University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Public art in Houston: administrative structure analysis and artist guidebook

(USC Thesis Other)

Public art in Houston: administrative structure analysis and artist guidebook

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PUBLIC ART IN HOUSTON: ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
AND ARTIST GUIDEBOOK

by

Nicole Clark Laurent

_____________________________________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC, ROSKI SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF PUBLIC ART STUDIES

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Nicole Clark Laurent
ii

Dedication

In memory of John P. Laurent, M.D., my father, advocate, mentor and hero.

iii

Acknowledgements

With great appreciation, I would like to acknowledge the following people
who contributed to my successful completion of the Public Art Studies program:
Patricia Laurent, Jessica Cusick, Leslie Fischer, Antonio Bartolome, Caryl Levy, Ruth
Weisberg and Joshua Decter.

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ............................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... v
Abstract ................................................................................................................. vi
Chapter 1: Introduction: Public Art in Houston Administrative Structure
Analysis ............................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: City Agencies Involved in Commissioning Public Art ..................... 4

Chapter 3: The Public Art Selection Process in Houston .................................... 8

Chapter 4: The Merger ........................................................................................ 11
Chapter 5: Challenges Within the HAA Structure .............................................. 15

Chapter 6: Lessons Learned ................................................................................ 22
Chapter 7: Why Do It? Why Is It Worth It? ........................................................ 25
Chapter 8: Conclusion ......................................................................................... 27
Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 30
Appendix: Artist Resource Guidebook ................................................................ 32

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Heritage Lanterns #1 .......................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Heritage Lanterns #2 .......................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Travel Light ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 4: Leopard Sky ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 5: Tilted Arc ............................................................................................ 20
Figure 6: Wall to Ocotillo .................................................................................. 21
Figure 7: Wall to Ocotillo .................................................................................. 21

vi

Abstract

My thesis is an MPAS project that includes an artist guide to making public art
in Houston, Texas and an analysis of my experience working for the nonprofit 501
(c)(3) agency now known as the Houston Arts Alliance (HAA), formerly the Cultural
Arts Council of Houston and Harris County (CACHH).
This document is the fulfillment of the MPAS thesis project requirement to
write an essay explaining the process, its evolution, and my thoughts regarding its
success and drawbacks. The guidebook is a directive for public artists in Houston that
delineates the process necessary for implementation of a project, from submitting
qualifications to final installation.
1

Chapter 1

Introduction: Public Art in Houston
Administrative Structure Analysis

The excitement accompanying my first position in public art at the Cultural
Arts Council of Houston and Harris County was palpable the minute I accepted the
position, and the sentiment lasted for a good year out of my almost three year tenure.
Completing my required MPAS internship/field experience the summer between my
years of graduate study, I returned in January of 2005 to accept the position of Project
Manager in the Civic Art and Design Department. I was driven by my desire to make
art accessible to all and to educate and provide an opportunity for people to access and
integrate artwork into their normal lives and daily routines. The Percent for Art
Ordinance in Houston passed in 1999 earmarking 1.75% of the budgets of City capital
improvement projects
1
to be set aside for artistic enhancements.
In a 2005 interview conducted by the Houston PBS/KUHT–TV for the special
documentary Art is All Around Us: Downtown, the now former director of the
University of Houston’s Blaffer Gallery, Terrie Sultan stated: “I believe that art has
the power to change people’s lives and I think that public art has the power to do that
in a way that perhaps paintings and sculptures and smaller things that are in museums
can’t because

1
Eligible capital improvement projects do not include land acquisition, paving
projects, street resurfacing projects, runways, ramps and parking lots, signal and traffic
control projectors, underground projects (water lines, sanitary sewers, storm sewers),
equipment purchases, change orders and projects with budgets under $500,000.00
2

they don’t reach people in the same way.” Taking art out of museums and putting it
out on the streets in ways to which people can relate is essential to improving the
quality of life in any city and central to my desire to dedicate my life to public art. The
need for a productive, competent and efficient system in which this can be
accomplished is invaluable.
“Art in the public domain is part of a complex matrix where personal
ambitions as well as larger political and economic agendas often merge. On many
levels and in many ways, these nonart factors influence and even determine the
appearance, sitting, and interpretation of public art. The significance and use of public
art in a democracy cannot be understood without a careful analysis of patronage and
the motives behind it”
2
. An additional analysis of the administration, which is a
technical aspect and neither art nor culture based, requires a similar if not exact
exploration with the same investigatory lens.
I soon discovered the plethora of obstacles involved when it comes to using
public money. While it is nice to stipulate public input in assessing the inherent and
intrinsic value of art, many nonart factors influence development, production,
installation and practice of art in the public realm. These factors can so fundamentally
alter the realization of “good” work, that the resulting art is frequently a watered down
version of what was initially proposed. Due to the fact that art is subjective, opposition
is a frequent contender. The very limited government dollars designated for art should

2
Senie, 101.

3

be spent wisely and with the public’s best interest in mind. One of the advantages of
an artist guidebook is the identification of necessary steps in the process. A “Request
for Qualifications
3
” helps ensure prudent and judicious use of funding. An analysis of
the administration of a project is also necessary to ensure compliance and provide
quality control.
I will elucidate the previous and current structure of the CACHH public art
program, as well as advocate for a possible alternative configuration. This will be
accompanied by an artist’s guide to making public art in Houston, TX.

3
A “Request for Qualifications” (RFQ) is a procurement tool routinely used by
state and local governments to select artists based on previous experience. Submittal
requirements generally include a resume, artist statement and 10-20 images. This
approach differs from the Request for Proposals (RFP) approach in that it places
greater emphasis on the actual qualifications of the potential artist, rather than how
well he or she responds to detailed project specifications and requirements. RFQs are
used more often in the public art selection process since RFPs usually do not include
an honorarium.
4

Chapter 2
City Agencies Involved in Commissioning Public Art
Various departments of the City of Houston contract with the Houston Arts
Alliance for public artwork including the Houston Airport System (HAS), the
Conventions and Entertainment Facilities Department (CEFD) and the Building
Services Department (BSD).
The Building Services Department is the umbrella department for the Houston
Fire Department, Houston Police Department, Health and Human Services, Parks and
Recreation, Public Works and Engineering, Houston Public Library, Health and
Human Services as well as Housing and Community Development. BSD also
supervises numerous projects that do not qualify for public art monies. Subsequently,
working within the structure of BSD relegates public art to one of many responsibil-
ities that is not always afforded warranted consideration.
The most successful projects, defined in this context as those seen to
completion, are commissioned by the Houston Airport System and the Conventions
and Entertainment Facilities Department. These departments generate the most funds
for public art and are each one entity with designated staff who works with the
Houston Arts Alliance.
In my experience, some good examples of recent projects include Heritage
Lanterns installed in 2005 by Paul Kittelson and Carter Ernst located in downtown
Houston at Root Memorial Square, as well as the nine pieces of public artwork
installed at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport as part of its International
5

Services Expansion Program in the new Federal Inspection Services building in 2004.
4

These successful projects were funded through the Houston Arts Alliance and CEFD
and HAS, respectively.
The success of these projects is largely due to the fact that they accomplished
many key necessities. The artworks address the sites, the artists were not forced to
compromise to the detriment of their original concepts and the projects were received
relatively well by the communities for which they were installed. Most importantly,
however, the relationship between the City and the public art administration was
strengthened.

