A Recap of the Year We Spent Together

First, some sad news to share with everyone: this is my last post for Tech in the Arts, the quintessential blog looking at the intersection of arts and technology online. As a student here at Heinz College, it has been an honor to share with you on a weekly basis a look at different trends and topics at that very intersection, with a little bit of policy thrown in. For my final post, I wanted to take a look back at some of my favorite posts from the past year, and share with everyone what my thought process was when it came to writing about the important issues that affect the arts community on a daily basis.

Compared to the other writers here at Tech in the Arts, I have always tried to take a different approach – one that is centered on public policy, and how it impacts the arts community and arts lovers everywhere. As a Master’s student in public policy here at Carnegie Mellon, this is what I study on a daily basis and what I am passionate about, and I have been determined to include it in the overall conversation.

One of the topics I have written about frequently is the issue of funding for the arts, and the somewhat uncertain future it faces. Many cities and states, and even the federal government, are facing times of budget austerity, and cuts to the arts are happening at an alarming pace. I also wrote about the National Endowment for the Arts and its funding history, along with the new upstart on the arts funding block, Kickstarter. Arts financing in Europe has also been the target of deep cuts, and I finally looked at the debate surrounding what method of funding was the best for the arts in America. And in my very first post, I talked about how important it was (and still is!) to protect federal funding for the arts.

One of my favorite topics to write about was where arts and public policy intersected. One of my favorites to write was looking at where public policy lived through the eyes of the artists; another was a look at artistic revisions of the American Dream of buying a home. As we all know, the arts play a large role in economic development, which I wrote about, and I also took a look at how cities are thinking differently when it comes to development, often using the arts to differentiate them. Finally, I took a look at how cities are beautifying themselves through public works of art, as they face budget shortfalls and have to think creatively.

The most popular piece I wrote this year (and perhaps the most controversial, given some of the feedback and comments!) was looking at the debate over the most artistic city in America. The winner (as crowned by the Atlantic) was Santa Fe, but certainly cities everywhere can make their own legitimate cases for being the most artistic. Its topics like that are so much fun to write about; everyone has an opinion, wants to make their case for their own city, and it encourages discussion and debate.

I also enjoyed writing about an issue that doesn’t receive a lot of attention in the arts community, but is very important nonetheless, which is the issue of net neutrality. I wrote about how important the issue is, and also about how the issue is not going away anytime soon.

Finally, two of my favorite posts were about topics that don’t fit neatly within any of the above categories: My look at the Google Art Project and the White House, and also my look at the fall of Kodak and its effect on artistic inspiration.

It’s been a pleasure being a part of the fantastic and talented team here at Tech in the Arts for the past year. Thanks go out to everyone on the team for their help and support, and chiefly for the opportunity to write for all of you on a weekly basis. Thank you to everyone for reading, for being so supportive and for the kind comments and responses throughout the year.

For those so inclined, you can follow me on Twitter at @seanbowie, and can reach me by e-mail at seanmbowie@gmail.com. It’s been a pleasure everyone, thank you!

Up for Debate: What is the Best Way to Fund the Arts in America?

It is a topic that we have covered extensively here at Tech in the Arts over the past couple of months: what is the best way to fund the arts in America? With the National Endowment for the Arts seeing budget cuts, Kickstarter growing in popularity, and increased austerity measures around the world forcing large cuts to the arts, the topic has received a fair amount of attention in recent months. Last week, the New York Times, as part of its perennial “Room for Debate” series, asked the question I mentioned above, along with some others: What can we do to stabilize funding? Can we learn from the experiences of other countries? What can be done to improve effectiveness?

The Times gathered eight individuals from the artistic, non-profit, and political sectors, asking them what they believed were the best ways to fund the arts. Their answers might surprise you.

The eight respondents in the series tended to gravitate towards two positions: either the government needs to do more to fund the arts and various programs, or the government needs to get out of the way and the responsibility should rest on individuals instead. Like most policy debates, the question naturally comes back to what role the government should play; while some would argue too little is spent on funding (for example, the NEA received $147 million last year, a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall federal budget), others would say that instead of the government using taxpayer dollars to fund programs, it’s better left to the private sector and individuals to decide what programs should be funded.

Going through the eight responses, it was interesting to see how each person eventually gravitated towards one of these two areas. Some were more explicit and forward than others, but it’s this tug of war between more government investment and less government involvement that always seems to come up when debating any kind of public policy. The arts are no exception.

I encourage everyone to read the entire discussion, but I will summarize the eight viewpoints below.

Beth Nathanson, director of development at Playwrights Horizon, is quick to point out America’s “culture of philanthropy,” and says the following:

“It is a misconception that corporate or government support has ever provided the majority of arts funding. Each United States citizen pays about the cost of one postage stamp in taxes to support national arts and arts education programs. And those corporations that fund the arts primarily fund prominent organizations serving a high number of people. The real stars of arts giving are individual donors. They provide the lion’s share of support across the country, and on average, give more to arts than corporations and government entities combined.”

Nathanson points out that the arts are a fundamental part of our daily lives, and encourages individual investment in the arts, instead of government involvement. She, and many others, point to the Brazil model, which is a sort of public-private partnership that raises funding for the arts through payroll taxes. Everyone can certainly agree that “the arts should be an integral part of our lives,” the question becomes, in the end, how is that managed and developed? While taxes are certainly one way, personal responsibility, through giving, is another possibility as well.

David Boaz, of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, takes the individual model a bit further, and says that all arts funding needs to be separated from the government, because the government has too much control over where the money is spent. Better to let individuals and the private sector handle the responsibility instead, Boaz writes:

“People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.”

Boaz goes on to mention Kickstarter, an outlet for individuals to direct money to programs they explicitly support. This approach, Boaz argues, is preferable to the NEA’s approach, which is to take money from all taxpayers and then direct it to programs the agency support.

Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts, disagrees. Instead of spending less on the arts at the federal level, we should be spending more, and seek to start a “national dialogue” on the importance of arts funding. Lynch writes:

“Last month, 800 advocates were in Washington to defend to Congress the 47 cents per person that America spends on the National Endowment for the Arts. This amount should be much more but despite its seemingly small percentage, government support leverages billions in matching dollars, increases access — especially for the underserved — and encourages new voices, ideas and expressive endeavors that have kept the U.S. at the vanguard of creativity and innovation.”

Lynch writes about America needing to have the “creative will” to move past the issue of why funding is so important and start talking about how we should do it. Lynch, and many others, believe government revenue is the best way to do that.

Sergio Munoz Sarmiento, an artist and arts lawyer, takes issue with “mandatory funding,” the idea that everyone contribute to the same pot and those funds have to be spent each year:

“Arts funding should be encouraged, yet voluntary. Mandating government and corporate subsidies for the arts raises a few concerns for me. Will mandated art subsidies affect the quality of artistic production? Will this type of funding encourage a passive artistic community? And finally, will it create a curatorial practice on behalf of granting institutions?”

In other words, a program where funding is guaranteed does a disservice to artists, who will not be as entrepreneurial or imaginative if funding is a certainty. Better to have more competition and uncertainty, which will lead artists to become more daring, creative, and/or original in their works.

Clyde Valentin and Kamilah Forbes, of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival, focus on the reliability of arts funding, and maintain that a stronger commitment to the arts will encourage more collaboration and certainty among artists and arts groups:

“The experience of the Hip-Hop Theater Festival is that where our funding is most reliable, our programs have the most impact. In Washington, for example, our partnership with the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities has enabled our organization to produce the D.C. Festival for little or no direct cost to the public. The festival draws an unprecedented audience annually to some of D.C.’s most prestigious arts institutions, reaching thousands who get to experience art they would never otherwise have an opportunity to see.”

Michael Royce, executive director of the New York Foundation for the Arts, is another defender of federal funding for the arts. In addition to greater federal funding, he encourages greater incentives, through federal tax policy, for individuals to donate to the arts as well:

“The U.S. model has traditionally given incentives for private support, usually through tax deductible donations. Likely the most efficient method of increasing private funds is to strengthen those incentives. For example, the current cap on tax-deductible contributions is 10 percent of taxable income and could be raised for arts contributions, perhaps to 15 percent. Smaller companies, through cash grants or in-kind donations, can make vital and targeted contributions to specific artists' projects. On the individual level, tax forms could allow for earmarked donations to the arts.”

Royce, and many others, agree that the problem is that there simply isn’t enough funding for the arts at this time. Through greater federal investment, and tax incentives, Royce argues for a new model.

Finally, Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, talks about how little of the money donated to charitable causes in 2010 went to the arts community: only five percent. The majority of the money went to places like universities, religious groups, and hospitals. She also points out the myth that most arts funding is donated by the wealthy:

“It's a myth that the rich are keeping the arts alive; while many are to be commended for their huge donations, America's millionaires and billionaires provide a small portion of the money that flows to cultural causes.”

Palmer points out that it is time to “rethink” how everyone, including the public and private sectors, individuals, and arts organizations steer money towards the arts, which is something I think all of us can agree on.

Taken together, the New York Times series was a fascinating look at the different perspectives towards how arts should be funded in the U.S. All of us can agree on the problem: the arts need more funding. The question, going forward, is how to best do so.

Whether it is continued federal support towards groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, more of a focus on private alternatives, like Kickstarter, or some kind of combination of the two, the debate is sure to continue.

After reading the different responses, where do you stand? How should funding for the arts be developed in the United States, and what steps can we take to get there?

