Since thesis seems to be vouge at the moment...

(Questions to the reader at the bottom, please read more and give me feedback, if you have the time)

As I mentioned in our opening class I'm planning to write my thesis on and in the attempt to re-theorize public art. As I have also mentioned, Banksy was part of my inspiration to do this. Spring before last, when he put his paintings up in NYC museums I was grabbed by his fanciful problematization of the museum system (and his concurrent anti-war messages). I decided to write my final paper for Media Theory on the political efficacy of public art, with a particular emphasis on what I dubbed "ephemeral public art" (i.e. Banksy, Guerilla Girls, ACT Up, Think Again, etc.) I very quickly discovered that while there was no end to critical debate on the relative virtues of Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" and the questions that it brought to light (primarily what should public art be? does it have to be aesthetically accessible to everyone? should it be art for art's sake or something more? and so forth), there was very little, if any, critical attention given to the very forms of public art that I was most interested in. With a limited time line and a 20 page limit, I did the best I could to discuss ephemeral public art with the resources available; however, it left me wholly unsatisfied.

Since then I have often revisited the question of public art, what it should be, how it should operate in society, and on what grounds it should be judged. I have devised for myself a fledgling theory of public art, socially grounded, with an emphasis on judging a piece based on the social work that it does rather than aesthetics (that is not to say that aesthetics are completely irrelevant, but rather that they are a secondary feature related to how well the piece communicates it's message, how accessible it is to what population, etc.). Furthermore, my model is a differentiated one, which takes into account the variation within the realm of public art. After all it is absurd to attempt to analyze Banksy's work on exactly the same grounds as "Tilted Arc", as the pieces are vastly different in their scale, duration, and explicit and implicit intent. In attempting to envision a useful way of representing these distinctions, I have created a sort of matrix within which to place works of public art. It is defined by two major axises, axes, oh whatever, “Permanence” and “Explicit Social Agenda”.

Which brings me to my first question to you all.
Can anyone think of a better, shorter way of saying "Explicit Social Agenda"?
Even that is not exactly what I mean to say. I need a way of expressing that some works, like the Washington Monument do, arguably, just as much social work as one of Banksy's pieces, by while Banksy's message is often clearly stated, the message of the Washington Monument has a great deal more to do with hegemonic power and is therefore largely invisible to most individuals within the society. Thus, both have a "social agenda" but Banksy's work has a very explicit or visible social agenda, while the Washington Monument's is less explicit and less visible.
So suggestions on how to better express "Explicit Social Agenda", please?

My second question involves the visual representation of this matrix (or graph, or whatever the proper mathematical term is).
Which way should the "Explicit Social Agenda" axis go?
When I first drew it I assigned it to the x-axis (the horizontal one) and placed the Highly Explicit Social Agenda on the far left end, decreasing to the left, causing the viewer to read down the scale of ESA. However, I am well aware that this not particularly in keeping with the mathematical origins of the quadrant, so when I began working on a digital version of the graph (attatched here, keep in mind it's a work in progress) I swapped that axis so that the ESA axis goes low to high from left to right.
I honestly prefer the way that the categories fall into the quadrants better with the original arrangement (that is high to low ESA) but I don't want people to be confused by the graph because it isn't mathematically correct.
Input please?