Is Public Art important to a community? Yes, if you are interested in economic growth.
Public art can include murals, sculptures, landscape work, memorials, architecture, or even performances. It’s located in public spaces so it’s “free” and open to everyone. Oftentimes, a work of art will reflect on the history of the specific place or city where it is located.
But public art can do more than just serve as something nice to look at. It can actually create attachment to a place among community members and, therefore, strengthen the relationships between individuals in the community. For this reason, public art is a relevant tool in urban design.
In 2010 the Knight Foundation sponsored their Soul of the Community initiative which entailed a three-year study conducted by Gallup in 26 neighborhoods across the U.S. They were looking for the factors that “attach” residents emotionally to their community and how that translates to economic well-being.
The study’s high level conclusion confirmed that there is a positive correlation between attachment to a community and the economic growth of that community.
Besides the attachment-economic growth connection, the study also set out to determine what specific drivers or elements led to this attachment. There were 11 different domains studied and “Aesthetics” (physical beauty and green spaces – including public art) was among the top 3 in how correlated they are with community attachment.
Alberto Ibarguen, President and CEO of the Knight Foundation, stated the initiative’s goal was to “find out how people actually feel about place… what makes them live there and not somewhere else…”
The other two drivers in the study that led to attachment were: Social Offerings (defined as opportunities for social interactions and citizen caring), and Openness (defined as how welcoming the community is to different people). These two (along with Aesthetics) even ranked higher than items like Safety, Education, or Basic Services.
Studies such as this one by the Knight Foundation provide the evidence that governments need to justify allocating resources and expending energy in public art. In addition, I would think these findings apply not just to communities/cities, but even to smaller organizations as well – a church parish, a corporate campus, or a live/work lifestyle center. Do these locations have the public art to engage the community and lead to that attachment which comes with economic growth? If not, community members can campaign for allocating resources. The benefits will pay off for years to come.
There are many examples of public art (both famous and infamous) in the Midwest that can be used as benchmarks:
- Cloud Gate in Chicago – that large, shiny bean
- Free Stamp in downtown Cleveland
- The Joe Lewis Fist in Detroit – an 8,000 LB sculpture on Woodward Ave
- Katz Plaza in Pittsburgh – or “Eyeball Park” designed by Louise Bourgeois
And the travel & adventure website Far & Wide offers “15 Public Art Pieces to See Before You Die“.