Do Cities Have to Follow One Percent Art Washington
Seattle's 1 Percent for Art Program
- Past Alan J. Stein
- Posted x/18/2013
- HistoryLink.org Essay 10645
In 1973, Seattle passed a 1 Percent for Fine art ordinance, which sets aside one percent of capital letter-comeback-project funds for the commission, buy, and installation of artworks in a variety of settings. The Seattle Arts Commission, renamed the Seattle Office of Arts & Culture, advocated the program. Although Seattle was not the first city in the nation to pass such a law, it was 1 of the earliest, and its 1 percent program has been emulated past other cities beyond the nation.
Roots of the Program
The nation's first percent-for-arts programme was created in 1934 as office of the New Deal program of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), when the Treasury Department's Section of Painting and Sculpture mandated that 1 per centum of a federal building's toll exist fix aside for artistic decoration. The program lasted less than a decade, until the section was disbanded in 1943.
In 1959, Philadelphia became the first city in the United States to pass a percent-for-arts ordinance, thank you to the efforts of that city's Artists Disinterestedness Association. Baltimore passed a similar ordinance in 1964, followed by San Francisco in 1967. That same year, Hawaii legislators passed the first statewide percent-for-arts mensurate.
A Federal percentage-for-arts program was set into motion during the Kennedy administration. The program was overseen by the General Services Assistants only was cancelled in 1966 due to monetary pressures and indifference. A new programme was instituted in 1973, with support from President Richard Nixon (1913-1994), who had issued a directive for federal aesthetics in 1972.
Recommended by the Southward.A.C.
In January 1973, the Seattle Arts Commission proposed ane Per centum for Fine art programs to both the Seattle and Male monarch County Councils. The proposals stipulated that "All requests for appropriations for construction projects from eligible funds shall include an corporeality equal to ane (1) pct of the estimated cost of such projection for works of art" and that those monies would go for the "selection, acquisition, and/or installation of works of art to be placed in, on, or nigh public facilities" (The Seattle Times, January 24, 1973).
The proposal likewise gave the Seattle Arts Committee and the King Canton Arts Commission respectively, authority equally advisory lath to determine the method of pick and the commissioning of artists, as well as to review the design, execution, and placement of artwork funded by the ordinance. They would pass along these findings to the Seattle Urban center Council for final approval.
Public construction projects that did not merit an art installation, such every bit an underground sewer replacement, would even so be subject to the ane percent calculation. Coin nerveless from those projects was placed into an arts fund for more appropriate projects.
Proposal Accustomed
King County adopted the ordinance less than three weeks after information technology was introduced to the county council, becoming the starting time county in the nation to implement such a program. The county ordinance included a new provision that allowed the inclusion of performing arts facilities every bit potential recipients of the fund. Rex County Arts Commissioner Yankee Johnson (1939-2000) noted that this funding would probably not go for lavish facilities, but instead be used for informal spaces used for workshops, classes, and casual performances.
Seattle instituted its own 1 Percent for Art program, which was canonical by the city council (Ordinance 102210) on May 21, 1973, and signed into law a week later by Mayor Wes Uhlman (b. 1935).
With the ordinance in identify, the Seattle Arts Committee was tasked with creating procedures for selecting art for municipal projects. Their results were finalized in September. A commission was ready to continually review Upper-case letter Improvement Program requests and then institute criteria for each project in which artwork was accounted feasible. A rule was put into place that at least 50 percent of the artists selected must be residents of Washington state.
Heavy on Low-cal
In March 1974, the Seattle Arts Commission appear that approximately $20,000 was available for the first 1 Per centum for Art project, to be placed in two public auditoriums under the management of Seattle City Light. After much deliberation, the jurors chose works by 22 Washington state artists. The art was placed in the lobbies, halls, and outer walls of City Calorie-free'south North Service Center and South Service Eye.
