The public art procedures in Europe

I have chosen to focus on three European countries whose public art programs and procedures are distinct from each other.

France:
In France, the government (Ministry of Culture) plays the most important role. It contributes to the financing of the commissions and has the power to influence the process and the artists’ selection.
1) National One percent for Art:
This was instituted in 1951. It applies to government construction such as educational buildings (schools, colleges and universities..) administrative buildings: city halls, and cultural buildings (libraries)
Ex:

2) Large urban infrastructure projects:
Since the construction of the “villes nouvelles” (new suburbian towns) at the beginning of the 70’s, artists have been invited to participate in large urban projects, which allowed for some important public art projects in the heart of these new towns. France has been a pioneer who these types of infrastructure projects.
Ex:
Dani Karavan’s major intervention in Cergy Pontoise
Meta de Nissim Merkado’s intervention in St.Quentin

Today, most of the infrastructure works in cities are connected to the construction of light rail systems, and – during the last 20 years - most large French cities have been building their light rail systems. In most cases, there is a public art program connected to these projects.
Ex:

3) Historic Buildings
The third source of public art commissions in France is connected with the rehabilitation of historic monuments. This program is under the direction of the Ministry of Culture. In most cases, artists with international reputations are invited to design new stained glass windows and the work is done by French glass technicians working in collaboration with the artist designer.
Ex:

4) “The New Commanditaires” This program is under the Fondation de France, a non profit national foundation that sponsors – and funds – public art projects usually in the countryside and villages. This is a very active program, only around for a few years.
Ex:


There is a certain paradox existing within the public commissioning process in France:
While there is a great openness towards inviting international artists, the process is non transparent and closed, which means that the actually process for selecting the artists is kept rather secret.
For the commissioning of art for Paris’s light rail system, 9 finalists were selected, and 5 were foreigners: Peter Kogler, Dan Graham, Didier Fiusa Faustino, Angela Bulloch, and Frank Gehry.)
For Orleans’ light rail system: 8 finalists were selected, and 4 were foreigners: Joel Shapiro, Helmut Federle, Jan Vercruysse, Per Kikerby.)
For Strasbourg: 13 selected, 6 foreigners: Barbara Kruger, Bert Theis, Siah Armajani, Zaha Hadid, Mario Merz, Jonathan Borofsky
In general, 30 to 60% of selected artists are from other countries.

For some cities, inviting famous foreign artists to create in their town constitute a desire to be part of the international community.
For instance, the city of Amiens – during these last 20 years – has achieved 11 important commissions, and 6 are foreigners” : Sol Lewit, Yolanda Gutierrez, Alyse Erkmen, Stephen Balkenhol, Warren Langley, Ernst Caramelle. All financed by the city itself.

Germany and Austria
In the opposite of France, where the art public commissions are with the central government, in Germany local politics are most important. Some city – such as Munich and Berlin – have a public art tradition. In these cities, there is a specific organization that oversees all public art commissions and drives their process.

In Berlin, most public art commissions are reserved for Berlin artists.
The BBK organization - set up in the 70’s – and created by artists promotes and supervises the public commissioning process. It has established a very transparent process for the artists selection which is respected by the commissioning parties. The competing artists’ proposals and the ultimate choice of the jury are made public.

In Munich and Vienna – two other cities that have a specific municipal department for public art connected to the city government, the situation is more open when the project is quite large and with a substantial budget. In such case, there is an open international competition.
Ex:

United Kingdom
The process there is quite different from that in France or Germany. In United Kingdom, the public art commissioning is given to independent agencies or art consultants.
They are in charge of organizing competitions, collect artists’ information, and gather the jury. The most important opportunities for public art are connected to the rehabilitation of city centers.
Ex:

The financing of these commissions is insured by a combination of public and private partners.

The Public Art agencies are usually well informed of where to find the artists. However, when advertising a competition, they reach out to more artists.
The selection process is always the same:
First, selection of artists from previous work and experience. A short list is drawn of 3 to 7 artists. Semi-finalists are invited to prepare proposals presented to the selection panel that will choose the finalist.
Artists receive a design fee for the conceptual and preliminary design phase.


Conclusion
Artists cannot just beg for commissions. The health of public art does not depend on the number of commissions. More commissions could mean more failures and mistakes.
When engaged in public art, artists must evaluate the stakes and the risks.
How far are they willing to go?
Are they willing to give up any formal recognition of their work?
Are they willing to follow radically different directions according to the physical and social context?
(for instance by coming up with a creative vocabulary and tools that may be very different from those they are known for )
It is the artists’ response to these questions, more than the number of commissions that will determine the vitality of public art.
For economic reasons, it is understandable that some artists are tempted to create a work that is of the type they are known for, rather than – each time – engage into a new venture of creativity.
This does not mean that I am blaming artists.
I just want to say that – by doing so – artists limit the creative potential of public art.
Of course, artists are not the only ones responsible for this situation. It has to be shared with the commissioning parties, who often do not provide adequate budgets to encourage creativity (especially at the most important design stage where – most often - artists who are finalists are asked to produce a lot of creative work for a meager compensation..)
The commissioning parties are also more comfortable with asking an artist to repeat a certain type of work they have become familiar with.
Those who benefit from this situation are some artists who always propose the “signature object” they are known for, which they adjust as needed. These artists are the ones whose “solution” is the least creative and who are using the opportunity of a public commission to promote their work.
Public Art needs to depend on another logic than that of an art market that is focused on the value of the art object itself.
This means that more than ever we must strive to raise the quality level of public art.

For me the good procedure is the one which allows artists to work with the context for producing a new original artwork instead of repeating the same work.

I want to end with a few examples showing how the same artist can create completely different works when inspired by a different location and context.