Six Ways Arts Organizations Can Improve their Facebook Advertising

Guest blogger Erik Gensler is the President of Capacity Interactive, a digital marketing consulting firm for arts organizations. This fall Capacity Interactive is hosting Digital Marketing Boot Camp for Arts Marketers, a 2-day conference October 25-26 in NYC. Conference topics include: Marketing the Arts with Video, Mobile Marketing, Writing for the Web, Online Fundraising, and the topic of this blog post: Facebook Marketing. More information at http://www.dmbootcamp4arts.com

I'm calling for a moratorium on boring Facebook ads for the arts. As arts marketers, we have amazing products to sell -- live arts that provide moving experiences to audiences every night. We have beautiful sets and costumes, sexy dancers, and attractive actors. But what do most performing arts Facebook ads look like?

Headline: Show I've Never Heard of

Stock Production Photo

Come see <Show I've never heard of> at< theater I like>.

Starts April 5th. Tickets start at $25.

Snooze. We could do much better. Here are six tips to improve your Facebook advertising.

1.) Set goals. Before you begin, set goals for your campaigns. These can include things native to Facebook like: drive sharing, build fan base, drive event RSVPs, drive video views, etc. or drive visits to our website. One campaign can’t do everything to pick two to three goals and focus. I tend to think you can be most successful driving the native Facebook functions such as sharing, video views, RSVPs, etc. These are the easiest to track on Facebook and what the new ad formats are designed to do. I've also ran many campaigns that take users off of Facebook to a website. As Facebook builds more advertising options to keep users on Facebook and track their interactions, I think there are more benefits to running those types of ads.

Then review your advertising reports often. You can see what is working and what is not. Pause and replace the duds. Also make sure to closely watch for frequency. If your average frequency for any ad approaches 10 then you need to replace it to fight fatigue.

2.) Highlight benefits, not features. I see far too many Facebook ads laden with features and with zero benefits. Features are much less interesting. Features would include: At xxx theater, performances begin 4/25, comfortable seats. They are useful, but benefits make far more compelling ad copy. Strong quotes provide great benefits. "The most brilliant ballerina of her generation" or "You don’t just see an Ailey performance, you feel it." Tell a story. Build excitement.

3.) Use imagery that captures attention and change it frequently. As I mentioned earlier, we have the benefits of beautiful sets, costumes, sexy dancers, and attractive actors. For our dance clients, the Facebook posts that get the most interaction are ones with shirtless men and dancers in super-human poses.

Have your designer alter the images so they capture attention. Try adding borders or bright background colors. Or try to crop out the image and put it on a white background so it pops.

Also, if you ever ran a good ad on Facebook, you know your click-through rate (CTR) lasts only a couple of days. The only way to keep your CTR high is to keep your images fresh. So create lots of ads and rotate them often.

4.) Tighten your language. Is the language as tight as can be and under 90 characters? If not, cut nonessential words. Keep sentences short. Use active voice. Posts with fewer than 250 characters see about 60% more engagement

5.) Micro Target. Facebook allows you to slice and dice your audience in many different ways. Say, for example, that you are promoting the musical White Christmas. Determine all of the potential audience groups: people who like classic movies, people with kids, people who like Irving Berlin or his contemporaries, people interested in musicals, people who like tap dancing, etc. Then create unique ads for each interest with headlines that will grab their attention. For people with kids the headline should be "Family Holiday Entertainment" for those who like tap dancing "A Tap Dancing Delight," etc. It is best to create at least two headlines for each interest group to start. The more versions the better.

6.) Take advantage of the new ad types. There are many types of ads you can run on Facebook. The two types of ads I think are most useful in selling performances are:

• Stories to build up your likes. This just shows the name of your organization and the name of a friend who likes it. Social ads, ones with the names of friends attached, get far more clicks than non social ads. Target these ads to friends of your current fans. Make sure to add the demographic targeting on top of these ads to target the type of audience you are after. For one client we only target college educated women over 30 since we know they purchase 80% of tickets.
• Page Post ads. These allow you to select a recent post and promote it as an ad. This is the only way to get videos into your ads without purchasing a premium sponsorship (which starts at $25,000). Just save your video on Facebook and create a post about it. Then go to the ad interface and select your organization as the target, choose "a specific post on your organization," then choose the story you want to promote from the dropdown. Voila, a video ad. The other advantage of these types of ads is that users can like, comment, and share the ad. When a user “shares” your ad, you get thousands of endorsed impressions. Also consider RSVP ads where you build an event on Facebook and the call to action is for users to RSVP.

Want to learn more about Facebook advertising? Don’t miss the half day session on Facebook Marketing at Digital Marketing Boot Camp for Arts Marketers, October 25-26 in NYC. More information at http://www.dmbootcamp4arts.com.

Beautifying the City through Public Works of Art

There may be no better way to beautify a city (or most cost effective way, in many aspects) than by using public works of art. As I have written about before, cities, especially cities that are losing population and/or facing severe budget shortfalls, are turning more and more to public art to revitalize areas and encourage more tourism. And as I wrote about last week, cities are turning more and more to what makes them unique, a significant change in focus from the tried and true method of trying to outdo or outclass your neighbors. Gone are the days (I hope, at least) of cities competing for visitors by building bigger stadiums or concert halls in an attempt to prove that they are, in fact, the most exciting city this world has ever seen.

In light of all this talk about urban renewal, green spaces, and new works of public art, what are some of the latest and greatest pieces of work on display? A number of outlets, including the New York Times, the Atlantic and others, have recently taken a look at works from across the world, and I have assembled them here for your viewing pleasure!

The New York Times recently took a look at a new project in Mexico City that seeks to provide both aesthetic pleasure and help the environment: a set of three “eco-sculptures” that comprise a sort of urban garden in the city. As you can see in the image above, these arches, comprised of thousands of plants each, are an attempt to beautify the city and help ease pollution in the large metropolis. Installed by a local non-profit, the sculptures are part of an overall effort to help green a city that is not particularly known for having a sustainable reputation; as the New York Times reports, these three sculptures are just a small part of a broader garden movement, and the attention these works of art have received are bound to make the effort that much more noticeable.

Over in Los Angeles, a new public art project has taken a little of bit of nature and transported it, visually at least, to an urban area. Artist Paige Smith has crafted little miniature geodes, crystals that form inside of some rocks, and installed them in unassuming places around the city: inside pipes, brick walls, or even the cracks of a wall. Smith has created little 3D sculptures made of paper to have the appearance of geodes, and the result is a unique little diversion from the normal city wall. She’s up to a dozen installations across the city, and you can see a full map of locations on her website.

(Photo courtesy of Paige Smith)

In St. Louis, public art is being used to help solve a problem: how do theatres make their patrons more efficient? In other words, is there a way to encourage patrons to stay longer and keep themselves busy, instead of just standing around waiting for the show to start?

A piece is going up in the Grand Center neighborhood of St. Louis that is designed to encourage patrons and visitors to stay a while. Titled “A Chromatic Confluence,” it will be a mazelike sculpture made up of about 20,000 feet of different colors of string. The overall structure will be fairly large in size, about 25-feet by 65-feet, and will be lit up at night, as you can see below. Hoping to draw in patrons and foot traffic, it is an attempt to grab people’s attention and give them something to do before the show starts. The piece is the first of a planned series of public art projects in the St. Louis area, in an overall attempt to bring more culture and artistic pieces to the city.

(Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Overseas, the city of Manila is moving ahead with public art, but is doing so in an attempt to be as environmentally sustainable as possible. Manila has the distinction of being one of the world’s most polluted cities, and attempts have been made in recent years to help cut down on emissions and improve air quality.

Courtesy of the Atlantic, a local Philippine company has created a paint which it claims can help purify the air while being used, and since the discovery, murals have been painted all over the city in attempt to not only beautify areas of the city that been victims of neglect and destruction, but also help the environment as well. The BBC recently filed a report about the paint and the attempt to improve the city through public art.

(Photo courtesy of The Atlantic)

These are just a few of the examples of cities using public art to help improve the aesthetic quality of their cities. Many more projects are underway, popping up in cities all across the United States and the world. What are some of your favorite public works of art in your cities, or perhaps favorites you’ve seen in others? Feel free to comment below!

(Top photo courtesy of the New York Times)

Cities Thinking Differently, Through the Arts

The past couple of years have been rough on America’s cities. The recession, job losses, budget cuts, and more people moving to the suburbs have all resulted in less tax revenue and a sense of unease about their future. Through these struggles, the cities have to consider questions like: What steps can be taken to foster economic growth? How can we become a player in an increasingly competitive global marketplace? The cities of the Rust Belt, however, have had it a little worse. Unlike booming cities like Phoenix or Houston, cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are losing residents, with a fear that population losses will continue unless something drastic is done to “save the city.”

But instead of looking to traditional approaches like building an expensive sports stadium, performing arts complex or shopping malls, residents in cities like Cleveland and Detroit are taking a different route: embracing what Grist calls “Rust Belt chic,” the gritty, industrial, working class roots that embody and define the cities. One of the ways these cities are embracing this new dynamic is through the arts, and proving that having a thriving arts city doesn’t require investments or new arts venues: sometimes, all you need is to do is tap into what makes your city unique.

Much has been made about the struggles that face cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. This “Rust Belt chic,” first dreamed up by the “I Will Shout Youngstown” blog, based out of Youngstown, Ohio, can be best described by Governing magazine:

“A certain fascination with places that have fallen on hard times like the Rust Belt…has taken hold. Part of it is the scruffy, industrial look. It may also be a rejection of cities with gleaming condo towers, bistros and boutiques that were once so trendy yet now seem so frothy and fake.”

In other words, instead of trying to compete with the New York’s and LA’s of the world for visitors and potential residents, think different.

Cities all across the Rust Belt are taking this approach. But what many cities are doing is taking a low cost and high reward strategy towards economic development, which includes the arts community in a big way.