In 1975, the program paid for a variety of projects, including a statue at the Capitol Hill Viewpoint, and an earthworks project at Elliott Bay Park. The programme likewise paid for the Chief Seattle statue at Tillicum Place to exist relocated into a granite pool, and for restoration of the vandalized Statue of Liberty in Alki Park. But near of the program's money was spent on ownership smaller works of art for municipal buildings, the majority of which were managed by Metropolis Calorie-free.
Different Seattle City Light, half dozen urban center departments, -- fire, police, public wellness, building, library, and engineering -- had never signed a letter of understanding on 1 Percent for Art expenditures, and the distribution of artwork was somewhat lopsided. When it became apparent that Urban center Low-cal was receiving the lion's share of new art, the program came under scrutiny.
Fine Tuning
In tardily 1975, Walter Hundley (1929-2002), director of the city's Function of Direction and Upkeep, proposed sweeping changes to the 1 Percentage for Art program. The proposal redefined eligible funds equally coming only from new construction, and not from edifice remodels or additions, rewiring, or sewer construction. City departments would as well have veto ability over the art selections.
The Arts Committee balked at these changes, claiming it would disable the program. The proposal was withdrawn, but lesser revisions modified the process for selection, funding, and placing works of art in public places. A new ordinance took outcome on April 15, 1976, calling for the cosmos of a Municipal Fine art Plan through public discussion and interest.
By this time, the program was already getting some heat from the public, likewise equally some municipal departments. Some park board members were annoyed when 2 statues were placed on park holding without board consultation. More than a few taxpayers were upset that much of the art that had been purchased was tucked away in City Light hallways, where few would encounter them. Arts commissioners agreed that the program had its crude spots, but that it was an experiment worth continuing.
Because of public grumbling that much of the new art was also avant garde to be enjoyed by about people, the Arts Committee held an exhibit in November 1976, where citizens and public employees were given a adventure to view 55 works past Northwest artists. Based on their requests, a committee chose which of the pieces would be installed in the sites selected.
Program in Danger
In 1977, the 1 Percentage for Fine art plan faced its biggest challenge when the Seattle Urban center Council voted to cut Seattle Urban center Light'south contributions to the programme. The power utility -- like many throughout the Usa -- was struggling through a worldwide free energy crisis, and had proposed a half-dozen-calendar month electrical-rate surcharge of 61 percent to kickoff losses. City Light superintendent Gordon Vickery (1920-1996) recommended astringent budget cuts to lessen the surcharge, including cutting the contribution to the 1 Percent for Art program.
Seattle City Council recommended $2.half dozen million in cuts from City Light's 1977 budget, of which the 1 Percent for Fine art program was only $192,000. Unfortunately, Metropolis Light funds represented more than 75 per centum of the program's budget, effectively gutting the program. The quango voted 8-ane to cut the funding, with only Randy Revelle (b. 1941) voting against information technology.
The arts community was outraged, especially at the manner in which the cuts were fabricated. "We were given no advance warning, and couldn't answer," said arts commissioner Peter LeSourd (b. 1938). "There has been a lot of talk amidst the members of the council about open authorities. Now it turns out the government isn't fifty-fifty open to its own agencies" (The Seattle Times, May 20, 1977).
Afterwards a storm of protestation from arts advocates, the city council voted to restore one-half the program. When asked whose idea it was to cut funds to the program in the start place, Seattle Urban center Council staff and Seattle City Light officials each blamed the other. Full funding was afterward restored.
Successes and Growth
In 1984, an article in The New Yorker referred to Seattle's one Pct for Art program as the "almost adventurous" in the nation. By this fourth dimension, there were more than than 200 Percentage for Art ordinances across the nation, and many cities used Seattle's program as a model. In the mid-1980s, Seattle's programme was generating between $300,000 and $500,000 a yr for fine art, and had paid for such notable works as a series of downtown manhole covers designed past Nathan Jackson (b. 1938) and Ann Knight, and the Broadway Artery sidewalk'due south inlaid bronze dance steps, designed by Jack Mackie.
