Is 1% Enough? On Tuesday morning from 11:10 – 12:30, the Baltimore City Council convened to debate the merits of the “1% for Public Art” initiative. As defined by the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts’ (BOPA) ordinance, the program’s purpose is to establish a public art commission; requiring the allocation of certain construction project funds to be used for artwork; abolishing the Civic Design Commission, and generally relating to public construction projects. The basic premise is to continue a program that allocates 1% of any municipally supported project exceeding $100K in eligible construction costs to the commission of artwork. A public art commission consisting of 9 members will select appropriate art for the spaces. The 1% can be used to create a commissioned piece, or can be used to repair or maintain an existing public artwork.

Presided over by City Council Person, James Kraft, the mood in the council chambers was a positive and supportive one. All seemed to be in favor of the bill passing with relatively minor changes to the ordinance’s wording.

What bothers me about this whole idea is the proposal’s completely underwhelming concept. As councilman Kraft openly stated within the first few minutes of the hearing, there are few, if any, current municipal projects exceeding $100K. So, leaders of BOPA two artists and I had convened in the chambers to beseech Baltimore City to dog ear a meager $1K per project for public art. Somehow the program seems slightly outdated.

“Percentage for Public Art” programs have been in place in cities across the country for years: New Orleans has commissioned over 240 artworks since their percentage program began in the late ‘70’s, Philadelphia’s program is responsible for over 300 pieces since 1959, and between 1977-1979, percentage for public art programs were implemented in Albuquerque, Denver, Atlanta, Seattle, and Anchorage. Baltimore was ahead of the curve being the second city in the nation to implement a percentage plan. The 1% may have stretched a little further then.

Since the plan was put in place, Baltimore’s 1% has gone towards the acquisition, commission and maintenance of more than 300 works of public art. I guarantee that the 1% in 1982 allowed the city to commission and acquire some great pieces, but in 2007 when unknown artists are charging $3K for a canvas, this 1% will do nothing more than contribute to an artists’ stipend or defray the cost of mailing publicity postcards.

Of course I am supportive of the ordinance and I commend the city for continuing the program. But, thirty years after Baltimore initially adopted the 1% for Public Art Program, shouldn’t we be adjusting for inflation and not merely reinstating the same idea? Ultimately, city supported arts initiatives give the message to the city’s residents and visitors that art is important to the local community and economy. However, when the support is 1%, what message does that send? Is something always better than nothing or, in this case, can it sometimes undermine the very reason why it was put into place?

Labels: 1%, Art, Baltimore City

  10:54 AM •