Art

Wisconsin Ordinance Would Waste Tax Dollars on Public Art

Madison won't be the first town to do this.

|

$1 million dollar 'Wind Roundabout' structure in Fort Worth
Michael Hogan/Flickr

Madison, Wisconsin, might become the next town to subsidize godawful sculptures. The local government is considering an ordinance that would require the city to spend a percentage of a capital project's construction costs on public art.

Some 26 states and many more localities already fund items of dubious aesthetic value through these "percent-for-art" requirements, though the details vary from one jurisdiction to another. Madison's proposal is fairly typical, requiring one percent of the cost of any project with a $5 million or greater price tag to be spent on art. In Fort Worth, Texas, by contrast, the figure is 2 percent, leading recently to the city shelling out $1 million for a mystifying roundabout decoration.

Madison's ordinance would cost $364,000 were it implemented today. According to the proposal's backers, that $364,000 would buy a whole hell of a lot.

"Through the proper presentation of public art," the legislation reads, "places become destinations and enhance the visitor's understanding of the unique space and community they occupy." Funding public art would "promote cultural heritage and understanding, enhance the environment, contribute to economic development and increase civic involvement."

$20,000 Raleigh acorn
JH-Photo&VideoLocations/Flickr

This lofty language is hardly unique. In Raleigh, North Carolina, the percent-for-art scheme purportedly "provides public places with civic distinction, as well as fostering meaningful connections between people and place." More specifically, Raleigh threw $20,000 at a giant metal acorn, which the city drops Time Square–style to ring in the new year. In Oregon, the state's program allegedly enhances the "quality of life for all Oregonians through the arts by stimulating creativity, leadership and economic vitality." For example, it spent $600,000 on art for a jail that never opened.

Given expenditures like that, some state and city governments are starting to back away from percent-for-art programs. Gov. Scott Walker eliminated Wisconsin's 30-year-old percent-for-art program in 2011 as part of a 66 percent reduction in public art spending. In 2015 Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed multiple bills that would have established such a system in his state. On the local level, Ann Arbor, Michigan, eliminated its percent-for-art program. In the seven years it had been in place, the program had diverted $2.2 million from road, sewage, and parks projects.

Yet Madison seems likely to move ahead with its ordinance, which has the support of the mayor. Madison Public Arts Administrator Karin Wolf insists the spending will be "strategic," telling the Wisconsin State Journal: "We can't afford not to keep investing in a well-designed, attractive city."

Advertisement

NEXT: Should a child's name be changed to Faisel Ali Maqableh from a more Anglo-sounding name?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At first glance I thought that acorn was a Langolier. Now that’s some public art I could get behind.

  2. Artists should be donating the work pro-bono, and using the press from getting a project approved for public display to launch their careers. There – just lopped 1% off the highway budget.

    1. Disagree.

      Pro-bono work in exchange for “good publicity” or “exposure” is a scam. It doesn’t help when you have bills to pay.

      Try asking your mechanic for pro bono car repairs in exchange for a great online review. Or your barber, your doctor, etc. They will laugh at you and then explain that they have overhead and a good review doesn’t pay the bills.

      I’m totally AGAINST public funding for art. I think plenty of building owners would like to include some kind of art outside or inside. It looks nice, it can up the classiness of the place, or set a certain mood, etc.

      But the artists should get paid for their work.

      1. Try asking your mechanic for pro bono car repairs in exchange for a great online review. Or your barber, your doctor, etc.

        Or a lawyer. Oh…

    2. That’s a pretty good idea.

    3. That’s a terrible idea. Currently, public art is simply trite and banal. Make it pro bono and you could add ‘completely incompetent’ to that list.

  3. RE: Wisconsin Ordinance Would Waste Tax Dollars on Public Art

    But isn’t that what the little are there for?
    To give their ill-gotten gains to The State for really stupid shit?

  4. I dunno. 2% for artistic embellishment of public works doesn’t seem like a horrible idea. It’s a lot cheaper than tripling the cost of the Oakland Bay Bridge just so you can have pretty suspension cables instead of a causeway. Is that really any different than embossing state symbols on an overpass?

    And I like it better than my local town’s requirement that private projects install a sculpture as a condition of the permit.

    I would hope that the art for the prison was repurposed.

    1. I would hope that the art for the prison was repurposed.

      Yes, when, as previous posters have suggested, the entire prison facility is re-purposed as a school.

  5. “We can’t afford not to keep investing in a well-designed, attractive city.”

    If Americans wanted “well-designed, attractive” cities, they would be that way already.

    1. we also would have accepted “have you found one in Wisconsin that qualifies?”

  6. “places become destinations and enhance the visitor’s understanding of the unique space and community they occupy.” Funding public art would “promote cultural heritage and understanding, enhance the environment, contribute to economic development and increase civic involvement.”

    “provides public places with civic distinction, as well as fostering meaningful connections between people and place.”

    enhances the “quality of life for all Oregonians through the arts by stimulating creativity, leadership and economic vitality.”

    At the risk of being called a philistine, does anyone ever asks what the fuck does this bullshit bromide mean and why should I pay for it?

  7. My problem is with the 98% that goes to the capital projects.

  8. Public art is generally the most banal, boring, and trite art there is.

  9. Don’t do it!
    Public art ends up looking like trees trimmed by the electric company: mangled and odd.
    See public art in Culver City, CA (where they also plant tall trees under power lines). What a waste of money!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.