I launched this Substack in January as a starting point for something I hope to grow into a real platform for transparency and curiosity in the public art field. Three months in, I feel like I’ve only scratched the surface of what’s possible — and I’m genuinely energized by what’s ahead. The fact that Public Art Curious has attracted nearly three times the subscribers most new newsletters see in their first three months tells me this work is resonating, and the conversations and connections that have come out of it mean more than I can say.

Thank you for being part of this from the beginning. I’ll be back refreshed and ready to dig in. So much good stuff is coming.

Subscribe now

Government has been shaping the public art landscape in the United States for well over a century—with federal investment dating as far back as the mid-1800s. But what does that actually look like in practice? Government involvement in public art takes many forms: directly commissioning and purchasing works, funding artists and organizations through grants, incentivizing private developers to incorporate art into their projects, and managing donated artworks that enter the public realm. In each case, public agencies play a role not just as funders, but as stewards of a process—ensuring that art is responsive to the community and appropriate for its site.

This article looks at four common mechanisms governments use to bring public art into our shared spaces.

Direct Commissioning

Perhaps the most straightforward way government engages with public art is by hiring an artist to create a work or by purchasing one directly. One of the most common funding mechanisms for this is a percent-for-art ordinance. In a 2017 survey I conducted of public art programs, about 66% of public entities with a public art program had a percent-for-art ordinance in place. This type of policy dedicates a percentage—typically 1–2%—of funds from a capital investment project, such as a library or fire station, to artwork for that site.

The City of Chicago through the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events operates a percent-for-art program which “assures that 1.33% of the construction budget for construction or major renovation of a City-owned or City-financed building or structure, or for certain outdoor improvements, is used to commission art at that building, structure or improvement.” This type of policy ensures that public art is integrated into communities when a city invests in local facilities or infrastructure — helping residents see their local history, culture, and values reflected in their everyday spaces.

Grant Programs

Another way government supports public art is through grant programs. These types of programs can provide local artists and community groups with the resources they need to bring artwork to life, covering everything from artist selection to fabrication and installation. Grant programs for public art allow for more direct artist- and community-led interventions that may fall outside the scope or capacity of a government entity. They can still result in public art that is representative of local people, history, and cultures — often in ways that government-led commissioning cannot.

One of the most widely known sources of public art funding is the National Endowment for the Arts, which currently supports public art projects through its Grants for Arts Projects program. An example at the local level is the City of Healdsburg, California Public Art Grant Program—Arts for All, which is designed to enrich the public environment through art installations and other cultural programming for artists within the city and the surrounding area.

Private Development Programs

Government also facilitates public art on private property. This can take the form of local government working with private entities to incorporate art as part of a land use development project. Here the government can implement a requirement similar to the percent-for-art model applied to government capital projects or encourage investment in public art as part of a community benefits agreement tied to a residential or commercial project. This type of support allows for private investment to further support access to public art for areas of the community that the local government may not have the focus or the funds to invest in.

An example of a program that encourages private developers to invest in public art as a community benefit is Public Art Program for Arlington County, VA. In this model, public art program staff can guide the process from understanding the developer’s goals through selecting an artist to design and implement the work. This policy has flexibility to allow for a unique artwork on the site of the development or to provide the funding into a Public Art Fund to be used in other ways by the County.

Artwork Donations

One of the least talked-about ways government facilitates public art is through the acceptance and management of donated artworks from private individuals or organizations. While this doesn’t happen as frequently as the other mechanisms, the process has become more sophisticated over time. Local governments increasingly want to ensure that donated works are the right fit for the community and are setting conditions around long-term stewardship—sometimes requiring that donated funds accompany the artwork to support its ongoing care.

Examples of this type of procedure include The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation and the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Both policies outline specific ways to ensure that artworks that are being donated to the community are both a good fit and will be properly cared for in the long term. Donations of public art require this level of scrutiny as to not overburden the local government with artworks it cannot manage, but can also be a clear path for communities that are aiming to build up their public art collections but don’t have the full means to implement a public art project from scratch.

These four mechanisms—commissioning, grants, private development requirements, and donations—represent the core ways local, state, and federal governments actively shape the public art that surrounds us. Each approach reflects a different philosophy about who should pay for public art, who should initiate it, and how community input fits into the process. Understanding these structures is useful not just for arts administrators, but for artists, advocates, and community members who want to engage more meaningfully with how public art decisions get made.

Which of these mechanisms have you encountered in your community? How have you seen your local government engage with public art—and where do you think there’s room to do more?

Public Art Curious is dedicated to building transparency and honest conversation in the public art field — if this piece resonated, please like, share, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to help keep that work going.

Subscribe now

Share

If you work in public art — or want to — this is your curated roundup of what’s actually worth your attention. Each edition, I sift through hundreds of articles, calls for artists, job postings, professional development opportunities, and field research so you don’t have to. What you get here isn’t an aggregator dump — it’s a no-duplicates collection personally reviewed by me (not AI!) and informed by my network, Google Alerts, Instagram, LinkedIn, and direct submissions from people in the field.

In this week’s post:

• 38+ calls for artists and artworks across the US and internationally — commissions, murals, temporary installations, and more

• 15+ job opportunities — from coordinator to directors and consultant projects

• 9 professional development and networking events — in-person and online — including Placemaking Week Europe and Hot Topics in Public Art 3

• Notable reports, and articles — including a Reuters deep dive on Banksy, a mural impact ROI calculator, and more

This is the good stuff — the kind of intel that used to require knowing the right people and being on the right listservs. Now it lands in your inbox twice a month.

