My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2025
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:53:42 PM
Creation date
1/17/2025 10:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/09/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
496
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
valuable and show the link between arts planning and other forms of development. Economic <br /> development and tourism are two key areas which are argued to be particularly pertinent to public art <br /> planning (Hayter& Pierce, 2009). <br /> The most significant quantitative analysis of public art in the United States is A Detailed <br /> Statistical Report on the Budgets and Programming of the Nation's Public Art Programs During Fiscal <br /> Year 2001. This study gives the results of a survey of 350 public art programs in the US. Not all of these <br /> programs are directly related to planning for municipal governments, as it includes private programs <br /> that are managed by nonprofit organizations, campus public art programs at universities, and state wide <br /> policies.The survey had a response rate of 38%with 132 programs responding. <br /> The results of this survey provide information on public art programs that are suggestive of their <br /> activities in fiscal year 2001. Findings include that the largest and most highly funded programs are <br /> those within a government agency. Additionally, 58%of government programs surveyed receive funding <br /> from percent-for-art programs. About three quarters (74%) of the programs were bound by some form <br /> of public art ordinance or law, and the majority those (86%) provided for funding in some way. <br /> Additional statistics are provided about the method of artist selection,the size and composition <br /> of the board or commission that has oversight over the program, staffing levels, the utilization of <br /> consultants, and the breakdown of public art programs in rural and urban areas. <br /> In regard to public art master planning, 31% of the respondents had a public art master plan. It <br /> should also be noted that programs that have a public art master plan grow significantly faster and have <br /> higher budgets.The study also states that most master plans (62%) were created since 1995 and almost <br /> all (92%) are publicly available in their area (Americans for the Arts, 2003). <br /> A 2004 publication by Americans for the Arts focuses specifically on best practices for artist <br /> selection, a component of public art master plans. In the Public Art Network Issue Paper, Methods of <br /> Artist Selection the author presents multiple methods of artist selection, with the two most common <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.