get to, you alienate those who are only able to travel via public transportation.
Nagel discusses how ethnicity is more closely related to that of boundaries in terms of determining who is a member and who is not (1994:154). Park and urban developers make these decisions and in turn determine what resources are given and when. Given the history of the lack of resources that were provided in the past, one would think that this is something that no longer happens, but in looking at a few parks located in Englewood, one specifically stood out. Luna Park on S. Green Street (pictured above).
Where there appears to be an effort to give children a place to play, it looks like something that was put together last minute. I don’t mean to diminish the effort or the thought, there need to be more green spaces, but even some of the parks in my area that are only playgrounds, seem to have more thought put into them. It just appears to be placed without thought or consideration, or to fill a quota of parks in the area.
Equality in recreational spaces were granted, but with limitations. In this society, Chicago specifically, we have established a culture of accepting that there will always be a person in power, and in giving that power we are conceding even if we do not agree (Griswold 2012). If we do not challenge and we do not speak against the norm we are settling for the dominant norm.
Clifford Geertz’s definition of culture: “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Griswold 2012:164). The attitude and culture of what one deserves has to change. We cannot withhold proper funding because there are neighborhoods that are gang-filled. Putting money into these spaces is not a lost cause or a waste of money, it is raising the standard of the norm and transitioning the balance of power.
The art in these locations, though varied, served a very specific purpose. They exposed a culture of power in the symbolic form of recreational space without depicting struggle and without appearing oppressed or dark in nature the art in these public spaces shed light on an existing schema of the ever present tale of the oppressed and the oppressor.
As explained in the history, the very designation of parks, the creation and existence, was one that was meant to only favor those who had rights, or those that had access. It was meant as a form social control and this is culture that is still very much present today and it is an unfortunate precedent that we have set. However, the art represented in these spaces gives hope. In recognizing and in responding to the past we are less doomed to repeat those same mistakes.
“As we have seen, culture provides models of and for behavior. It defines what is legitimate , proper, and normal. It sets out a moral code. And it shapes our common sense, our all -but-unconscious understanding of how things are and should be” (Griswold 2012:165). These art projects are telling the community what should be. They are broadcasting in no uncertain terms that they want equality for all, safe spaces, and a strong diverse community.
Works Cited
Bachrach, Julia. “Daniel H. Burnham and Chicago’s Parks” http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/assets/1/23/burnham.pdf
Byrne, Jason and Jennifer Wolch. 2009. “Nature, Race, and Parks: Past Research and Future Directions for Geographic Research.” Progress in Human Geography 33(6):743–765 (http://ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/230693414?accountid=28518). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132509103156.
Chicago Commission on Race Relations. 1922 “The Negro in Chicago: A Study of Race Relations and a Race Riot” https://books.google.com/books?id=3kErAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=Race+Riots+in+Lincoln+Park&source=bl&ots=h-G1qvOov7&sig=D69EMweOKPEpyz0keqMz88qEq7c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pyo8VeTlLIa_ggTskIDgBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Race%20Riots%20in%20Lincoln%20Park&f=false
Gobster, Paul H. 2007. “Urban Park Restoration and the “Museumification” of Nature.” Nature + Culture 2(2):95–114 (http://ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/214143475?accountid=28518).
Griswold, Wendy. 2012. “Cultures and Societies in a Changing World” (Sociology for a New Century Series). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.
Foucalt, Michel. 1977: Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.
-1980:Tow lectures: truth and power. In Gordon, C., editor, Power/kknowlege: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977, New York: New York: Pantheon Books, 78–108.
Harper, Douglas. 2012. “Visual Sociology” Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Mels, Tom. 2002. Nature, home and scenery: the official spatialities of Swedish national parks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20: 135–54.
Nagel, Joane. 1994. “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture”. Social Problems 41(1):154.
Van Herzele, Ann and Sjerp de Vries. 2012. “Linking Green Space to Health: A Comparative Study of Two Urban Neighborhoods in Ghent, Belgium.” Population and Environment 34(2):171–193 (http://ezproxy.roosevelt.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1139513328?accountid=28518). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-011-0153-1.