4
Air Drops by Kate Petley, Beadwork by Jim Hirschfield and Sonya Ishii,
Galaxy Way by Rolando Briseno, Leopard Sky by Sheila Klein, One Bounce, Two
Bounce by Sandra Fiedorek, Passages 1,2,3,4 by Leslie Elkins and Bert Samples,
Timeline by Ben Woitena, and Travel Light by The Art Guys. Two out of the nine
HAS projects were highlighted in the “Public Art Year in Review” section of the
August 2005 edition of Art in America; Travel Light by the Art Guys and Leopard Sky
by Sheila Klein, out of a total of only 21 projects.
6

Fig. 1. Heritage Lanterns #1

5

Fig. 2. Heritage Lanterns #2

5
Heritage Lanterns by Paul Kittelson and Carter Ernst at Root Memorial
Square 2005.

7

Fig. 3. Travel Light

6

Fig. 4. Leopard Sky

6
Travel Light by the Art Guys, Leopard Sky by Sheila Klein, pictures from
http://www.houstonairportsystem.org/0/273144/0/1904/
8

Chapter 3

The Public Art Selection Process in Houston

The artist guidebook provides the steps necessary to achieve project
completion. The outlined phases of public art are expanded to assist and elucidate the
process step by step. Before a project can begin, the method of artist selection must be
determined by the Houston Arts Alliance. The three options include a direct selection
from the JSR
7
, a Call for Artist Method (an RFQ or RFP), and the Project Team
Method. After determining eligibility for a project and submission of appropriate
materials, materials are advanced through a public panel process. Panel proceedings
are open to the public and community members are encouraged to attend. This is the
first step members of the general public can take to become involved in a project.
Generally three to five artists make the short list, are granted interviews, and
typically asked to come in with an idea for the site in mind. These interviews by and
large influence the ultimate decision of the panel and can make or break the selection
of an artist. Once an artist is approved during the final selection, the project begins.
After any selection process, the support of the department directors within the
City of Houston will largely determine the success or failure of the project. There is
not always an in house authority presence to oblige or compel the Director of a City
Department to “sign off” on the civic dollars allocated to a given project. When
personal taste does not align with the artist’s vision or artwork chosen by the panel, I

7
Juried Slide Registry, a pre-qualified list of artists, opened for admission
every 3-5 years.
9

witnessed the progression of various projects slow to a lengthy struggle that has taken
months if not years to clarify and advance. A lack of trust, the absence of a public art
advocate within the City Department and the lack of adequate public art administrative
resources and knowledge, can also shape the progress and success or failure of a civic
art project.
The credibility of a civic art program and its administrators can fundamentally
define its relationship with the City, community and artists. Projects can blossom or
fold depending on the support and advocacy within a Department in addition to the
leadership and integrity of the administrators and reliability of the program. From my
observations, the turnover rate and/or reassignments within the Building Services
Department personnel have crippled many potentially great public art projects.
The Department designated as the recipient of a public art project, or Client
Department, is always represented during the artist selection process. However, the
decision is reached by the entire panel, which is selected by the administrators at the
Houston Arts Alliance. This is one of the rare opportunities in which a public art
administrator has a slight advantage and influence on the process to be able to use
personal knowledge and experience in the selection of panelists. An advocate for
cutting edge public art and avant-garde talent is only as good as the ability he or she
has as a panelist to convince and speak out amongst other panelists during the
selection process. This knowledge can eventually result in the same token
representatives throughout the community and art community serving on public art
panels.
10

The fabrication and installation phase of a project can be lengthy due to a
number of potential interferences. Weather conditions, the rising cost of materials as
well as rigid scheduling with general contractors, architects, the client and others, all
pose possible delays to a projects’ conclusion. Achieving final installation does not
guarantee project completion. Artists must submit a final maintenance catalogue and
the piece must be accepted by the commissioning City Department in order to receive
final payment.
11

Chapter 4

The Merger

“The Houston Arts Alliance (HAA) has been officially formed through the
merger of the Cultural Arts Council Houston/Harris County, the Municipal Art
Commission, and the Civic Art Committee. The HAA now serves as a unified entity
that will fund, advocate, preserve, and promote the arts in the Houston, and Harris
county region”.
8

To dissect the intricacies of the Houston system and grasp the bureaucracy
involved is an arduous task. Its inherent perplexities probe the question of whether its
intention is to frustrate inquiring parties to the point of fatigue and ultimately
discourage further involvement.
The end of 2006 brought the reorganization of the Cultural Arts Council and a
new identity, the Houston Arts Alliance. The mission statement remained the same as
before, with a new .com website attached in lieu of the previous .org. The press release
dispersed November 6, 2006 states “The Houston Arts Alliance is a 501(c) (3)
charitable organization that seeks to advance the nonprofit arts industry in the Houston
region, thus contributing to the enhancement of the region’s quality of life, economic
competitiveness and attractiveness as a tourist destination. Its mission is to nurture,
fund, advocate and promote participation in the arts in Houston and Harris County.

