Public and Private Partnerships

I was very lucky yesterday to spend the day exploring public art in New York City as part of Coro Leadership New York. Public art is exhibited across the city free of charge on public land, including parks and government buildings. It may be permanent or temporary, from small statues to enormous installations like the Waterfalls or The Gates.



In small teams, we interviewed government decision makers, private foundations, artists, and arts advocates for their perspectives on public art. We identified stakeholders who influence and select public art pieces, where art is placed, and what is acceptable to the community. We also considered who benefits, and possibly who may lose out. I had a chance to appreciate art in the city that I wasn't aware of, and gain insight into some of the process side of what is involved in exhibiting works of art on public property in the city.


The push for public art seems to come significantly from private donors and artists, while the government's role is to facilitate, providing access to public space with additional input from organized community groups. There doesn't seem to be a single grand vision for public art in NYC, yet there is a wealth of art on display. Even ongoing maintenance of public monuments depends on funding from private sources. Public art is a sort of democratic public/private partnership - a relationship which has its pros and cons.


The benefits of this partnership to the city and its residents are clear. The city can display an ever-changing array of free works of art while passing down a permanent installation to future generations. This improves quality of life for residents, softens and humanizes the harsh city landscape, and attracts tourist dollars, with minimal burden on taxpayers. Artists can be entrepreneurial and independent, rather than limited by the whims and preferences of politicians.



When the government is not directly funding public art, however, it is somewhat constrained in achieving broader social goals, such as ensuring that the art reaches outer boroughs, young people, and disadvantaged populations. In the absence of government authority, private money and personal relationships become key to realizing an artistic vision. There are inherent tensions between freedom of expression and service to the community, as well as between "high brow" or avant guard tastes and what appeals to the average New Yorker.


As I learn more about how government interacts with citizens, advocacy groups and other democratic organizations in New York, I'm impressed by a system that is full of contradictions: messy and seemingly inefficient yet functional; free yet not always "fair"; wide open to participation yet challenging to understand and navigate. I'm excited to learn more.



See also:

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation