cultural policy

Primjer jednog od francuskih modela reguliranja pitanja umjetnosti u javnom prostoru

NOUVEAUX COMMANDITAIRES

(Novi naručioci/pokrovitelji)

Pripremila i prevela: Nataša Bodrožić (2012.)

Program Noveaux Commanditaires osmislio je u Francuskoj 1991.godine Francois Hers, tadašnji pročelnik za kulturne projekte u Fondation de France. Riječ je o inovativnom modelu produkcije umjetnosti u javnom prostoru. Cilj programa bilo je stvaranje umjetničkih radova čiji su naručitelji/pokrovitelji sami građani ili udruge (građana), a namijenjeni su ne za izložbene, već za životne ili radne prostore samih naručitelja.
Program Nouveaux Commanditaires pokušaj je poticanja i objedinjavanja zahtjeva za umjetnošću, kvalitetom života i socijalnom integracijom, omogućujući građanima-naručiocima direktno sudjelovanje u konceptualizaciji umjetničke intervencije. Stajalište programa Nouveaux Commanditaires jest da umjetničko djelo nije predmet izlaganja ili kontemplacije, već planiranja i ostvarivanja okruženja.
Polazeći od toga, ostvareno je preko stotinu intervencija koje su uključivale trgove i vrtove, bolnice, škole i kaznionice.
Ovaj program dopušta svakome da postane naručioc/pokrovitelj umjetničkog djela, i to zahvaljujući novom suodnosu triju aktera: građana- naručioca, kulturnog medijatora koji tumači naručiteljevu potrebu i umjetnika/ce kojega se poziva da isplanira i izvede umjetnički rad koji odgovara izraženoj potrebi.
Naručioci, umjetnici i medijatori, naznačuju moduse upotrebe rada u odnosu na širu zajednicu. Bez obzira na vlasničku strukturu mjesta na kojemu je postavljen umjetnički rad, naručioc i financijeri moraju jamčiti njegovu javnu upotrebu tj. dostupnost javnosti.

 

PRINCIPI

Proces počiva na suradnji među trima grupama sudionika: jednog ili više naručioca/pokrovitelja, medijatora/posrednika i umjetnika.
Njihova zajednička akcija rezultira produkcijom umjetničkog rada.
Naručioc/pokrovitelj, uz pomoć medijatora i u formi specifikacije, izražava zahtjev. Medijator potom izabire umjetnika koji bi mogao odgovoriti na taj zahtjev, a umjetnikov prijedlog postaje sadržaj pregovora koji slijede.
Svatko, bilo pojedinac ili udruga, može biti naručioc/pokrovitelj. Njihova odluka daje ovlast da se rad i izvede. Kada je jednom došlo do dogovora, pokrovitelj/naručioc preuzima odgovornost za ono što je dogovoreno.
U toku ovog dijaloga između naručioca/pokrovitelja i umjetnika, od umjetnika se prije svega zahtjeva da razumije što je na kocki prije nego što se on/ona u potpunosti posveti kreativnom procesu.
Medijator/posrednik, koji ima iskustva u radu s umjetnošću i njezinim kontekstom, pomaže i olakšava proces tijekom ovih različitih faza.
Neovisnost i važnost medijatorova angažmana zahtijeva da on/ona ima određene kvalifikacije, odnosno aktivnu i dobro definiranu ulogu u svijetu suvremene umjetnosti.
Uz neophodnu podršku neovisne privatne organizacije, medijator mora biti ekonomski neovisan i stoga intelektualno slobodan.
Financirani iz javnih ili privatnih fondova, a namijenjeni općem interesu, umjetnički radovi pripadaju javnoj sferi na način kako to odredi zajednica, ali o njihovoj upotrebi zajedno odlučuju naručioc/pokrovitelj i umjetnik.

 

RAZLIČITOSTI I PREDNOSTI OVOG MODELA

Proces koji prati model Nouveaux commanditairesa omogućio je potvrdu postojanja stvarne društvene potrebe za suvremenom umjetničkom kreacijom, kapacitet pretpostavke društvenog izražavanja te potrebe, financijskih troškova koje zahtijeva, te prepoznavanja trenutačnih i aktualnih umjetničkih formi.
Oni koji su imali priliku testirati ovu metodu uvjereni su da ona predstavlja značajan odmak/alternativu postojećim načinima produkcije (umjetnosti u javnom prostoru).
Ova alternativa ne podrazumijeva zamjenu načina produkcije/proizvodnje koja trenutačno postoji (u domeni umjetnosti u javnom prostoru), već ih preinačuje.

 

RAZLIKE

Prijedlog suradničkog rada i ponuda svima da sudjeluju u produkciji umjetničkih djela, originalan je način stvaranja konteksta za sam umjetnički rad.
Dok je upisivanje suvremene umjetnosti u javnu domenu često određeno faktorima izvan same umjetnosti, ovaj novi aranžman omogućuje medijatorima koji su u stalnom kontaktu s umjetnicima te time poznaju njihove radne metode, da ojačaju veze između stvarnosti društva i stvarnosti umjetnosti.
U situaciji u kojoj svjedočimo da su ograničenja predstavničkih politika izrazito vidljiva, ovaj proces odgovara na sve više izraženu potrebu da svaka osoba, pojedinac, može djelovati u vlastito ime i u ime neke situacije, bilo apstraktne, bilo konkretne.

 

PREDNOSTI

Svaka narudžba izranja iz specifičnog i precizno određenog konteksta što omogućuje da se načini produkcije /proizvodnje neprestano nanovo promišljaju. Specifičnost narudžbi vodi i mobilizaciji individualaca i izvora financiranja koji su dosad bili nedostupni umjetnosti.
Narudžba samom medijatoru donosi zadovoljstvo koje se prilično razlikuje od onih na koja je navikao u tradicionalnim izložbenim i produkcijskim okolnostima. Dijalog s umjetnikom intenziviran je time što je otvoren prema složenosti problema i situacije, koje nadalje pojačava činjenica povećanog broja sudionika. Zbog svega ovdje spomenutog, ovakva narudžba nudi vrijedan odmak od uobičajenog, kao i mogućnost sudjelovanja u transformaciji vlastitog okruženja.

(Model je) mogućnost za sve one koji to žele – za naručioce/pokrovitelje, medijatore/posrednike i same umjetnike – da kreiraju slobodna udruženja koja će omogućiti supostojanje određenih koncepata i sposobnost zajedničkog djelovanja i to bez  obaveze (postizanja) konsenzusa.

Više informacija o modelu Nouveaux Commanditaires/ New Patrons, pronađite na:

http://www.fondationdefrance.org/Nos-Actions/Developper-la-connaissance/Culture/Les-nouveaux-commanditaires

http://www.newpatrons.eu/

————————————————————————————————

Primjer zakona koji regulira pitanja umjetničkog sadržaja u javnom prostoru

Zakon o potpori kulturi u Donjoj Austriji 1996, LGBI. 5301

Pripremila i prevela: Sonja Leboš (2011)

Član 1. Pojam kulture

Kultura bi trebala biti oblikovana i razvijati se spram budućnosti kao otvoreni proces koji počiva na individualnoj kreativnosti i društvenoj toleranciji, a posredovana je životnim uvjetima ljudi, njihovim međodnosima i životnim formama.

Član 2. Načela i područja djelovanja

1. Donja Austrija osnažuje i podupire djelovanje u smislu opisanom u Članu 1., ako nastaje u Donjoj Austriji, ako se odnosi na Donju Austriju ili njenu prezentaciju u inozemstvu.
2. Donja Austrija treba pri podršci kulturi naročito uzeti u obzir sljedeća načela:

• Neovisnost i sloboda kulturnog djelovanja u datoj raznorodnosti
• Mogućnost sudjelovanja svakog pojedinca – stanovnika regije u kulturnom procesu
• Potreba za javnošću koja je sposobna za kritiku
• Otvorenost spram novim kulturnim pravcima razvoja u zemlji i inozemstvu
• Adekvatna potpora suvremenom umjetničkom stvaranju, koja istovremeno odgovara zastupljenosti takvog stvaranja u kulturnom procesu, uz vođenje računa o datoj raznorodnosti
• Suradnja s austrijskim i inozemnim regijama
• Građenje koncepcijskih niti vodilja za podršku kulturi
• Podrška kulturi nastaje u partnerskim procesima

3. Donja Austrija treba pri potpori kulturi naročito uzimati u obzir slijedeća polja djelovanja i sfere napetosti:

• Izvorno stvaralaštvo spram interpretacije i reprodukcije kulture;
• Opstojnost kulturnog nasljeđa spram suvremene, inovativne umjetnost;
• Internacionalni kulturni razvoj spram regionalnog kulturnog razvoja
• Smislenost osobnog kroz kulturno djelovanje spram društveno angažiranog djelovanja
• Potpora kulturnim procesima u glavnom gradu regije spram potpori kulturnim procesima u pokrajinama
• Autonomija i kreativitet kulturnih procesa spram profesionaliziranja i ekonomiziranja kulturnih pogona kao i osiguranje raspoloživosti javnih strukura

Član 3. Načini podrške

1. Potpora može biti materijalna ili nematerijalna.
2. Potpora u nematerijalnom vidu naročito se odnosi na slijedeće:

• Poticaj djelovanju u smislu savjetodavnih mjera, informacija i stručne pomoći;
• Podrška poticajima za oblikovanje naročitih mjera i zakonskih odredbi koji se odnose na djelovanje u kulturi;
• Postizanje sinergijskih efekata kroz savjetovanja s ciljem zajedničkog kulturnog djelovanja, suradnji nosioca projekata ili povezivanju nakana te zajedničko korištenje stvarne infrastrukture;
• Provođenje manifestacija poput javnih diskusija, izložbi, izvedbi te javnih prezentacija;
• Stvaranje pravnih nosilaca kulturnog djelovanja;
• Donošenje razvojnih planova za određena područja;
• Naručivanje kulturno-znanstvenih istraživanja;
• Informiranje javnosti;

3. Potpora u materijalnoj formi odnosi se naročito na slijedeće:

• Dodjela mandata, podrška mladim talentima kroz radne stipendije;
• Doprinos financiranju, zajmovi, dodaci na kamate;
• Nagrade u kulturi;
• Infrastrukturalna potpora; Ateljei za goste;
• Akvizicija objekata koji su od značaja za Donju Austriju ili koji njenim građanima omogućuju kulturni napredak;

4. Pismeni zahtjev nije uvjet za dodjelu mandata (Odlomak 3) potporama izvornom umjetničkom djelovanju u javnom prostoru ili za prepoznavanje kulturnih nagrada (Član 7).
5. Vladina podrška služi osnaživanju privatnih potpora te time ima subsidijarni karakter. Donja Austrija ne financira nakanu u cijelosti, nego zahtijeva vlastite napore i ulaganja ili financijski doprinos treće strane, osim ako je Donja Austrija priređivač ili naručioc.
6. Kod pružanja potpore Donja Austrija nastupa kao nosioc privatnih prava prema mjerama predviđenih sredstava. Ne postoji mogućnost pravnog zahtjeva na neku potporu, te određeni način ili visinu potpore.

Član 4. Potpora izvornoj umjetnosti u javnom prostoru

1. Za potporu izvornoj umjetnosti u javnom prostoru i upravo za građevne nakane Donje Austrije ili za građevne nakane nekog drugog pravnog subjekta odgovorni članovi vlade Donje Austrije prema kalkulacijama Donje Austrije o građevnim nakanama određuju unutar kalendarske godine paušalni iznos za potporu slijedećim aktivnostima:

1. Izvornoj umjetnosti u javnom prostoru (edukativna umjetnost, literatura, glazba, interdisciplinarne suvremene umjetničke forme) kao i
2. S time povezanim aktivnosti kao što su zadaci zbrinjavanja umjetnika i umjetničkih djela, te posredovanje umjetnosti.

2. Kod ugovaranja paušalnog iznosa treba polaziti od slijedećeg:

1. Predviđenih ukupnih troškova građevnih nakana u Donjoj Austriji (kao što su ceste i mostovi, te visokogradnja, sa izuzetkom objekata vezanih za zaštitu okoliša te vodoopskrbe naselja), koji bi se u dotičnoj kalendarskoj godini trebali opunomoćiti, te
2. Predviđenih ukupnih troškova doprinosa financiranju od strane Donje Austrije kada su u pitanju građevne namjere drugih pravnih subjekata, koje bi se u dotičnoj kalendarskoj godini trebale dozvoliti, kada se radi o nakanama koje će pretežno biti financirane kroz Donju Austriju.
3. Kod leasing-građenja od mogućih leasing-rata bez troškova financiranja.

3. Ako se do 30. travnja tekuće godine ne postigne konsensus oko paušalnog iznosa, 1% predviđenih ukupnih troškova navedenih pod Odlomak (2) treba staviti na raspolaganje kreditnom mjestu ovlaštenom za rukovanje navedenim sredstvima, a u svrhu potpore izvornoj umjetnosti u javnom prostoru.

Izvor: Kulturne pozicije

Izdavač: Ured vlade Donje Austrije. Odjel za kulturu i znanost. St.Poelten: 1997

 

 

 

 

——————————————————-

Public Art Policies – A Comparative Study

Slavica Radišić (2010)

Abstract.
This paper explores the development of the public art policies and legal and financial mechanisms in this domain. The research is conducted in a form of a comparative analysis of three different public art policy approaches – the United States, France and the United Kingdom. In the text is presented the historical development of the 1% for art regulation from its origination in the early 1930s to the most recent time when this kind of regulation is usually maintained on the local or the regional level. Furthermore, modifications of the typical percent for art regulation introduced in recent times are also explored. Besides the 1% for art regulation, some other ways of supporting public art projects are analyzed. They could be classified in two groups: projects supported through the special public commission programs  and projects supported through the public-private partnerships.

