Research Topic:

Date of Presentation : 24 December 2013

Master candidate: Yeo Lee Bak Supervisor: Assoc. Prof Dr. Ismail Bin Said

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty Of Built Environment Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Background Study

Research Problem

Research Gap

Research Aim

Theoretical Framework

Research Objectives

Scope of Study

Significance of Study

Research Type

Data Collection Methods

Data Analysis Methods

Anticipate Findings

Type of Arts at Outdoor

Landscape

Attributes Authors Research Concern

Earth Art Wide Open Space, large

scale, not in an urban

setting.

Spaid (2002),

Fisher (2011).

-A few studies have been conducted on

defining the subject and projects.

-Focus on aesthetic and environment aspects..

Environmental Art More or less natural site,

Less monumental, not

artifactual or urban site.

Carlson (2000),

Spaid (2002), Fisher

(2007)

Brady (2007)

Brady (2007)

Wildy (2011)

-Many studies have been conducted on

defining the subject and project.

-Arguing on the subject.

Focus on aesthetic and environment aspects.

Ecological Art

Heal environment,

improve local ecosystem.

Spaid (2002), Brady

(2007), Wildy (2012)

-A few of studies have been conducted on

defining the subject.

-Very few projects are being studied.

Focus on environment aspect; remediate the

ecology.

Ecovention Ecology + invention.

Physical transform

ecology.

Spaid (2002), May

(2006)

-Very few studies on the subject.

-A few examples studied on the project.

-Focus on people and environment

relationship; Use technologies to transform

ecology.

Public Art Public space, stimulate

public reaction.

Hein (1996),

Sharp et al (2005),

Chang (2008),

Fabian et al (2012).

Mustafa (2013).

-Very many studies have been conducted on

defining the subject and project.

-Mainly focus on aesthetic and social aspects;

people and place relationship and place

identity.

Table 1.0 Trend of studies -Type of Arts at Outdoor Landscape

Great favour, or affection

Least favour, or affection

Greatest favour, or affection

Least favour, or affection

Moderate favour, or affection

As suggested by Asdam (2012), to explore the studies on place and people relationship, public art is perceived to have stronger affection in this context.

Public art is the artwork of artistic and creative expressions. It includes sculpture, mural, street furniture and cultural events which situated in free access sites

such as street, roundabout, square, plaza and park that stimulate public reactions about space, behavior and issue (Hein, 1996; Bach, 2001; Sharp et. al., 2005; Chang, 2008).

Public art Claims Zebracki (2010):

a) Physical-aesthetic b) Economic c) Social d) Cultural-symbolic

- numerous identities can be problematic (Sharp et al., 2005).

- artwork is elitist, therefore, unlikely to engage with the artwork (Pollock & Paddison, 2010).

- not socially relevant, thereby discouraging public to engage with it. Some of the public art even more worse which were suspiciously been selected by

bureaucrats who do not acquaint much about art especially those tasteless, kitsch public art that reflect poorly on visual imagery (Fabian et. al., 2012).

In short, studies on people and place relationship, Dungey (1990) posits that the significance of art is to stimulate people emotion, sense, and spirit that nurture importance of place with public artwork.

The implementation of public art in Malaysian cities and towns are considered new and it has never been seemed crucial (Mustafa et. al., 2013). Public art

development in Malaysia always seeks to enhance the identity of Malaysia, but solely in improving the identity is not enough. There is still lack of study on

people relationship with public art in Malaysia, subsequently public art are abandoned and neglected by people and thereby discouraging people using the space.

A number studies on public art’s publicness and artfulness, in which they neglect to consider the public interaction (e.g. Deutsche, 1996; Hein, 1996; Massey & Rose, 2003; Kwon, 2004; Chang, 2008). There are also many studies on the importance of public art towards people and place but they did not stress on people’s engagement with public art (e.g. Hall and Robertson, 2001; Sharp et al., 2005; Remesar, 2005; Zebracki et al., 2010; Fabian et al., 2012; Mustafa et al., 2013). Therefore, the main concern of this study focuses on behavioral perspective dealing with the attributes of public art that lead to people’s engagement and attachment to place.

i) To identify the attributes of public art that contributes to people interaction.

