The ‘Percent for Art’ model of public art production first established in the 1950’s in Philadelphia is woefully outdated and inefficient. It is subject to political machinations, bureaucratic ambivalence, and procedural contradictions that serve little purpose but to frustrate every step of the delivery chain. But, where there is money, there is generally a will to see it circulated, and so the system continues and self-propagates its own ever increasingly byzantine logic. There is hope, however, that this system can be improved! Because it is an invention of human beings, it can likewise be ameliorated by us as well. Here’s how. 

1. Collapse the committees. The very thought that committees have approval over a work’s fate is heresy to any self-respecting artist. Art schools do not teach compromise, they teach individual vision and the sanctity (however sanctimonious it may be) of the artist’s unique genius of style. Artists train in solo studios, relying on themselves for direction and purpose. Critiques with colleagues and professors are institutionalized, yes, but ‘success’ or ‘worth’ does not depend on the degree to which one compromises to suit the requests or directives of the larger group. So, it is with some level of wariness that artists enter into the public art system. Compromise is a fact. Your vision will be mitigated to match the desires of the committee and the community it purports to serve. Once you’ve got more than one committee that has to sign off on something, it just gets that much more complicated. The two (or more) groups rarely interact with each other and there is generally little commonality of objective or ambition between them. I’ve seen firsthand the death of great projects approved by one committee only to be scuttled by another. It leads to supreme disillusionment and distrust on the part of the artist, the community hoping to see the project completed within their lifetime, the public art administrative staff, and even the committee members themselves. 

Merge the committees on all projects. Hold joint-meetings. Make conversation between all parties the standard, not the exception. Invite public input into the decision making process by opening committee meetings to the general public. [*Did you know, for example, that the City of Memphis Public Art Oversight Committee is open to the general public? It meets once a month, and as a tax-paying citizen, you are entitled to attend and ask questions.]  

Finally, give the public art leadership the final authority to make decisions when stalemates occur, as well as a veto if something godawful gets approved simply because no one can agree on anything else.

2. Streamline all payments. I once saw an artist’s invoice take 210 days to be paid through the municipal CIP process. It took 5 signatures to get a check authorized with weeks between one person signing before giving it to the other, got lost under a pile of papers on a low-level secretary’s desk, got marked as paid when it had not been paid, got refused because of a change in invoice template formatting requirement mid-way through turnaround, and got countermanded by an internal committee that had a bone to pick with another committee, and various and sundry other sorts of soul crushing red tape and idiocy. Another factor that contributes to the overall lunacy of turnaround times for payments are the benchmarks artists must meet to get paid at different points of the process. When I entered the public art system in Memphis, there were 8 separate benchmarks triggering 8 invoices that had to crunched through the city’s payment system. When I left, we’d condensed the 8 benchmarks to 4, integrated approval steps of 2 separate committees, standardized invoice procedures with a tracking system to show everyone where the invoice was in its journey through city hall, and digitized the payment distribution system, cutting down on time-lag with the postal service and any interoffice ‘losing’ of documents. [*You’d be shocked and appalled how many times things get lost, seriously…shocked.]

With the cooperation of several enlightened colleagues at city hall, we were able to collapse what had been at least a 3 month (and usually much, muuuch longer) process, to 30 days. 

If any of this rings eerily familiar to your experience and you’d like to improve the system by which your community seeks to make its world a better place with public art, let me know. I provide an initial consultation free of charge to determine your specific needs, then structure a fee-for-service plan to fit your unique situation. Visit my consulting firm’s website to learn more at Vita Brevis Arts Bureau.

Next time, how to facilitate a public art project so that the community loves the final product, and the artist’s vision is respected as it should.

For 3.5 years of my life I led a non-profit organization devoted to the production of public art projects in the city of Memphis. During that time I learned a great deal about how different models of public art management functions nationwide and internationally, and saw what was done well and what was in need of serious improvement in the methods of various cities’ systems. Here are a few thoughts on what I believe could make for a more perfect ‘mousetrap’, so to speak. 

1. Realign the funding as you streamline the process: The model of tying public art funding to municipal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budgets typical of the Percent-for-Art model found in over 300 cities nationwide is both a blessing and a burden. In theory it devotes a small percentage (generally 1-2%) of the annual CIP budget of city dedicated to building new construction projects such as community centers, libraries, roadways, etc., to create art and design enhancements to those structures, or to installations on any city owned property. I say “in theory” because there is always the possibility that the full amount can get whittled down by administration officials or political authorities seeking to save money for other initiatives they view as providing greater value or Return on Investment (ROI). These project budgets are generally sizable, ranging from $35,000 for a mural on a small community center, to over $135,000 for a large-scale bronze statue of a historical figure in a public park. While costs for artists’ fees, materials, fabrication, and installation are somewhat consistent, the cost of administering these projects can vary widely depending on how complex and time-extensive a committee approval process is in place. The administering body is under extreme pressure to realize each project within a certain window of time from concept to completion, or it blows its margin for covering staff costs for management. The longer a project takes to get done, the less money the organization recoups for expenses. It is not at all uncommon for public art production entities to lose money on a project because of this reason. This makes outside fundraising an imperative. Those that do not take grant writing and private donor development seriously, risk insolvency and extinction.

Next time, methods for realigning the funding to effect swifter turnaround times while simultaneously increasing the level of community engagement and respecting the integrity of the artist’s vision.