Key words: public art policy, percent for art, public commission, public-private partnerships.
Word count of paper: 7 804

Introduction

The contemporary public art is a phenomenon that is hard to define. It covers a broad range of media and it is opened to a multitude of interpretations. In its forty years of existence the contemporary public art practice has undergone significant shifts, from the primarily aesthetic considerations to the recent collaborative and socially engaged practice. Although in recent years some studies emerged, dealing with this phenomenon, they were concerned primarily with its’ artistic and theoretical aspects. Nevertheless, the methodical researchs that would treat phenomenon of public art from the standpoint of public and cultural policy are still very rare. Having this in mind the main subject of this research were public art policies and its development with the main focus on the presentation of the most popular legal and financial mechanisms in this domain.
In line with this, the starting point of the conceptual analysis assumed in this research might be the best articulated by narrow and pragmatic definition of public art given by Heine (1996, p.2): “public art is art installed by public agencies in public places and at public expense.”

Public Art Policies

Given the great differences of the public art polices at the international level, due to historic, ethnic, social, economic and other differences between countries and regions, it is impossible to identify one general model of the public art policy. For that reason I decided that the best way to present a development of public art policies will be through the comparative analysis of three different cultural (and the public art) policy approaches – the United States, France and the United Kingdom. The main reason that influenced my decision to carry out comparative study of their public art policies in these three countries was the fact that in all three countries during the last fifty years a number of different kind of public art projects were realized, so I thought that it will be very important to examine what was the role of the public authorities in those projects.
However as we will see, in spite of all the differences, all three countries in this domain have encountered very similar problems and dealt with them in a fairly similar ways, which resulted in the implementation of some respective policy mechanisms. As research showed all three countries introduced the percentage for art policy, and each of them developed its specific ways for its implementation. Nevertheless, apart from the percentage for art regulation, during the years a number of other ways of support were introduced, from the simple local (or central) government commission program to the incorporation of the public art in the urban development projects.
We can identify four ways of public bodies support to public art:

1.    Appropriations on the project by project basis;
2.    Special public commission programs;
3.    Percent for art legislation or ordinances;
4.    Funding public art through the redevelopment process (public-private partnerships).

Certainly, how public art projects will be supported depends from the specificity of the national political system and its cultural policy objectives. As we will see, unlike France, in the USA federal support for public art is weak and numerous projects today are realized through public-private partnerships, which is almost impossible in France because of specificity of the French political system and existing public space management. In the UK there is a great American influence in this domain and the public art is usually supported through the allocations to the specialized public art agencies but also as a part of the redevelopment projects and private-public partnerships. However, besides all differences all three countries developed percent for art regulations as the main policy instrument in this domain. In the next section I will present percent art policies of these three countries and after that I will briefly present some other ways for public art support – special public commission programs and public-private partnerships.

Percentage for Art

The oldest and the most widespread way of supporting public art projects is percentage for art. Percentage for art represents a regulation that adopts public institutions, either on central, regional or local level, which defines that 1% of all public buildings constructions costs should be spent on public art. Today most of the developed countries have some kind of percent for art policy, if not mandatory then at least on voluntary basis. The history of the percent for art principle goes far back to the 1930s, when the USA and France, independently, introduced this policy at the national level.

In the USA, first percentage for art ordinance was introduced in 1934, when under direct Roosevelt order the Treasury Department and its Painting and Sculpture section were established as a part of the New Deal program (Wetenhall,1993). The main task of newly formed the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), was to finance and administer a process of decorating federal buildings through setting aside, for this purpose, approximately 1% from all construction costs. As all other cultural projects initiated during the New Deal reform, PWAP was initiated mostly because of the governmental concern for labor market (Wetenhall,1993).  Its main aim was to secure jobs for professional artists and others engaged in cultural work. Special attention was given to the implementation of the new, more democratic selection procedure, giving an equal chance to all artists. This new selection process was intended to encourage and publicize development of American art (Wetenhall,1993). Unfortunately, this practice didn’t last for long and with the beginning of the World War II, percent for art ordinance gradually lost impetus and officially program was disbanded in 1943. However, during the first two years of its existence more then 4000 artists were commissioned to create around 1500 artworks (Wetenhall,1993).
Real and intensive contemporary public art activity in the USA started in the sixties. With the arrival of the Kennedy administration, federal government started to consider arts as an important instrument for expressing of American ideals – liberty and democracy, as opposed to the controlled art of the Soviet Union (Senie, 2001). In those circumstances special attention was given to the public art as one of the best ways for expressing the values of American democracy. Second reason for restoring governmental support for public art was also a need for beautifying federal buildings. In the year of 1963, the General Service Administration, GSA, the agency responsible for constructions and maintenance of the United States government property, introduced the Art in Architecture program and reestablished percentage for art regulation but this time with arts allowance of mandatory 0.5% of the estimated cost of all building constructions (Senie, 2001). Founded in 1949, from the beginning GSA was in charge for all federal buildings decoration so it was not a surprise that it became also the first federal department that officially adopted the percentage for art policy. In fact, inauguration of the Art in Architecture program was a last step in a long chain of many governmental decisions in favor of better quality of governmental architecture and its decoration. Installment of percent for art policy preceded acceptance of the document under the name Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture (Wetenhall, 1993). In this document it was elaborated a new, more quality-conscious federal attitude toward architecture, one that would lead directly to a mandate for fine art in public buildings (Wetenhall, 1993).
However, besides all attempts percentage for art policy was still rarely implemented and even when public art projects were realised they were accompanied with a lot of misunderstandings and contraversy. By the year 1966, the program was suspended due to the budgetary pressures of the war in Southeast Asia, existing public art controversy, and lack of public interest for art (Wetenhall, 1993). The main problems with early GSA Art in Architecture program was primarly the absence of  the defined selection and application procedure. This problem was partly resolved ten years later during the Nixon administration, when Art in Architecture program was restored and problem with the selection process was resolved by involving the National Endowments for Arts – NEA,  in the process.
This cooperation lasted almost two decades and stopped by the end of the 1980s mostly as a consequence of the Tilted Arc controversy witch questioned the NEA selection procedures (Senie, 2001). In the 1980s Federal Government lost every interest in supporting the arts, and its new standpoint toward art was manifested through great budget cut-backs. In the next period the GSA revised program guidelines and provided a new focus on the return to architecture decoration based practice (Senie, 2001). However, besides all controversies the GSA Public Art program remained fateful to its original objective during the whole period except for some minor changes. The program sought to represent the power of the federal government through art and well-designed architecture.
In spite of all problems and restrictions of the federal support during the 1990s, public art continued to be one of the most developing fields of art patronage in the USA but this time on a local level. Nevertheless, the objectives have changed. Public art is now considered as a good instrument for the improvement of the city’s identity and image, but also as a tool for economic revitalization of the decaying areas.
First percent for art ordinance on the local level in the USA was passed by the city of Philadelphia in 1959 as a part of its scheme for the urban revitalization. The ordinance codified an existing policy of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority which, since the late 1950s, had included a clause in contracts for reconstruction projects that required 1 % of the construction budget to be allocated for the art (Wetenhall, 1993). According to its originator, Michael von Moschzisker, Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority, the main aim of the program was to endowe public spaces with particular identities (Wetenhall, 1993). Comparing with the GSA percent for art policy, introduced only few years later, Von Moschziskers percent for art requirement was neither in service of supporting the work of artists nor a subsidy for the popularistion of the contemporary art. It was just a program in public interest with the main aim to accentuate the distinctiveness of the downtown Philadelphia (Wetenhall, 1993).
Baltimore followed Philadelphia example and in 1964 established a municipal percent for art policy and after that many other cities followed. Some of the States also supported percent for art measures, starting with Hawaii in 1967, and succeeded by many others during the late 1970s and 1980s (Wetenhall, 1993). Today, after almost 50 years from the introduction of the first percent for art regulation there is more then 300 cities, counties, states, and other governmental bodies in the USA that have adopted some kind of the percent for art regulations.