8
http://www.houstontx.gov/municipalart/index.html

12

For more information visit www.haatx.com”.
9
It is important for artists to understand
the changes inherent in the merger in order to work within the current system. The
artist guidebook clarifies the new terminology of the organization and outlines the
necessary procedures to achieve project completion.
The changes to the organization mainly addressed the concern for the use of
conservation and maintenance dollars. A major position was added to the public art
department, which in Houston is called the Civic Art + Design department (CA+D).
The new position of CA+ D Collection Manager would essentially take the place of
the former Municipal Art Commission (MAC) and its city-employed Conservation
Coordinator. The MAC had access to and used funds collected privately in an
endowment; the administration of these funds did not transfer to the purview of HAA
after the merger. This raises the question of the viability of public volunteers
controlling funds solicited for use with city public art projects.
The other entity that merged with CACHH was the “Civic Art Committee”
(CAC). This committee was already administered by CACHH and served as the
approving body charged with oversight of the program. There now exists, within
HAA, a “Civic Art + Collections Management Committee” that has taken over the
previous committee’s responsibilities. New members were added and the limited
incoming civic art dollars are now required to cover all conservation and maintenance
costs, as well as provide funding for new civic art projects. It is highly advantageous

9
http://www.cachh.org/pressreleases.html

13

and very necessary to include maintenance and conservation costs when it comes to
public art. The positions of CA + D Project Manager and CA+ D Collections Manager
must now share the civic art monies to accomplish both conservation goals and new
civic art projects for the City. I believe it would be advantageous to outline or develop
a plan to divide these funds.
With the merger of the MAC and the CAC, CACHH became HAA and
acquired a new Board. The Board President at the time sought to include board
members who she referred to as “500 pound art world gorillas.” After a year and a half
with an interim Executive Director, a new CEO from California was hired. The current
staff of 15 retains 2 employees who worked under the previous Executive Director. I
noticed the lack of permanent leadership at both the Executive level and the Director
of CA+D position contributed to the state of limbo into which many projects fell. This
lag also contributed to the absence of a CA+D contract with the City of Houston for 4
months and destroyed any pre-existing good will and credibility the Civic Art Program
had with City Departments.
The way in which the city contracts with the Houston Arts Alliance as well as
how the larger division of HAA, the Grants + Services Department, functions remains
the same as before the merger. HAA still functions in the grants sector as the vehicle
for distribution of hotel occupancy taxes. According to the Texas Tax Code
10
, HOT

10
The use of HOT funds is dictated by State law and defined in the Texas Tax
Code (Subtitle D. Local Hotel Occupancy Taxes; Chapter 351. Municipal Hotel
Occupancy Taxes). The HOT funds are generated as a result of a person who pays for
14

funds can be used to support arts and cultural programs that directly enhance tourism
and the convention and hotel industry. The break down within HAA as of 2007 is as
follows: 24% granted to Theater District, 18% granted to Museum District, 16%
granted to Miller Theater, 2.5% used in Mayor’s Mini-Grant Program, 29% distributed
through competitive grants and 10.5% for HAA administration.

the

use or possession, or for the right to the use or possession of a room in a hotel,
motel or bed and breakfast, with a cost of $2 or more each day, and is ordinarily used
for sleeping not on a permanent basis.
15

Chapter 5

Challenges within the HAA Structure

Though it may not be the location of a program that ultimately determines
successful administration and though a public art program conducted by bona fide city
employees has yet to be perfected, running a program under a City Department could
be a way to begin to streamline the process in Houston. In the same office, all are
compelled to cooperate for the attainment of one goal. The confusing union in
Houston did not address the actual structural problems of public art administration and
the same barricades and inability to efficiently complete projects remain. A lack of
leadership and credibility on both sides, HAA and the City of Houston, has damaged
the system.
The structure of the Mayor’s office distances itself from the administration of
public art. The perceptions of potential accusations of irresponsible funding
11
have
resulted in what could be seen as an attempt to avoid direct responsibility. The
Cultural Affairs Office, a division of the Mayor’s office, employs two positions: the
“Mayor's Assistant for Cultural Affairs” and his or her assistant. The oversight of the
Houston Arts Alliance is only one part of these two multi-faceted positions. This
office is not to be confused with a full blown “Department of Cultural Affairs” such as
Los Angeles’ that employs 73 full-time employees and has the purview to provide
such necessary things as permits for new murals. Neither is it like the “Office of Arts

11
Accusations of “irresponsible funding” can stem from either a difference in
taste or personal budget priorities.
16

and Culture” that can be found in Phoenix, Arizona whose website is a link attached to
the city’s own site, http://phoenix.gov/ARTS/artscomm.html. Seattle, Washington dubs
its entity the “Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs” and is easily accessed at
www.seattle.gov.
An office consisting of two employees that serve as the liaison to the entity
that administers a public art program differs drastically from a dedicated City
Department. In my experience, too much time was spent trying to identify the process
in order to get to the right authority. This time could have been spent moving forward
with a project or program. Though not necessarily the fault of the City or HAA,
projects seemed to move more easily when reliable leadership and trust are valued and
maintained.
The lack of a functional system leads to an endless battle of trial and error
when it comes to the politics of using the public art money and often leaves the
subcontracted organization, in this case HAA, buried in miscommunication and red
tape. Organizations, bureaus and agencies such as these, that wheel and deal in the
realm of public money used for art, sometimes function much more as a protective
barrier for cities unwilling to truly commit to public art.
There is a space within an untrustworthy system that is exasperated when
public art administration is outsourced by local government. This structure can
provide the City with the ability to distance itself from what might be perceived as
17

“bad art”
12
. The public art administration ultimately assumes complete culpability
when a project is ill received or generates a negative public response. The division
between the two offices’ responsibilities can endorse the idea that public art should be
awarded by popularity.
This unfortunate pattern reinforces self-accreditation for popular public
artwork and an indifference or disregard for controversial or disliked pieces. The very
existence of a piece of public artwork can hinge on the opinion(s) of one very
organized and disgruntled individual, council member or civic group. Ownership of a
project can take a back seat when it is associated with negative connotations.
The website, www.houstonmunicipalart.org, will take you to a page hosted by
the city of Houston that lists contact information for the current Civic Art + Design
Director (who is not a city employee but a staff member of HAA) and a brief
description of the 1.75% for art ordinance. This website describes a Houston
Municipal Art Office that, “serves as the contract administrator for all new art projects
for non-enterprise city departments and all professional conservation projects for the
Civic Art Program.” Given that years have passed and other aspects of this publicly
accessible information have been updated since the elimination of this office, the lack
of attention to this oversight results in incorrect information about the leadership and
structure of the CA+D program.

12
“Bad art” is subjective to the viewer in essence.
18

Horror stories of artists working without contracts in Houston and projects
being significantly delayed have caused local artists to shy away from the sphere of
public art. This is due in part, in my opinion, to the lack of management of
CACHH/HAA. One project in particular has been delayed for almost a decade
13
.
Budgets slashed by 50% mid-way through a project and the unwieldy cost of
acquiring, maintaining and then absorbing the cost of required insurance in
anticipation of the project’s commencement should raise concern. The role of a
responsible and professional public art administrator includes the protection of the
artist and his/her rights. An inability to do so reflects poorly on the leadership of the
administration.
While the city’s collection contains an appropriate
14
proportion of work by
local/regional artists to national/international artists, another substantial hurdle is the
mindset that public artwork should only be commissioned by local/regional artists.
With most projects in Houston employing an open call for artists process through an
RFQ, local artists are always informed, aware and encouraged to submit their

13
Houstonian and artist George Sacaris was commissioned by the Houston
Airport System through the Cultural Arts Council of Houston and Harris County in
2000 to enhance the Consolidated Rental Car Facility at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport with civic art features. As of June 2008, the project is yet to be realized,
through no fault of the artist but rather due to ongoing budgetary concerns of HAS and
mismanagement of funds (personal knowledge of this project and conversations with
HAS personnel and the artist).