One example, as I wrote about in a recent post, is Detroit, who is embracing the arts community by providing tools and equipment to up-and-coming artists, fostering a sense of community for new artists moving into the city, even as thousands of residents leave every year. Detroit has the furthest to go of any city on this list, but businesses have started to move back to the city, young people are starting to move downtown, and its art scene has become home to increasingly diverse and eclectic artists, seeking to make a name for themselves.

Our home town of Pittsburgh is thriving (as any of us Pittsburgh residents would certainly tell you), and part of that is due to a thriving arts scene, which is frequently cited as one of the best things Pittsburgh has to offer. Much of the decay and abandoned buildings caused by the steel industry leaving decades ago has been taken over by the arts community and transformed into art spaces. What used to be an abandoned warehouse is now an art gallery; what used to be a factory plant is now a mixed use performance space.

It is because of this determination and grittiness, the drive to think differently and transform existing spaces, which makes Pittsburgh a perennial power in “America’s most livable cities” lists, often taking the top overall spot, as it did in 2010.

Cleveland is another case study. City leaders have struggled to come up with catchy slogans in an attempt to draw visitors, but local artists and arts venues aren’t focused on what Cleveland can do to “catch up” with other cities; they’re embracing what makes them different.

The Next American City recently looked at what it calls the “creative allure of urban grit,” focusing on cities like Cleveland. Because in cities like Cleveland and other across the Rust Belt, “you’re forced to accept that shit happens, and with that comes a freedom to creatively make sense of what’s happening. That’s art in a nutshell: the burn to make meaning out of failed plans and ruin.”

Some local artists are doing just that. The Next American City looked at Cleveland artist Amy Casey, whose paintings offer a unique and real look at the city. Housing vacancy and abandoned industrial plants a huge problem in Cleveland; Casey draws paintings where houses are connected together by ropes, or industrial areas are marked by decay.

One cannot help but to notice the economic strife and abandonment that has taken part in these cities; but while some would find such a sight depressing, others see inspiration. Casey’s paintings, and many others throughout Cleveland, seek to symbolize both the struggles it faces going forward, and the opportunity that awaits them.

Cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh and Cleveland all have many problems, and no one is here to suggest that the arts can save them on their own. But while all three areas, and dozens of others, create economic development plans and seek to spur investment and population growth to cities long forgotten by their neighbors, the arts is a way to provide a short-term boost to lift spirits, provide inspiration, and instill a sense of pride to communities.

We know it will be a tough and long road back for these cities. But at the same time, embracing what many call “rust belt chic” is a way for these cities to focus on what makes them different and unique, and offer a taste of what people can expect from these faded, but not yet broken, great American cities.

The 2012 London Olympic Games and the Role of the Arts

You may have heard: the 2012 Summer Olympics, the global 2-week spectacle that brings some of the best athletes from around the world to compete in over two dozen sporting events, is taking place later this summer in London, from July 27th through August 12th. But what you may not have heard about are all the exciting and unique events that are intended to showcase the cultural and artistic diversity of London, expressed through art, through a series of exhibits, performances, galleries and shows. The hope, organizers say, is to leave a “lasting legacy for the arts in the UK,” and with millions of tourists visiting the city for the festivities, and billions watching around the globe, there may be no better opportunity for that kind of exposure.

So while the games may receive the lion’s share of attention this summer, it is the British arts community that is hoping to have a more sustainable impact for years to come.

London’s art renaissance is comprised of two parts: the first, the London 2012 Festival, is taking place this year from June 21st through September 9th, and is largely centered on the Summer Olympics and the Paralympics that follows. It is part of a broader campaign, called the Cultural Olympiad, which is a multi-year effort that started in 2008 and is dedicated to showing visitors the best Britain has to offer in the worlds of art, dance, music, culture and more.

The London 2012 Festival is the more high profile project, and will be immediately noticeable to anyone who makes the trip to London for the games, as over 1,000 events are planned. Organizers are proclaiming that there are “10 million free opportunities to get involved,” and while the full list of events has yet to be revealed, there are already hundreds of shows and exhibits that have been announced. Perusing the website you can find such events as film festivals, comedy shows, concerts, carnivals, and fashion shows, some of which require tickets, but the majority of the events are free to the public.

One of the most notable events announced thus far is the Damien Hirst exhibition at the world-famous Tate Modern. In the world of film, a festival showing silent movies by home town director Alfred Hitchcock will be presented, alongside a live musical performance of the material.

My favorite part of the festival, however, and I imagine many others feel the same way, is the quintessential British playwright who will receive top billing. William Shakespeare will be in the spotlight, as the World Shakespeare Festival, which begins next Monday (April 23rd) and runs through September, will present almost 70 productions of Shakespeare’s plays in thirty different locations across the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales.

Organized by the Royal Shakespeare Company, organizers are calling it the “biggest celebration of Shakespeare ever staged,” with thousands of actors from around the world taking part in the project. In addition to the usual theatre presentations of Shakespeare’s work, there will be street performances and even amateur performances as well. The most ambitious part of the festival is the Globe to Globe project, where performers will act out all of Shakespeare’s plays, but each of them will be performed in a different language with different actors used for each performance.

It is important to remember that London is not only a sporting destination or the home to great museums and theatres: it is also what the Atlantic calls a “global cultural hub,” home to so many uniquely cultural people and neighborhoods. This cultural diversity will be on display through the festival as well, showcasing some of the best art from countries around the world.

One of the criticisms of the Cultural Olympiad and the upcoming London 2012 festival is the costs associated with such lavish productions, and estimates thus far for the total cost of both programs is about $154 million, no small amount for a country dealing with harsh austerity measures across the board over the last couple of years.

In addition to the overall government-wide austerity measures put in place by the British government, the games also come at a time of dwindling funds for the arts in not only just the UK, but all across Europe. I wrote recently about the impact that arts communities in Europe are facing, and while countries like Italy and the Netherlands have received the most attention, the cuts have hit the UK as well: as the New York Times reports, the British Arts Council saw its government funding recently reduced by 20 percent.

When the 2012 games were awarded to London, back in 2005, the economy was booming and expectations for both the games and the Cultural Olympiad were sky high, and lavish funding was promised. Of course, after the global economic recession hit in the fall of 2008, expectations were tempered, and both sides have adjusted accordingly.

One of the criticisms that critics have about the Summer Olympics is that it’s a sporting event that costs billions of dollars to produce, creates years of traffic problems and construction delays, and all the pageantry and spectacle that it comes with only lasts for two weeks, and then it’s gone forever (well, except for all the unused stadiums that come with it).

While the sporting part of the Olympics is only in town for those two weeks, it is the hope of organizers of both the London 2012 festival and the Cultural Olympiad that the impact that the arts community brings to the festivities, through art, dance, music, film, culture and so much more, has a lasting impact even after the games have ended and all the medals have been handed out. It may not be in place as long as a giant football stadium, but the impact on British culture is sure to last for quite some time.

The Google Art Project Welcomes You to the White House

Ever wanted to take a tour of the White House? Well now you have a chance, and you can do it all from the comfort of your living room. The Google Art Project, a site devoted to presenting high resolution photographs of hundreds of works of art and museum tours from some of the finest museums in the world, including the Palace of Versailles, the Van Gogh Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, has unveiled its latest project, a captivating look inside the world’s most famous residence, the White House.

As part of what the White House calls its “commitment to opening the doors of the White House to all Americans,” the site primarily does two things. First, it presents images of dozens of paintings and works in art in stunning high resolution quality; and secondly, my favorite part, it offers a 360-degree view of many of the “public” areas of the White House, giving you your own personal tour!

The White House is the latest location added to Google’s Art Project website, which has steadily grown in recent months by adding some of the top museums in the world to its collection. It really is a site to behold and a must visit for arts lovers everywhere; by taking some of the world’s best collections and putting them online free of charge for the world to see, it really does represent one of the best ways to merge technology with the arts to generate enthusiasm and excitement for the stunning works of art that are now viewable in all their high definition glory.

For the paintings and works of art themselves, Google features what they call a “gigapixel” camera that offers an extremely high resolution look at some of the most famous paintings in the White House collection, including Gilbert Stuart’s famous portrait of George Washington. Viewers can zoom in and examine the paintings in EXTREMELY close detail, all the way down to the brushstrokes, just as you would if you were to view them in person, right?

You’ll find hundreds of paintings, sculptures, pieces of furniture, and more available for view. You’ll also find a portrait of almost every former president as well. Some of my favorite presidential portraits, which I have seen before on either book covers, in print or elsewhere, were immediately noticeable and fascinating to view up close and in so much detail. Some of my favorites include Aaron Shikler’s portrait of John F. Kennedy, John Singer Sargent’s portrait of Teddy Roosevelt, George P.A. Healy’s portrait of a sitting Abraham Lincoln, and last by not least, John Trumbull's portrait of my favorite founding father, Alexander Hamilton.

The coolest part of the site however, if you’re like me, is the virtual tour. In recent months, Google has made headlines by starting to take their Street View cameras indoors to start photographing businesses and places of interest to add to its Google Maps site. What Google has done here is to take those Street View cameras inside the White House and presented a “museum view” of the public spaces inside. Here is where you can walk around and give yourself a tour of two floors of the White House, seeing sights like the East Room (where indoor press conferences are usually held) and the China Room, where presidential china collections dating back to the 18th century are held.

Not everyone will have the chance to visit Washington and take the White House tour (which is a hard ticket to come by, and even if you can get on the list, usually requires a several months long wait), but thanks to Google, we now have the next best thing, viewing many of the sights you would see on a tour on your computer screen.