Why become a paid subscriber? My ambition for Public Art Curious is bigger than one voice. I want this to be a platform for new and underrepresented voices — with video interviews, in-person events, online panels, and showcases. That takes resources, and that’s where you come in. For just $10/month or $100 a year, you help make this a true community platform for the field. Paid subscribers also get access to every past post in the archive.

Read more

Subscribe now

Share

I remember walking down the hallways of middle school between classes and looking at the art painted on the walls above the lockers. The art was bad. Not bad by intention, but bad because it was made by other middle school students — some my peers, some who came before me. I knew it was bad and always looked at it thinking: why is it there if it is so bad?

Fast forward many years later. I was doing a walk-through of a municipal public art collection when, on the side of an outdoor restroom at a local elementary school, I found a series of tiles made by students’ years earlier to permanently decorate the space. That visit brought back something I’d once heard about children’s art in public places: that adults allow the art they think kids want. So, if a child wants a picture of, say, a wizard — one of the images painted on my middle school walls — they let that child paint it, regardless of how it turns out. It isn’t that the kid doesn’t know what they want; they just lack the skills to do it well. And unfortunately, the rest of us are left with the result, for no reason other than that’s what kids can do, so that must be what they want.

To put it another way: if you put a bunch of elementary school students behind the wheel of a car and they drove poorly — running into things, damaging property and people — we wouldn’t just accept it. We would stop it.

It may sound like I am picking on children’s art, but I am not. There is a time and place for allowing children — or anyone without skill or training — to create art, even badly, in public places. But at what point do we give ourselves permission to say no? To say: this isn’t working, and please don’t permanently attach it to the side of a building where we will either need to care for it with limited funds, run through an extensive deaccession process to remove it, or something else entirely?

At what point should there be a pause to consider whether the direction an artwork is taking is sound? And who should be the person — or persons — to ask that question?

When I think about who is involved with the development of a public artwork, I think of it as a triad: the artist, the community, and the facilitator. The artist is the formal creator of the visual concept that will ultimately be realized. The community encompasses all the people who will engage with both the process of creation and the final product. And the facilitator is the project manager or organization ensuring the process and artwork meet the requirements of the project.

But where does power sit in making decisions? And at what point are we still allowed to question what is happening and find potential new avenues for the vision and goals of the project?

I’ve been in conversations where the facilitator handed that responsibility to the community through a selection committee — even when the selected artwork was wrong. I’ve heard too many stories of artists brought in to bear the brunt of arguments from disgruntled or anti-art stakeholders. And I’ve seen facilitators whose power faltered from lack of institutional support, leaving their recommendations ignored.

The current systems don’t really work — and I think most of us know it. How many times have we seen an artist brought in way too late to make the best work possible? How many arts commissions or selection panels have been waylaid by ignorance, arrogance, or (yes) a political appointee? And how much longer can a single project manager keep all the balls in the air across multiple projects?

I know — or at least I must hope — there is a better way, though it will take time to build. But in the meantime, what can we do to create a better litmus test for how an artwork is moving forward? What checkpoints or moments of pause can we build into current systems to prevent bad outcomes, or at least encourage more thoughtful decision-making?

I know it can and does happen — otherwise, we would be surrounded by bad, child-like artwork. But does it happen because everyone in the triad is equal and has the same say? Or because they each play their parts well at the moment they are needed?

I remember hearing from a project manager about the time they brought an artist into a contentious, outspoken, yet passionate and supportive community group. The artist knew how to play their part; the project manager knew how to drive the process; and the community was fully engaged. The result — which I was fortunate enough to witness — was both responsive to and respected by the community, and was visually and artistically stunning.

The Maggie Lena Walker artwork in Richmond, VA came to be through the driving force of the community over decades — a force that finally met with an understanding and competent facilitator (in this case the city) and a thoughtful and talented artist. The final artwork is a point of pride for everyone involved.

So maybe, when the triad works well, it is because everyone is aware of the part they play and does it well — with respect, meaning, and competence. Maybe we don’t need a litmus test for whether the artwork is good. Maybe we need a litmus test to see whether all those involved are operating at their best for the project.

Perhaps that’s the real question — not whether a piece of art is good or has the expected impact, but whether the people making decisions around it are doing so with honesty, skill, and care. The litmus test isn’t aesthetic. It’s relational. And until we build systems that hold all three members of the triad accountable — not just to each other, but to the public they serve — we’ll keep finding bad art on the sides of buildings, wondering how it got there.

Share

Subscribe now

Why does public art take so long?

This is a question I have been thinking about lately. When I first launched Public Art Curious, I received requests to help provide clarity about why timelines in public art are so unpredictable. I am reminded of this issue again as I sit here awaiting a contract for an upcoming project that was promised a few weeks ago. The delay does work in my favor as it allows me to get ahead of my spring cleaning, but it also begs the question: why are public art timelines so difficult to nail down, and why is it so challenging to explain delays to our constituents?

Probably the most obvious reason for delays is the bureaucracy of it all. Public art by its nature happens in public spaces which, at least in the US, all areas have some kind of regulation and oversight either by a government body or a private entity. Permissions are needed to move forward with any project. Hold-ups can range from practical requirements like permits, contracts, and insurance. This is true if a project is being managed through a municipal agency, like a percent-for-art project, or initiated by a community group looking to install a temporary artwork. For example, an arts commission or planning committee may only meet once a month and getting on their agenda can take additional time. And if the oversight body has any questions or needs more information, that may add another month to the schedule.

I’ll also argue that much of these processes are there for a reason, from addressing safety and ADA standards, to ensuring that the surrounding community is aware of the project. And the majority of the government staff and representatives who are involved with the processes understand what it means to be a public servant. They aren’t there to be in the way, only to ensure proper regulations are followed so that the artwork can stand safely and be welcomed by those who encounter it.