14
Appropriate amount is subjective to personal opinion, though the City of
Houston from my experience and exposure has an estimated 60/40 split percentage of
work made by local/national or international artists.
19

credentials. When a project exceeds a certain budget amount, determined by the
Director of CA+D, it is then often opened to a larger pool of artists, ranging from
regional and national to international. This is only one of many ways a City Council
member or employee can garner attention through attacking the expenditure of tax
payer’s money on artwork “not from around here”. On the other hand, this sort of
attention publicizes a project and gives the administrators a public forum to discuss
and advocate for the project.
Due to the fact that there exists such a concept as “bad” public art, a program
may be publicly required to stand up for the process and procedures established by its
local public art administration and subsequent realized projects, even if said projects
generate public outcry and/or bad press. These dynamics came into play affecting
Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc
15
controversy in New York City, NY as well as Mags
Harries’ and Lejos Heder’s Wall to Ocotillo pots
16
in Phoenix, Arizona. Ironically,
though the pots are now in storage and out of site, they were nationally applauded by
Newsweek and the New York Times as “a visionary template for the melding of art and

15
Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc was commissioned in 1981 by the Arts-in-
Architecture program of the U.S. General Services Administration, which earmarked
0.5 percent of a federal building's cost for artwork. Tilted Arc was a curving wall of
raw steel, 120 feet long and 12 feet high, that split the space of the New York Federal
Plaza in two and was subsequently vandalized and removed in 1989 by federal
workers after much heated public debate.

16
Mags Harries and Lejos Heder Wall to Ocotillo 1992, Phoenix, AZ. Thirty-
five concrete and steel sculptures intended to resemble ceramic pots, bowls and
teacups of various sizes commissioned by the Phoenix Art Commission for $474,000
originally condemned now revered.
20

infrastructure”.
17
This is just one case in point where issues of acceptability and taste
have undermined a nationally recognized public art project.
18

Fig. 5. Tilted Arc

17
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-01-24/culture/fifteen-years-after-the-
squaw-peak-pots-debacle-the-phoenix-art-community-rallies-around-a-public-art-
project-by/

18
Picture from essay by James Dickinson, “In its Place: Richard Serra’s Public
Sculpture,” Philosophy and Geography III: Philosophies of Place (Lanham, MA:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 45-72.
21

18

Fig. 6. Wall to Ocotillo #1

19

Fig. 7. Wall to Octillo #2

19
http://www.harriesheder.com/
22

Chapter 6

Lessons Learned

Based on my experiences and observations while affiliated with CACHH and
HAA, I have concluded that any entity contracted out by an urban municipality to
administer its public art program will be challenged by difficulties inherent in the
organizational structure, as will the municipality, if there is a lack of strong leadership
and trust. In order to establish these necessary traits, there may be a need for public
patron and administrator to work in the same office, which could generate a successful
and beneficial collaboration. That is to say, the origin of the capital, which in the
percent for art model specifies that a portion of the budget for government-sponsored
buildings must be set aside for art, may require supervision and administration within
the same department for which it was generated to create an environment of trust.
A public art administrator’s professional opinion does not and cannot matter
when it comes to the decision of who is to receive public funding for public art work.
The role of a good public administrator is to convene a jury, moderate the selection
process as a nonvoting member and regardless of what artist(s) is chosen, work
professionally and competently for an average of the next 2 to 5 years with the
selected artist(s), despite any personal opinions he/she may have. A servant to the
process, there is no opportunity for whom is often the most knowledgeable person in
the room to make any judgments or decisions regarding the best artist for a project.
It is easy to overlook the importance of the selection of appropriate panel
members. The group generally consists of one or two community representatives, a
23

few city employees and/or the director of the department, the architect or landscape
architect, and one or two token artists or art professionals charged with representing
the “artistic voice.” The majority of the panel consists of people who have little to no
artistic background.
Art represents the values of a community. Though public art often exists due to
the voluntary Percent for Art ordinances adopted by local governments, the urban
design of a City and way in which it treats its artwork is a good barometer of what
communities’ value and regard as important. Artists and administrators should be
prepared to defend the use of these funds legislated for public art. It would be
professionally gratifying to hear of publically-funded art that was not ultimately a
compromise intended to appease the most outspoken group.
Just as it would require an individual to take some sort of proactive measure to
educate one’s self on the rules and laws of renewing a driver’s license or to identify a
city council representative, the awareness of a Percent for Art Program does not
require an abundance of effort. Until a community or society supports the idea that art
is not a luxury, but rather an essential and necessary aspect of life, naysayers will
continue to prey on and prevail over an uneducated public with misinformation and
anti-public art propaganda. Testimony to the effectiveness and potency of art as
propaganda is remembered by the lessons learned under Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union
and the Cultural Revolution in China under Mao Zedong.
Only when art in the public realm is fundamentally supported by all leaders
and authorities and not determined by each subsequent administration will the clear
24

benefits of public art be seen across the board. “But at what point will the costs of art
be acknowledged and embraced as an intrinsic part of its subtlety, its brinkmanship, its
elemental mission to confront all of existence? Not just those aspects deemed
politically orthodox or acceptable to the largest number of constituents. In other
words, will the marketing of public art always be the handmaiden of compromise?”
20

20
http://www.artworldsalon.com/blog/2008/01/17/pc-art/
25

Chapter 7

Why Do It? Why Is It Worth It?

In a 1963 dedication speech honoring Robert Frost at Amherst College, John F.
Kennedy linked art with the creation of national values:
The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation’s
greatness, but the men who question the power make a contribution just as
indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they
determine whether we use power or power uses us. Our national strength
matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters just as
much. For art establishes the basic human truth, which must serve as the
touchstone of our judgment. The artist, however faithful to his personal vision
of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility
against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a
solitary figure. He has, as Robert Frost has said, a lover’s quarrel with the
world. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the
currents of his time. This is not a popular role. I see little of more importance
to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the
place of the artist.
21

This inspiring endorsement necessitates clear instruction for completion of artistic
projects. Each city should develop its own guidelines for this process.
Public art was established as a national interest with the inception of the
National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Though enacted by President
Johnson in September 1965, this Endowment has its roots in the Kennedy
administration. “Artists finally achieved government recognition as national
resources”.
22
Through this endowment the Arts in Public Places program began in
1967 as well as the Art in

21
Senie.

26

Architecture Policy in 1973. Previously, national funding of public art had its
precedent in the WPA projects spawned by the Depression. Local politics and lack of
leadership surrounding public art administration must not continue to impede the
progress of public art programs nor continue to adversely affect the content of one of
the most valuable viewpoints of all, those of the artists.

