We would like to think that contemporary art in public space plays a crucial role in shaping our shared environments and collective consciousness. Far from being mere decoration, we usually believe it becomes a powerful mode of communication, critique, and engagement. There are many valuable theoretical lenses through which to understand this phenomenon, particularly in how public art intersects with media, politics, and cultural identity. What can we develop further from, for example, Vilém Flusser’s skepticism of the political potential in a post-historical image-saturated, and increasingly conflictual, violent anti-political world, or Boris Groys’ analysis of the practices dwelling on the borderline of art and activism and a renewed hope based on the importance of art agency?

Flusser was probably right that our ways of thinking and perceiving are deeply shaped by the tools and media we use. In his concept of the "technical image," Flusser suggests that contemporary forms of communication — especially images — are no longer passive reflections of reality but actively construct meaning.

Public art, particularly in urban environments, functions similarly; it does not merely represent the city, but shapes how we understand and inhabit it. When contemporary artworks are placed in public space, they become part of the media landscape and are transmitted as mediations, altering our visual culture and inviting new forms of participation and interpretation. They challenge the public to see familiar places through unfamiliar perspectives, disrupting passive perception and sparking critical thought. Whether this is possible and how to implement it, is the task of artists, social designers and media experts today.

Boris Groys brings another dimension to the conversation by highlighting the inherently political nature of art in public space. In his writings, particularly Art Power, Groys discusses how the placement of art in public transforms it from a private aesthetic experience into a collective, political act. Public spaces are often dominated by state or corporate interests, but contemporary art (can) reclaim these areas for public discourse. By interrupting the visual and ideological norms of public space, art challenges authority and invites democratic engagement. It reconfigures space not as a neutral background, but as a contested site of meaning-making.

Moreover, in the contemporary context, artists act as curators of visibility. In a world overloaded with information and images, what becomes visible — and how — is a matter of critical importance. Public art, therefore, becomes a form of resistance to the invisibility imposed by mainstream media and consumer culture. It can make marginalized voices, histories, and perspectives visible, fostering a more inclusive and dialogical public sphere where a redistribution of the future is possible.

Bolstering Flusser and Groys, we should rethink artistic practice not merely as object or spectacle, but as a medium of thought and a form of action. In public space, art engages directly with society, not through institutions or galleries, but through daily interaction with citizens. It becomes a living part of the urban fabric, capable of transforming space into place — imbued with meaning, memory, and possibility – that hopefully brings a slight positive change.

In summary, contemporary public art matters because it reclaims the visual and conceptual territory of public life. Through the lenses of Flusser and Groys, we understand it as a form of communication that contests dominant narratives, mediates new ways of seeing, and engages citizens in the ongoing negotiation of what it means to live together in shared space.

On the other hand, maybe we can learn something from the critical practices of the past and the current critical museology? Could the contemporary museum, and more specifically the Museum of Contemporary Art, play a pivotal role in reclaiming public space as a confrontational field, a new specifically designed political agora? It is especially important when dealing with contested urban projects like the infamous Skopje 2014. In this government initiative, avoiding any debate, they sought to reshape national identity through an aggressive overhaul of the city’s architecture and monuments, often criticized for its nationalist overtones and historical revisionism. In response, some museums and independent cultural institutions emerged as critical voices, challenging the imposed narratives by promoting alternative histories, critical discourse, and public engagement. By curating counter-exhibitions, hosting debates, and collaborating with artists, these institutions became agents of resistance, turning cultural space into a platform for democratic reflection and dissent. But, unfortunately, in the case of Skopje, it did not change the overall look of the city - we are still forced to live in it, and more than a decade later, we are still left thinking about the effects and the approaches of  confronting the state apparatus.

Mischa Kuball’s project if walls could tell (Skopje edition) brought a poignant and meaningful intervention within the debate on public space, memory, and political agency. Through this project, he gave a metaphoric voice to walls that have witnessed, embodied, or concealed social and political narratives. In the context of public space, his work disrupts the urban visual field not through permanent structures, but through ephemeral gestures that invite reflection and dialogue. Challenging viewers to consider the civic space, as well as the ideologies and histories embedded within it, he also subverts the dominant logic of monumental propaganda, such as that seen in Skopje 2014, which relied heavily on neoclassical forms to assert a problematic and inconsistent national identity.

Furthermore, if walls could tell aligns with the notion of the political potential of art in public space. Rather than reinforcing a single, hegemonic narrative, Kuball’s work opens public space to ambiguity, memory, and multiplicity. It invites citizens to engage critically with their surroundings, to question what is remembered and what is forgotten, and to see public space as a living, contested agora rather than a static backdrop. Considering all the dangers of falling into instrumentalized forms of participation when a collective effort is in question, it is probably the only plausible way for us to exemplify how contemporary art can transform the city into a space of discourse, dissent, and democratic imagination in our increasingly dangerous global situation.

Vladimir Janchevski is a curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Skopje. His interests span interdisciplinary art practices, image theory, art and politics, interventions in public space, censorship and iconoclastic acts. Since 2004, he co-organized, curated, and co-curated numerous exhibitions (Resistant Images: John Heartfield and the Satirical Photomontage, MoCA-Skopje 2021; Weaving Worlds: Collections in conversation, MG+MSUM 2025; The East Remains Possible, MoCA-Skopje 2025). He was a core member of the art initiative KOOPERACIJA (2012-2015), organizing events, co-curating exhibitions, moderating discussions, and writing texts for over a dozen international events in Skopje, Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Freising, and Prishtina. Since 2011, he has collaborated with the Center for Visual Studies-Skopje, and participated in international conferences, including Iconology – Old and New (2013, Rijeka-Budapest), Provocation as Art (2015, Cluj-Napoca), and Images as Agents (2016, Kiel). Janchevski participated in numerous group exhibitions, collaborative projects, lectures, and public discussions across Europe, and has also organized public lectures in Skopje, featuring prominent artists and theorists such as Vitaly Komar (2012) and James Elkins (2014). An active writer, he has authored numerous texts focusing on artists like Igor Toshevski, Nikola Uzunovski, OPA, Driton Selmani, Alban Muja and Artur Żmijewski. In 2019, he received the Ladislav Barishic Award for art criticism from AICA-Macedonia.