Other reasons for an extended timeline include unforeseen issues like budget changes, political shifts, a pandemic, or the artwork simply being part of a larger infrastructure project. Many percent-for-art projects are attached to a larger infrastructure project like the development of a streetscape or library or police station. I remember helping with a project that was attached to the development of a combined library and community center that, though completed, the government couldn’t afford to staff—so no one was able to engage with the artwork once the building opened. These large infrastructure and facility building projects exist outside the scope of any art project.

In another case, I was sitting on a selection panel for a planned series of iconic artworks that were meant to be landmarks for a city that the mayor wanted as part of their term. As the artist selection process moved forward, the pandemic set in, the mayor changed over, and the project ultimately died. So many forces operate completely outside our control, and public art is not immune to any of them.

Staff capacity, which I discussed in another post, is a real factor. Whether it’s a dedicated public art administrator or someone whose role only partially involves reviewing permits, managing risk, or signing off on contracts, there often isn’t enough bandwidth to move things quickly.

Experienced practitioners know the usual remedies — communicate early, hire a good project manager, learn the process before you start. What often gets overlooked is that the timeline for the artwork and everyone else’s are rarely the same thing, and that gap is usually where projects stall. Some programs do make an effort to demystify the process, such as the Austin Art in Public Places Program that lays out their implementation steps publicly and the City of Boston’s artist resource page walks through their permitting a mural processes. But finding processes with clear timelines for each step remain rare. If you’ve seen guidelines that include those, I’d love to know about them. (And if your program needs them, that’s exactly the kind of consulting work I do, so reach out.)

The processes are opaque by default, which is precisely why transparency in this field matters so much. Even with the best preparation, patience is less a virtue than a requirement.

So, what has been your biggest holdup when implementing a public artwork? What have you done to manage expectations when timelines go out the window?

Share

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

If you work in public art — or want to — this is your curated roundup of what’s actually worth your attention. Each edition, I sift through hundreds of articles, calls for artists, job postings, professional development opportunities, and field research so you don’t have to. What you get here isn’t an aggregator dump — it’s a no-duplicates collection personally reviewed by me (not AI!) and informed by my network, Google Alerts, LinkedIn, and direct submissions from people in the field.

In this week’s post:

7 calls for artists and artworks across the US and internationally — commissions, murals, temporary installations, and more, across the US and internationally

10 job opportunities —from coordinator to executive director in the US and internationally

5 professional development and networking events — in-person and online — including a Placemaking Week gathering and a GIA webinar on leadership in uncertain times

Funding opportunities worth bookmarking — grants, fellowships, and residencies worth adding to your calendar

Notable reports, articles, and people making waves — including new public art trend report and article to support data, mural preservation battles in Barrio Logan, and one genuinely delightful quirky video

This is the good stuff — the kind of intel that used to require knowing the right people and being on the right listservs. Now it lands in your inbox twice a month.

Why become a paid subscriber?

My ambition for Public Art Curious is bigger than one voice. I want this to be a platform for new and underrepresented voices — with video interviews, in-person events, online panels, and showcases. That takes resources, and that’s where you come in. For just $10/month or $100 a year, you help make this a true community platform for the field. Paid subscribers also get access to every past post in the archive.

Subscribe now

Check eligibility and deadlines before applying! Details can change, so always verify requirements and due dates directly with the source.

See something you think should be included? Drop opportunities, articles, or resources in the comments below—I love when this becomes a community exchange where we’re all sharing what we’ve found.

Calls for Artists/Artworks

US-Based Opportunities (by state)

• Ritual Element Public Art | Thornton, CO

• District 10 Murals | Louisville, KY

• Metro Transit: Artist Roster | Minneapolis/St. Paul , MN

• Public Art for the Salem Civic Center Improvement Project | Salem, OR

• Snow College Washburn Addition - Utah Public Art | Ephraim, UT

• Temporary Art Installation | Sammamish, WA

International Opportunities

• P’Quals Public Art and Interpretive Signage | White Rock, BC CAN

Other Calls for Art/Funding

• NEA GRANTS FOR ARTS PROJECTS

• Individual Artist Fellowship

• OLYMPIC HERITAGE | ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE 2026

• Call for Films: Building Bridges on Screen: Documentary Stories of Place in the South

• Next Gen Design: Open Call 2026

• 2027 Creative Capital Open Call

For other opportunities, check out the following resources. Most are free to access after setting up a log-in.

• The State of Utah Arts and Museums Department lists calls for artists in and around the state.

• Americans for the Arts Public Art Opportunities Page provides opportunities listed by paid members.

• Call for Entry, Creative West hosts call for artists around the US.

• CODAworx hosts both national and international calls for artists.

• Publicartist.org host calls from around the US. They are based in Texas and if you are looking for opportunities from there, this is a good place to look.

Read more

Subscribe now

Share

“Being annoyed is the price you pay for community.” This thought recently appeared in my YouTube Shorts feed, and I couldn’t agree more. The original poster was likely talking about personal community—family and friends—but it resonates just as much for those of us working in the public sphere, and the public art field is no exception.

Several months ago, I was at a community meeting representing the funding application for a public art program in downtown Poughkeepsie. The goal of the meeting was to showcase all the projects that were vying to be included in an upcoming round of state funding to support downtown revitalization, the public art program being one of those hopeful projects. It had been a while since I’d been the face of a public art project, and I was excited to talk to community members about the project and to gather their insights. For the most part, the people shuffled by the project board which outlined the title and general details of the program without much comment. The few folks that did stop had similar questions, mostly around how artists would be selected— through an open call. However, there were one or two people who came by and for their own reasons thought there were better things to do with the proposed funds, and some wanted more specific answers to questions we hadn’t worked out yet.