Almost in the same time as in the USA first percent for art regulation was introduced in France, as a part of a cultural policy of the first leftist government in France, Popular Front government. The responsible for the Popular Front cultural policy was Jean Zay, newly appointed minister for education who presented a great interest for the culture and especially for the contemporary art creation. During his period in the ministry Jean Zay had assumed responsibility for fostering, promoting and maintaining the contemporary art and its incorporation into public space (Délégation aux arts plastiques (DAP), 2001). In 1937 he introduced measure that 1.5% of the all cost intended for the construction of schools and universities would be spent on decoration. The main goal of this regulation had been a collaboration of artists and architects in the creation of a new and more human urban space. In the regulation draft was stated that the percentage for art program would not be restricted only to the Beaux Art monumental tradition but that it will be equally open to all quality art. In this way ministry openly encouraged a break with dominating monumental tradition and for the first time modern (contemporary) artists got their chance to work in the public space (DAP, 2001). Unfortunately, in spite of all Zay’s efforts the percentage for art was rarely applied in practice. It will take more then three decades before all changes introduced by Jean Zay become completely accepted.
In the first decades after the World War II, the public art commission and the French cultural policy in general, were marked by a decisive role of the central government and gradual creation of new administrative structures and budget funds. Complicated administrative procedures and high centralism in many ways restricted the development of the public art projects. First step in the process of the public art policy institutionalization, in the post-war period, was the decision of the national education minister Pierre-Olivier Lapie from the 1951. Lapie had decided to resume the percentage for arts policy from 1937, and to pass a law by which this policy was made mandatory for all construction projects in the domain of education (Delvainquière, 2008). The same as before the main aim of this regulation was incorporation of art into architecture in order to enrich student’s surroundings and urban spaces in general.
The next decision concernig the percentage for art policy came after almost two decades. On the initiative of the centrist minister Duhamel, in 1972 the Ministry of Culture started  campagne for exstension of the percent for art principle on all existing public  buildings. From the 1972 to 1981 beside the Ministry of Education, system was gradually outstretched on almost all the other ministries (Delvainquière, 2008). On top of this extension, by the decision from 1972 it was allowed that 1% not only to be used for building decoration but also to plan spaces in the near proximity of the building by employing the artists (Smadja, 2003).
Turning point for the public art policy in France represents the year 1981 and the installment of Jack Lang for the minister of culture. Two years later, the French National Assembly passed a decentralization law by which central government transferred certain competences to regional and local governments including the jurisdiction in the domain of architecture and urbanism and the construction of public buildings. In the article 59 of decentralization law it was specified that local communities are obliged to dedicate 1% for art from all construction costs for the buildings which in its description have obligation to receive the public (Smadja, 2003). By this decision, it has been instituted coexistence of two separate percentages for art initiatives: the old one centralized and administered by ministries and the new one, so called decentralized percentage for art, administered by the regional and local governments (Smadja, 2003).