22
Senie 153.

27

Chapter 8

Conclusion

Closing the gap between public art and the general public can be achieved
through education and involvement. One way to educate and invigorate the public is to
involve them in the process. Regardless of the administrative structure the ability to be
involved in an outcome can generate feelings of ownership and pride, thus increasing
the number of projects considered successful.
Proactive education and participatory encouragement help negate uninformed
perceptions about works of art in the community, especially amongst those determin-
ing the artwork. The malfunction of one public art project or the dislike of an
influential person can challenge the existence of an arts commission or agency.
Backed with support, which can be garnered with time and leadership, the Civic Art +
Collections Management Department in Houston will hopefully be able to establish a
viable and reliable system for Public Art.
Even if the rules are followed, and the community has a prominent hand in a
project, sometimes controversy and malicious media coverage can still affect or
possibly destroy a piece of public art.
23
Following a process of community

23
John Ahearn’s percent for art project of three life-size cast statues of his
neighbors to be placed in their South Bronx , New York neighborhood installed
in1991 were considered accessible to the public, a good example of collaboration with
the community, and appropriate for the site. Ahearn’s attempts to have the art function
as a piece of the people and by the people, were misconstrued and presumptions of
who can represent whom led to the swift removal of the sculptures after extreme

28

involvement can greatly reduce the likelihood of this happening. According to
Suzanne Lacy “new genre public art,” seeks a style of communication based on
participation and collaboration in the production phase of a work of art.
24
It also
searches for social and policy change and a way to make art instrumental in correcting
social injustices.
It is bizarre to me to assign public art administrators and selection panels with
the charge of predicting what will and will not please the general public, to know the
current political winds and if/when they are apt to change, and to carry the burden of
correcting social injustices. It is unrealistic to expect a selected artist to incorporate
these influences as influential and meaningful in the creation of their artwork. It is
evident enough that taste, culture and preference are quite different from one person to
the next, let alone an entire city or country. I believe the establishment of good
relations amongst all of the administrative players is one of the first steps to
accomplish public acceptance.
If the money with which artwork is fabricated, installed and maintained
consists of civic dollars, true accountability rests upon the shoulders of those persons
elected to govern with the best interests of their constituents in mind. An in house

public criticism. Pictures from Kramer, J. (1994/1997). Whose Art Is It? Durham,
NC: Duke University.

23
Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, edited by Suzanne Lacy, Bay
Press, 1995.

29

Cultural Affairs Department could provide more opportunities for communication and
direct accountability than that provided by an outsourced entity. It is in the best
interest of a community to utilize public art to enhance the quality of life for all.
In the most recent Arts and Economic Prosperity II Report in the Economic
Impact Study of 2005, the National Endowment for the Arts claims “support for the
arts is an investment in economic well-being as well as quality of life.”
25

Arts Commissions are comprised of people who value and appreciate the arts.
Their quest to fund and administer an equitable system which is fiscally responsible
and includes the public as well as the artistic community will be ongoing. The
accompanying artist guidebook can serve to assist the decision makers in utilizing a
judicious and productive process to implement public art as an important part of a vital
and changing community. Specific guidelines provide a framework for communica-
tion, scheduling, inter-agency cooperation, and conflict resolution. Artists practicing in
Houston will undoubtedly find the attached guidebook an invaluable resource and this
analysis will hopefully provide constructive suggestions regarding the structure of the
Public Art administration.

25
Page 3, This study was conducted by the Americans for the Arts to document
the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture industry in the United States (as
represented by 156 communities and regions represented by all 50 states and the
District of Columbia).

30

Bibliography
Americans for the Arts, accessed June 2, 2008, available from
http://www.americansforthearts.org
Capital Gazette Communications, Inc., accessed May 24, 2008, available from
http://www.hometownannapolis.com
City of Houston, TX, accessed June 15, 2008, available from
http://www.houstontx.gov

City of Houston, TX, accessed June 15, 2008, available from
http://www.houstonmunicipalart.org
City of Phoenix, AZ, accessed June 2, 2008, available from
http://phoenix.gov/ARTS/artscomm.html
City of Seattle, WA, accessed June 3, 2008, available from
http://www.seattle.gov/Arts/
Cultural Arts Council of Houston and Harris County, accessed June 4, 2008, available
from www.cachh.org
Dickinson, James. “In Its Place: Richard Serra’s Public Sculpture,” Philosophy of
Geography III: Philosophies of Place. Lanham, MA: Roman and Littlefield,
1998, 45-72.
Doss, Erica Lee. Spirit Poles and Flying Pigs: Public Art and Cultural Democracy in
American Communities. N.p.: Smithsonian, 1995.
Finkelpearl, Tom. Dialogues in Public Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Florida, Richard. Cities and the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for
Talent. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.
Florida, Richard. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for
Talent. New York, NY: Harper Business: An Imprint of Harper Collins
Publisher, 2005.
Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It Is Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, A
Member of the Persus Books Group, 2002.
31

Goldstein, Barbara, editor and City of Seattle’s Mayor’s Office of Arts and Cultural
Affairs. Public Art by The Book. Canada: University of Washington Press,
2005.
Houston Airport System, accessed June 15, 2008, available from
http://www.houstonairportsystem.org
Houston Arts Alliance, accessed June 15, 2008, available from http://www.haatx.com
Kaplan, Steven. “Marketing Public Art: PC or not PC?,” accessed January 17, 2008,
available from http://www.artworldsalon.com/blog .
Kramer, J. Whose Art Is It? Durham, NC: Duke University, 1997.
Lacy, Suzanne. Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle, WA: Bay Press,
1994.
Mags, Harries and Lajos Heder Public Art Projects, accessed June 5, 2008, available
from http://www.harriesheder.com
Mushamp, Herbert. “Architecture View: When Art Becomes A Public Spectacle.”
New York Times, August 29, 1993.
Patten, David. “A New Year Provocation for 2008,” accessed June 3, 2008, available
from http://www.ixia-info.com/director/davidpatten.htm
Seine, Harriet and Sally Webster. Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and
Controversy. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.
Telegraph, accessed June 15, 2008, available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Vanesian, Kathleen. “Fifteen Years after the Squaw Peak Pots Debacle, the Phoenix
Art Community Rallies Around A Public-art Project.” Phoenix New Times, 24
January 2008: 54-55.
32

Appendix

Artist Resource Guidebook

Create Public Art in the City of Houston!