This may be one of the few things everyone can agree on when it comes to the White House: having an opportunity to view the magnificent works of art from the White House collection in such high resolution is a welcome treat, and worthy of praise. I encourage everyone to check out the site and go exploring!

Some Additional Thoughts on Kickstarter and Arts Funding

Last Friday we had the pleasure of welcoming Stephanie Pereira, Art Program Director for Kickstarter, a site that we have profiled, examined and analyzed a number of times here on the blog, to Carnegie Mellon for a speaker series event for our Master of Arts Management program. Her presentation and Q&A session talked about how projects are started, the rules for the site, and a look at some of the more interesting projects the site has seen as of late. As a policy student, I am always fascinated by numbers and what trends are driving the dynamic changes we are seeing in the arts community. Before I go back to my usual beat of looking at how the worlds of art, technology and policy intersect, I wanted to pause this week and examine some of the statistics that were presented at Friday’s event, and what they say about the nature of giving in the art world.

As anyone who is familiar with Kickstarter can tell you, their growth in recent years has been nothing short of astounding. I recently looked at how their estimated funding level for 2012 is set to eclipse the entire annual funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federally funded arts program. That kind of grassroots energy, passion and dollar commitment is a testament to a real market for substantive funding for art projects at the national level.

Why has it taken this long for large scale arts funding to reach the national stage? Technology would certainly be one answer, as the world of social media has opened up other industries to new funding mechanisms and audience participation. And while there are other excellent crowdfunding resources on the web, Kickstarter remains the most visible, offering artists the best potential opportunity to ultimately create their projects.

Anytime you have a site like Kickstarter that changes the way the arts are funded here in the U.S., a look behind the curtain at some of the statistics is a welcome way of analyzing what exactly is responsible for its success.

One important stat to point out about Kickstarter: while the recent projects that eclipsed the $1 million mark receive most of the attention, the vast majority of successful projects fall in the $1,000-$5,000 range. The rewards offered for these projects pale in comparison to those of the more ambitious projects, but having such a low threshold naturally entices more people to commit dollars in the hope that a project they admire and want to see is successful.

Another important stat to point out: the average pledge amount is not, as I would have expected, in the $10-20 range. According to Kickstarter, it is actually $71, which shows people who are pledging money to these projects are donating more than a couple cups of coffee: these are real dollars being committed here, and it is of little surprise that with the thousands of projects being featured on the main page of the site over any given week, that so much money is being pledged to the wide variety of projects on display.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic, however, is what Kickstarter refers to as the “tipping point” for project success: once a project reaches pledges totaling 30 percent of its funding goal, it has about a 90 percent chance of reaching its target. This puts a lot of pressure on artists and project leaders to get their main support system at the outset (i.e., their friends and family) to commit funds in an effort to pass that threshold. While not a guarantee, it is fascinating to see how often projects reach their end goals when they pass a common threshold.

Finally, it may surprise you to learn that the three categories that receive the most pledges do not include paintings, or public art pieces, or video games: the top three categories consist of film, music, and design (with film being the winner by a large margin; dozens of films are now being released each year that were funded through Kickstarter, with many of them debuting at SXSW a few weeks ago).

These are just a few of the hundreds of statistics that Kickstarter has provided over the years. Their blog is a great resource for a look at the trends and figures that help explain the quantitative success behind the site, and is definitely worth bookmarking.

We love writing about Kickstarter here at Tech in the Arts, and as the site continues to grow in future years and brings to life thousands of art projects, we can’t wait to see what kind of ideas and projects come our way.

Public Financing for the Arts in Europe Takes a Hit

Tell me if you have heard this one before. In the midst of an economic downturn, a country desperately searches for cuts in spending anywhere it can, as calls for budget austerity grow louder. In the end, it’s the more vulnerable programs that are hit the hardest, which often includes education programs, safety net measures, and the arts community.

While that above paragraph would describe the arts community in the United States in recent years, the trend is now playing out across Europe as debt-ridden countries turn to austerity measures in the face of the European debt crisis. While European countries spend significantly more on the arts than we do in the United States, the dangers of budget austerity in the coming years for the arts community in several European countries are very, very real.

I have been thinking a lot about this issue of arts funding in Europe vs. the United States over the past week, and two events in particular heightened my interest. First, this past Friday, we sponsored a Carnegie Mellon Master of Arts Management Speaker Series event with the Consulate of the Netherlands, who were in town for the annual Dutch Festival in Pittsburgh. We started talking about the difference in the way the arts are funded in a country like the Netherlands versus the way it is funded here at home. More on that in a minute.

The other item that caught my interest was a front page story in the New York Times yesterday about the fate of public financing for the arts in Europe. As I mentioned above, Europe is now going through the same kind of austerity measures that rocked the United States in 2009: debt is growing, calls for fiscal restraint are getting louder, and every program is being measured for its return on investment and how important it is going forward.

The numbers are striking: as the New York Times reports, in the Netherlands, the budget for arts and culture is seeing a decrease of roughly $265 million, or 25 percent. In addition to those cuts, the public is being asked to pay more to see shows and events, with increased taxes on tickets.

These cuts are hitting smaller venues, troupes, and companies the hardest: with less funding to go around, existing expenditures are being targeted at more established performers, forcing more unique acts, which may be struggling for audiences, to face an uncertain future.

And while some may feel that cuts to the arts in Europe would have little effect on the arts here in the United States, one of the expenses artists in Europe are cutting back on are trips and performances overseas, to countries like the United States. Artists are cancelling trips and forcing festivals to find alternative performers.

Another effect this is going to have on the American arts community is over the issue of fundraising. As we discussed with the Consulate of the Netherlands on Friday, there are different views towards art funding in Europe than there are here. In a country like the Netherlands, a resident pays higher taxes to pay for additional services like health care, transportation, and safety net measures. Another element of those increased taxes is funding for the arts; with the government taking a higher percentage out of every paycheck, many Dutch residents feel they are less inclined to donate their own money to the arts because they feel like the government is already doing it for them.

Here in the United States, the opposite is true: the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) receives such a small percentage of overall government revenue (usually in the range of $150-160 million, compared to billions of dollars in several European countries) that the vast majority of funding for the arts comes from donations from individuals. Since Americans are taxed at a much lower rate, they have more disposable income, and thus more free to donate it to the art of their choosing. There are issues of whether a lot of this money is really going to where it is needed, but that is a discussion for another day.

With European governments cutting back on their arts funding, this is naturally going to lead to artists in Europe to seek alternative sources of revenue. As the New York Times explains, this includes going after their descendents currently living in America – who may be already donating to arts organizations in their communities.

So this presents a problem: a global recession and austerity measures in dozens of countries, all leading to a shift in the way arts are funded worldwide. It will lead to more uncertainty, a greater dispersion of artistic funding and increased competition for the individuals who provide a sizeable percentage of giving.

Is the current model, where American artists rely mostly on private donations and European artists rely on government grants, sustainable? For the United States, absolutely. With calls from some politicians to cut and even eliminate funding for the NEA and other culture programs, there is certainly little chance of seeing an increase in federal funds for the arts.

As for Europe? That is a different story. As the story goes, as the pond gets smaller (in this case, the pond symbolizing the amount of funding), the fish will get nervous, and perhaps seek refuge elsewhere, in the form of spending more of their time fundraising, at the expense of the very same art they are seeking to promote. With artists now having to listen to potential funders, who may have a different vision for what kind of art they want to see, the impact on what kind of art is made and performed is bound to be substantial.

In the short term, the effect is obvious: less festivals, traveling art troupes, and shows. Fewer jobs for artists in countries like Italy, Hungary, Netherlands and Greece. Fewer opportunities for tourists and residents to see the best of what each of these countries has to offer.

It really is sad, but perhaps unavoidable. As I have written before, we seem to find ourselves in the era of budget austerity, and even while the economy has shown signs of improvement in recent months, the desire to increase funding for the arts pales in comparison to support for other existing programs.

The promise and benefit of increased funding for the arts, both at the private and federal level, is well known to all readers of this blog. The New York Times piece describes Europe as the place “where art is life,” and while that is certainly true to anyone who has visited, the newfound austerity measures being put in place represent a significant threat to that very same life going forward.

The Role of the Arts in Economic Development

As it pertains to funding for local arts projects, the past few years have not been too kind to the arts community. Budget cuts, austerity measures and changing priorities have meant less funding, and with it less jobs for artists and fewer arts opportunities and events for communities all across the country. As the economy starts to grow (slowly) and optimism about future growth increases, state and local budgets are facing smaller budget deficits and the increasing likelihood of budget surpluses in future years. With these new resources comes the decision over how to spend resources in the best possible way to stimulate growth.

In recent years, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and other groups have given out millions of dollars in grants to local arts groups to help foster economic growth and assist arts communities in struggling areas of the country. As the money available to these groups continues to grow, and cities and states pondering the decision to invest again in the arts, the question is: what role do the arts play in economic development, and how vital is it to future growth?

I have written before about the tough budget constraints that governments are dealing with at the local level and the pressure this is putting on existing arts programs. Unlike the federal government, cities, counties and states are often required to balance their budgets on an annual basis; if sales tax receipts or other forms of revenue are down from the year before, as has often been the case during this economic downturn, governments have to turn to existing programs for cuts or outright abolition. With tax increases politically unfeasible, it’s often the most vulnerable programs that face the chopping block, and this includes the arts community.

Those of us who study public policy and urban planning are cognizant of the effect the arts can have on a city or neighborhood. As much as art enriches our lives and provides a sense of culture, the economic impact is minimal; this is not to take away from the arts community, but is rather meant to illustrate the larger forces that are required for long term economic growth, like housing, higher education, health care and free trade.