The aim of the study is to explore public art influences people interaction, particularly public interact with the artwork, and people around them such as family, friends or strangers.

ii) To examine public’s reactions after they engage with public artworks, whether they behave positively or negatively.

RQ1: What attributes of public art that make people want to interact with it? RQ2: What activities are generated during the interaction? RQ3: Would the scale and material used affect the people interaction? RQ4: Would the placement of public art influence people to interact? RQ5: How people behaved after they interact with public art? RQ6: Would they more likely to engage with the artworks when they are motivated (positive weighted emotions- pleasantness, cheerfulness and excitement)? RQ7: Would they unlikely to engage with the artworks when they are non-motivated (negative emotions- annoyance, depression, and boredom)? Semantics Differential ( Bradley & Lang, 1994).

Conceptual Framework

Social Cognitive Theory (Observational learning) (Bandura 1986, 2001; Gibson 2004)

Place attachment (Prohansky et, al., 1983; Ujang 2012)

Symbolic Interactionism (Stimulus–response causality Model) (Mead, 2013; Blumer, 1986; Musolf, 2003)-page 10

+

Fig. 3.1 Stimulus- response causality model of public art. Adopt from Musolf, 2003.

RO1 RO2

Table 2.0 Presume Hypothesis According to Variables:

Hypothesis: Attributes of public art influence people interaction and affect behavioral change. Null Hypothesis: Attributes of public art do not influence people interaction and affect behavioral change.

Influential Variables (Interaction Factors)

Perceived People Interaction

Influential Variables ( Emotional Factors)

Perceived Attaching to Place

RO1 Structure Scale ( Accords to human scale :

<small, =medium, >large) – Nominal Scale Material use / Composition ( Natural: Soil, rock, water, wood and leafs; Non-natural: concrete, metal, asphalt, or

mineral pigments) - Likert Scale Location (street, roundabout, square, plaza

and park ) Likert Scale Social Body movement

Voices Nominal Scale

Great affection/ Importance Least affection/ Imp Greatest affection/ Imp Moderate affection/ Imp

RO2 Positive Emotions Pleasantness Cheerfulness Excitement Negative Emotions Annoyance Depression Boredom

Semantic Scale

Improve the engagement and frequent use of space with artworks Unlikely to engage with the artworks

RO 1 : To identify the attributes of public art that contributes to people interaction. RO 2 : To examine public’s reactions after they engage with public artworks, whether they behave positively or negatively.

Example of Questionnaires – Measuring Example

Nominal Scale

Ordinal Scale

Likert Scale

Semantic Scale

Interval Scale

Scale ( small size, medium size=proportional to human, large size)

Perceived People interaction

Material Composition ( Natural: soil, rock, water, wood and leafs; Non-natural: concrete, metal, asphalt, or mineral pigments)

Location (street, roundabout, square, plaza and park)

Interaction between people and the artwork

Affection ( Influential/ independent Variables)

Body movement ( touch, play, take photo, observe attentively, glance)

Voice (talk to others, asking, discussing)

Interaction between people and people

Perceived Social Activities

Emotional Yield

Perceived Attaching To place

Positive (Pleasantness, Cheerfulness and Excitement)

Negative (Annoyance, Depression and Boredom)

Affection ( Influential/ independent Variables)

Focus on social claims, physical aesthetic claims and cultural symbolic claims.

Measure the attributes of public art in 3 aspects – scale, material composition, and location, follow by examining people reaction (response that reveals a

person's feelings or attitude: pleasantness, cheerfulness and excitement; annoyance, depression, and boredom) in that particular area.

Study area : Georgetown Penang and Muar

GP: Prominent, popular – Establish in 2012 (Public art- murals and wrought-iron caricature sculpture ) Mostly, located at street.

Muar: Not prominent – (Public art- sculpture) Located on roundabout and parks.

The study is significant in response to the problem statements and research gap that have stated earlier in the research proposal. I) The research is crucial in suggesting the most suitable size and location for the artwork, and its material compositions, which can contribute to landscape architects, urban planners, artwork producers, local authorities and other practitioners to develop a more substantial public art in urban space. II) The research is important to create a more substantial public art that welcomes people to engage with it. The reason is whenever they engage with the artwork and people around them, they are more likely to protect it. Thus, they will value the artwork and the place.