Contrary to the American and French case, the percentage for art policy in the UK was introduced recently and only on the local level. The first percent for art regulation initiated by the public bodies emerged in the UK during the late 1980s through the Art and Architecture movement. However, this doesn’t mean that public art was not present in the UK before. First public art projects were realized in 1951 during the Festival of Britain, which was organized within the social program of reform implemented by the new Labor government. Especially for this occasion The London County Council and Arts Council of Great Britain commissioned sculptures and murals, for various locations in the city, in order to enliven the city during the festival (Whiteley, 2002). In the following period, on account of government legislation from the 1948 that had given local councils a legal authority (although only permissive) to support arts and entertainment, some of the local authorities began to expand their support for public art (Fisher, 2008). This support was mostly manifested through the organization of the open air exhibitions, art project for schools, installment of contemporary sculpture on public places, which all gave ordinary citizens opportunity to experience contemporary art. During this period the London City Council adopted the first official policy for promotion of public art in the built environment and started to finance decoration of schools and housing estates with sculptures and murals (Whiteley, 2002). The main aim of this program was improvement and enhancement of the quality of everyday life of ordinary people. London City Council policy was a precedent for many other cities in the UK, and especially for the towns and cities part of the New Towns project. One of the best examples of this new practice was Harlow, city that from its foundation had a policy of incorporating public sculpture in the housing estates as well as in the city precincts (Harlow Council, 2008).
During the 1970s official public art advocacy arisen. The first government’s initiatives in that domain were Labor party report Arts and People made in 1977 and the extensive Conservative administration support to Garden Festivals. Furthermore, from that period originates also the Arts Council of Great Britain first initiative in this domain – project the Art into Landscape (Selwood,1995 cited in Hall & Robertson, 2001). At the same time together with these official programs, artists themselves initiated a great number of the public art projects. Nevertheless, all  these initiatives in the 1970s were still just isolated cases, and until the mid 1980s there was no special governmental interest for public art and thereby neither the funding possibilities.
Decisive stimulus for an expansion of the public art projects in the UK did not come, as we may think, from the domain of culture, and existing governmental aspirations for democratization of art, but rather from an urban policy domain and a widely spread acknowledgment during the 1980s, that arts, and especially public art, could contribute, to a certain degree, to the urban redevelopment process and the growth of the city’s economy. Important part of the new British urban policy – Action for Cities, based on the property led redevelopment strategies for inner cities areas, was an attempt to decorate a city (Hall & Robertson, 2001). In the same time Arts Council declared new arts policy objectives by which all art founding, including the public art, have to be justified in economical terms (Fisher, 2008). Evidence of this new more proactive Arts Council cultural policy, was an extensive pro arts campaign started in order to facilitate private funding of arts and incorporating the public art in the urban development projects (Hall and Robertson, 2001). From this framework Arts Councils started to advocate for the adoption of the percent for art policy amongst British local authorities. In 1988 the Arts Council of England, the Scottish Arts Council, the Welsh Arts Council and the regional arts associations confirmed in principle their support to the introduction of the percent for art policy (Hamilton et al., 2001). They organized special Steering Group to investigate viability of the percentage for arts policy in the UK conditions. The main task of the Steering Group was to work out a program for the implementation of percentage for art ordinances as well as possible ways of its application. Initially in 1988, when the Arts Councils for the first time came up with an idea, it was considered as the best solution for propagation of the public art would be passing the national legislation, requiring a percentage of all publicly funded buildings and maintenance schemes to include funding for artists’ and architects’ collaboration (Hamilton et al., 2001). However, the 1980s were not the best time for the percent for art policy introduction because the Thatchers’ government saw this kind of regulations as a restriction on the freedom of capital, or as an increased burden on the public budget (Lydiate, 1992). In  these circumstances, in 1991 the Arts Council issued Steering Group report Percent for art: a review in the form of an handbook which main aim was to persuade local authorities as well as private developers to adopt the policy. However, due to the specific legal system in the UK, which does not enable the percent for art and similar regulations to become mandatory, the public art policies in the UK were not considered as the legal requirements but as informal and voluntary (Lydiate,1992). The demand for legislation was, to all intents and purposes, shelved in favor of publication of information, education, and the persuasion of bodies responsible for both the environment and the arts and crafts – a strategy that has proved successful (Lydiate,1992).
Nevertheless, Steering Group gave also other more positive recommendations and urged public bodies to include the percent for art policy in their own development scheme. It was stated that adoption of the percent for art policy can in different ways contribute to the city development.
In that situation newly established Department for Culture, Media and Sport – DCMS (1997) together with Arts Councils continued the public art advocacy, which in the very short period led to the introduction of a large number of the public art programs and agencies. This, of course, also resulted in an enormous number of the new public art projects. Most of the established public art programs were operated by the public authorities responsible for spending, or authorizing the spending of the public (sometimes private) money on the construction, refurbishment, or regeneration of the built environment.
However, despite all attempts that have been undertaken during this short period, the UK fell far behind France and the USA in terms of provision and policy mechanisms. In the recent literature, the UK’s public art policy (and the cultural policy in general) has received a strong criticism for its merely instrumental features because, it has been argued, behind the extensive advocacy for the public art it was the explicit economic rationale.

Problems and Improvements of the Percentage for Art

Although the percentage for art represents one of the oldest cultural policy measures, almost until the middle of the 1980s it was still rarely applied. In most of the cases public art component of the public construction was the first to be cross out when the construction cost were surpassing the initial budget. There was many different reasons that led to such situation. One of the principal was that percentage for art regulations in most of the cases were not mandatory and public bodies and governments have discretion to decide when they want to implement it and when not. However, many difficulties and implementation problems that have troubled the percent for arts programs in the early years were just a result of the initial legislation limitations and the lack of the specificity and precise definitions regarding the following points:

1.    Selection and application procedure;
2.    Precise definitions of public art;
3.    Specification for the eligible source of funds;
4.    Restrictions on the use of funds;
5.    Definition of the fiscal and administrative responsibilities and what is authority in administering the program;
6.    Consideration of the long term care of the art and community education.
(Cruikshank & Korza, 1988)

In order to avoid these problems many cities and states in the USA started to adopt improvements to the standard percent for policy regulation and issued public art policy documents defining all troubling points such as selection process or application procedure.
The Seattle and Washington State Public Art Program introduced some of the most important modification to the regular percentage for art. In order to achieve better integration of the public art into the public spaces, the Washington State Art Commission introduced the so called polling the funds model, which enabled funds that are generated by one site can be used on the other site which could not generate sufficient funds (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988). On the other hand, City of Seattle, in their percent for art regulation tackled one of the main restrictions of the early percent for art ordinances – lack of the precise definitions and clarifications considering what sorts of public constructions and buildings could generate the art percent funds. In order to expend funds for the public art projects, they adopted one of the most inclusive percent for art ordinance, by which percent for art regulations included not only new public building constructions but it was enlarged to all public renovation projects as well as to all capital improvements connected with the city utilities organizations (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988). One more novelty brought by amendments was the decision that every artwork commissioned through the Seattle’s public art program can either be created as an integral part of a construction project or located at any other city owned site (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988). The City Treasury has established a special fund designated as the Municipal Arts Fund into which were deposited all funds collected via percentage for art (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988). Seattle example was followed by other cities which enlarged their percent for art ordinances and allowed the arts agency to begin to consider the city as a whole.
Another problem that obstructed an implementation of the public art projects in many communities was the absence of clarifications regarding funds for administration, maintenance, and education costs. In some cities maintenance and education were recognized as operational costs similar to the park and building maintenance and were prorated and charged to the departmental funding source as a basic expense (Cruikshank & Korza, 1988). However, in most of the cities these costs are still covered by the percentage for art revenue that caused that the total art funds are diminished.

Almost the same problem with the restrictions of the existing percent for art regulations was in France. At the end of the 1980s the Ministry of Culture acknowledged that decentralized percentage for art was rarely applied on the regional and local level. In the next period one of the main objectives of the Ministry become popularization of the percentage for art scheme as well as establishment of the better application procedure, which was proved to be the main constraint for the scheme implementation (Smadja, 2002).
In 2002 it was introduced decree that redefined and harmonized obligations of all ministries and public institutions in the domain of public buildings decoration as well as the main conditions of that obligation. By this decree for the first time percentage for art become mandatory for all public constructions (Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2002). It is stated that percentage for art scheme have to be applied to all constructions and enlargements of public building as well for reconstruction works resulted in the change of use or appearance of the building (Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2002). It contained also an article which reaffirmed possibility that percentage for art should be used not only for decoration of specific buildings, but also that funds could be used to enliven public spaces in a near proximity of the building (Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2002). Two years later new decree was issued that defined precise instructions for implementation procedure – decision making process, selection process, as well as the management of the project and later maintenance issues (Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2005). By the new regulation special attention has been given to the collaboration with the local community during the planning process and the selection of the artists; as well as to the involvement of the artists in the construction process from the early stages (Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2005).

Special public commission programs

In all three countries there has been a long tradition of supporting public art through the public commission. However, during the last two decades with the change of political climate this kind of support in the USA is diminished. On the other hand, in France and the UK, most of the public art projects were and still are financed through the special governmental programs of support either on national (France) or local level (UK).