Public Art enhances quality of life through the creation of an improved
physical and cultural environment. It also increases property value, expands economic
vitality and provides new opportunities for the public to interact with art.
Well defined and delineated roles and responsibilities of public artists can help
establish the potential for successful participation and produce a positive impact on the
community. The recent restructuring of the civic art program in Houston, Texas
necessitates clarification to ensure a fully defined partnership between you, the artist,
and the Houston Arts Alliance, the entity that administers the City’s public art
program. Elucidating the civic art process and required steps to create public art will
encourage artists to take part in civic art and thereby improve the quality of life in
Houston.
In 1999, Houston City Council approved an ordinance earmarking 1.75% of
the budget of each eligible Capitol Improvement Project for civic art projects. Eligible
projects are new buildings or projects over $500,000.00 (with exceptions such as:
paving projects, resurfacing streets, underground projects, demolition, runways/ramps,
parking lots, etc. as determined by ordinance). The administration of public art
programs differs in each city; therefore the need to define a clear outline to assist
33

artists with the current Houston structure is a unique and invaluable contribution to the
field of public art.

The following list of terms and definitions identifies acronyms used in this section.

List of Terms
(BSD)Building Services Department
(C+EFD or C+E)Convention and Entertainment Facilities Department
(CIP)Capital Improvement Project/Plan
(GC)General Contractor
(HAS)Houston Airport System
(LOA)Letter of Authorization
(PM)Project Manager
(RCA)Request for Council Action
(RFI) Request for Information

Civic Art or a Civic Art Project is the work developed or services provided by an
artist generally recognized as a professional of significant intent and ability, who
produces permanent artwork.

City of Houston

The Building Services Department (BSD) serves as the umbrella department for the
Houston Fire Department, Houston Police Department, Health and Human Services,
Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Engineering, Houston Public Library, Health
and Human Services as well as Housing and Community Development for the
purposes of civic art.

The Houston Airport System (HAS)

The Conventions + Entertainment Facilities Department (C+E)
34

A Capital Improvement Project adds to the City’s infrastructure and is an
improvement that increases overall value. Eligible projects do not include land
acquisition, paving projects, street resurfacing, runways, ramps and parking lots,
underground projects, change orders, equipment purchases and projects with budgets
under $500,000.00.

The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Committee is charged with revisions to
the Civic Art program, approval of the program policies and procedures and approval
of the annual Civic Art Program.
Houston City Council approves eligible projects, artist contracts, and the annual
Civic Art Program.

The Civic Art Program
i
means those Civic Art and Conservation projects approved
by the CIP committee and Houston City Council for funding under the ordinance. It is
overseen by the Civic Art + Collections Management Committee.

Houston Arts Alliance

The Houston Arts Alliance (HAA) prepares the annual civic art program with city
departments and manages civic art projects through the Civic Art and Collections
Management Department and serves as the City of Houston’s public art administrator.
HAA is also responsible for reviewing and approving the Civic Art Program.

35

The Civic Art + Collections Management Department administers the public art
program for the City of Houston and oversees the public art collection.

The Civic Art and Collections Management Committee (CACMC) approves artist’s
conceptual designs for projects, reviews the Civic Art and Conservation plans,
prepares program policies and procedures, oversees the program evaluation process,
prepares and submits the annual Civic Art Program (a prioritized list of new civic art
and conservation projects) oversees the management of the city’s collection, and
prepares implementation guidelines for contracting with artists and incorporating them
into the design process for projects and reviews and recommends works of art to be
placed on city property. The Committee positions are established by City ordinance
and include voting volunteer members and non-voting advisors. Additionally, City
Council appoints members to the CACMC in accordance with the ordinance.

The responsibilities of the CACMC include:
Approval of artist conceptual design for a project
Preparation and submittal of annual Civic Art Program to CIP committee
Review of annual Civic Art Plan prepared by HAA
Preparation and review of annual Conservation Plan
Preparation of program Policies and Procedures
Supervision of program evaluation process
Establishment of implementation guidelines for contracting with artists and
incorporation into design process for projects

36

Program Goals
1. To improve the quality of life of Houston residents through the creation of an
improved physical and cultural environment
2. To assist and advise in the development and integration of art into capital
projects
3. To expand the economic vitality of the greater Houston metropolitan area
through increased property values and new cultural tourism opportunities
4. To provide access to artistic experiences for visitors and residents of the City
5. To provide conservation and maintenance of public art in the City’s collection

Program Objectives
1. To implement the goals in the development of eligible projects to accomplish
the purpose of the Civic Art Program
2. To encourage innovative approaches to Civic Art and the urban landscape
3. To incorporate artists into the design process at the first opportunity to ensure
incorporation of Civic Art does not negatively affect the design, bids or
construction of projects
4. To ensure that acquisition and conservation of the City’s public art collection is
accomplished by qualified professionals

Artist Eligibility

Members of the Civic Art and Collections Management Committee, their immediate
family, and Houston Arts Alliance employees are not eligible to be commissioned or
receive any direct funding from the Civic Art Program. Varying eligibility
requirements are established for each project and artists already engaged in two City
commissions will not be eligible. Nor will artists be allowed to receive more than two
commissions from the City in any 3-year period.

It is advisable to keep in mind and determine the extent to which you are comfortable
with compromise. Public Art projects require above all else, patience and the ability to
be flexible without compromising the integrity of your artwork. The public art
37

administrators should be advocates for the artists while balancing the needs and
desires of the Client Department.

There are many ways to learn about civic art projects and calls in the City of Houston.
Through direct mailings, nominations from selection panel members, local and
national publications, the HAA website, www.haatx.com .and the HAA list serve.
Open calls are advertised to artists regularly. Other agencies that post calls in Houston
include: www.artshound.org, www.glasstire.org, and www.spacetaker.org.

First Steps of a Project

The steps below simplify the process and outline the phases of a civic art project in
Houston.

The City of Houston solicits submissions for a project using three methods of
selection.

I. Call to Artists

HAA administers a “Call to Artists” in the form of the Juried Slide Registry (JSR),
an RFP
26
or an RFQ
27
, or in the form of a Project Team. Artists must be selected

26
RFQ = “Request for Qualifications.” In an RFQ, an artist is judged based on
qualifications as demonstrated in examples of previous works and a resume.

27
RFP = “Request for Proposal.” In an RFP, artists are evaluated based on a
specific conceptual proposal for a project and on past projects and resume.

