The regulations governing art in architecture and the opportunities they offer for design participation

With my input, I will highlight opportunities for participation in art competitions and examine the rules and regulations to determine the possibilities for co-creation. My perspective is that of an artist with many years of experience in his own participatory art projects, who is involved in cultural policy committees such as the Advisory Committee on Art (BAK) and who accompanies art competitions as a coordinating artist.

In Berlin, competition procedures are formalised in accordance with the currently applicable guidelines. These are specialist procedures aimed at professional artists, in which professional expert jurors participate with a majority vote. The ‘professional’ environment thus shapes the quality of the procedure and the result.

There are many opportunities for participation within this framework. Citizens from interest groups can participate either as guests, as judges or as experts.

The competition is usually discussed in expert committees, such as the BAK, which is composed in accordance with the guidelines for art in architecture and art in public space. The type of procedure, the composition of the jury, the areas of work, etc. are discussed here. The preliminary jury meeting and, above all, the colloquium for questions and answers are the most important opportunities for dialogue in which all participants (artists, jurors, users, organisers, architects, experts, guests) can take part. The advisory panel tour gives experts (monument preservation, police, etc.) a voice, if necessary. The jury, on the other hand, must ensure confidentiality and thus provide a safe space for free exchange. Finally, the public exhibition of the results provides an opportunity for critical discussion.

The amount of the procedural costs, i.e. everything that does not serve the realisation of the art, is specified in the rules and regulations, so that further opportunities for participation must generally lie outside this budget. In procedures with increased public interest, e.g. in the context of remembrance culture, it makes perfect sense to enable this participation. Examples include an ideation workshop in preparation for the competition, an accompanying symposium to communicate the content, or a citizen survey to gauge public opinion.

For the participating artists, the participatory art approach is only possible at the conceptual level in the ongoing competition, as no contact may be made with participants in anonymous procedures. To ensure that it is clear to the participating artists and later to the jury how social interaction can be successful, the local partners and the points of contact for participation must be precisely described in the competition announcement, just as the architecture, context, history or use are explained in the competition announcement.

It is also worth considering in this context that in certain cases, so-called ‘cooperative procedures’ allow for the dissolution of anonymity and thus communication (RPW §3, para. 5), concealing further potential.

In contrast to art in architecture, additional communication can be easily integrated into the process when conducting artistic design competitions for public space, as the procedural sums determined by the districts for competitions are not strictly defined. Participatory art projects need stronger support, especially in precarious public space, and they need local partners to succeed. These must be approached and involved at an early stage.

In this respect, the BAK recommended, an additional project support to the competition coordination, that extends the area of responsibility to initiate project partners in advance, organise participatory citizen forums, provide information and prepare a structure for the artists. This fosters trust. After the competition has been completed, during the implementation phase, the project support team can continue to moderate and mediate the process together with the artists. Components such as art walks or performative lectures can and should be designed by artists.

Of course, it is also possible to break free and develop competitions outside the regulations governing art in architecture and the public sector. This may make sense, for example, for an institution that represents the interests of marginalised groups working on emancipation movements or political issues. One idea could be to hold a competition in which the groups involved have a majority vote on the jury. But this would deviate from the basis of a professional process and place political ambition above artistic quality. Personally, I would refuse to participate in such a process as an artist or coordinator, as the hard-won principles would not be upheld, artistic quality would not be protected, and fundamental standards would not be guaranteed.