The Next American City recently looked at an example of a rust belt city facing tough economic times, Detroit, and how the arts community is helping bring the city back. Through the help of groups like the NEA and ArtPlace America, Wayne State University launched the Detroit FAB Lab, a hub that provides artists with access to equipment and tools for their artwork, like metalworking and woodworking, as well as mentoring services like business coaching and networking. In essence, it provides a community for artists to come together and share their work, their advice and their love for the arts, all with the backing of community grants and support.

Few cities are in need of support like this more than Detroit. Designed to help support the struggling manufacturing base in the Motor City, the grants provide a small step in the overall push to diversify and grow Detroit’s economy as it starts to come back from the recession that took such a toll on the city’s population and well being.

The millions of dollars in funding that are being given out by groups like NEA and ArtPlace also present a series of questions: is this money well spent? If the goal of the money is to spur economic development and growth, is it better spent elsewhere?

We can all agree that funding the arts is crucial to fostering community and culture in cities all across the country. But is absolutely crucial to long term economic growth? That’s where it gets tricky: the list of public policy measures that rank above the arts community is quite long. If given the choice between an artistic redevelopment project and a new hospital or transit station, the physical and transportation needs of the city will win out.

But, as cities and municipalities invest in infrastructure, public services and needed resources, it’s always important to remember how the arts can add to the benefits being accrued. A city with no culture, no life, and no sense of vitality is vulnerable to losing out on the same kind of economic benefits that were desired when public officials decided how to spend resources in the first place. Investing in roads, schools and infrastructure is absolutely essential to an area’s long term economic growth; however, without a vibrant and committed arts scene, the desire of residents and tourists to experience the best of what the area has to offer will be diminished.

There are numerous examples of cities and local governments taking the time to invest in areas of their community and developing art districts. In my home town of Phoenix, the burgeoning Roosevelt Row district is home to First Friday art walk events and galleries showcasing the vibrant culture alive in the city. Other districts in Miami, Pittsburgh, and New York have also popped up in recent years to add vibrancy to formerly struggling areas of their respective cities.

As a policy priority, you will get no argument from me that the arts community ranks behind the essential public services that so many people rely upon on a daily basis. However, good public policy recognizes that the right balance, which involves providing those services and setting aside funding for arts programs that encourage innovation and creativity, along with providing a sense of culture for a given community, is preferable.

As ArtPlace America states, “art creates vibrancy and increases economic opportunity. It is all about the local.” We could not agree more.

Festivals Galore!

As the month of March rolls on, and the weather starts to warm up, two things immediately come to mind: vacation, and festivals. The gang here at Tech in the Arts is on spring break this week, so expect a lighter posting schedule as we take a (well deserved!) break from our studies. Having said that, I wanted to briefly check in and point out two festivals happening this week that are highlighting some of the best and most creative technology and arts projects occurring from across the country.

The first, South by Southwest, or SXSW for short, is currently underway down in Austin, Texas, as anyone with a Twitter account is well aware of by now. Having grown massively in size over the years, the show is divided between three festivals: film, music, and interactive. The interactive portion, including keynotes, speakers, presentations, shows, parties, events and so much more (it really is a sight to behold) is taking place this weekend and ends tomorrow, the 13th.

Tech in the Arts is live down in Austin covering the action; you can follow our Twitter feed (@techinthearts) for live updates and recaps of SXSW events, including the big bash that Carnegie Mellon held this weekend, along with one of our staffers, Terry Boyd, who is tweeting from his personal account (@boydleservice). We all wish we could be there this weekend, but those two accounts are representing us well!

We’ll also have a wrap-up of all the great action at SXSW following the conclusion of the festival, so stay tuned for that.

I’m typing this from beautiful San Francisco, California, and the second festival I wanted to mention is the 3rd Annual Creators Project, taking place this upcoming weekend (March 17th-18th) here in the Bay Area. Sponsored by Intel and VICE, the festival seeks to bring together the best of art, music and is “dedicated to supporting artists in realizing their creative visions through technology.” In addition to the works of art on display, there will be performances by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, James Murphy, and Squarepusher.

The best part of the festival? It’s free with an RSVP! So if you’re in the Bay Area this weekend, definitely check it out.

Even if you can’t make it to either Austin or San Francisco this week, stay tuned as we’ll be posting follow ups to both exciting festivals and highlighting the best art and technology trends coming from both.

An Artistic Revision of the American Dream

The American Dream, which for many Americans is the prospect of owning your own home, is dying. Or, at the very least, it is in danger of being lost to a sea of forces, which include overbuilding, overbuying and the economic downturn. With single family suburban homes becoming plentiful over the past decade, and the inevitable housing bubble that devastated so many suburbs around the country that followed, the thought naturally turns to whether this model is sustainable moving forward. What does the future hold for suburban living, and where do we go from here?

A new exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art seeks to rethink suburban living and the design of the communities themselves. Taking unique and sometimes radical approaches, five design teams each took a community ravaged by the housing crisis and came up with their own architectural and artistic solution to improve the affected areas and introduce more density, retail stores and sustainable practices. The results need to be seen to be believed, as they provide a completely new and interesting way to look at American housing.

The exhibit, titled “Foreclosed: Rehousing the American Dream,” looks at five suburbs around the country that have been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis: The Oranges, a New Jersey community twenty miles outside New York City; Temple Terrace, Florida, located just outside of Tampa; Cicero, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago; Keizer, Oregon, a suburb of Portland; and Rialto, California, located outside of San Bernardino.

Looking through the five exhibits, one sees a pattern: all five areas under study feature the now commonplace suburban single family homes that have come to dominate the suburbs of American cities, with the design teams seeking to fundamentally change the way we see suburban housing. Gone are the 1,500 square feet or larger single family homes with large backyards and wide spaces between properties; all five proposals call for much more density, shared spaces, and retail and dining options often inside the communities. In essence, what the design teams are trying to do is replicate some of the best features of urban living and transport them to the suburbs.

Even though single family suburban living has proved to be incredibly popular over recent decades, it has always had its share of critics from urban planners, policy makers and sustainable growth advocates. The effect on the environment, through increased automobile use and higher energy use, is widely mentioned. The separation from the community, through isolated properties and less interaction with others, is mentioned as well.

What is so fascinating about the exhibit is the way the design teams take all of these criticisms to heart and seek to remedy the problems of overbuilding and density through five architectural designs that really are about as different as they are similar. As to be expected, they all feature people living closer together and becoming more sustainable, but they differ enormously in how the communities are designed from an aesthetic level. I took a look at all five exhibits (virtually, of course, until I can make the trip to New York), and came away impressed with some of the projects and more skeptical of others. The five exhibits are broken down below:

The Oranges, New Jersey: Located twenty miles outside of New York City, the Oranges is a unique community that is, in the words of the design team, “more urban than suburban,” with close proximity to major roads and transportation options. The Oranges approach is perhaps the most radical of all five designs: it seeks to remove the car from the city by adding multi-level housing to the roads themselves, with occupants using mass transportation options instead. The designs of these new housing complexes are jagged in design and feature different kinds of housing, including multi-family housing units and shared public spaces. My favorite design element is transforming the roofs of the buildings into public places, where energy can be produced and green spaces can be added, helping to make the buildings more sustainable. Of the five exhibits, this one is the least practical, but earns praise for the unique artistic design to the housing units.

Temple Terrace, Florida: Located just outside of Tampa, the Temple Terrace project looks to re-develop 2.2 miles of the community’s downtown area through adding additional housing units and public spaces. This one is perhaps the least controversial of the five designs, as it splits the development between more conventional smaller housing units and another space for multi-family housing and duplexes.

Cicero, Illinois: This one is my favorite, as it seeks to take existing abandoned structures and re-develop them into housing and community areas. Cicero, a suburb of Chicago, grew up as a railroad town, then became a town full of factories in the mid-20th century; as the factories left in the 1980’s, the town started losing jobs and became an economically depressed area. The foreclosure crisis hit Cicero hard, and only worsened the situation. In recent years, the immigrant population of the town has boomed, leading to an increasingly diverse community.

What the Cicero project seeks to do is bring living and working together, and they do this through taking over existing abandoned factory sites and turning them over to housing. After the requisite environmental process, the design team takes these abandoned factories and converts them to high rise housing complexes, featuring shared living areas along with shared community spaces. Living units are on different floors, with each building featuring a community floor that can include shared kitchens, shared living rooms and more. The design team also seeks to change the way houses are financed, through innovative ideas like equity co-op’s and building trusts where people can buy and sell shares of their homes.

My favorite idea of the design was to take garage space and convert alleyways into stores, restaurants and community spaces where residents could earn additional money for themselves through land on their own property.

Keizer, Oregon: Located just outside of Portland, the design team for Keizer sought to combine the best of the town and the best of the country, and their design is striking in terms of how much of nature is included in the very dense living spaces created.

The Keizer design has a massive multi-level apartment complex look to it, but it also does its best to include plants and nature into the design. While there are multiple levels of housing, the nature elements are located at ground level, and include abundant supplies of green space, forest, exotic gardens, plant life and even exotic animals as well. Bridges connect the different complexes and include retail stores, and the series of courtyards that are included feature different nature activities like rock climbing and spelunking.

This design perhaps does the best job of creating a living, sustainable, all-encompassing community within its borders. The designers point out that the project achieves five times as much density and provides three times as much space as the existing Keizer community.

