Public Art Conference Archive—2001

Study Session: Project Evaluation

Presenter: Cathie Behrend, NYC Department Of Cultural Affairs, New York, NY
Notetaker: Rondi Silva

Summary
Because of time constraints and staff limitations, public art professionals do not always have the time, or take the time, to evaluate completed projects once the ribbons have been cut. What are the criteria we use as professionals to judge whether the mission of the program has been achieved and whether the artwork can be considered a success? Is it the economics of (or lack) of the public art sector that creates the scarcity of attention from the traditional art press and aesthetic critics? Do any programs currently have criteria? Can there be standard criteria developed, or should it be done on a local level? What, if anything, can be learned from our colleagues in other professions and as well as other sectors of the arts? At the study session we will discuss some case studies and delve into this important and challenging area of discourse.

Cathie Behrend began the discussion by suggesting that program evaluation is different from project evaluation. From her vantage point and information about the public art profession, there appear to be very limited ways or means of evaluating projects. In preparation for the workshop, she surveyed the PAN listserve for evaluation instruments. Nationally, only two programs responded with examples (Maine and Colorado) but the interest in the topic was enormous across the country. She asked the workshop participants why this lack of evaluation existed. The answers were lack of time, money, staff, political constraints and/or the absence of appropriate and effective methods.

Trying to evoke a focused discussion, Cathie asked each participant to write down what the goals and objectives are of their program, ordinance or law. A list of those items included:

• Inspires the human spirit throughout the community
• Provides art for citizens/visitors/employees/riders
• Enhances the built environment
• Understands the audience (contextual)
• Has educational value
• Employs artists
• Stimulates civic dialogue

She then asked each participant to think about a project they consider "successful" and what are the criteria for success? A discussion ensued around how the identified goals and objectives match up against the stated criteria for success. Some of the issues raised were:

• Are aesthetics the primary criteria for success?
• Are aesthetics and community process (public art) equally important and both critical to success?
• Can evaluation back-fire?
• Do different public art projects have different criteria?
• Does it matter over time what the public process was?
• Is the artwork accessible? Does it activate the viewer?
• Is it a memorial or a fun piece of work?
• Does it relate to the history and culture of the community?
• Will it sustain itself over time? Is it multi-dimensional?
• Was it properly maintained and conserved?
• Do adults and children both like it?
• Does it matter if all viewers understand it?
• If the people in the public process like it, is that enough success?
• Did it involve any risk-taking?
• Will it be missed?

Cathie then opened it up into a lively dialogue about why public art and its professionals do not evaluate projects. The following reasons were given:

• Public art lacks a distinct and distinguishing vocabulary.
• Because there is little or no economics to a public art project, no one benefits from that evaluation. There is no gallery or museum system to support the market for public art. There is a closed economic loop. Also there is no incentive for commercial advertising.
• If quality is not the primary criteria, public art works become marginalized.
• What would the impact of market appraisals of public artworks be on awareness of public art? What happens when the market price drops?
• Are their quantifiable criteria for public art? Audience numbers?
• Is controversy good?
• Do public art artists evaluate each other’s work?

Cathie then discussed next steps:

• Cultivate the press—reporters from all sections of the news media such as arts, political, community news, etc.
• Cultivate audiences in the schools and colleges by instituting a "docent" program.
• Create better and more didactic signage at public art work sites.
• Start to develop guidelines and instruments of evaluation.