As municipal construction began to boom in the late 1980s, and so did the amount of money generated past the ordinance. In 1988, more $767,000 was nerveless, and paid for more than than thirty artworks, including Jonathan Borofsky's (b. 1942) Hammering Man statue, which was installed in front of the Seattle Fine art Museum in 1991. The recession of the early 1990s led to a drop in funding, but the dot-com blast at the cease of the century led to huge amounts of structure and increased funds. In 2000, the plan gathered more than $16 million.
When Harborview Hospital expanded, the new building gained a plethora of new art. So did the sometime Opera Business firm at Seattle Centre, when it was transformed into Marion Oliver McCaw Hall. When the new City Hall opened in 2003, it was filled with artwork, dissimilar the drab municipal building it replaced.
Equally of 2013, Seattle's i Percent for Art program had paid for a collection of more than 380 permanently sited and integrated works and 2,800 portable works, valued at over $39 million.
Sources:
"Public Fine art Ordinances Proposed," The Seattle Times, Jan 24, 1973, p. E-14; "New Canton Law," Ibid., February 21, 1973, p. Thou-half dozen; "Police force to Add New Art to City," Ibid., June 1, 1973, p. C-1; "Arts Group Eyes Half Million,"Ibid., September 12, 1973, p. E-fourteen; "City to Cut Back Arts Budget,"Ibid., March 6, 1974, p. F-3; "Urban center Light Gets 22 Works of Art,"Ibid.,June 8, 1974, p. A-4; "Oregon Sculptor Gets Committee,"Ibid., February 25, 1975, p. A-xiv; "Arts Commission Recommends New Art,"Ibid., August 7, 1975, p. D-vii; "Arts Group Approves Earthwork Commission,"Ibid.,, September 3, 1975, p. D-6; "1% Plan is in Trouble, Committee is Told,"Ibid., November 5, 1975, p. H-one; "One Per Cent for Fine art Program Gets a Facelift,"Ibid., Nov 14, 1975, p. Tempo-three; "Upkeep Details for Arts Commission,"Ibid., April half-dozen, 1976, p. B-half dozen; "Progress Report on the I Per Cent for Fine art Program,"Ibid., April 12, 1976, p. A-thirteen; "Cities, Public Employees to Select Civic Art,"Ibid., November one, 1976, p. F-7; "Surcharge Tin can Be Cut, Says City Low-cal,"Ibid., May 1, 1977, p. A-14; "Money For Arts May Be Restored,"Ibid., May twenty, 1977, p. Tempo-ane; "Council Restores Half of Program,"Ibid., May 24, 1977, p. C-iii; "Council Restores Half of Program,"Ibid., May 24, 1977, p. C-3; "The Public's Place in Public Art,"Ibid.,December 14, 1984, pp. E-1, E-9; "Commission Must Often Read Betwixt Lines of Art Proposals,"Ibid., Nov 13, 1986, p. E-1; "New Artwork Will Bust Out All Over Town, Cities one% Law to Pay for thirty Pieces,"Ibid., August 20, 1988, p. A-1; "Take The Art to the Ball Game -- a Team Attempt is Bringing Visual Hits to Safeco Field,"Ibid., Baronial 20, 1988, p. A-1; "Land of the Art,"Ibid., September 29, 2013, p. H-3; John Wetenhall, "A Brief History of Percent-for-Art in America, "Public Art Review, Fall/Winter 1993, No. 9, p. 4.
Licensing: This essay is licensed under a Creative Eatables license that encourages reproduction with attribution. Credit should exist given to both HistoryLink.org and to the author, and sources must be included with any reproduction. Click the icon for more info. Delight notation that this Creative Commons license applies to text but, and not to images. For more than data regarding individual photos or images, please contact the source noted in the image credit.
Major Support for HistoryLink.org Provided By: The State of Washington | Patsy Bullitt Collins | Paul G. Allen Family Foundation | Museum Of History & Industry | 4Culture (Male monarch County Lodging Tax Acquirement) | City of Seattle | Metropolis of Bellevue | City of Tacoma | Rex County | The Peach Foundation | Microsoft Corporation, Other Public and Private Sponsors and Visitors Like You
Source: https://historylink.org/File/10645
Komentar
Posting Komentar