The different subject positions encounter one another and catalyze (re)vision through such interactions as a result of their proximities, both physically and intellectually. It is no wonder then that many of these projects have been hailed for their democratic nature, through the visualization and vocalization of the polis, but I would take this idea even further. These projects are not merely embodiments of democratic ideals, but are part of a larger project identified by French philosophers Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe as “radical democracy.”[1] This is not the complacent form of democratic participation that largely defines many political systems today, but the creation of an “agonistic public sphere.”[2] At this point, the notion of representation within the arts becomes infused with a sense of political representation. Debate and contestation are the cornerstones of a healthy political sphere, and I hold the same for works of art that attempt to address issues that also blend into the realms of the social sciences and beyond. This extends their potential value far beyond the rectification of some perceived societal ailment. Socially engaged, collaborative public art projects, in my opinion, should not be subjugated to some ameliorative function or criterion, as this would greatly reduce the complex nature of such practices and the issues that are their raw materials. While many of these projects certainly contain some ideological bent (which is unavoidable, a facet of authorship), there is also a concerted effort to represent the true, multivalent nature of such issues. Art, after all, is more concerned with raising questions than providing concrete answers.

(taken from “Making the Invisible Visible: A City in Multiples and the Art of Multiplicity”, by Steven L. Bridges; full text here)