VYBÍRALKA 2024 Art for Vybíralka

The jury appreciated the clear and straightforward (but not primitive) vision of the author(s) of proposal No.9. They perceive the settlement as a memory trace, where the inhabitants who were born or moved there as young people still live. The author(s) work with the primary experience of the "children of the estate," namely the iconic tubular climbing frames. However, these are no longer understood as a play element (the children have grown up, and the climbing frames no longer meet current safety standards) but as a formal aesthetic element, sculpture, or architecture, creating four places that acquire their identity. If we can perceive the pre-1989 era without dogmatism, then after successful implementation, we will not look at "enlarged socialist climbing frames" but at monuments to several generations of people who trained their motor skills or physical fitness on "the globe, the A or the donkey's back," which were not invented by socialist engineers but by the Dutch visionary, Aldo van Eyck. The jury also appreciated the game with scale, where once upon a time, children could feel like children again, staring at large tubular objects, trying to climb them one by one. What the jury also appreciated about the design was how easily it meets the hygienic requirements for maintenance in a public space, and how resistant it is to vandalism of various kinds.

The jury considers this design a furniture piece rather than a work of art. The proposal has both positive and negative aspects to consider. Another critical aspect of the proposal is the inclusion of bees, which the jury seems to like. However, this may also be a cause for concern, given that the proposal is close to a school building. A potential risk to the safety of students and teachers would need to be addressed before the idea is implemented. One of the disadvantages of this proposal is that it is not site-specific. This means that the artwork created may not be fully integrated into its surroundings and may not significantly impact the local community. In addition, it is unclear what will happen to the objects after the competition is over, as it is essential to engage the local community to ensure their participation in the project's success.

Porota oceňuje doplnění návrhu z prvního kola především z hlediska obsahového a také zaměření se na kontext permanentního umístění děl. Objekty vskutku prodělaly určitý vývoj. Impozantní variace na logo CČM je abstrahované, fenomén nákupního vozíku je více glorifikován, pamětní panel získává paměť a komunitní charakter s prvky aktivní participace, reminiscenční letadla se mění ve funkční objekty na dětském hřišti. I přes zmíněné doplnění po prvním kole ale návrh č. 13 většinu členů poroty zcela nepřesvědčil, je ovšem nutno pozitivně ocenit autorovy snahy pracovat s lokálními tématy, s místní komunitou i celkového autorského komentáře k současným tendencím a hodnotám, které formují identitu „nejen“ sídliště Černý most.

Already in the first round, the jury was attracted by a proposal focusing on the domestication of public space, which intended to present the interior of a prefabricated housing estate in the exterior and thus create special furnishings from everyday objects that are transformed into art objects. The proposal promised an interesting sculptural realization that is simultaneously understandable to many inhabitants and directly corresponds to where it should be placed. Unfortunately, the project's development did not meet the jury's expectations. Still, on the contrary, it raised several questions concerning the formal aspect of the individual objects and, above all, the problematic sustainability, which was already pointed out in the first round. The author was unable to deal with the issue of compliance with hygiene requirements and possible vandalism in the elaborated design; on the contrary, in some cases, he made the objects even more complicated in this direction, which did not help their aesthetic appearance. For this reason, the jury did not recommend the design for implementation.

The competition proposal No.19 advanced to the second round with recognition of the qualities of the design, which included participatory principles using progressive technologies and, last but not least, the courage to work with a figurative motif. The jury appreciated the author's ambition to work with the collection of data from specific residents or a representative sample of residents of the Vybíralka housing estate. In the previous round, the jury also submitted recommendations to refine or clarify the author's intention. The recommendations concerned anchoring the legal framework of work with private data of "displayed persons." In addition, a more precise description of how the collected data will be handled formally, i.e., how the technology used will be directly reflected in the work creation process. On the point concerning anchoring the legal framework of privacy issues, the author has shown that he has addressed the issue and that a course of action can be drawn and proposed. Thus, the consistency of legal protection can be ensured, and the intent of the design of the work can be fulfilled. At the point of specifying the description of the technological procedure and the description of the principle in the form of a work, the text and the visual part were unclear. The text remained in the general position of describing the work with data. The fact that the proposal did not take on a significantly clearer form than in the first round was also to the author's disadvantage. Not in the sense of the refinement mentioned in the second point of the recommendation. The proposed sculptural form, as expressed in the visualization, did not convince the jury of its expressive quality. The final form of the design appeared to the jury as coldly mechanical, detached, and with a flavor of unintended morbidity. The jury's appreciation of the intention expressed in the first round can be carried over to the final evaluation. With an addendum: The potential that comes with the direction of thinking, participation, and data collection as part of creating a work of art is worth consideration. However, sculptural realization in public space is still primarily about the formal appearance of the work in a given spatial context.