Rialto, California: The final project, looking at the community of Rialto located outside of San Bernardino, seeks to not so much radically change the suburban housing structure as it does to modify it around the edges. The biggest design departure from current practices is the “relaxation of boundaries,” where existing plots of lands are converted into row houses, duplexes and apartments. This means that while you can have a regular single family home on one plot of land, right next to it you could have a row of apartments or smaller homes on the same block. One rationale for this is that if a family residing in an apartment wanted to move up into a single family home, they could do so without having to leave the complex. The design team also adds retail and mass transportation options to the complex, again seeking to create a more complete community within its boundaries.

Current zoning laws and restrictions prevent most if not all of the above changes in each of the five designs from taking place, and the architects and planners associated with each would need changes in the laws if the designs were ever implemented. This is part of a larger concern for neighborhood revitalization and renewal, and as the housing crisis showed us, the current model of larger single family suburban homes is not sustainable in some areas. Changes need to be made, and these five designs seek to identify the best ways to do so.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the five designs online if you can’t make it to New York for the exhibit. It runs through July 30th.

(Photo credit: NY Museum of Modern Art)

Kickstarter Reaches Major Milestone

Depending on your perspective, the following news is either a cause for celebration, or a sobering reminder of the state of federal funding for the arts in America. Or perhaps both. Kickstarter, the funding platform for thousands of arts and other creative projects, announced last week that it is projected, through its website and thanks to thousands of contributors, to be on track to receive over $150 million in pledges in 2012, by far its biggest and most successful year to date.

This is wonderful news for the arts community, and will help thousands of artists get their projects off the ground. However, the amount does represent a milestone of sorts: while substantial in its own right, the $150 million figure also surpasses the entire 2012 annual budget of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a federally funded program with the might of the United States government behind it.

So it begs the question: as sites like Kickstarter grow in popularity, and help steer more funds to specific arts projects, does federal funding for the arts carry less significance going forward?

We’re big fans of Kickstarter here at Tech in the Arts, and have written about the site’s innovative funding platform and some of the better projects that it has featured. For those who are unfamiliar with Kickstarter, a quick primer: people can post projects online, ranging from art to fashion, film to music, photography to theater, and request donations to get the projects running. The people responsible for the projects outline what they hope to accomplish, how much money they need, and can offer incentives for people to donate money, like free tickets or exclusive merchandise, depending on the amount donated. In the end, if the project fails to reach its fundraising goal (usually within a couple of weeks), no money is exchanged, and the project fails.

As it relates to the juxtaposition of the two entities, first a few caveats. Projects from outside the United States are featured, so the money in question is not confined just within our borders. Second, the site is on track to secure $150 million in PLEDGES in 2012, which does not guarantee funding. According to the site, a little over half of projects fail to meet their fundraising goals, meaning funds for those projects do not change hands. However, with people around the world willing to contribute that much money, it does represent a significant milestone in the arts community.

I wrote last week about the 2013 funding request for the NEA in President Obama’s budget, and welcomed the news about the funding being increased for the new year. However, even with the increase, the budget has failed to increase with the rate of inflation, and is actually a decrease from the early 1990’s, when the budget was in the range of $180-185 million per year.

However, as budget deficits climb and the debt reaches new heights each year, the axe seems to fall on what’s referred to as “discretionary” spending, or spending that’s not mandated by existing laws, first, and that includes programs like the arts, education programs, and public service organizations. This has especially been true in recent years, with calls by some in Washington to drastically cut discretionary programs and cap them from future increases.

As I talked about last week, the NEA is an essential resource for arts organizations, after school programs, schools and community groups who depend on federal programs to survive. Few of these groups generate the amount of internet excitement as the projects on Kickstarter, and cannot rely on social media or online funding mechanisms to continue. Their continued existence rests largely with the help of their local communities, state and local organizations, and most importantly, the federal government.

My concern is that with sites like Kickstarter providing a mechanism for taxpayers to select the individual projects they would like to see funded, the desire to continue to fund the NEA and other arts programs will diminish. Why, after all, have taxpayers pay for a central agency like NEA when individuals can contribute to the projects in their community, or the projects they share an interest with, instead of some program or group they have never heard of?

The NEA has been targeted for elimination in recent sessions of Congress, but thankfully it has survived. Even though the advent of online fundraising tools has provided a steady source of pledges and funding for arts projects, the backbone of arts funding continues to be at the federal and local levels, and any decrease or entire elimination of funding would have a catastrophic impact on artists, the arts community, and arts lovers everywhere.

Another way to look at it this: with the advent of sites like Kickstarter, funding for the arts is increasing, and is becoming a wildly successful endeavor. Last year, Kickstarter received over $90 million in pledges, with several projects hitting the $1 million mark. This is NEW money coming into the arts community, and it deserves to be celebrated.

The ideal, however, is a world where both funding mechanisms continue to move forward, and serve the unique niches they cater to: Kickstarter to the up-and-coming and innovative film/music/theater/art projects and NEA for the community-based groups and local arts organizations.

Congratulations are in order for our friends at Kickstarter, with many more years of continued pledges and success moving forward. It is my hope that the same kind of success and impact continues with NEA, as it faces significant hurdles in Congress to secure future funding.

NEA Sees Increase in President's 2013 Budget Request

Budget season is upon us. There may be no more exciting time of the year, if you are like me and revel in the workings of our federal government and how policy gets made. Even though Congress is perhaps not the most popular body of work these days (and that may be an understatement), the budgetary season is important because it tends to set the tone for the policy and political arguments for the rest of the year, and in an election year like this one, it becomes even more so. President Obama’s 2013 budget request, released last Monday, contained spending cuts across dozens of federal agencies, including the armed services, health care, and energy. But one area, accustomed to cuts in recent years, received a welcome surprise this year, seeing their funding request increase from 2012: the arts community.

The president’s budget, which clocked in at about $3.7 trillion dollars, included a request of $154.255 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which is a slight increase of about $8 million from the funding that the NEA received this year. While still lower than the funding NEA received in 2010 ($167.5 million), it is a step in the right direction.

As the New York Times reported, included in the increase is about $4 million that would go directly to non-profit arts organizations and another $2.7 million for state and regional arts organizations.

As many in the arts community are well aware, the NEA serves a critical role in supporting artists and arts programs around the country. The vast majority of its annual budget goes towards grants that support artists in the communities of music, art, photography, theater, literature, and more. Just as important are the group’s efforts in art education, educating and introducing children to the wonders of the arts.

Not only are the group’s efforts vital to the artistic community; they also help create jobs and boost the economy in a tough economic climate. As NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman said last week, “A dollar invested directly through the NEA is matched by $8 in additional investment and generates $26 of economic activity in the community. In short, art works.”

Now when I say “budget request,” it is specifically that: the President is required by law every year to submit his budget request to Congress. This document is not law, but merely the budget that the president would like to see. It’s more of a wish list, or set of funding appropriation requests, that the president would like to see fulfilled. It is up to Congress to pass appropriations bills for each federal department and send them to the president for approval.

(If you’re interested in hearing me talk about the budget more in-depth, I appeared on the Carnegie Mellon radio program “Policy that Matters” last week to talk about the president’s proposal, and it is now available online.)

The important thing to remember about budgets is they set forth priorities. They help set the president’s agenda and represent a list of what he believes is worthy of investment. The commitment to the NEA, even though the funding increase is minor, represents a commitment to improving the lives of artists everywhere. In a tough economic climate, this commitment has never been more important for the arts community.

I last wrote about protecting federal funding for the arts this past October, and while the president’s budget is an encouraging sign, the calls for budget cuts and austerity measures continue in Washington. There is certainly still a chance that funding for the NEA may decrease when the budgetary bills are passed by Congress later this year.

There are certainly more pressing budgetary topics in the news, and the amount dedicated to NEA is a very small percentage of the overall budget. But for the artistic community, and for those who depend on the programs NEA supports, they remain a vital part of our American psyche and play a huge role in advancing the joys and benefits of the arts. In tough economic times however, and calls for budget austerity by some, there will be an incentive to decrease the budget in as many areas as possible.

The arts are as deserving as ever of our continued commitment to support the NEA and the causes it advances. Seeing the increased budgetary request for the endowment is a welcome sign. Even though it seems like Congress can agree on nothing these days, it is surely our hope that the continued support of NEA and arts programs everywhere will be one area where all sides can agree.

Art Meets Tech (and Science!) in London

Allow me, for a moment, to add an exhibit to Naina’s post last week about the “Exhibits on our Wish List” here at Tech in the Arts. This one, however, is a little different. Combining stunning artwork with the latest in technological trends, the focus here is on art from a wide variety of interesting fields: artists who focus on kinetic, robotic, electronic, sound, light time-based and multi-disciplinary new media art and technology. Now in its fourth year, the Kinetica Art Fair, produced by the Kinetica Museum in London, held its 2012 fair this past weekend across the pond, bringing together artists, visitors and exhibitors from around the world in a 5-day event. In addition to the art show, the fair also held presentations, live performances, screenings, panels and an awards show. With over 50 exhibitors in place and over 300 works of art, if it sounds like the world’s coolest and nerdiest art show, it just might be.

The theme of this year’s show helps solidify that opinion: titled “Time, Transformation and Energy,” the show will focus on what the organizers call “the shifting of time in the light of cosmological, astronomical, environmental and evolving universal events.” The feature exhibition of the show, centered on this theme, brings together 18 artists from eight countries, which use and display pulsating sound performances, incredible light shows, kinetic energy showcases, and, perhaps best of all, it includes robots.

What’s unique about the show from my perspective is how it uses time and the evolution of technology to advance new styles of art and expression. The founders of the event, Dianne Harris and Tony Langford, recently gave an interview to the Huffington Post where they talked about what makes the show so unique:

“Kinetica ultimately focuses on a current new trend in art that has a strong historical lineage dating back to the '50s. The work essentially makes suggestions and contributions towards human evolution and reaction to scientific and universal exploration. With the ever-increasing scientific and technological advancements in our culture, many contemporary artists have crossed the threshold from 'fine art disciplines' into new media, with artworks that utilize technology to explore, nurture and comment on our evolutionary processes.”

Another interesting facet of the show is how strongly science is interwoven into its DNA. With exhibits and presentations such as “Contemporary Conditions of Temporality in Kinetic Art” and “Architecture, Digital Media and the Kinesthetic Idea,” the show seeks to provide a scientific and theoretical background to some of the artwork on display.

Even the field of astronomy is a part of the fair as well: artist Paul Malone headlines the “Electric Universe” exhibit where he examines the role electro-dynamics play in the forming of objects that make up the world of astronomy, where visitors can hear about the history of the study of electricity.

Not to be outdone, the historical nature of the program is what appeals to me most. Who wouldn’t want to attend a presentation titled, “From Copernicus to Polish Dragons – From Physics to Poetry of Transformations”?

There are some fascinating works of art at the show as well, although none of them involve polish dragons. One of the most unique is called the Xylophone Wheel by artist Alexander Berchert, which takes the plastic clackers from bicycles and molds them together to create a musical instrument: xylophone plates are attached to the wheel and plastic beads bounce off of them, producing a distinct chime sound.

Another unique work of art, and perhaps my favorite, truly incorporates the world of social media: @TweetLamps, by artist Jordan Burnett, contains a set of light bulbs that are controlled by tweets sent through Twitter, where the lights go off when certain pre-programmed words of hashtags are tweeted.

With the 2012 fair ending yesterday (sadly), we’re a year away from the next show. For a taste of the kind of unique art you can see at the exhibit, here’s a compilation of art from their 2011 show last year:

Kinetica Art Fair 2011 from Kinetica Museum on Vimeo.

So while the 2012 show just ended, judging by pasty year’s fairs, next year’s show should be just as exciting. Anybody up for a trip to London?

Artistic Inspiration and the Fall of Kodak

A new exhibit in our nation’s capitol is as breathtaking in its quality as it is in its simplicity: seven world renowned artists offering up private photographs of their daily lives and sharing them with the world, alongside beautiful works of art. The uniqueness of the exhibit, however, lies in its inspiration. Kodak, the company loved around the world for its handheld cameras and impact on the lives of artists everywhere, serves as the inspiration for the exhibit, as all of the photographs taken are from simple Kodak handheld cameras. Given recent events, however, the inspiration is bittersweet: having recently declared for bankruptcy, and fear of liquidation rampant, artists everywhere face the reality of a world without the company that inspired so many of them to take their first photograph.

The exhibition, Snapshot: Painters and Photography, Bonnard to Vuillard, opened this past Sunday and continues until May 6th at The Phillips Collection Museum in Washington, D.C. Organized in conjunction with the Indianapolis Museum of Art and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, the exhibit features the work of seven dynamic artists: Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis, Edouard Vuillard, Felix Vallotton, George Hendrick Breitner, Henri Evenepoel and Henri Riviere.

The idea behind the exhibit is simple: taking their cue from the inspiration of the Kodak handheld camera, first introduced in 1888, all seven artists experimented with the simple device and provided images that captured their daily lives and the world around them. All seven artists captured images of beauty and resonance, and all together compiled over 200 photographs for the exhibit. The artists as a team took over 10,000 photographs with their trusty Kodak cameras, and the great thing about the exhibit is that most of the photos are unpublished and never seen before in public. Most of the images were meant to remain private, and instead of keeping them in their personal collections, the artists have decided to share them with the world.

One of the nice things about the exhibit is how some of the photographs in the collection served as inspirations for later paintings. You can see, side by side, the original photographs next to the paintings. The other parts of the exhibit feature over 70 paintings, drawings and prints from the artists.

The larger point here, at least for me, is how this relates to the recent news of Kodak’s bankruptcy. As reported by the New York Times and others, Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy last month, with many in the business world predicting that liquidation may be in its future. Founded over 131 years ago, Kodak has struggled to remain competitive in today’s technological environment, with more and more photographers going digital and leaving the company’s tried and true 35mm cameras behind.

Kodak is not the first company to struggle in the face of new technologies, and it certainly will not be the last. But as it relates to the arts and technology as a whole, this case takes on additional meaning. So many artists and photographers first fell in love with cameras and taking photographs because of Kodak and their simple 35mm cameras. In the age when film was king, Kodak had a near monopoly on the 35mm business, with competition from Fuji in recent decades. Kodak’s efforts were responsible for creating millions of artists and some of the images that have resonated with us for decades.

Kodak’s lessened stature may not have been noticed by many over the past ten years, as digital cameras have boomed and consumers have been more concerned with LCD screen size and optical zoom size instead of remembering what kind of film to buy. But for anyone who has ever bought a Kodak handheld and been introduced to the wonderful world of photography, it stings a little bit.

Even as Kodak sought to expand its portfolio over the past decade, knowing that this moment was going to come, it could still count on people seeking that old fashioned thrill of the disposable camera. But as more and more people turned to digital, and the company failed to do well enough in the other fields it has ventured into in recent years, including printers and digital cameras, it was only a matter of time until the company was in danger of folding.

I still remember taking pictures with a Kodak handheld when I was a kid, eagerly joining my mother as we went to the store to develop pictures of our family vacations. When I worked in retail in high school and college, I worked with Kodak vendors who introduced us to their latest 35mm and digital cameras. I had friends who worked for Kodak, both at their main offices in Rochester and as field representatives.

So as it relates to the exhibit in Washington, it’s refreshing to see a new exhibit that seeks to capture the joy of artists taking simple pictures with their trusty Kodak handhelds. Even as technology changes, ultimately for the better, a nod to the photograph’s past is especially appreciated.

The beauty of technology is that current and future generations will find inspiration from the arts in new and exciting ways. Digital cameras are becoming extremely affordable and are allowing more and more people to experience the joy of photography. Online editing tools are allowing people the tools to create beautiful, dynamic images at resolutions as large as their imaginations.

Twenty or thirty years from now, will museum exhibits look back on the era of our current technology, digital cameras, as society leaves them behind for something else? It’s too soon to tell, but we do know one thing: the beauty and joy of photography will continue to entertain and capture the imaginations of people of every age and background. As we move forward in an era of exciting technological breakthroughs and products, it’s a shame that a company like Kodak may not be around to enjoy it.

(Photo: courtesy of the Phillips Collection)

Welcome to the World of Old School 3D Photography

Over a hundred years before 3D technology invaded movie theaters and living rooms, another form of 3D image technology was incredibly popular around the globe. The images were called stereographs, and the technology was quite simple: two pictures of the same image, shot from slightly different angles, were viewed through a narrow device that only let you see one image with each eye, giving the appearance of a 3D image (remember playing with a ViewMaster as a kid? The technology is quite similar). Now, thanks to the work of the New York Public Library, you can view over 40,000 stereographs, most of them over a century old, and create your own animated GIF that offers the illusion of a 3D image. In addition, you can also create modern 3D photos of the same images, viewable through those hokey blue-red 3D glasses. The best part? Sharing your creations with your fellow arts lovers!

As reported by the New York Times last week, the NYPL Lab’s site, called the Stereogranimator, is simple to use. To create an animated GIF, first, you select a pair of similar looking pictures from a collection of over 40,000 images, some of which date back to the nineteenth century. Second, you choose your focal point within the image and the speed of the animation. Finally, you can share the animated GIF on social media sites or embed in your blog. You can see my custom image below!

GIF made with the NYPL Labs Stereogranimator

The process for the 3D anaglyph image is similar. After choosing a pair of images, you choose your focal point within the image and hit the create button. You can see my 3D image below, which can be aided just in case you have those old-school blue-red 3D glasses!

ANAGLYPH made with the NYPL Labs Stereogranimator

As I scrolled through the photographs, it surprised me how many images were taken back then that look so similar. As artist Joshua Heineman, the brains behind the operation, describes on the NYPL Lab site, this was intentional: looking at both pictures, the viewer could be provided with a sense of depth that simply was not possible by looking at one image. With so many of these image pairs being captured, the public would use the stereograph, the ultimate entertainment device of the late 19th century, to see a very early form of 3D technology for themselves. Like video games or movie theaters today, the technology was a hugely popular for several decades.

The New York Public Library’s site is another example of an encouraging trend: more libraries opening up their vast collections to an online audience for free. While some library systems have been hesitant to open up too much of their catalog to online audiences, the NYPL has been a leader in embracing the online community: in addition to their stereograph project, the library also has a project titled “What’s on the Menu?,” where people can help the library transcribe historical restaurant menus to add to its data of food prices and trends.

Even better? Improving the experience through technology, in this case with animated and 3D images. While the technology is far from groundbreaking for today’s audience, it does offer a unique historical look back at a technology that was so popular a century and a half ago.

We here at Tech in the Arts have written before about all the cool things happening today with 3D technology, and none of them have to do with the latest films hitting the movie theater. Through collaboration, open source technology and access to historical materials, the New York Public Library and others are embracing a new movement towards more social interaction between institutions and their patrons, a movement we strongly embrace and encourage.

The Most Artistic City in America? The Answer Might Surprise You

Merely the question itself is bound to spark controversy: what is the most artistic city in America? It is a difficult question, and the answer is often hard to gauge. Just what do we mean by “artistic?” And how does one measure how “artistic” a city is? Cities across America will often claim their museums are better and more unique, their shows are of superior quality, and their artistic communities are thriving. But when it comes to actually quantitatively measuring how artistic a city actually is, the answers are few and far in between. Thankfully, two writers have sought to settle the debate once and for all: which city holds the crown as the most artistic city in America? The answer might surprise you.