During more than thirty years in the USA existed two federal programs supporting the public art. One of them was already mentioned here; the GSA Art in Architecture program, and the other one was the Art in Public Spaces Program (APP) administered by the National Endowment for Arts agency – NEA.
NEA Art in Public Spaces program was inaugurated in 1965 with the main mission to provide an opportunity for the promotion of the democratic participation in the process of selecting and placing the public art, in order to prevent prevalence of private interests in designing of public space (Senie, 2001). From the start the NEA took part in the variety of different programs, from the assistance to the GSA in the acquiring the decoration for federal buildings, to the collaborative projects with cities and divers public organizations, in order to commission a large scale modern public sculptures (Senie, 2001). In the majority of cases the NEA was supposed to provide, through the APP program, communities and organizations a professional consultancy and support in the selection process as well as partial grants for the implementation of the project (Senie,2001). The recurrent problem of legitimacy prompted the NEA to choose to intervene in commissions only as a partner in artistic initiatives developed on local level and to renounce both total sponsorship and ownership of the work (Senie, 2001). In the beginning the NEA defined its main objective as “to give the public access to the best art of our times outside museum walls” (Senie, 2001). Later, consistent with the changes in the art world they changed their objectives towards more community oriented public art projects. With the arrival of the Reagan’s administration and the change of the political climate the NEA suffered a great deal of official criticism due to its support to controversial art projects (Senie, 2001). In 1991 in responese to the  congressional budget cuts and complaints regarding their selection procedure the NEA proposed combining the Art in Public Spaces and the Visual Artists Forums categories of funding. By this decision the NEA has chosen to emphasize education and dialogue and started to support more community related projects dealing with social problems and multiculturalism (Senie,2001). After over more then two decades, the NEA finaly abandoned its support for the public art in favor of a collaborative and community oriented art projects. By the time when the NEA Art in Public Spaces had been closed and in the same time with the reoriantation of the GSA public art program towards the arhitectural decoration, after more then three decades public art lost finnancial support from federal government in the USA. However, in the meantime in the USA arised a great number of specialized public art organisations which are responsible for the realisation of the public art projects and financed either through the private or public grants.

There is a long history of the governmental support to public art projects in France. In some form Commande Publique existed from the end of the 19th century. Nevertheless, officially Commande Publique program (with defined financial instruments) was introduced in 1981 with the appointment of Jack Lang as the Minister of Culture. Program was administered by the National Centre for Visual Art (Le Centre national des arts plastiques – CNAP), which was also responsible for the selection process (Délégation aux arts plastiques (DAP) & Le Centre national des arts plastiques (CNAP),  2001). In the due period, some of the most interesting and prestigious public art projects were realized within this scheme. Through the program were largely supported projects that contributed to the urban spaces animation, promotion of contemporary art in urban spaces, and artistic production. Special accent was given to the realization of the ambitious art projects, which could not be possible without a help of public commissions funds. When in France, in 1983, started the process of decentralization, one of the consequences was an introduction of the decentralized Commande Publique. Many local communities for the first time got a possibility to use these funds for an integration of public art in their urban development projects. All these projects were realized according to their special geographical, architectural and social contexts. Furthermore, one of the new program objectives was initiation of the dialogue and joint programs between central government and local communities in order to make the general public more sensible to the contemporary art. The regional DRAC were in charged for the selection and implementation of this aspect of the program. In the period between 1983- 1995, as a part of this initiative in France, 718 public art projects were realized (either through national or decentralized Commande Publique procedure) (Smadja, 2003). Although the Commande Publique funds have diminished from the nineties, this is still a dominant framework for the realization of the public art projects in France.
Besides this program, in France exist praxis of granting special funds for the public art by different public institutions, communities or the central government. One of these kinds of funding sources are special conventions of the Ministry of Culture. In this way are mostly finansed programs connected with the redevelopment project such as beautification of the new parisian quartier Défense and program Ville Nouvelles (Smadja, 2003).

In Britain, a large number of public art projects is financed through the National Lottery program for Good Causes, which is the British equivalent of the Commande Publique program. National Lottery program is established in 1994 and centrally administered and controlled through the Parliament via the Departement for Culture, Media and Sport – DCMS. The main task of the DCMS is to set policy and financial framework within which the distributing bodies for the National Lottery grants could operate. All lottery grants intended for culture are allocated through the Arts Councils. From the very beginning of this initiative’s implementation, most of the realized projects were large flagship (prestige) projects, such as Antony Gormley Angel of the North. However in the recent time, support for this kind of projects diminished. With the new New Lottery Act from 2006 funds has been allocated in the more flexible ways, for example for small community projects, public art commissions, as well as to individuals (National Lotery Commision (NLC), 2006). This new legislation aimed to make the Lottery more responsive to people’s priorities and to ensure that Lottery money goes efficiently to good causes.
Similarly as in the USA, in the UK emerged, during the 1990s, a large number of specialised public art organisations (some of them founded by Arts Councils) which activity is mostly supported directly through the funds of the DCMS or through the Arts Councils. Public art projects in the UK are also often supported through the collaborative programs and the initiatives between the cultural and developmental agencies as a part of national strategy for better quality of built environment. From its foundation DCMS encouraged inter-sectorial cooperation and organization of the joint projects among cultural, social and urban sector. Among organizations that were (and are) actively granting public art projects we can also include Regional Development Agencies (RDA) responsible for the sustainable economic development and regeneration of the specific region.

