top of page
cherrydodd
Sep 25

The Fourth Plinth: A case study of public art in Britain 1999-2024

Updated: 7 days ago

When you go on a family day out in London, touring the major landmarks, the last thing you expect to see is an enormous blue chicken. However, on a family visit to London in the summer of 2013 that is what we found sat upon the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square. As a twelve-year-old I remember finding the fact that a comically large blue rooster was sat at the foot of Nelson's Column absolutely hilarious and I even insisted on having my mum take a photo of it (which I recently rediscovered... aren't you all in luck!). Aside from providing a precious childhood memory for myself, since its' 1999 conception in the RSA, The Fourth Plinth of Trafalgar Square has acted as a contemporary, sculptural, exhibition space for artists from across the globe. The Fourth Plinth has had two phases first it was the RSA's The Fourth Plinth Project in which a panel from the RSA selected submitted artworks to be funded and erected. Since 2005 however the plinth has hosted artworks that, whilst still selected from an array of submissions, are decided upon by the Mayor of London's Culture team and The Fourth Plinth Commissioning group.


Above: Installation photograph of Hanh/Cock, Katharina Fritsch, 2013, fibreglass, 4.72 m. Image courtesy of My Parents compact digital camera 31st August 2013


Last week the fifteenth sculpture for the plinth was unveiled. The Wonderful Mil Veces un Instante (A Thousand Times in an Instant) by Mexican artist Teresa Margolles features plaster casts (termed by Margolles as "life masks") of the faces of 726 trans and non-binary people from Mexico and the UK. These casts are arranged in the same formation as a tzompantli, a Mesoamerican form of skull rack, used to display the skulls of those captured in war or sacrificial victims. With the current challenges faced by the British trans community, this sculpture speaks to elements of our current socio-political climate providing a remarkable monument of resilience to the trans communities it represents. Since it was announced as a winning work Mil Veces un Instante (A Thousand Times in an Instant) has received both praise and criticism. This is not new for The Fourth Plinth and has been the case since its inception in the late nineties. From giant men to ships in bottles to comically large flies, in this article we will explore a selection of The Fourth Plinth's exhibition history. With a focus on how the works exhibited there have been received in public media. let us explore how the plinth acts as an embodiment of public arts engagement with public opinion, community struggle and issues of a wider socio-political level.



Mil Veces un Instante (A Thousand Times in an Instant), 2024, Teresa Margolles, Plaster cast, wire. Image courtesy of James O Jenkins via London World https://www.londonworld.com/news/fourth-plinths-newest-artwork-trans-community-4787929


Ecce Homo, 1999-2000, Mark Wallinger, white marbleised resin, barbed Wire, gold paint, human size



Above: Installation shot of Mark Wallinger's Ecce Homo 1999-2000, The Fourth Plinth, London. Image courtesy of Hauser & Wirth https://www.hauserwirth.com/ursula/22475-mark-wallinger-donna-de-salvo-study-self-reflection/


The first sculpture to ever exhibit on the fourth plinth since it was built in 1841 was a life size cast of Jesus Christ. Without getting too lost in the convoluted discourse of Christ's form, Ecce Homo stays true to its Latin roots taking its defined form (a resin cast of apprentice Christopher Welch) depicting Christ bound and crowned moments before his crucifixion. Journalist Adrian Searle documents his experience of witnessing Ecce Homo's creation and notes that speculated figures to adorn the fourth plinth included "a huge bronze pigeon, along with Nelson Mandela and John Lennon". Whilst of course this is only one source, it seems almost surprising that for an Anglican country the option of Christ as an adornment for an empty plinth in the capital city was missing from speculation. Other criticism of Ecce Homo concerns its' scale. In an article from July 23rd, 1999, the BBC notes that a bystander commented "You couldn't put your faith in someone like that, he's as weak as a kitten," and that another stated, "it resembled a shop dummy." The same article draws comparison between Ecce Homo and Christ the Redeemer noting the gargantuan difference in scale. What is overwhelming from these observations is how in the realm of public art scale is synonymous with a figure’s status, power, and authority. When confronted with a figure that historically is associated with status, power, and authority, as Christ is deemed larger that humanity, but in a scale that is the antonym of these factors (human scale) public consensus deems this as unfaithful depiction dishonest in its' representation of Christ's omnipresence.


It is worth mentioning that Ecce Homo now also presents interesting questions of the impact institutions have upon a works reception. I highlight this as the work, whilst in 2017 exhibited at St. Pauls Cathedral in collaboration with Amnesty International, is now a part of the permanent collection in the Museum of Israel, Jerusalem acquired through gift from a combination of British and American sponsors. I wonder how exactly would Christ feel about his likeness being housed in the national collection of a state that has enacted unimaginable violence and destruction? It does not seem in the 'love thy neighbour' spirit to me.


In an article for the Observer Lynn Barber notes the discussions of what would follow Ecce Homo's stint on the plinth (If people could start using that phrase interchangeably with 'a night on the town' I would be very grateful) and how this had been transformed into a public matter. The theme follows Adrian Searle's article naming Nelson Mandela, Princess Diana, Captain Cook, animals that died in the war and of course the Queen Mother as potential candidates. The propositions of  royal figures, especially ones as publicly favoured as the people's princess and the dear Queen Mother, are in keeping with Britain's Monarchist structure. As one of the few countries remaining with a monarchy at the tail end of its empiric tyranny (for the article's sake we will, like the rest of the country, ignore the fact the commonwealth solely consists of nations that were previously under British rule) it is no surprise that these were popular options. Unfortunately for the die-hard royalists, another work, Bill Woodrow's Regardless of History, had already been selected and the fourth plinth's destiny as an exhibition space for contemporary art sealed.

"suddenly it became a hot political potato and the Great British Public had to be consulted. Since when has the GBP ever given a toss about art? They probably hadn't even noticed that there was a plinth going begging till the papers told them. But now, of course, the fourth plinth has become a political soapbox for every posturing philistine in town." .- Lynn Barber, For Christ's Sake, The Observer, 9th January 2000

Above: Bill Woodrow, Regardless of History, 2000-2001, Bronze, 560 x 540 x 245cm. image Courtesy of Michael Crimmin


Beckham scores the back left, 2002, Madame Tussaud's, Waxwork


At this point in our chronology, I would like to make a special mention to the only unofficial sculpture to sit upon the Fourth Plinth: a waxwork figure of David Beckham. The figure which appeared in 2002, courtesy of Madame Tussauds as a well-crafted publicity stunt, was unwelcome and The Greater London Authority saw it was swiftly removed. A sad time for Becks and for those from our previous articles who were calling for some form of pop culture representation on the plinth.



Above: Image of Waxwork figure of David Beckham upon the fourth plinth, London, 2002 Image Courtesy of The Standard https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-statues-of-adele-bowie-and-beckham-if-i-m-mayor-of-london-9820638.html


Hahn/Cock, 2013-2015, Katharina Fritsch, Fibreglass, 4.72m


Above: Hanh/Cock, Katharina Fritsch, 2013, fibreglass, 4.72 m image courtesy of The Providence Journal https://eu.providencejournal.com/story/lifestyle/2013/07/25/20130725-giant-rooster-perches-in-londons-trafalgar-square-ece/35410132007/

Fast forward six sculptures and thirteen years from regardless of history and we end up where this article started with Hahn/Cock. Katharina Fritsch's 4.72m fibreglass rooster leans into the great British love of inuendo with the German 'Hahn' also translating to cock making the sculptures literal name cock/cock. With that out the way I hope you can all appreciate the number of euphemisms I am avoiding here. This blatant double meaning certainly did not fly over the public's head however with Fritsch admitting in Laura Barnett's 2013 article for the Guardian that a conservation group, The Thorney Island Society, had found the piece "totally inappropriate; however fanciful and dramatic it might appear to be." However, I propose this was not purely the result of the blatant innuendo. You see the rooster is a traditional symbol of France and there is a perfect irony from Fritsch in this French symbol sitting at the foot of Britain's leading admiral in the Napoleonic war. The conservationist’s grievance does not explicitly state this as a central concern however what they do state is:

"We cannot see any logical reason for the proposed sculpture to be placed on the fourth plinth. It is unrelated to the context of Trafalgar Square and adds nothing to it but a feeble distraction."

- June A. Stubbs, Letter to Westminster's development planning team, 4th April 2013


It is here that I beg the question of whether in the grand scheme of the world it matters that a giant blue (inherently French) cockerel is biting at Nelson's ankles? After all the poor man has already had Christ, a dismembered human head, live performers, a boy on a rocking horse and (rather tauntingly) a bottled ship at his heels. How are these any more relevant to the context of Trafalgar square ?


Overarching questions of suitability aside like Ecce Homo the question of scale once again rears its head in a contrary manner. This time instead of what is deemed a large and respectable figure (Christ) represented as smaller than usual Hahn/Cock represents a typically small unconsidered figure (cockerels) as larger than life and, to make literal comparison to Ecce Homo, larger than Christ. This mismatch between scale and the perceived worth of a figure plays our interestingly when, like with Hahn/Cock and Ecce Homo, the artist intentionally does it to usurp public conventions. In both these sculptures scale the public are affronted by their own shared conceptions of representation in a bifold manner. First, we have the affront of value and scale. Second, we have conflicting consideration of these sculptures as representative of more than their figures but London and by extension Britain to both locals and visitors from across the globe. Public art can never just be for one audience, with wider spread accessibility to art comes wider spread conflict on its' purpose and stature. Some elitists may argue that this is a failing of Public Art. The public may be deemed too lowly and unknowing to appreciate true art. I have heard many a snobbish gallery visitor makes comments not so far off. I would contest this; public art is serving arts purest function: to enhance lived experience. Public art breeds discussion, it multiplies opinion and connects those from all walks of life through the act of looking. For me, the disagreement over whether these artworks are 'good,’ and 'worthy' to all are second to this. A London banker could have just as easily taken time out of his day to be amused by a big blue chicken as my 12-year-old self.


Antelope, 2022-2024, Samson Kambalu, Bronze, multiple dimensions

Above: Antelope, 2022-2024, Samson Kambalu, Bronze, multiple dimensions. Image by Jamie Lorriman courtesy of The Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/what-to-see/antelope-fourth-plinth-trafalgar-square-review-calm-contemplative/


It would be rude to write an article on the fourth plinth and not acknowledge the most recent occupant. Antelope by Samson Kambalu was installed in 2022 and represents two bronze figures of vastly different scale. The taller figure is Malawian Baptist Preacher John Chilembwe. The shorter figure is John Chorley, a European missionary. The figures stand backs towards each other overlooking different areas of the city. Kambalu, a Malawian artist, distinctly references a 1914 photograph of the two men taken outside the opening of Chilembwe's new church in Malawi. During this time, it was decreed, by colonial rule, that Africans could not wear hats in the company of white people. In an act of defiance for this photograph Chilembwe boldly wore a wide brimmed hat next to Chorley.

The increased scale of Chilembwe elevates his status and story. With this we once again see the Fourth Plinth's use of scale as fundamental to its public reception. Calvin Robinson in article for the daily mail expressed that the lack of left wing opposition to Antelope represented that 'people clearly don't want to remove statues that may cause offence, nor do they want to remove statues of racist individuals from the past – they merely want to remove dead white men in their anti-white, anti-British agenda.' This outrage stems from the fact that the more violent actions of Chilembwe and his followers appear to have been glossed over by the Mayoral office whereas the actions of white slave traders warranted their statues being removed. I must contest Robinson's concerns here as surely the oppressive actions of a nation are a significantly greater crime than the revolutionary actions of those wanting to escape colonial rule. Much like with Ecce Homo and Hahn/Cock the concern here with Antelope is not purely its materiality but the social and political implications of its materiality. When Lynn Barber described the plinth as a chance for people to get up on their 'political soapbox' I must now conclude that she was correct.


An argument could stand that throughout this article I have used select or biased sources to fit a particular narrative of public art. after all the Guardian and Observer are famously left wing and more favourable of arts and culture. The Daily Mail on the other hand is the antithesis of this. This is where I would like to draw my conclusion. No matter what the intentions and will of the artists of public art are once they are released from the artists’ studios these works are at the will of public reception. This means that like every other element of public life they are subject to the influence of media upon which a person absorbs themselves within. Within these influences the artist is sometimes recognised for their brilliance, other times not. Public art therefore becomes a vehicle for pre-existing debates of a socio-political nature whilst also providing an accessible avenue into art discourse, whether it is taken or not. With this in mind it can be seen that controversy in the case of public art can be quite a beautiful thing.


Bibliography:


Comments

  • Instagram
bottom of page