Tend to Qualitative

Approaches

Quantitative

Approaches

Mixed Methods

Approaches

Philosophical Assumptions Constructivist Post-positivist Pragmatic

Inquiry Phenomenology, grounded

theory, ethnography,

Case study, narrative

Survey and experiments Sequential, concurrent, and

transformative

Methods Open-ended questions, emerging

approaches, text or image data

Close-ended questions,

predetermined approaches,

numeric data

Qt + Ql

Practices -Positions him or her

-Focus on a phenomena

-Study context of participant

-Validate accuracy

-Makes interpretations

-Collaborate with participant

-Test, verifies theory or

explanation

-Identify variables to study

-Relates variables in question or

hypotheses

-Uses standards of validity

-Observes and measure

numerically

-Employs statistical procedures

Qt + Ql

-Develop rationale for mixing

-Presents visual pictures

Table 3.0 Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Creswell,2009)

The research using Mixed method approach.

Under Pragmatic Philosophical Assumptions (Creswell,2009) . Guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory

1. Exploratory purpose via observation, 2. Survey questionnaires to generalize the results to a population, 3. Interview is adopted to strengthen the understanding of a concept. This triangulating data sources approaches are useful in providing a better understanding for validation process instead of methodological artifact (Jick, 1979).

Techniques Ways to do Things to be noted/ recorded

Field Notes Act as one of the public who

wandering around, by not letting

them know that our observation is

part of the research project.

Appearance:

Age: Children, teenager, adult or elderly.

Gender: Male or female

Ethnicity: Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others.

Snap Pictures Take specific picture of the public

artworks. Quietly snap picture in

case people engage with the public

art and people around them.

Physical Identity:

Attributes: Scale, material, and location.

Physical Gesture:

Communicate via body movement or voice.

Behavior:

Feel positive or negative

Video Recording Record video without prior notice

of the participants.

The whole process whereby people engage with the

public artwork and people around them.

Table 3.1 Unstructured Observation Schedule

The study starts with an unstructured observation to garner a prerequisite understanding of the site (William & Brown, 2009).

Observations

Table 3.2 Working Structured Observation Schedule

In structured observation, a schedule is prepared accordingly as stated Table 3.2, which adopted from Kumar (2009).

Day 1 to Day 7

Georgetown & Muar

No. of

Participants

Demographic

Characteristic of People

Who Engage with Public

Art.

Ways of People Engage

with Public Art

Who They Engage with

Age

≥18 (adults)

<18 (children and adolescents)

Gender

Male

Female

Ethnicity

Chinese (White)

Malay (Brown)

Indian (Black)

Othersᵃ (Non- local)

Direct Engagement

Touch

Play

Take Photo

Indirect Engagement

Observe Attentively

Glance

Friends/ Family

Strangers

Mean

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

Xx

xx

Xx

Xx

Stratified random sampling technique will be used to pick participants (public area) within the area, Fig. 1 and 2. Georgetown - Total population: 740,200 (Department of Statistic, 2010) Population size: Georgetown 1490 persons per square kilometer Muar - Total population: 247,957 (Department of Statistic, 2010) Population size: 174 persons per square kilometer

Fig. 1 Map of Georgetown, Penang (Core Zone) – Study Area

Fig. 2 Map of Muar, Johor (Bandar Maharani, Bandar Diraja) – Study Area

For Questionnaires

Available at: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=89#

200 Samples!!!

By: Dr. Daniel Soper.

SEM

Interviews

Structured interview usually construct in a sequential way, formatting the questions before in situ interview is conducted, and every participant are asked the exact same questions thereby data collected can be used to make statement (William and Brown , 2009).

For example in other to get data for answering why and how, structured interview is needed to answer RQ3, RQ4, RQ5, RQ6 and RQ7. RQ1: What attribute of public art that makes people want to interact with it? RQ2: What activities is generated during the interaction? RQ3: Would the scale and material used affect the people interaction? RQ4: Would the placement of public arts influence people to interact? RQ5: How people behaved after they interact with public art? RQ6: Would they more likely to engage with the artworks when they are satisfying (positive weighted emotions- pleasantness, cheerfulness and excitement)? RQ7: Would they unlikely to engage with the artworks when they are dissatisfying (negative emotions- annoyance, depression, and boredom)?

Observation

Close-ended questions will be prepared accordingly.

