Going Green with Public Art Policy

Day after day, we are bombarded with headlines: Stocks plunge… Declining economy… Flood danger… Unseasonably warm temperatures… I can remember, while completing my undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, I attended the Wisconsin Arts Congress, an annual meeting of arts leaders from around the state. A Republican state political figure was present during one session. He stood up during the meeting and stated: to be true advocates for the arts, we need to be advocating just the arts, as opposed to the arts and gay rights, for example, or the arts and the environment. I remember being grateful for having him explain how to advocate effectively to political figures. Then I realized that he was wrong. Arts for arts sake is a wonderful phrase that I truly believe in; however, the arts have much more potential. The arts have the luxury and power of serving as a tool to confront the social, economic and even environmental problems that we see in newspaper headlines every day.

As I was growing up, my mother taught me to sing and express myself creatively, while my father taught me to respect and care for our natural environment. My first creative writing project in school asked of whom would I create a monument in the state capitol. I answered very descriptively: Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day. I remember taking walks on the 70 acres of land that our family purchased in 1995. Buried in the soil, beneath the ferns, embedded in the banks of Horse Creek were old Coke bottles, beer cans, even rusted car parts that the previous tenants left behind. It saddened me but at the same time impressed me how the earth was trying to heal itself from the damage done by negligent lifestyles. Finally, I remember the lyrics my mom sang to me, “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,” and my dad’s wildlife photography, astounding photos from his Sierra Club magazine, and gorgeous artwork that adorned the walls of our home. I remember how everything that they taught me inspired a balance of creativity and responsibility. It was these instilled values and beliefs that have lead me to a master’s degree in arts and administration and a master’s research project in public art policy and environmental sustainability. The eventual product of this research will be to create a “greening guide” for percent-for-art programs. Through this paper, questions that are critical in the relationship between environmental sustainability and the arts will be discussed. These questions will be:

It is important to understand how an environmental problem can become a social problem. Therefore, it is imperative that the term “environmental sustainability” is understood.

Sustainability can be defined as, “a condition of existence which enables the present generation of humans and other species to enjoy social wellbeing, a vibrant economy, and a healthy environment, and to experience fulfillment, beauty and joy, without compromising the ability of future generations of humans and other species to enjoy the same” (Dauncey). Environmental sustainability is the process of maintaining practices and factors that contribute to a healthy natural environment for future generations (”Environmental Sustainability”).

Environmental sustainability and the term “sustainability” itself are buzzwords used by civic leaders, business owners, educators and the general public in recent years. Seattle, New York, Portland, San Francisco and Minneapolis are among many cities whose governments that are developing their first-ever sustainability policies. In the city of Eugene, Oregon, for example, Mayor Kitty Piercy announced a “sustainability challenge” in September of 2006. It is the overarching goal of this challenge that by 2020 Eugene will “fight the effects of global warming by becoming the most sustainable mid-sized city in the nation with a thriving economy based on a triple bottom line sustainability” (Piercy). This initiative would include economic, social and environmental sustainability. It is also a specific goal of the challenge to develop and implement sustainability guidelines for all city decisions and processes. Public art would fit into this challenge.

Adding to the growing discussion about sustainability in an environmental context is former Vice President Al Gore’s recent film “An Inconvenient Truth.” This film has generated dialogue regarding the conservation of our natural resources and the effects of increased global temperatures on environmental and human health. “Among climate researchers, the consensus is growing that global warming may be close to a tipping point beyond which runaway feedbacks could take hold, creating what George W. Bush’s top climate modeler … calls ‘a different planet’” (“Still in a Mess Over Climate Change”). Human activity that produces greenhouse gas (mostly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels), in turn, increases global temperature. If these behaviors are not changed, human well-being will be affected by ecological disaster, an increase of climate-sensitive diseases and parasites, as well as poor air and water conditions (“Health”). Many suggest that small changes in the daily lives of businesses and individuals could help to alter the further degradation of the planet (Commission on Sustainable Development). Fields such as the automobile industry, the airline industry, the field of architecture, and businesses such as S.C. Johnson and Honda have already made a commitment to “going green” (Valdes-Dapena) or the development of environmentally sustainable practices.

Very little existing research focuses on linking public art to sustainability. What does exist centers on the earthworks movement of the 1960s or contextualizes the relationship of public art to sustainability within the realm of urban regeneration. Public art that is implemented with the goal of urban regeneration is often met with disdain because community members frequently see its purpose not as transforming bad to good but as a privatization of public space (Hope). Because public art is often meant to represent a community as a whole, it may initially be met by negative public response if that group feels that it is not adequately represented in the work (Grande). Social engagement throughout planning processes (Minton) and acknowledging the relationship of public art, civic space and perceived power can allow the field of public art to flourish (Doss).

Another issue is the increased expectation placed on artists who design for public spaces to hold a diverse body of knowledge. Public artists now have to create as well as be knowledgeable about the perceived identity of the community in which they are working. They must be aware of issues that are currently facing those within the community and they must respond effectively to social, economic and environmental changes taking place (Cripe, Doss, Edgar, Finkelpearl, Guest, Hallett, Hope, Morris, Solnit). How can we educate artists to be prepared to adapt to such an environment?

According to Hope, “artists are now seen as key to a process of regeneration and are employed as catalysts for change, problem solvers, and affordable consultants” (20). Artists are also expected to make moral decisions in addition to the aesthetic when trying to solve social and environmental problems through art. Morris asks, “Will it be a little easier in the future to rip up the landscape for one last shovelful of non-renewable energy source if an artist can be found (cheap, mind you) to transform the devastation into an inspiring and modern work of art?” (260). In light of all these considerations, artists are expected to combine art, design, science and technology in a seemingly effortless manner (Edgar).

Finally, existing literature highlights past integration of art across the field of environmental awareness and the positive and negative outcomes of the process (Doss, Finkelpearl, Morris, Solnit). First of all, the artistic process (though there may be an environmental message in the final product) often uses highly toxic materials in its production (Solnit). Public art projects involving environmental content or addressing a problem within the environment most often fall into the category of earthworks or a subcategory of that field, land reclamation art. These works are often large-scale and utilize natural material in the process. Though the intent of the artist is often benign, the type of art projects in the land-reclamation category (art on strip mines or sites of toxic waste) can often be viewed as a cheap, corporate solutions to bad press on intentional actions (Doss, Morris). “The most significant implication of art as land reclamation is that art can and should be used to wipe away technological guilt” (Morris 259). Doss agrees by stating that:

While eco-art, land art or ecovention (an artist-initiated project that employs an inventive strategy to physically transform a local ecology) (Spaid 1) provide social response to environmental concerns and climate change, and often even express worry over loss of ideals of clean energy, water and air, what remains to be explored is how public art policy can address environmental issues on all planes.

Policy regarding the presence of art in the public sphere has been in place only sporadically on the federal level of the United States Government throughout its existence. Though public art has been a priority for many policy makers and government leaders throughout the history of the country, federal policy in the support of public art has strengthened and weakened in response to national and worldwide events that involve social issues and attitudes towards new art movements and the artists that create them.

Though policy has not always supported it, art has been a part of public space since the earliest traces of human history: from the cave paintings of Lascaux, France to religious sculptures and paintings found in temples and cathedrals around the world (Redstone & Redstone; Rupp). Art has continuously served the purpose of creating a connection and relationship between human beings and the living and built environment. Modern public art, though it serves the same general purpose, also attempts to express concern over social issues as well as the character and the personality of a place and those that reside there. “Art as a part of the environment spells environmental improvement. It means revitalization. It creates interest. It provides a human touch. It engages people. Art involves the community. …It [art] is a sign of a place being alive and not barren” (Sheffield as quoted in Miles).

Public art in the United States prior to World War I was seen as a way to culturally legitimize America. It was used to glorify the nation’s short history and its heroes. It was a form of architectural ornamentation and a medium for creating beautiful buildings. After the first Great War, one form of public art, the monument, was also seen as a way to remember tragic events, to memorialize devastation and to help people mourn (Senie & Webster). The national temperament changed with the Stock Market Crash in 1929, followed by the collapse of the American economy and the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at his inauguration in 1933, promised change for the nation (Bustard).

Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Treasury Department’s Section of Fine Arts marked the first true public art policies in the history of the United States (Bustard; Senie & Webster; Wetenhall “A Brief History”). While many art historians tend to dismiss the New Deal projects as an embarrassment to the “arts for arts sake” ideal, these policies were a significant model for percent-for-art ordinances (Harris). Modeling on the Mexican Mural movement, George Biddle, artist, lawyer and former Harvard schoolmate of FDR, and Edward Bruce of the Treasury Department created the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), a scheme to employ artists to paint murals in public buildings. In its five-month existence, the budget of the projects totaled $1,034,754 and the program employed over 3,700 artists at an hourly wage. The project ended in 1934 (Bustard).

In 1935, President Roosevelt proposed a new strategy. It was time, he thought, to move beyond relief and into preservation of the country. One part of the strategy was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Federal Art Project (FAP). This project provided money for federal art, theater, music and writing projects (Bustard). It was a concern that if the arts were not supported and the depression continued for much longer, a full generation of artists would be gone. Presence of the arts in culture was thought to be directly linked to a healthy economy and a “distinct American culture” (Park & Markowitz 131). The FAP again provided hourly employment for artists doing everything from creating paintings, sculpture, theater productions and posters to teaching art lessons and creating traveling exhibits (Bustard).

The Federal Art Project should not be confused with the Section of Fine Arts. Housed in the Treasury Department, the Section of Fine Arts is credited with the creation of post-office murals, which are still present in many United States Post Offices today. The Section of Fine Arts also employed an early version of the artist-selection process used by modern public art programs. Artists submitted proposals to an open competition, were chosen by juries, and commissioned to complete the work of art. These artists were not paid on an hourly basis (Bustard).

Though the Section of Fine Arts produced a large number of murals in its time, controversy often stemmed from political issues with the artists, content of the artworks and the attempt of the administration to please the towns where the murals were located. Some artists were accused of having communist ideals and portraying communist theory in their work. The creativity of the artists was also often limited because the calls for art were for representational works and works that portrayed local history and national ideas (Park & Markowitz; Bustard). Additionally, according to Harris, artists were divided into categories, “good, medium, and bum” (25) and the administrator (Edward Rowan) ordered his staff to weed out, “Mexican Partisans, abstractionists, academics and other extremists” (25).

During the late 1930s, controversy within federal art programs, the threat of another war and the general preoccupation by federal government officials with foreign affairs caused decline in the support of the Work Progress Administration Federal Art Project and the Treasury’s Section of Fine Arts. By 1943, all New Deal art programs were gone. While there was still federal support for the arts (and it remains today), it was not and is not of as grand a scale as the programs of FDR’s administration (Bustard). And while there were uncontrollable problems within this new and experimental policy for public art support, the Federal Art Project and the Section of Fine Arts marked the first real public art policy in the United States and created the first true “American” art movement (Bustard; Bach). Artists connected to society and the communities in which they worked. Society, in return, saw artists more like workers than ever before (Bustard; Harris). The New Deal art also served the purpose of documenting American history, portraying the thoughts and ideals of the average person, and took fine art out of the confines of the upper classes straight to the everyday lives of the common individual (Bustard). Finally, the programs of the New Deal created the percent-for-art model, a concept that would become more appealing after World War II (Wetenhall “A Brief History”).

After World War II, there was a virtual standstill in public art policy that continued until John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1961. According to Wetenhall (“Camelot’s”), Kennedy started his presidency with a general appreciation of the arts, but no real plan or experience. However, during his administration, the policies that he created helped change the federal “attitude towards the arts, transforming national cultural policy from a special interest to a public concern” (Wetenhall 142). Again, the arts were viewed as a means of beautification and revitalization as President Kennedy’s Ad Hoc Committee on Government Office Space produced a report that included “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” a section that led eventually to a new guiding principle for public art in federal buildings (Wetenhall “Camelot’s” and “A Brief History”).

In 1961, August Heckscher went beyond his initial appointed task of creating a federal cultural inventory and served as a sort of liaison between federal and cultural leaders. Heckscher’s report “The Arts and the National Government” was published in 1963 recommending that a full-time position be dedicated to the arts and culture on the federal level, that the Federal Advisory Council on the Arts be formed, and that a national foundation be created for the art (Wetenhall “Camelot’s). Heckscher argued that, “life is more than the acquisition of material goods,” and that, “The United States will be judged — and its place in history ultimately assessed — not alone by its military and economic power, but by the quality of its civilization” (as quoted by Wetenhall “Camelot’s” 151).

President Kennedy did, in fact, form the Federal Advisory Council, however it was President Lyndon Johnson who appointed the members, as Kennedy was assassinated before he could do so (Wetenhall “Camelot’s)). Soon afterward, in 1965, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities was created as an umbrella for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities and their respective Councils. The endowment created its Art in Public Places program in 1967, which provided matching grants for public art to cities and universities and also aided in the reassessment and re-visioning process of the General Service Administration’s Art in Architecture policy in 1973 (Redstone & Redstone; Senie & Webster; Wetenhall “Camelot’s” and “A Brief History”).

While the GSA’s Art in Architecture program has continued to be the main public art policy since 1973, the NEA’s Art in Public Places program was able to grow and become more advanced in its selection process until the “culture wars” in the late 1980s. According to Wallach, just as the Cold War was coming to an end, “The National Endowment for the Arts, art installations in museums and in public spaces, multicultural college curricula, and the influence of commercial entertainment on values all became flashpoints for bitter controversy” (7). These wars, triggered by the works of individual artists commenting on society, made opposing forces question how the government could support blasphemy, pornography and all-around socially degenerate art. From an artist’s and arts administrator’s perspective, the war against the NEA was a war against the creative freedom and diverse nature of art and was an attempt to create a homogenous society (Campbell; Wallach). The NEA was not abolished as a federal agency. Instead, Congress established an Independent Commission to review NEA grant distribution policies. In 1996, the budget for the NEA was cut from $162.5 million to $99.5 million. In response, the NEA restructured itself, going from 120 to four granting areas for nonprofit and public organizations (National Endowment for the Arts).

Taking a step back and viewing public art policy on a local level, history has shown the survivability of percent-for-art program on the local, regional, and state levels. In 1959, policy makers at The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority followed the percent-for-art design when it became the first city in the United States to allocate a percentage of private building costs toward art. Soon afterward, the Philadelphia City Council passed an ordinance to allot 1% of municipal building costs towards adding fine art to buildings, bridges, arches, gates and other structures (Bach; Kilroy; Wetenhall “A Brief History”; Wickersham). The landmark ordinance is credited to Henry W. Sawyer III, the city councilman that brought the bill to the Council, and Michael von Moschzisker, chairman of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (Bach; Wetenhall, ”A Brief History”). The two did not want to employ artists in the same means as the New Deal plan, but rather to simply use artists as resources to aid in urban revitalization and to express the city’s own unique character (Bach).

Many cities soon followed Philadelphia’s policy lead. Baltimore was the first in 1964. The bill began with lobbying from the Artists Equity Association, but was passed in the City Council with the hope of urban renewal and for the benefit of the “aesthetic character” of the city (Wetenhall “A Brief History” 6). After San Francisco passed its percent-for-art ordinance in 1967, several cities and even state and county governments also saw the public purpose in the public art policy. Hawaii passed percent-for-art legislation in 1967, followed by Washington in 1974, and numerous others in the 1970s and 1980s (Wetenhall, ”A Brief History”; Wickersham). Transportation authorities, likewise, in Seattle, Boston, Dallas and St. Louis have adopted percent-for-art policies of their own with the hope of generating an interest in public transport, highways and airports (Wickersham).

While many of the initial artworks created through these programs, also know as “plop art,” were placed without much thought to context, more recent commissions have focused on the preservation of cultural heritage, the promotion of human interaction in public space, the creation of interest in the aesthetic qualities of public space, and the expansion of opportunities for citizens to experience art. The modern-day public art program often focuses on community involvement in the planning process as a necessity. Programs are now aware that having an artist involved from the beginning of the design process may perhaps turn what could have been architectural after-thought or building ornamentation into a cohesive work of art. Public art is now often commissioned in schools, electric stations, waste-treatment plants, streetscapes, community centers, parks and fire stations (Kilroy, Wickersham).

Current data regarding public art policy in the United States is sorely lacking, as it can change quickly with the social and economic environment. Literature suggests that public art policy changes with time, with the events that are taking place on the social plane, and with the attitudes towards artists and the work that they create. As the social welfare of the citizens of the United States now depends of the environmental welfare of the planet, a policy for public art that addresses environmental concerns is long past due.

What role should artists be expected to play in addressing social issues, specifically the issues of global warming and environmental sustainability?

Artists working within the realm of public art are presented with challenges atypical to the gallery or museum setting. In addition, a shift in the public’s view of the artist occurs during creation of public art. Artists, often seen as creative, isolated individuals, are expected to become representatives of the community in which they work rather than representatives of their own creative selves. Artists are expected to be social activists and to understand the political climate and common culture of a specific place and time. According to artist/critic Suzanne Lacy, “where traditionally filled with the art object, this new pubic art space is filled with the relationship between artist and audience…This premise calls for a radically different approach to art making and a different set of skills” (30).

Performance artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña describes modern-day public artists as, “media pirates, border-crossers, cultural negotiators, and community healers” (Lacy 32). This description is affirmed through projects such as Rick Lowe’s Project Row Houses and Mel Chin’s “Revival Field.” Lowe’s project was a response to urban poverty and the fact that most large art initiatives are not created for underserved, underprivileged communities. According to Tom Finkelpearl, “Project Row Houses is an art and cultural community project sited in Houston’s Third Ward that encompasses public art and education programs, community service, neighborhood revitalization and historic preservation” (235). “Revival Field” was meant to address the public-health issue of toxic dumping. Chin used plants called “hyperaccumulators” to absorb hazardous heavy metals from the soil at a toxic waste site. In both cases, public art was used in a sense to heal social “wounds” (Finkelpearl, 380).

Among many headlines in today’s newspapers and newscasts are the environmental impacts associated with global warming. Artists have been interacting with the environment since the Paleolithic Age, where images were painted and carved into rocks and caves (Bach). Since the 1950s artists have taken on the role of environmentalists, addressing the declining health of the environment as a social issue. Sue Spaid calls modern artist interaction with the environment an “ecovention.” Spaid also divides this type of artwork into five categories, “1) activism to publicize ecological issues/monitoring ecological problems, 2) valuing anew/living with brown-fields, 3) biodiversity/accommodating species/studying species depletion, 4) urban infrastructure/environmental justice, and 5) reclamation and restoration aesthetics” (16).

Though environmental art seems like an overall healthy option in addressing a social problem, a fine line of ethical considerations exists for artist consideration. Artists-turned-problem-solvers are often a much cheaper and quicker option for those looking to hide or clean-up environmental damage. This relationship is ironically illustrated in Alan Sonfist’s “Natural and Bronze Time Enclosures,” where two tree branches were purchased at one time: one made of bronze, one a real tree branch. The bronze tree branch was worth $4, while the actual tree branch was valued at $4,000 (Spaid). Seemingly environmental art can also have unforeseen hazardous implications. Large-scale land art can often include excavation, which displaces a large amount of topsoil and can, in turn, affect the ecosystem in operation at a site. According to Spaid, “ecological artists consider issues of sustainability, adaptability, interdependence, renewable resources, and biodiversity, but they don’t necessarily attempt to transform the local ecology” (12).

How can environmental sustainability be considered as a part of the administrative processes and public art planning, design, and implementation in percent for art programs?

At this stage of this preliminary research, it is recommended that artists not take on responsibility for cleaning up the messes created by industry unless specific situation calls for artistic response. Instead artists can educate themselves to understand the basics of “green” design. According to Thorpe, human design negatively affects the earth in three main ways: speed, size, and location.

Education of the artist could include knowledge of using local and/or recycled materials in art or knowledge of material make-up and where those materials originate. Additionally, artists should be familiar with LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (U.S. Green Building Council). Pre-service and in-service instruction for the artists should be included as a part of public art planning. It is also important that fine arts colleges and universities embrace curriculum focusing on environmental sustainability as a policy in their arts educational material. While environmental art need not always serve as an educational tool for the viewer or heal the wounds of its site, artists should lead by example in practice, no matter what type of art they create.

Policies of some public art organizations, like the Kohler Foundation in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, could serve as a model and new way to view public art. One major activity of the foundation is purchasing or receiving as donations dilapidated works of public art. The works are restored, preserved and gifted to other interested organizations (The Kohler Foundation).

Many percent-for-art programs have recently been assigned the task of creating sustainability plans as a part of government initiatives. Public art programs should consider environmental sustainability in daily office activities, art implementation and design, and in all artist education.

What organizations exist to aid artistic businesses, corporations, and organizations in addressing environmental issues?

Are there cost benefits in operating a public art program using environmentally sustainable practices?

Does producing environmentally friendly art affect the longevity of the product itself?

Who should be responsible for the authenticity, standards, and maintenance of “green” public art?

What current “green” programs exist that address environmental issues within an artistic and administrative context?

This essay is part of the Community Arts Convening & Research Project, 2008, funded by a Nathan Cummings Foundation grant to the Maryland Institute College of Art. The essay was reviewed and selected by the project's Editorial Board: Ron Bechet, Xavier University of Louisiana; Lori Hager, University of Oregon; Marina Gutierrez, Cooper Union; Ken Krafchek, Maryland Institute College of Art; Sonia Mañjon, California College of the Arts; Amalia Mesa-Bains, California State University Monterey Bay; Paul Teruel, Columbia College Chicago; and Stephani Woodson, Arizona State University.

Elizabeth (Betsy) Bostwick is the public art manager for the Clackamas County Arts Alliance in Clackamas County, Oregon. She graduated in June 2008 with a master’s degree in Arts Administration from the University of Oregon. This paper is a branch of her full master’s research project, “Going Green with Public Art: Considering Environmental Standards in Public Art Policy.”

Bach, P.B. Public Art in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.

Bradford, G., M. Gary & G. Wallach, eds. The Politics of Culture: Policy Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions and Communities. New York: The New Press, 2000.

Bustard, B.I. A New Deal for the Arts. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1997.

Cripe, D. “Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art.” Public Art Review 29 (2003): 41-42.

Doss, E. Spirit Poles and Flying Pigs: Public Art and Cultural Democracy in
American Communities. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

Harris, J. Federal Art and National Culture: The Politics of Identity in New Deal America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Heffernon, R., et al., Sustainability for Arizona: The Issue of Our Age. Phoenix, Ariz.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, 2007.

Lacy, S. “Mapping the Terrain: The New Public Art.” Public Art Review 8 (1993): 26-33.

Miles, M. Art for Public Places: Critical Essays. Winchester, U.K.: Winchester School of Art Press, 1989.

Morris, R. “Earthworks: Land Reclamation as Sculpture.” Ed. Senie & Webster 250-260.

National Endowment for the Arts. A Brief Chronology of Federal Support for the Arts 1965-2000. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

Park, M. & Markowitz, G.E. “New Deal for Public Art.” Senie & Webster 128-140.

Piercy, K. “The Sustainable Business Initiative.” Eugene City Council meeting. Eugene, Ore. Sept. 2006.

Redstone, L.G. & Redstone, R.R. Public Art: New Directions. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981.

Rupp, J.M. Art in Seattle's Public Places: An Illustrated Guide. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 1991.

Senie, H.F. & Webster, S., eds. Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1992.

Spaid, S. Ecovention: Current Art to Transform Ecologies. Cincinnati, Ohio: The Contemporary Arts Center, 2002.

“Still in a Mess over Climate Change.” Editorial. NewScientist 30 Sept. 2006: 5.

Thorpe, A. The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. (2007).

United Nations. “Commission on Sustainable Development.” 2008. U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development. 2 Feb. 2008 <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm>.

Valdes-Dapena, Peter . “Green Cars: The Un-dirty Dozen.” CNN Money.com. 18 Feb. 2008. Cable New Network. 18 Feb. 2008 <http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/ 0802/gallery.aceee_greenest_cars/index.html>.

Wetenhall, J. “A Brief History of Percent-for-art in America.” Public Art Review 9 (1993): 4-7.

Wickersham, C. “Percent-for-art: Variations on a Theme. Public Art Review 9 (1993): 8-11.

Home

About CAN

APInews

Reading Room

Resources

Forums

Site Map

What's New

Search Site

Going Green with Public Art Policy

Comments

Home About CAN Welcome About CAN Community Arts 101 Contact Us APInews APInews Conferences/Events Reading Room Essays Special Projects Bridge Conversations Making Exact Change The CAN Report The Citizen Artist Performing Communities Everybody Say Hallelujah Connecting Californians Spirit of the Northwest The ROOTS Reader Links Page Resources Bookstore CANuniversity Community Arts 101 Community Arts Perspectives Cross-Sector Resources Places to Study Studies and Statistics Weblogs CANblog Guest Blogs CAN Blognet CANtv Forums Forums Home Conversations Opportunities Special Conversations Site Map What's New Search Site