Projects supported through the public-private partnerships

As a consequence of the federal support diminishment, today the most of the public art projects in the USA are financed by local communities. Nevertheless some municipalities in theirs attempts to secure founding for the public art are gone beyond simple percentage for art introduction. One of the most interesting trends in this domain is appearance of the public art project realized through the public–private partnerships as a part of the urban development projects. One of the most advanced programs of this type is LA Downtown Art in Public Places Program initiated by the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in 1985 (Cruikshank and Korza, 1988). The novelty introduced by the CRA/LA Public Art Policy is that a private developer is obliged to set aside the 1% of his construction costs for the public art (Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA),2005). However, specificity brought by this program is that each private developer has the option of choosing to implement its percent for art obligation through two different types of public art projects: developer initiated projects (public art project or cultural facilities within private developments) and the Cultural Trust projects. The Trust Fund, one of the innovations of the CRA policy, is a funding mechanism which aggregates portions of the individual private, site-specific percent for art requirements and redistributes these funds in order to finance cultural programs and art projects in downtown locations (CRA/LA, 2005). The Trust Fund represents an instrument for financing and sitting artworks or programs that otherwise are not feasible, such as in neighborhoods without private investments. Through this fund are supported public art projects, cultural programming as well as construction of the cultural facilities in the LA area (CRA/LA,2005).
Similar model of the public–private partnerships is developed in the UK. The Section 106 Planning Agreement is voluntary and legally binding agreement between a developer and a local planning authority (IXIA, 2007). By this agreement local authority may enter into an agreement with a developer to secure financial contributions towards a range of infrastructure including provision of the percent for art.
In France as a consequence of different system of public space management, this type of the private-public collaboration doesn’t exist. However, in recent time there are some attempts towards establishing the public-civil-private partnerships in the domain of public art in France as well, whose best example is the Nouveaux commandataire program (New Patrons), an initiative supported mostly by the Foundation of France. Nouveaux commandataire scheme is developed as an alternative method for commissioning of new artworks for the public space, and although some projects are co-financed by the Ministry of Culture, the working method is completely different. The program enables anyone confronted with the issues about the society or the local development to commission an artwork directly from an artist. As is stated in the New Patrons protocol, the main aim of the program is to give a chance to citizens to become art patrons and for their voices to be heared.
Conclusion
The main subject explored in this paper was an origination and a development of the modern public art policies, their legal foundations and financial instruments. The research is conducted in a form of a comparative analysis of three different public art policy approaches – the United States, France and the United Kingdom.
As it is demonstrated in the research, governments of all three countries actively encouraged the creation of public art either through the percentage for art regulations or through the special public commission programs. Besides these two, in the last two decades in the USA and the UK, public art projects are also financed through the public- private partnerships.
The percentage for art remains the most popular way of public art support. France and the USA were the first countries that introduced and maintained this policy on the national level. The main reasons behind the installment of  these nationally administered percentage for art programs, and later also national public commission programs, were in their essence social and political.
During the 1980s support for public art has shifted from national to local and regional level. In the USA this change occurred during the Reagan administration and was directly related to the economy. Expansion of the local public art programs in that time was a part of the widely spread acknowledgment that public art can contribute to revitalization of former industrial cities.
In France a number of public art programs initiated on the local level also grew. However, because of the specificities of the French political system the public art domain is still dominated by the central government interventions, in spite of many attempts of decentralization.

In contrast to the American and the French cases, before the 1980s in the UK there were no national public art programs. The first large public art programs emerged in the UK on a local level resembled to the respective US initiatives. The main reason for a sudden and growing interest for the public art in the UK was an attempt of Brittan’s urban planners to solve the enormous economical and social problems emerged due to the urban crisis. That is why Art Councils started to advocate introduction of  the percent for art regulation. However due to specificity of the legal system in the UK these regulations could not be mandatory. Except through the percent for art, public art projects in the UK are also realized either through the public-private partnerships or the inter-sectoral cooperation between cultural and redevelopment agencies.
In the past five decades two distinct perspectives concerning importance of the public art projects are crystallized. From one perspective, which is closer to local authorities, importance of public art is regarded through its relation to the city and process of urban redevelopment and its role in production of more humane urban environment. On the other hand, from the perspective of the central government the public art is often considered as one more way of expressing national cultural identity and dominance.

References

Books and Articles

Cruikshank,  J. L. & Korza, P.,1988. Going Public: a field guide to developments in art in public places. Amherst : Arts Extension Service.
Dragićević-Šešić, M. & Stojković B., 2003.  Kultura – marketing, animacija, menadžment. Beograd : CLIO.
Goldstein B., 2005. Public art by the book. Seattle/London: University of Washington Press.
Mitchell W.J. T. ed., 1993.  Art and the Public Sphere. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Journals.
Miles M., 2006. Art, Space and the City. London/New York: Routledge.
Senie H., 2001. The Tilted Arc Controversy: Dangerous Precedent? Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
Hall T., Robertson I., 2001. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debate. Landscape Research, 26 (1), pp. 5-26.
Hamilton J., Forsyth L., De Iongh D., 2001. Public Art: A Local Authority Perspective, Journal of Urban Design, 6 (3), pp. 283-296.
Hein H., 1996. What is Public Art?: Time, Place and Meaning. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 54 (1)  pp. 1-7.
Hunting D., 2005. Public Art Policy, Examinig an Emerging Discipline. Perspectives in Public Affairs, 2 [Online].
Available at: http://www.asu.edu/mpa/Hunting_Public%20Art.pdf
[Accessed 24 April 2010]
Smadja G., 2003. Art et espace: le point sur une demarche urbaine.(Rapport no. 2001-0091-01), Paris: Conseil General des ponts et chausses.
Wetenhall, J., 1993.  A Brief History of Percent-for-Art in America. Public Art Review, [Online].
Available at : http://www.forecastpublicart.org/anthology-downloads/wetenhall.pdf
[Accessed 25 April 2010]

Documents and web sources

Circulaire relatif à l’obligation de décoration des constructions publiques, 2006. [Online]. Paris : Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise.
Available at : http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/dap/unpourcent/uFiles/doc/8_fichier.pdf
[Accessed 3 May 2010]
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, 2005. Art Policy, [Online]
Available at : http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Other/Art_Program/upload/Art%20Policy%202005%20-%20AMENDMENT%20-2007.pdf
[Accessed 20 April 2010]
Delvainquière, J.C.,2008.  Cultural Policy Profile, France. Compendium, Cultural Policies and
Trends in Europe, [Online].
Available at : http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/france.php
[Accessed 17 May 2010]
Department for Culture Media and Sport. National Lottery, Policy and Financial Directions, [Online]
Available at : http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/national_lottery/4202.aspx
[Accessed 23 April 2010]
Department for Culture Media and Sport. National lottery act, [Online]
Available at : http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/national_lottery/3397.aspx
[Accessed 23 April 2010]
Fisher R., 2008. United Kingdom, Cultural Policy Profile. Compendium, Cultural Policies and trend
in Europe, [Online]
Available at ; http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/unitedkingdom.php,
[Accessed  17 April 2010]
Gillian W., 2002. Art for Social Spaces, Public Sculpture and Urban Regeneration in post-war Britain. Designing Britain 1945-1975, [Online].
Available at: http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/learning/designingbritain/index.html.
[Accessed May 2008]
Harlow Council City, 2008. About Harlow. [Online]( Updated 5 September 2008)
Available at: http://www.harlow.gov.uk/Default.aspx?sID=726
[Accessed 18 April 2010]
IXIA, 2007. Public Art and the Planning System and Process in England, [Online]
Available at: http://www.ixia-info.com/pdfs/ixiaspdguidancejuly07.pdf
[Accessed  November 2007]
Lydiate H,1992. Public Patrons. Percentage for art. Artquest, Artlaw online archive, [Online]
Available at  http://www.artquest.org.uk/artquest/artlaw/public-policies/government-policies-the-arts/percent-for-art-legistlation.htm
[Accessed: 14 May 2010]
Le décret de décoration des constructions publiques, 2005. (no 2005-90), [Online] Paris: Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise.
Available at: http://admi.net/jo/20050206/MCCB0400926D.html
[Accessed  May 2008]
Le décret de décoration des constructions publiques,2002. (n°2002-677)[Online]. Paris : Journal Officiel de la République Française.
Available at :http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/dap/unpourcent/uFiles/doc/7_fichier.pdf
[Accessed May 2008]
Le Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2001. La commande publique, mode d’ emploi.
Historique.[Online]
Available at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/commande_publique/cp/historique.htm,
[Accessed:  27 April, 2009]
Le Ministère de la culture et de la communication, 2001. La commande publique, mode d’emploi. Methode et procedure, [Online]
Available at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dap/commande_publique/cp/methode.htm
[Accessed May 2008]
Le Ministère de la culture et de la communication. Le 1% artistique, Presentation, [Online]
Available at : http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/politique-culturelle/index-dossiers.htm
[Accessed  May 2008]
New Patrons. The Manifesto of the New Patrons Society, [Online]
Available at: http://www.NEWPATRONS.eu/
[Accessed 21 April 2010]

————————————

——————————————————————————

Public art institutions and initiatives throughout Europe

Examples of the national, regional and the city model

by

Katrina Petter

During the last decades an uncountable number of public art institutions and initiatives have evolved throughout Europe. They not only differ in their concept of public art (from art in construction to temporary community work) but also in the structure of support. The three given examples in the following text – a national and a regional as well a city model – can only give a very short and superficial approach to the huge topic but might encourage to learn more about this prevailing and challenging discipline of contemporary art.

Kunst im öffentlichen Raum Niederösterreich (Public Art Lower Austria)

Generally art in construction / Kunst am Bau meant and still most of the time means that an architect constructs a public building. After it is built an artist gets invited to add a piece of art for the costs of about 1% of the construction budget – that is why most of these programs are called Percent of Art Acts or agreements. This was also the way it was practiced in Lower Austria when Katharina Blaas-Ptraschter took over the department of Public Art. Being frustrated by the limited possibilities and conservative approaches of art in construction she felt the need first to change the approach towards the classical art in construction. Her goals were to support the exchange of architects and artists as well as the user and to re-evaluate the role and the importance of art in connection with architecture; second to extend art in architecture to art in public space; to see art as a means to create a public; to bring together new developments in contemporary art, urban design, architecture and landscape architecture in order to encourage reflections on public space and initiate social, political and cultural processes.

In 1996 public art became a part of The Lower Austrian Culture Act and received fixed guidelines. The official incorporation of public art in the policy of a political authority is the precondition for a successful and sustainable public art program and its financial hedge. The funds given by the construction departments are collected in a pool from which all sorts of art projects in public space can be financed. In this way interdisciplinary forms of art can be realised as well as temporary installations. The Act additionally puts the decision which projects are to be supported and what artists get invited in the hands of a jury of professionals like architects, artists and curators – all in all eight, now ten persons. The jury changes every three years and meets approx. nine times a year. Also fixed in the Act is the importance of mediation between the regional communities and the artists. Furthermore the mission of Public Art Lower Austria is to draw up contracts and to supervise the realization of the projects. The team is also available for advice and support regarding any maintenance issues that arise during and after the project’s realization. The budget during the last years amounted to approximately 1.2 million Euros per year. All financial contributions are granted on the condition that Public Art Lower Austria is intrinsically involved in the project from the outset. The size of the financial contribution to a project is dependent on a number of different factors.

Further information about the over 400 realised projects and current initiatives can be found on http://www.publicart.at.

Kunst Öffentlichkeit Zürich and Kunst im öffentlichen Raum Zürich (Art Public Zurich and Public Art Zurich)

Art Public Zurich offers an exemplary showcase of how to launch a public art program in a city. The Zurich University for the Arts started in cooperation with the city government a research-project lasting from 2004 to 2007. The goal was to create a mission statement for public art in Zurich including a strategy and a structure for realising public art in Zurich. All the affected departments of the city government like urban development, civil engineering, surface and road construction were involved as well as professionals from architecture, urban planning and economy, artists and sociologists. The use and meaning of public space in Zurich was researched as well as the given tradition of public art in the city. They also had a look at other existing public art institutions around Europe and tried to launch a public discussion about the topic. As part of the research eight very different projects with 12 artists were tried to be realised to show the wide range of possibilities and the potential of public art within a city and its different areas.

The result of the research project was the installation of a permanent work group in 2006 that consists half of agents from the city administration and half of professionals from the art field. They initiate art competitions and calls, they counsel other institutions and companies who are interested in public art projects and they work on the general positioning of the topic in the mental and geographical map of the city. The budget is about 850.000,- Euros per year and is given by the city government. Further financing for special projects is possible – currently a public referendum is on the way for an additional budget of 4 million Euros for a public space design. The work-group meats six times a year to develop general strategies. They also launch competitions, provide advice for other institutions and function as mediator within the different departments in the city government as well as to the inhabitants. Furthermore they formulate suggestions how to proceed with older existing artworks in the public space and with sculptural presents given to the city by political guests.

Detailed information to the research project can be found on http://www.stadtkunst.ch and in the publication “Stadt Kunst Öffentlichkeit Zürich”. Information about current projects and more details about the structures can be found on http://www.stadtzuerich.ch/ted/de/index/oeffentlicher_raum/kunst_oeffentlicher_raum.html

SKOR – Stichting Kunst en Openbare Ruimte (Foundation Art and Public Space)

In contrast to Public Art Lower Austria, which focuses on a region and Public Art Zurich, which focuses on a city, SKOR is a nationally operating organization. It was founded in 1999 and is subsidized by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands. Its office is located in the capital Amsterdam. SKOR’s work is based on alliances with a broad variety of partners such as cultural centres, public and private organisations like municipalities, provincial and central governments, healthcare and educational institutions, project developers or architectural offices, in order to create a common and broad platform for art in the public domain in the Netherlands and a wide variation in the scale, nature and social relevance of the art projects.

Like in Lower Austria most of the projects are initiated by clients of different institutions but whereas in Lower Austria the jury invites from one up to five or more artists for a competition the team of SKOR investigates the situation and creates a detailed project plan which includes the recommendation of an artist and which is presented to a jury. The jury consists of five professionals like artists, curators, designers and architects. In accordance with the jury SKOR decides whether to realise a project or not. This means they make no open calls and only sporadically work with competitions.

They have a budget of 2.5 million Euros per year. Within the last ten years about 400 works and projects were realised and the team is constantly working on up to 100 projects at a time. Apart from the projects they also have a focus on mediation. They initiate symposia, lectures, talks by artists, workshops and tours to the project sites as well as producing publications and the theoretical magazine “open”. SKOR is an institution that tries to anchor the importance of the public space together with the importance of art in this realm in the conscious of the society by giving public art its integral part that it can fulfil in society.

For further information and an insight in the numerous realised projects visit http://www.skor.nl/set-actueel-nl.html?lang=en