Using IBM SPSS Statistic and Amos (version 21)

or Chi Square – Cross Tabulation

There is evidence of a relationship between a and b due to c (Chi square=xx.xxxx , df=1 and P<0.001)

SEM – SPSS AMOS

The evidence suggests that a influence b is greater than a influence c to achieve d.

The research anticipated the following results: I) The problems of neglecting and vandalism of public art can be avoided because

people value the public art.

II) A more appropriate attributes of public art model can be produced as the guideline for any public art development that wish to promote social engagement.

III) People are emotional attach to the place because of the artwork, thereby the frequent use of space is increased.

Work/Time Frame Sem 1 Sem 2 Sem 3 Sem 4

Research Proposal /

Literature Review

-Problem, Gap

-Framework, Hypothesis

/ /

Aim & Objective /

Research Design

-Preliminary Study

-Preparing Tools & Equipment use

/

/

Pilot Study

-Georgetown, Muar, JB

-Observation

-Survey

/

Data Collection

-Finding ,Analysis and Discussion

/ /

Thesis Writing / / /

Publishing Paper

SEACTUC

CONFERENCE

JOURNAL

/

/

/

Asdam, K. (2012). Space, Place and the Gaze. In: Simon, B., Herlin, I. and Stiles, R. eds. Exploring the Boundaries of Landscape Architecture. New York: Routledge, chp.5, pp.117 – 130. Bach, P. (2001). New Land Marks: Public Art, Community, and the Meaning of Place. Grayson Publishing, Washington, DC. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication. Media Psychology, 3:3, 265-299 Bianchini, F. (1999). Cultural Planning for Urban Sustainability. In: L. Nystrom ed. City and Culture: Cultural Processes and Urban Sustainability. Stockholm: The Swedish Urban Environment Council, pp. 34–51. Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. London: University of California Press. Boyle, M. and Hughes, G. (1991). The Politics of the Representation of ‘The Real’: Discourses from the Left on Glasgow’s role as European City of Culture 1990, Area, 23(3), pp. 217–228. Brady, E. (2007). Aesthetic Regard for Nature in Environmental and Land Art. Ethics, Place & Environment, 10(3), pp.287–300. Brady, E. (2007). Introduction to “Environmental and Land Art”: A Special Issue of Ethics, Place and Environment. Ethics, Place & Environment, vol. 10(3), pp. 257–261. Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture. London: Routledge. Chang, T. C. (2008). Art and soul: Powerful and Powerless Art in Singapore. Environment and Planning , vol. 40(8), pp. 1921–1943. Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitiative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches 3rd Edition. SAGE, United Stage of America, chp. 1, pp. 3-21. Department of Statistic (2010). Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia. Deutsche, R., 1996. Evictions: Art and Spatial Politics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Fabian, M. H., Osman, M. T., and Mohd Nasir, B. (2012). Towards integrating public art in Malaysian urban landscape. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, vol. 20(2), pp. 251-263. Fisher, J. A. (2007). Is It Worth It? Lintott and Ethically Evaluating Environmental Art. Ethics, Place & Environment, vol. 10(3), pp.279–286. Fisher, J. (2011). Empire Makers: Earth Art and the Struggle for a Continent. Public Art Dialogue, vol. 1(1), pp.119–136. Gibson, S.K. (2004). Social Learning (Cognitive) Theory and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 6(2), pp.193–210. Howett, C.M. (1985). Landscape Architecture: Making a Place for Art. College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley, vol. 2 (4), pp. 52-60. Hall, T. (2003). Opening up public art’s spaces: art, regeneration and audience. In: Miles, M. ed. Cultures and Settlements: Advances in Art and Urban Futures. Intellect, Bristol, pp. 49–57. Hall, T. and Robertson, I. (2001). Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape Research, vol. 26(1), pp.5–26. Hein, H. (1996). What Is Public Art: Time, Place, and Meaning. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 54(1), 1-7. Hidalgo, M.C. and Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment : Conceptual and empirical question. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 21, pp 273-281. Hull, L. (2006). Women Environmental Artist Directory (WEAD). [online] (updated 2103). Available at: http://weadartists.org/artist/hulll [Accessed 4 October 2013]. Kastner, J. and Wallis, B. (1998). Land and Environmental Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998. King. R. (2005). Rewriting the city: Putrajaya as Representation. Journal of Urban Design, vol.12(1), pp. 117-138. Kwon, M. (1997). One place after another: notes on site specificity. JSTOR. October, 80, 85-110. Kwon, M. (2004). One place after another: site specific art and locational identity. MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lintott, S. (2007). Ethically Evaluating Land Art: Is It Worth It? Ethics, Place & Environment, vol. 10(3), pp.263–277. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International.

