ixia: public art think tank

ixia has taken over the ownership and management of Public Art Online from Arts Council England. The design and content of the website are currently being reviewed.

Bookmark and Share

European Expert Meeting on Percent for Art Schemes

Suggestions for the Future

This meeting was intended as an opportunity for the various establishments to introduce themselves, and to make a preliminary inventory of topics by presenting case studies.

Boomgaard said that in that sense it had fulfilled its objective well. For example, he had had the idea that the situation abroad was completely different from that in the Netherlands , but now it seemed that many of the participants were facing the same problems.

In response to a question about non-participating countries from Therèse Legierse, Nelly Voorhuis told the meeting that Atelier HSL and the Chief Government Architect's Studio had carried out some preliminary research in the former Eastern bloc countries, but had ascertained that the organisations there were still too young. France could not attend and no organisation had been found in Italy . Furthermore, the organisers had opted for keeping things at government level at the moment so that no large cities had been invited.

Suggestions regarding the set-up of the meeting:

  • the model of the expert meeting is workable, so keep it;
  • to be held biennially (Moosmayer; it could possibly be organised in Germany because more budget is available in the framework of Berlin Cultural Capital);
  • workshops on specific subjects in smaller groups (Moosmayer);
  • discussion in response to specific themes (Legierse);
  • in the mornings a topic with presentations, the afternoons kept free for discussion (Strandqvist);
  • determine clear objectives for future meetings in advance (Bolt).

Topics to be handled:

  • the hands-off government and the increasing interference of the business community (Hans van den Ban);
  • changing the copyright by new European legislation (Moen);
  • art in infrastructure projects (Moosmayer);
  • the evaluation of projects (Bolt; evaluation methods which are not applicable are often used. Alternative models must be developed to examine the impact of art in public space. This is relevant because we have to find ways to show and communicate commissions.);
  • dismantling works of art;
  • substantive issues such as the value of long-term commissions in relation to temporary public art and more theoretical discussion around the concept of public space (Dillon).

In addition, Moosmayer and Moen suggested that informal contacts can be maintained on the development of commissions. Van den Ban would also like to use the network for specific projects. He said that the Dutch Chief Government Architect's Studio is now working on an art project, a European Internet Art Work, with Interpol. It would be a practical consequence of this meeting if the network could be used for it.

Boomgaard suggested that no topics should be excluded in advance and that themes could be looked for in both the substantive and the practical spheres. He wondered whether we should wait two years before the next meeting to which Katrien Laenen replied that she would look at whether the meeting could perhaps take place in Belgium next year.