38

by a method that involves a broad and diverse group of qualified professionals
primarily from the Greater Houston Metropolitan area.

a. Artist Selection Using the Juried Slide Registry: Panel Method

After a sponsoring department, which could be the Houston Airport System,
the Conventions and Entertainment Facilities Department or the Building
Services Department, and the Houston Arts Alliance consider the overall
project goals and establish the eligibility requirements for a project, a public
panel reviews artists on the Juried Slide Registry list. This pre-qualified
inventory of artists is selected and determined every 3-5 years to include new
artists and kept on record at HAA. This selection method is generally used for
projects that have limited budgets. The JSR provides a condensed list of artists
whose qualifications have the potential to correspond with each of the specific
eligibility requirements for any given project. It is advantageous for an artist to
be on the JSR. Generally one artist and one alternate will be selected during a
JSR selection process. Each may be asked to develop a preliminary proposal
which will be evaluated during a required interview.

b. Call for Artist Method: RFP or RFQ Panel Method

In most cases, to the advantage of the majority of public artists, there will be an
“Open Call to Artists”. With a specific call, either a Request for Qualifications
or Request for Proposals will be issued. RFQs are the most common method
utilized. Upon submission, artists will be pre-screened by HAA to verify
39

minimum qualifications and ensure all pertinent materials have been received.
Panel members will receive panel booklets, generated and provided by HAA,
prior to the selection panel to review submittals and establish a working
knowledge prior to the panel being convened. Panelists will then either select
an artist, establish a short list of finalists for further review and/or interview, or
may choose to request another round of submittals. In the case of the latter,
HAA and the sponsoring department must initiate another round of the artist
selection process.

c. Project Team Method: JSR and RFQ Panel Method

When or if the director of a client department finds it appropriate, design teams
will be encouraged to include an artist from the JSR as a member of the design
team should they be responding to an RFQ for an eligible project. Should this
happen, contract language regarding the artist’s involvement will be approved
by the City Attorney’s office.

The goal of the artist interview is to give the panelists an opportunity to better evaluate
the appropriateness of a certain artist to the needs of a project. Artists should be able to
provide greater insight into how he/she/they would approach the project and how
previous skills or projects are comparable to the scope and requirements. A standard
list of questions will be developed and used for all finalists during the interview stage
once an artist is short listed. The RFQ will have determined whether finalists are asked
40

to develop a site specific proposal for a pre-determined fee or whether the final
selection shall be made on the basis of the interview with the panel.

An artist selection panel will consist of:
A representative from the sponsoring department (HAS, CEFD or BSD)
Architect or Engineer
Community representative
One or more professional artists
One or more art professionals or experts from related fields (curators, art
historians, writers, art administrators, art advocates, art volunteers, etc.)

Panels will use the following criteria to evaluate artist qualifications and/or
proposals:
Recognition from critics and peers as a professional artist of serious intent
and recognized ability
Ability to respond to particular contextual issues and considerations of a
project
Ability to successfully manage all aspects of a project including budgets,
committees, sub-contractors, installers and construction and administrative
procedures
Proposed approach and budget
Credentials, including experience, training, and critical and professional
recognition

All panel proceedings are open to the public. Community members are encouraged to
attend for a greater understanding of the process and to ensure a greater “buy-in” from
the neighborhood.

41

Artist contracts with the client Department
28
through HAA after:
a. HAA presents selected artist to the CACMC
b. CACMC recommends artist to the City
c. Contract negotiations begin and established with artist
d. City Council approves project
e. Artist secures and provides insurance proof to client department
f. Letter of Authorization generated by Artist and HAA

II. The Five Phases of Civic Art

A. Concept Development

During concept development, the artist meets as required with the client
department, the architect or landscape architect, stakeholders and HAA. In
conjunction with HAA, the artist is required to develop and persuade involved
factions of feasibility.

In this phase, consider the following:
1) Schematic images
2) Location
3) Budget (include travel expenses, insurance, materials, shipping costs,
fabrication, etc.)
4) Schedules–when the location is open to the public, holidays, etc.
5) Methods of fabrication + installation
6) Extent of integration with General Contractors
7) Maintenance and Conservation

After concept development, HAA and the artist will present the project to the CACMC
for approval. Approval is given with a recommendation letter to the Mayor from HAA
endorsing acceptance into the City’s collection upon completion.

28
Building Services Department, Conventions and Entertainment Facilities
Department, Houston Airport System.
42

B. Design Development

The preferred concept is developed with HAA and reviewed for maintenance
concerns, durability and public safety. The following items will be further
developed in this stage:
1) Design
2) Budget
3) Schedule
4) Engineering concerns
5) Identification of subconsultants (lighting, glass, engineering, metal, etc
) and fabricator (fabrication may be out sourced by artist)
6) Integration with City Department and General Contractor
7) Maintenance requirements (meeting with a conservator may be
necessary)

C. Construction Documents

The artist works with the architect, Project Manager and HAA to integrate the art
components into construction documents.
Responsibilities include:
1) Working with architect to create scale drawings
2) Generating pricing for allowances
3) Indicating specifications to be incorporated

After the documents have been approved, a bid will be advertised by the client
department. There is no role for the artist or HAA at this time. An approved bidder
is awarded the contract and a request goes to City Council to approve the contract.

D. Construction Phase

Before actual construction begins, HAA and the artist attend a preconstruction
meeting during which the design and construction teams meet to review all aspects
43

of the project. After this initial meeting, only HAA will attend the regularly
scheduled progress meetings as needed and notify the artist if anything is required
of them by the construction team. To clarify any questions or requests, the artist
responds to a Request for Information (RFI) and submits any product data, shop
drawings, etc.
In this phase:
1) Artist installs artwork/has artwork installed based on schedule
2) Artist provides “project plaque” unless provided by client department

E. Project Close Out

HAA and the client department will inspect and determine whether or not to accept
a project once it has reached completion. Upon acceptance, the artist must execute
a document transferring the work of art to the City’s collection. Before final
payment can be made to the artist, HAA will require a completed maintenance
binder that is kept on file by both the client department and HAA.

Upon acceptance by the City department, the artist will do a walk through with
client and HAA on site. If the piece was installed by someone other than the artist,
the artist will then create a punch list for the GC. If the art was installed by the
artist, the client and HAA will create the punch list. Following final walk-thru with
HAA, client department and artist, HAA will write a letter to the client department
recommending acceptance, to be jointly signed by the department if accepted.
Copies are returned to the artist and HAA at acceptance, and the original stays
with City department. Upon receipt of final payment, the project is officially
44

closed out for artist. An opening reception is planned to which the general public is
invited.