Massey, D. and Rose, G. (2003). Personal Views: Public Art Research Project. The Open University, Milton Keynes. May, R. (2006). “Connectivity” in urban rivers: Conflict and convergence between ecology and design. Technology in Society, vol. 28(4), pp. 477–488. Mead, G. H. (2013). Symbolic Interactionism. In: Griffin, E m. ed. A First Look at Communication Theory 8th Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., chp 5, pp. 54-66. Miles, M. (1994). Art in hospitals: does it work? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87, March, pp. 161–163. Musolf, G. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. In: Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney eds. The Chicago School, AltaMira, Walnut Creek, CA, 2003, p. 97-98. Mustafa, M., Begum, M., Backer, M., and Dollah, J. (2013). Questioning Public Art. In: Brebbia. Ed. Eco-architecture IV: Harmonisation Between Architecture and Nature. UK: WIT Press, chp.4, pp. 103-114. Parent, K. (2007). Land Art and its Connection to Landscape Architecture. University of Georgia. Penang Global Tourism (2013). Street art in Georgetown [Brochure]. Georgetown, Penang: State Tourism Bureau. Pollock, V. and Paddison, R. (2010). Embedding public art: Practice, policy and problems. Journal of Urban Design, 15(3), 335–356. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, vol. 10, pp. 147-170. Rapoport, A. (1977). Environmental cognition. In: Rapoport, A. ed. Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man- Environmental Approach to Urban Form and Design. Pergamon Press, Great Britain, chp. 3, pp. 109-177. Remesar, A. (2005). Urban Regeneration. A Challenge for Public Art. University of Barcelona, Barcelona. Rozelle, R.M. and Baxter, J.C. (1972). Meaning and Value in Conceptualizing the City. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 38(2), pp.116–122. Selwood, S., 1995. The good, the bad and the public, Artists Newsletter, October, pp. 24–27. Sharp, J., Pollock, V. & Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5), pp.1001–1023. Solnit, R. (2003) As Eve Said to the Serpent: On Landscape, Gender, and Art. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2003. Print Spaid, S. (2002). Ecovention: Current art to transform ecologies. Greenmuseum.org, 2002. The Art Story Foundation (2013). Your Guide to Modern Art. [online] (updated 2013). Available at: http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARTH208-7.1.2-Richard-Serra.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2013]. Thompson, I. H. (1999). Ecology, Community and Delight: Sources of Values in Landscape Architecture. Spon, London. Thompson, I. H. (2002). Ecology, Community and Delight: A Trivalent Approach to Landscape Education. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 60(2), pp.81–93. Ujang, N. (2012). Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, pp.156–167. Wildy. J. (2011). Shades of Green: Changes in the Paradigm of Environmental Art Since the 1960s. Master Degree, University of Adelaide, Australia. Wildy. J. (2012). A Sculpted Land: Ecological Landscape Art of the Harrisons, Patricia Johanson and Agnes Denes. [online] (updated 2013). Available at: http://www.earthzine.org/2013/01/05/a-sculpted-land-ecological-landscape-art-of-the-harrisons-patricia-johanson-and-agnes-denes/ [Accessed 4 October 2013]. William J. G., & Brown, A. (2009). Generating data through questions and observations. In Working with Qualitative Data. London, England: SAGE Publications, chp. 6, pp. 84-109. Zebracki, M., Van Der Vaart, R. and Van Aalst, I. (2010). Deconstructing public artopia: Situating public-art claims within practice. Geoforum, 41(5), pp.786–795. Zebracki, M. (2011). Beyond public artopia: public art as perceived by its publics. GeoJournal, vol. 78(2), pp.303–317. Zebracki, M. (2012). Engaging geographies of public art: indwellers, the “Butt Plug Gnome” and their locale. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 13(7), pp.735–758.