Two months ago, Richard Florida of The Atlantic sought to find which American cities had the highest concentration of artists, along with which cities had the highest concentration relative to their overall population. The data that Florida used was derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), a handy site that offers a treasure trove of data about Americans’ professions, income levels, education, and much more.

Florida, and his colleague Kevin Stolarick of the Martin Prosperity Institute, looked specifically at the number of Americans that self-identified their profession in the field of “artists and related workers.” While this is not an exact measurement of all Americans working in the arts field (some artists will naturally label themselves in a different way, and others may not have participated in the survey), it provides a good measurement of how many Americans are employed and self-employed in the arts field today. The ACS found that about 237,000 Americans identified as “artists or related workers,” with the vast majority of these individuals living in cities or metropolitan areas.

There are a couple of ways to measure how “artistic” a city is, and if you just do an overall count of the number of self-proclaimed artists in a given city, naturally, the largest metropolitan areas in the country will populate the top of the list. Listed just by population, to little surprise, New York City tops the list, followed by Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. The rest of the top 10 is comprised of other large cities/metropolitan areas known for their artistic communities: Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Orange County, California, and Dallas.

If we really wanted to be specific, however, we could take a look at which areas have the highest concentration of self-identified artists relative to their overall population. The ACS is capable of producing this data, by using what Florida describes as a “location quotient,” or LQ, that takes a ratio of an area’s proportion of artists and compares it to the national average. By using this metric, we can take a look at smaller cities that have disproportionately larger artistic communities that may be somewhat of a secret at the national level.

After running the data, some surprises leap out. While larger cities that were present in the original list re-appear here, some much smaller cities make the list as well. Here is the Top 10 list of self-identified artists in the United States, relative to their overall population, in order:

1. Santa Fe, New Mexico

2. San Francisco, California

3. New York City, New York

4. Los Angeles, California

5. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, California

6. Danbury, Connecticut

7. New Bedford, Massachusetts

8. Boulder-Longmont, Colorado

9. Barnstable-Yarmouth, Massachusetts

10. Jersey City, New Jersey

Santa Fe! Not only is Santa Fe at the top of this list, its LQ score is double the score of the #2 city, San Francisco. Some of the other cities on this list, most notably Boulder, are home to universities and have a high percentage of young people living there. Another point: every city on this list except for Santa Fe and Boulder are situated on either the West Coast or the East Coast.

Santa Fe has always been home to a vibrant and proud arts scene, albeit being unknown by most Americans. The state capital of New Mexico is very proud of its arts community, as artists provide an important economic engine for the town in this tough economy: the arts community as a whole provides more than $1 billion in revenues each year and supports more than 17% of all jobs in Santa Fe County.

Every city and metropolitan area across America can certainly make their claim about why their area deserves a spot on this list. While a city may not have a high percentage of self-identified artists, they can still point to unique works of art, groundbreaking museums, or even highly ranked arts schools. This is, after all, only one metric, and there are certainly other ways to measure how “artistic” a given city is. We here at Tech in the Arts would certainly vouch for our home base of Pittsburgh (home of Andy Warhol!), and I have a soft spot for my home town of Phoenix. But by strictly this metric, and information derived from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey, Santa Fe takes the crown for now. With the amount of change and innovation taking place in the arts community these days, especially through the use of technology and social media, this list could be completely different five to ten years from now. And the more artists that are employed and working in all of these cities, the better it is for arts lovers like us everywhere.

The Future of Cities, in Sculpture Form

As the resident policy nerd here at Tech in the Arts, few things excite me as much as infrastructure policy, especially as it relates to cities and how they will evolve and change in the years and decades to come. The “city of the future” concept has been around for as long as the republic itself, with the same questions often being asked: how will people live? What will our houses look like? And, perhaps most importantly, when will we get the flying car? Instead of futuristic fantasies that have little hope of implementation, I often favor the realistic side of things, and am drawn to concepts of future cities that incorporate existing technologies and the gradual improvements that we will no doubt see in our future metropolises. With mega cities becoming a larger part of the American psyche and gradually accounting for a higher and higher percentage of our nation’s population, the incentive to promote and showcase cities of the future has never been higher.

A new exhibit opened this past weekend in Los Angeles seeks to show what kind of city we may gradually evolve into. Metropolis II, by artist Chris Burden, currently on display Fridays and weekends at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, is a living, breathing, working model of a futuristic city designed around transportation and infrastructure. Instead of a computer model or video game, this exhibit is a handmade, painstakingly detailed work of art that shows a city in action.

The scale of the exhibit is quite impressive. In total it is about 500 square feet and is about ten feet tall at its highest point. While there are no flying cars, there are actual miniature cars included in the exhibit, and lots of them: over the span of an hour, over 100,000 tiny cars whiz through the exhibit, speeding between buildings and skyscrapers. There are eighteen roadways handling all of these cars, including a 6-lane freeway. Trains are included as well, with tracks that loop through the exhibit; taken together; all of these cars and trains speeding through the exhibit at such breakneck speed produce a visual and audio experience unlike any other, as the viewer is able to experience the sights and sounds of a futuristic and thriving metropolis.

Designed and built over a span of five years, the exhibit is absolutely worth a look. Here’s a short film looking at the design and production of the sculpture:

http://youtu.be/YqSkRgySAEg

While some may prefer the futuristic futures of films like ‘Blade Runner,’ I enjoy the works of art that look at how cities will evolve and change in the short term. Faster cars, more drivers, taller buildings, denser neighborhoods; these are all characteristics of future cities that seem to be realistic in the short term. The great thing about Burden’s exhibit is how he takes modest changes to our current city structures, like more cars and expanded expressways, and is able to depict the frenzied and bustling future of our cities in a simple and straightforward way.

The exhibit is currently on display in Los Angeles, and if you are in the area, it is definitely worth a look. It may not appeal to futuristic film lovers, but for transportation and infrastructure policy nerds like myself, it is a reminder of why we are so interested in the futures of our wonderful and dynamic major cities.

(Photo credit: Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

Public Works of Art Face New Challenges

When looking at the great cities of America and the world, one of the things that give these places the kind of culture and character they are often known for is public works of art. These exhibits, often unique and memorable, provide a focal point for tourists and a sense of civic pride for residents. However, in these tough economic times, a new problem has emerged for cities everywhere: with cities struggling financially, these works of art are suffering from neglect, acts of vandalism and normal wear and tear, and often do not have the funds necessary to properly maintain them.

These kinds of problems are being felt in cities all across the country. In my hometown of Phoenix, a story last month in the Arizona Republic highlighted the struggle that cities are facing: public works of art are more popular than ever, but face neglect and lack of upkeep due to budget shortfalls and calls for budget austerity.

The problems associated with the upkeep of public works of art go beyond the usual wear and tear: vandalism, including graffiti, is common, along with the theft of metals and gems that are often a part of some displays. The cost to maintain and replace these works of art, especially older exhibits, can prove costly. In a citywide audit, the city of Phoenix found that dozens of public art pieces were in need of repairs, with the total renovation costs estimated to be over $1 million. While most projects were victims of vandalism or wear and tear, others experienced some unexpected problems: for example, an overpass exhibit needed almost $100,000 in repairs because of runoff water eroding parts of the project.

In November, I wrote about how public works of art were more important than ever in today’s climate of budget austerity, and the continued vandalism and destruction of these art displays adds another layer of difficulty when it comes to saving exhibits. While the upfront cost of public art displays often receive the lion’s share of attention and public outcry, the cost of vandalism and neglect often go unmentioned. The costs associated with restoration can ultimately have another impact as well: cities often have to cancel funding for new art projects to care for existing pieces badly in need of repair.

With cities facing decreased tax collections in recent years, the money to help maintain and preserve public works of art is severely lacking. Some cities, including those in the Phoenix metropolitan area, require a certain percentage of money from construction projects be devoted to public art, which in robust economic times provides a stable source of revenue for new art construction and upkeep. The problem, however, is that during tough economic times, less construction projects are taking place, which means that the funding for public art dries up. In a state like Arizona, which was devastated by the housing bubble, the impact can be quite substantial. As the Arizona Republic reported, the difference in funding levels can be quite severe: in the city of Phoenix, the budget for maintenance and restoration went from $63,000 in 2008-09 to just $29,000 in 2011-12. The problem was even more severe in Tempe, home to Arizona State University: the budget went from $90,000 in 2008-09 to just under $8,000 in 2011-12.

So with city funding for upkeep and restoration limited in these tough economic times, what kinds of solutions are available to save public works of art? One option is to raise money through increased taxes; while tax increases are often unpopular, they could be levied in such a way that the impact would be negligible on residents. Examples could include taxes on travel expenses, like car rentals and hotels, or on city services like utility bills. Another option is for cities to seek grants from non-profit and private sources; while most cities seek private funds to sponsor new works of art, efforts to help beautify existing works of art can help promote civic pride and improve areas already in use.

And while they certainly have access to more capital and resources, cities and local governments are not the only people that can have an impact. Residents and community groups are often getting involved as well; helping to “sponsor” an exhibit can often have just as much of an impact. By painting over graffiti, picking up waste or helping to raise money for upkeep, ordinary citizens can promote and protect their community’s works of art. As more and more pieces face neglect and vandalism, residents often feel the urge to protect the town they call home.

Public art projects often serve as a way to remind residents and visitors alike of the culture and history of that particular place. In these tough economic times, these exhibits and projects are in danger of being neglected entirely, damaging not only the art itself, but also the civic pride of residents all across the country.

(Photo: CC by Mal Booth)