Purpose of the Civic Art Program: Artistic and cultural resources are vital to
the overall quality of life of a community. The City recognizes the importance
of expanding the opportunities for its citizens to experience civic art and other
projects resulting from the creative expression of art in public places. The City
further recognizes the substantial economic benefits to be gained through the
enhancement of public spaces and the resulting increases in tourism, retail
activity, economic growth and civic pride. In addition, the City recognizes it is
necessary to provide for the maintenance and conservation of the City’s art
collection. The City’s Civic Art Program includes works of Civic Art in certain
capital improvement projects and provides for conservation of the City’s
Collection. Section 5 of the Civic Art Ordinance states:

Administration of the Civic Art Program
(a) The Civic Art Program shall be administered by HAA, as provided in this
section.
(b) HAA shall administer the Civic Art Projects and shall have the following
duties and responsibilities:
(1) Annually preparing the Civic Art Plan in concert with the Director of
each City department whose Eligible Project is included in the Civic
Art Plan and City Council, as appropriate. The plan will include, but
not be limited to, a prioritized list of Civic Art Projects to be
commenced during the current fiscal year and a budget for such
projects; and,
(2) Proposing Civic Art Plan and presenting the Civic Art Program to the
CIP committee and to City Council as part of the annual budget review
process
(3) Administration of the Civic Art Projects; and,
(4) Reporting annually to the CACMC and CIP committee, the Mayor and
City Council as to the prior year’s activities related to Civic Art plan
approved by CIP committee and City Council; and,
(5) Providing staff support to the CACMC; and,
(6) The development, in concert with the Department of Public Works and
Engineering and the Department of Building Services of policies and
procedures to assure that public projects into which Civic Art is to be
incorporated can be designed, bid and constructed in such a manner
that the incorporation of Civic Art does not adversely affect the design,
bids or construction of such public projects.

45

The Five Phases
Concept Development
Design Development
Construction Development
Construction
Project Close Out

46

Artist and HAA ’s
responsibility
Concept Development
Phase One
1. Work with HAA to develop concepts
2. Determine preliminary location, budget, schedule,
methods of fabrication + installation, anticipated
maintenance
3. Client selects preferred concept
1. Artist presents project details to HAA and panel
2. CACMC reviews concept and approves
2. CACMC writes letter to Mayor recommending
acceptance into City ’s collection
Artist ’s responsibility

47

Design Development
Phase Two
1. Artist develops concept with CACHH considering: design, budget, schedule, engineering completed,
sub-consultants, identification of methods of fabrication + installation solidified, actual integration with CDs and
GCs, identification of material suppliers
2. Maintenance requirements: conservator may need to be consulted, submit complete rough draft of maintenance
catalogue with assistance from CACHH, include material specs, shop drawings
3. Artist ’s attendance at community or departmental meetings as appropriate
4. Client approves final design, reviewed for maintenance, durability and public safety

48

Construction Development
Phase Three
Artist works with Architect,
PM, HAA to integrate
art components into
construction documents
Review documents before
bid is advertised
Permit and Bid Phase
no role for artist or HAA
Provide/work with
Architect to create scaled
drawings, pricing for
allowances and
specifications to be
incorporated

49

Construction
Phase Four
Pre-Construction
Meeting
Artist + HAA
attend, review of
project
Progress Meetings
HAA PM attends
and informs artist of
any requirements
Artist responds to
RFIs, submittals,
assisted by HAA
Artist installs
artwork (if relevant)
based on previously
determined
schedule
Artist provides
“project plaque ”
unless provided by
client department

50

Project Closeout
Artist provides
final maintenance
documents to
HAA
Artwork accepted
by city
Artist receives final
payment
Project unveiling/
reception
HAA gives client
department copy of
catalogue
Final walk-through
with client and artist,
punch list created by
entity not responsible
for installation
HAA writes letter
of acceptance to
client department,
copies go to artist
and HAA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract My thesis is an MPAS project that includes an artist guide to making public art in Houston, Texas and an analysis of my experience working for the non profit 501 (c)(3) agency now known as the Houston Arts Alliance (HAA), formerly the Cultural Arts Council of Houston and Harris County (CACHH).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaborative art practice in the public sphere: The death of the artist?

PDF

Artistic intervention in the Los Angeles urban geography: the art practices of Charles Long, Harry Dodge and Stanya Kahn

PDF

Examining current U.S. public art trust fund programs for applications in Taiwan: visions for Taiwan 's new public art trust fund

PDF

Tom Marioni: artistic intoxication

PDF

Art and time: temporary public art and contentious space

PDF

Reconsideration of permanent percent for art works in the public sphere: a case study of public art commissioned by the community redevelopment agency of the city of Los Angeles

PDF

Mejor vida/better life and day-to-day exchanges: Networks of social exchange in contemporary arts practice

PDF

Contemporary art and "post-black" identity politics

PDF

Four women, four public art projects, four decades: exploring socially conscious public art and social change

PDF

"Necessity knows no law": artist-run spaces & the spatial politics of Tijuana's public domain

PDF

Alternative art incubators: cultivating collaboration and innovation in Los Angeles public art practices

PDF

Performing the collective

PDF

Reflections on contemporary art and the rhetoric of community

PDF

Power performance: benevolence and violence in the work of Chris Burden, Barbara T. Smith, Yoko Ono and Wafaa Bilal

PDF

In the art of revolution: integrating community arts into the existing development work of non-government organizations in Guatemala and El Salvador

PDF

Biennial rising: Prospect.1 New Orleans and the post-disaster arts movement

PDF

Changing spaces: Machine project, critical pedagogy and reinventing the museum

PDF

Two visions, two publics: the Jewish Museum and the Skirball Cultural Center

PDF

Temporary or permanent? Considering time, memory and history in public art projects

PDF

Nature is as nature does: recent sustainable artists and the practice of local ecology

Asset Metadata

Creator Laurent, Nicole Clark (author)

Core Title Public art in Houston: administrative structure analysis and artist guidebook

School School of Fine Arts

Degree Master of Public Art Studies

Degree Program Public Art Studies

Publication Date 08/06/2008

Defense Date 09/15/2004

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag art,artist guidebook,artist handbook,Houston,OAI-PMH Harvest,public art,public art administration,Texas

Place Name Houston (city or populated place), Texas (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Fischer, Leslie (committee chair), Cusick, Jessica (committee member), Decter, Joshua (committee member)

Creator Email nclaurent@gmail.com,nicole@aiahouston.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1553

Unique identifier UC1235730

Identifier etd-Laurent-2220 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-104861 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1553 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Laurent-2220.pdf

Dmrecord 104861

Document Type Thesis

Rights Laurent, Nicole Clark

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu