Focus on this artwork and analyze the Reception and criticism.
While reporting that the project was fully subscribed, and describing the artist as an "impressive figure" and "tireless negotiator" the Irish Times reported in late 2004 that there was some adverse comment about aspects of amaptocare. More than one questioned the requirement for a donation, and the artist explained that he wanted a feeling of ownership, as opposed to impersonal municipal planting. and said "that it could be possible that a work of art would not suffer from the presence of the people but, on the contrary, it would get better with the presence of the people" and that "The project is 'a little practical study of democracy'." A research project by Peter Dowie on arts projects and the Ballymun schemes also picked up some negative commentary about amaptocare, even "community animosity", with one community development worker at the Ballymun Partnership describing it as "...an arrogant proposal .. an extremely ambitious project .. very expensive with no room for evaluation .. and impractical within an area going through regeneration", an artistic director and activist referring to "patronisation of the community", and the researcher summarising some local reactions with: "The idea was that ownership of the tree would be both an inducement to, and a symbol of, their new commitment to caring for their area. Resentment toward the project stemmed from the fact it was perceived as patronizing and misunderstood the level at which residents had always demonstrated their ‘caring’ and sense of responsibility during 3 decades of civic neglect. The act of purchase also became a problem. It suggested further civic disrespect in charging residents living on social welfare for what would be given free in wealthier areas of Dublin", although in fact there was also municipally-fully funded tree planting during the area's regeneration.
Comments from artists and arts critics praised the participative and expressive nature of the work, and included art critic Jeremy Hunt saying that "Gerz has inversed [sic] the idea of imposed 'gifts' of social housing, institutional urbanism and cultural artefacts ... invited the population of Ballymun to donate, to contribute by paying for their own environment." Marion Hohlfeldt remarked that Gerz was giving residents of an area which had been the focus of a "bad news" approach the opportunity to narrate their own history, to be, as Gerz put it, "new elites" and that the project was multi-layered, and had changed the atmosphere within the district during regeneration - and a local artist involved in the scheme, John Duffy, described it as "providing a space for the donor, offering a way in which they can make a mark for themselves." and referred to one sponsor's perception of the work as "the provision of a second chance for her life in Ballymun. With the physical and emotional changes that are happening to her life, she can mark them with her words on the lectern for her tree", emphasising the "power of the project in the texts and the .. individuals and groups involved in the articulation of those words."
Ballymun Dublin