Though most of the comments were positive, those few negative ones were irritating. I was surprised at myself for even feeling this way, because I didn’t think I had that much attachment to this project. I’m not the lead on it as I am only helping where needed on certain aspects of the application process, it wasn’t my brainchild as it came out of a community-based conversation, and unless there is funding the project won’t move forward. So, when I had these feelings of irritation, I had to pause myself, listen to what I was hearing, and almost simultaneously identify why I was feeling this way.

And the short of it was, it was annoying. My own sense of why this was a good project was being challenged by people who I perceived had far less experience in public art and who weren’t a part of the original community-based group that developed the project.

But that annoyance, as uncomfortable as it was, points to something important. Public spaces belong to the public— not just to those of us who spent months creating an artwork or developing a program even with the best of intentions. The people who shuffled by that board and offered skepticism or inconvenient questions weren’t obstacles to the process. They were the process. Democratic ownership of public space means that anyone gets a say, whether or not they can debate the aesthetics of an artwork, attend a community input session, or can cite precedents from other cities. That is both the challenge and the promise of public art. We are, even with all the outreach and community engagement in the world, are quite literally making work for people who did not ask for it, in spaces they move through every day. The least we can do is let them talk back.

The reality is that those of us who work in public art must be able to hear all the comments and insights: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The challenge we face, and where we need to find support, is how not to take it personally.

I don’t have a tidy answer for how to do this better. I wish I did. What I know is that I’m not unique in struggling with it—I’ve heard versions of this from colleagues at conferences, in hallway conversations, in the quiet admissions people make when they feel safe enough to be honest. We pour ourselves into this work. We fight for budgets, navigate bureaucracies, manage community members and elected officials, and then we stand in a room and absorb feedback from people who see only the surface of a project we’ve been living with for months or years. Of course it stings. We are, after all, human who are equally fallible with valid thoughts and feelings, just like the people questioning us. How I got through that particular community meeting was a lot of breathing and the self-awareness I’ve slowly built through years of therapy. I’m not even good at not taking things personally; I do it all the time. But I’m at least getting better at noticing when it’s happening, which feels like a start.

I think we need to give space to this part of the public art process—if for no other reason than our own mental health. We all work hard and spend a lot of time and energy (and at times tears) trying to bring something amazing to our fellow community members. But we don’t talk about how to address that level of discomfort, frustration, and annoyance that comes with working alongside the community.

What I keep coming back to is this: we talk a lot in this field about community engagement, about centering voices, about making space for dialogue. But we rarely turn that same care inward, toward the people doing the work. If we want public art practitioners and artists who are genuinely open to community feedback—not just performing openness while privately dismissing criticism—then we need to create more space to talk honestly about how hard that actually is. The annoyance is part of the process. And maybe, just maybe, so is figuring out how to hold all of it without letting it harden into something that closes us off from the very communities we’re trying to serve. I don’t know exactly what that looks like. But I think it starts with admitting it’s difficult—which is what I’m trying to do here. How do we hold space for community input while also holding space for ourselves?

Share

Subscribe now

During my time with the City of San José public art program, I had the opportunity to meet artist Mel Chin and walk with him through the “Recolecciones” collection of artworks he created for the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library (San José State Library/San José Public Library). I was trying to clarify the stories and concepts behind each work—understanding artist’s intent is one of the main tenets of collection preservation and was a core part of my role. As we talked, I mentioned how much the library docents enjoyed the pieces and noted that each docent told the stories a little differently. I wanted to get Mel’s confirmation on what each work was meant to convey. At that point, he said something that stuck with me (paraphrasing): he didn’t remember the exact stories behind each artwork and thought it was more important for the staff and library users to interpret the work rather than have his own definitions imposed on what each piece meant. This struck me as an important quality for the long-term acceptance and appreciation of public art—that the community gets to hold its own meanings and stories.

During that same tenure, I had a parallel conversation with another artist. The artwork in question was a family-friendly, sculptural, outdoor piece located in a residential community. The community was involved with its development and had continued to be taken by the work so much so that they started dressing it up for different holidays. Around Christmas, this came to my attention as the collection manager when the community decked out the statue in holiday attire. One of the responsibilities of a collection manager is caring not just for the physical object but for the intention behind the work. So, I called the artist and explained how much the community was enjoying the artwork and how they were dressing it up for the holidays. Given the fun-loving nature of the piece, I was a bit taken aback by the artist’s reaction. They weren’t outright offended—I think they understood the joy it was bringing—but they made it clear it wasn’t going to happen again and that dressing up the artwork was not part of the intention of the piece. When I communicated this to the community liaison, they were disappointed but understanding and respectful of the artist’s note.

So where does this leave us? Both examples raise the same underlying question: who is actually responsible for tending the relationship between a community and its public art over time? Is it the commissioning agency, who initiated the project and likely holds the contract? The artist, who brought the vision? Or the community, who lives with the work every day? Right now, in most cases, the answer is nobody — or at least nobody with a clear mandate to do so.

What strikes me about both stories is that they were essentially failures of expectation-setting. Mel Chin happened to have the right instincts about releasing interpretive control — but that was his personal philosophy, not something built into the project. The second artist held the opposite view, and the community paid for that mismatch. Neither situation had a framework guiding it. I think public art needs its own model of shared stewardship — one that is built into the commission process from the beginning, not retrofitted after a community has already formed a deep relationship with the work. What would it look like to have those conversations upfront? To ask, at the start of every project: how do we want this community to live with this artwork, ten or twenty years from now?”

What do you all think? What should the long-term stewardship between the artwork/artist and the community look like? What examples come to mind when considering this relationship?

Public Art Curious is dedicated to building transparency and honest conversation in the public art field — if this piece resonated, please like, share, and consider becoming a paid subscriber to help keep that work going.

Share

Subscribe now

In this week’s post:

• 17 calls for artists and artworks across the US and internationally — from utility box wraps in Arizona to a major monument commission in Miami to a mural opportunity in the UK

• 10 job and internship opportunities, including a Deputy Director of Arts and Culture position and a public art internship with Sound Transit in Seattle

• 14 professional development and networking events — in-person and online — including the 2026 Monument Lab Summit and a new NYC arts and culture planning event

• Advocacy resources for those of us watching challenges to the arts and culture sector with alarm — including an open public comment period you can act on right now

• Notable reports, articles, and people making waves in the public art and placemaking world

This is the good stuff — the kind of intel that used to require knowing the right people and being on the right listservs. Now it lands in your inbox twice a month.

Why become a paid subscriber? My ambition for Public Art Curious is bigger than one voice. I want this to be a platform for new and underrepresented voices — with articles, video interviews, in-person events, online panels, and showcases. That takes resources, and that’s where you come in. For just $10/month, you help make this a true community platform for the field. Paid subscribers also get access to every past post in the archive.

Read more

Public art administrators play a defining role in how artists are selected for public art projects. Public art administrators—sometimes noted as project managers—facilitate the project from selection process to installation. Depending on the size of the project or the commissioning agency, this could be one person or a team of administrators working on the project, though there is typically at least one lead administrator to keep things organized.

The administrator is the one who assembles the call for artists, posts and manages the responses, and organizes and facilitates the selection process. Though the administrator, or project manager, may be the one facilitating the selection process, and may have even had a hand in developing the process, there are still challenges that plague public art administrators that directly affect artist selection outcomes.

Share

The Administrator’s Voice in Selection

Though the public art administrator may be the one facilitating the artist selection process, it’s common for them to not have a vote or voice in who is ultimately selected. This is standard in public sector work, though in the private sector there is typically either an in-house or hired curator who participates in selecting artists.

For public entities, this seems odd to me. On the surface, the argument is to maintain an arm’s-length separation between decision-making and the city managing the project. However, in most cases the public art manager has the most knowledge about the project and is aware of which artists are good to work with and which aren’t—yet they’re excluded from voicing this expertise. Moreover, the project manager will spend the most time with that artist working on the project, but doesn’t get even a vote in the decision?

I’ll share a personal example. In my last year working at the City of San José, I managed an artist selection process for a lovely community group who wanted to beautify a neighborhood park—a simple but meaningful request. The park department found funds for a small project that meant a lot to the community.

When the selection process was winding down, the top two contenders were a well-known local artist with public art experience versus someone with similar material skills, though not as well-known and no public art background. The well-known artist was voted by the community to get the project, which from my perspective was unfortunate. The artist was, to be blunt, difficult to work with. They were well known, and that isn’t always a good thing.

I personally thought the lesser-known artist would have been a much better fit with this particular community and would have done just as good a job—but I had no say. My first phone call with the selected artist started badly as they tried to bully me into making a business decision that wasn’t mine to make. Their first encounter with the community group was uncomfortable; they were completely out of their element and annoyed because the community members “wouldn’t listen to them.” That wasn’t the case, there were just different communication styles, and if you’re going to work in public art with the public, you need to work well with all sorts of people.

My position with the city ended before that project progressed much further. Though that meant I didn’t have to continue working with that artist, I did miss working with that amazing community group. Ultimately the artwork was completed, but at what cost?

Are we as public servants supposed to just accept bad behavior? What about standing up for the community or for artists? This needs real thinking and change in how public art is commissioned by public entities.

Public art program staff should be able to be part of the selection process. Not to dominate it, but to contribute their professional expertise, their knowledge of artist track records, and their understanding of community dynamics. Their exclusion in the name of objectivity may actually be creating worse outcomes.

Doing the Work vs. Rethinking the Work

In my conservative estimation, I would guess there are between 1,000 to 1,500 public art administrators working around the United States considering municipal programs, non-profit organizations, freelance consultants, along with curators and project managers in the private sector. This is based on my engagement with public art professionals during my nine-year tenure facilitating the Public Art Network of Americans for the Arts, which at the time was the only nation-wide community of public art administrators, artists and other professionals. Additionally, in 2017, I worked on a survey of over 700 public art programs across the United States which highlighted capacity challenges among this unique professional group, including:

• 68% of responding programs have at least one full-time employee either dedicated to managing the program (39%) or handling it as one component of a multi-departmental role (31%)

• 61% of programs serving areas over 1 million population have at least one full-time dedicated staff member

• 16% of programs in areas under 100,000 population have no staff at all

These statistics reveal challenges not just with doing the work, but with finding time to rethink how artist selection works. This isn’t meant to excuse why change doesn’t happen, but rather to acknowledge with compassion that workload constraints is something we should all consider as we look at new ways to address challenges within public art processes.

The Training Gap

Another major need in the public art field is training for public art managers. Currently, only three to four college-level programs exist for people who want to administer public art projects—and these projects are complex. Most administrators I’ve encountered have varying backgrounds in the arts, whether as trained artists or, in one case I worked with, from a construction background.

At times there are opportunities through informal channels—webinars hosted by other public art professionals or conferences for learning and knowledge exchange—but these are few and far between, with no standards. I myself have an undergraduate degree in studio art and a master’s in arts administration, and I took exactly one course on public art management during my entire education. The rest came through volunteer work, internships, and on-the-job learning.

There is a very strong need for some kind of formal training in public art. Many of the issues facing the public art field I believe could be better addressed through more investment in education and knowledge-sharing among new and current administrators along with cross-collaborations of artists and community organizers.

Moving Forward

There is a lot to consider when shifting the way things have always been, but I think we’re at a time that needs new thinking and dedicated investment in training to build better, more equitable processes. One of the reasons I created Public Art Curious was to bring these issues to light and drive new voices and focused conversations around the public art field—especially around who administers projects and how. In fact, if anyone is interested in building a public art administration training program, whether a formal educational program or a cohort of practitioners, reach out. I’d love to partner.

So, here’s what I’m wondering: What would it take for your organization or community to give public art administrators a seat at the selection table? And what kind of training or support would help administrators navigate these complex processes more effectively?

The Typical Committee Structure

Selection committees typically include representatives from the public space where the artwork will be placed, community members, and professionals from the art field. The committee structure is usually outlined in a program’s administrative guidelines, such as those found on the Akron Public Art Commission.

For example, a neighborhood library project might include:

• The head librarian

• An educator from the local school district

• Community representatives, such as members of the neighborhood association or library patrons

• A local artist

Based on my experience and conversations with other public art professionals, I estimate the typical selection committee has five to seven members, though some projects have and can included fifteen or more panelists.

This raises an interesting question: Why are so few people involved in making such a permanent decision? This is particularly pressing given that public artworks can remain in place for decades, becoming part of the visual identity of a neighborhood or community.

Bringing More Voices to the Table

In most public art processes, community research is conducted before searching for an artist. (I say “most” here because when it includes private development of public artworks, there can be a different process.) This engagement helps determine what type of public art and artist will work best for the project and community. Methods include charrettes, town halls, surveys, and other engagement opportunities to understand community preferences regarding aesthetics, content, and the artwork’s role as a visual representation of the community.

However, once the selection process is underway, there is usually no additional engagement until after the artist is selected. The reasoning for this is to streamline the selection process—community representatives on the panel serve as proxies for additional engagement.

There have been attempts to incorporate broader public input. I recall a story where finalists for a public art project were asked to present their work publicly, with attendees voting on which artist should receive the commission. One artist mobilized significantly more friends and supporters to attend and won the project through voting numbers alone. But does that mean that artist was best for the project? Were their supporters even representative of the community? It’s easy to see how this process can be compromised.

One approach to address this is asking the community for feedback on artists or art concepts, which then goes to the selection committee as part of their consideration process. You may not get as many responses for feedback requests (which typically require written answers) as you would for a simple vote (picking option 1, 2, or 3), but the insights are far more valuable.

However, this doesn’t always work effectively. In an infamous New York City project, the community was quite vocal about which artist and art concept they wanted, but the selection committee chose a different artist. The city attempted to be transparent about how the artist was selected, but the community response to the announcement went viral. The selected artist declined the project, and ultimately the artist the community wanted did get the commission. There was a lasting cost to the overseeing department and continued distrust between the city and the community.

These incidents highlight a fundamental tension: How do we balance expert judgment with community desire? When should community preference take precedence, and when should selection committees override popular opinion in favor of professional assessment?

Who Has Time to Serve?

One clear challenge is considering who has the time to commit to the artist selection process. I’ve participated in application processes with over 100 applicants. Generally speaking, it takes about 20–30 minutes to thoughtfully review an artist’s application. Typically, before a committee meets to discuss finalists, members are asked to review and provide preliminary rankings to narrow the applicant pool.

Let’s do the math: For a committee of seven people reviewing 100 applications at 20 minutes each, that’s 2,000 minutes or about 33.3 hours. Spread across seven members, we’re looking at over 233 hours by the committee as a whole before anyone even convenes to discuss and debrief on the applications. I will say there’s always at least one or two committee members who don’t put in this much time or only look at the images submitted, but still—who has time for this?

Selection meetings typically average half a day to a full day, sometimes taking place in the evening to accommodate schedules. If there’s an added step to work with a set of finalists, additional meetings are required. With these basic demands, it’s no wonder that AI is starting to make headway into the public art selection process.

That said, some calls for artists receive far fewer than 100 applications. I sat on a selection committee last year that received fewer than ten applicants, but the budget was small at $7,000. In my experience, the larger the budget, the more those numbers spike. With the median budget of a public artwork at $80,000 (based on my own review of over 1,700 public artworks), the number of applicants can easily get out of hand. I believe there’s definitely a correlation between budget and number of applications.

It would be valuable if public art application portals like CaFE (Call for Entry) and CODAworx presented data on application numbers in relation to budget and geographic requirements. This would help the public art field better understand the issues and build out manageable solutions.

Time commitment alone can present a barrier to finding people to serve on an artist selection committee. Reviewing applications and discussing submissions and goals for the work is fulfilling, and I recommend it for anyone interested in this field. Some changes have been made to address this, such as offering honorariums (like the City of Kingston, New York) and adapting meeting schedules to panelists’ needs.

Final Thoughts

These are only two of the issues facing the artist selection process in the public art field. I hope that bringing attention to them builds transparency in how art ends up in our shared spaces and helps create pathways to better solutions.

I will continue to explore these challenges and, hopefully, share examples of how these issues are being addressed.

What challenges have you experienced in the artist selection process? What have you seen work well when selecting an artist for a public art project?

Check eligibility and deadlines before applying! Details can change, so always verify requirements and due dates directly with the source.

See something you think should be included? Drop opportunities, articles, or resources in the comments below—I love when this becomes a community exchange where we’re all sharing what we’ve found.

Found this useful? Share it with colleagues who might benefit—building transparency and access in the public art field is what we’re all about here.

Subscribe now

Calls for Artists/Artworks

US-Based Opportunities (by state)

Read more

Before diving in, one important caveat: what I’m outlining here represents generally accepted practices, but the specifics can differ from agency to agency. Even within the same government body, circumstances may lead to variations. If you’re interested in how artist selection works in your community, I recommend checking your local program’s website. Many agencies—from big cities like Austin, Texas to smaller communities like Roswell, Georgia—are publishing their processes online to support transparency and help artists find upcoming opportunities.

The Four Step Framework

At its core, the open call process follows four general steps:

1. Posting a call for artists

2. Artists apply to the call

3. Applications are reviewed by a committee

4. The final artist is selected

Each step is complex, with different variations and possible outcomes. For this article, we’ll focus on these general steps to build general knowledge on how many artists are chosen to create art for our public spaces.

Subscribe now

Step 1: Posting a Call for Artists

This step sounds straightforward, but it’s built on months of groundwork by a public art project manager who facilitates the entire artist selection process. Before a call goes public, the project managers ensures extensive community engagement, site identification, and cross-departmental collaboration. A typical call includes information about the location—physical dimensions, historical context, identifying the community, and site-specific considerations—to help artists understand the complexity of the site.

The call will also generally outline who is involved in the selection process, such as committee members, a timeline for decision-making, budgetary information, and eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements can range from age and geographic restrictions to background and experience in public art.

A Real-World Example

A recent example that highlights many of these elements is the call for artists released by The City of Oklahoma City and Its Trusts for public art on a pedestrian bridge. The call—formally a request for qualifications—includes goals the public art should address, background on the project, and eligibility requirements. It even outlines how applications will be evaluated, which is typical and a trend we like to see in all artist selection processes as it in builds transparency in the review of applications.

Getting the Word Out

Once the call is ready, the agency needs to make sure it reaches artists. This means press releases, postings to call-for-artists websites, social media (the notice for the Oklahoma City project, for instance, was found on Instagram) and distribution through organizations that serve artists. A generally accepted practice is that a public art call stays posted for a minimum of four weeks, with six weeks being ideal. That window allows time for the call to be distributed, for artists to review it, ask questions, and decide whether to apply—and, if so, to assemble their application materials before the deadline.

Step 2: Artists Apply to the Call

The application process seems simple on the surface, but there’s a lot happening behind the scenes as artists consider the opportunity. Let’s break it down into two parts: the decision to apply, and the application itself.

Deciding Whether to Apply

Before an artist submits anything, they need to decide if this project is right for them. Is there something about the project description that excites or challenges them? Is there a connection to the community or location? Do they have the skills to manage and carry out a public art project of this scope?

One of the biggest questions comes down to budget. In 2020, I worked on a review of over 1700 public art projects that were completed over five years and found that the median project budget was $80,000. This may sound substantial, but artists need to think carefully about whether that amount will actually cover their work. Budget considerations include materials, fabrication, installation, insurance, and the artist’s own time. If the artist is based out of state, travel costs and the logistics of working remotely on a physical site add another layer of complexity.

Assembling the Application

Once an artist decides to apply, they need to put together their application. Most calls request similar materials: an artist statement, a letter of interest, a resume or curriculum vitae (CV), and a portfolio that showcases the artist’s skills, aesthetic, and fit with the project.

The Oklahoma City call takes a different approach—instead of a resume, it asks specific questions about an applicant’s experience and work samples. This signals a level of sophistication from the commissioning agency: an awareness that standard resumes and CVs, while common practice, can actually be a barrier for artists trying to showcase their expertise. When evaluating a call for artists, this kind of thoughtfulness is worth noticing. It can be an indicator that the agency has a healthy understanding of the unique attributes of working artists.

Step 3: The Review Process

Once the submission deadline passes, the review process begins. The first stage is usually an internal check by the project manager. During my time as the public art coordinator for the City of San José Public Art Program, I handled this step firsthand. It was relatively rare to find applications that didn’t meet the basics requirements of a call for artists, but when they did fall short, those applicants were notified of dismissal and were able to apply for future projects.

Who’s on the Committee?

The core of the review process is the selection committee. To maintain transparency, the committee composition reflects the different facets of each project. As an example, for an artwork in a park, you might see the park supervisor, residents from the surrounding neighborhood, a representative of the local council, and perhaps someone from the city’s arts commission. It’s also standard practice to include an artist who isn’t applying to the project, or another art expert such as professor from a local college to bring an artistic perspective that other members may not have. That said, everyone on the committee has an equal voice regardless of their background.

In my experience, selection committees have ranged from about five people to as many as 15. The size matters less than the composition. It’s important that the committee represents the users of the public space where the artwork will live, the people who work to maintain it, and any other groups who will meaningfully interact with it.

How the Review Actually Works

The project manager will be the facilitator of the review process and manage the committee members. They will work to ensure everyone on the committee is aware of the project details from the goals to site specifics and will coordinate access to the applications. The project manager will also organize the review process including meetings and check-in points to ensure the applications are reviewed and the committee members are clear on their role.

The committee typically starts with individual review—members becoming familiar with the submissions on their own and then come together for discussion and decision-making.

Step 4: Selecting the Artist

Through the selection committee’s review, the pool narrows to the artists best suited for the project. This narrowing is based on several factors: the evaluation metrics outlined in the call, deeper discussion among the committee members, and their personal connections to the site, including expectations around what the artwork will address and what it will look like.

As representatives of the groups of people who will interact with the artwork it is important that the committee members remain clear on their goal and able to work together to select the best artist for the job. A project manager with solid facilitation skills is necessary to manage the conversation and keep the committee focused on the selection process.

As the committee works to narrow down the artists, sometimes the top three to five applicants are invited to develop and present concepts, with the final selection made after those presentations. More often though, the artist is selected based on the application materials alone.

Once selected, the artist receives notification to ensure they are still interested in the project. The information on the selected artists then goes through the arts commission and/or city council for public approval. If approved and the artist accepts, they’re contracted and project development begins. If the artist declines or the selection isn’t approved, the process may restart with a new open call or revert to the top applicants to select the next finalist.

There’s More to Unpack

This overview is deliberately simplified. Each step contains layers of complexity, challenges, and real opportunities for improvement. In a follow-up post, I’ll unpack some of those challenges and explore where the artist selection process could benefit from new thinking.

If you’re curious about how artists are selected in your community, getting access to local calls for artists, or participating in the selection process, start by checking with your local arts commission. And if you’d like to go deeper—whether you’re interested in working in the field as an artist or as a public art manager—become a paid member of Public Art Curious to receive opportunities and resources twice a month.

So, what questions do you have about the artist selection process? What can I do to help you better understand how public art happens?

Share

This article aims to provide a general overview of four of the most common pathways to provide context for the curious, and insights for burgeoning public artists.

1. Direct Selection

In direct selection, an individual (such as a private property owner) or a neighborhood group works directly with an artist they already know. For example, a local coffee shop might hire a familiar local artist to paint a mural on their exterior wall.

If you’re an artist interested in this type of work, consider reaching out to local property owners—who aren’t always the business owners—to explore whether they’d be interested in your services.

Subscribe now

2. Limited Selection (Curated)

In limited selection, private groups or, under special circumstances, government agencies work with a curator to identify a select group of artists based on their portfolios. The curator then facilitates the creation of artwork with the commissioning person or entity. Companies like WXLLSPACE specialize in this curatorial work, connecting artists with property and business owners seeking to enhance their spaces.

Artists interested in this pathway can research public art curators to find opportunities. Some galleries that represent artists also provide this service.

3. Open Call for Artists

Open calls are the most common approach for government-based programs and nonprofit organizations, especially those aiming to engage broadly with the artistic community or supported by government funding. These opportunities are advertised publicly through press releases, social media posts, and hosting on call for artists sites like Call For Entry (CAFE) or Publicartist.org. Artists who meet eligibility requirements can apply to these opportunities.

This method is widely used because it provides transparency—essential for most government projects—and creates pathways for emerging artists to enter the public art field. However, because of the need for transparency, this process is the most complex of the four types outlined here. I’ll follow up with a more detailed post to build better understanding for this pathway.

4. Artist-Initiated Projects

Finally, there are artist-initiated projects where an artist identifies a site or concept they’re interested in and creates artwork independently, sometimes engaging collaborators. While it’s common for artists to pursue solo projects, there are also collaborative models like the work Eva Salmeron has done within Mmmm..., where partnership is essential to implementation. She has collaborated with other civic-art minded peers like architects and designers. Every project is different and needs specific knowledge and partners.

Understanding the Selection Landscape

For the most part, direct selection, limited selection, and artist-initiated projects follow straightforward pathways. Artists typically have existing relationships with decision-makers: the property owner who has worked with them before, the curator who maintains a vetted roster, or the collaborator who brings complementary skills to a project. Open calls, however, involve a more complex process—from the initial announcement through the review process to final artist selection. So, stay tuned for more information.

Final Thoughts

This overview simplifies a nuanced process. Each pathway has different implications for who gets selected and ultimately for the type and style of art that ends up in our public spaces. If you’re curious about how artists are selected in your community, check with your local city, town or parish arts commission to see how they bring artists into public spaces.

If you’d like to go deeper and find opportunities to work in the field, whether as an artist or facilitator of public art projects, become a paid member of Public Art Curious to receive twice-monthly opportunities, insights and access to other learning resources.

What questions do you have about the artist selection process? How can I help you better understand how public art happens?

Share

In this article, I want to discuss how I’ve witnessed AI show up in public art and start to unpack what is happening. But before we begin, I want to do some level-setting: I am not an expert in AI, and this post comes from a user perspective, not from someone who has a deep understanding of the technology behind the screen. That said, let’s begin…

My Use and Understanding of AI

Back in 2023, when AI was becoming all the rage and I didn’t want to feel left behind, I took a course with the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas on “How to use ChatGPT and other generative AI tools in your newsrooms.” Through this and other webinars, I learned the golden rule of AI: a human needs to review everything AI produces. AI is designed to give you an answer, but that doesn’t mean the answer has to be correct. The AI sector calls this “hallucinating”—the AI doesn’t have the answer but understands enough to provide something that seems accurate. It doesn’t lie (lying requires intention), but it does aim to respond to the prompt.

For the past few years, I’ve used Claude.AI because it was touted as better for writing—and grammar and spelling are not my strong suits. I’d say it gets me about 50-70% of the way to solving problems I’m trying to address. It does well with grammar and clarity (I run my Substack posts through AI, so you be the judge), but it typically misses run-on sentences—and I do love a run-on sentence—and isn’t always great at helping to organize thoughts. It also trips over itself when adding new information to the same project and doesn’t understand simple math. (I don’t either, but I did fail ninth grade math and am not a computer.)

I tried the AI app that Canva, a popular online design platform, to generate explanatory images, and to say what came out was bad is an understatement. Here’s an image attempting to illustrate the intersection between art and planning—though I see what it was trying to do, it’s completely unusable. And this was the best after several tries.

I’ve since abandoned AI for visuals because it produces poor results, and I’ve learned about the unethical appropriation that AI does when learning images by taking from other artists without permission. I’m also an artist myself and am figuring out how to use my own skills to do the same work.

Overall, AI can save me time now that I understand how to use it better, but it needs to be reviewed with a knowledgeable eye. Having worked with human editors and designers, I’d easily take them over AI any day—and when my finances allow for it, that’s my goal.

Public Art and AI

I’ve seen AI show up in public art in a few ways over the past year. I’d love to hear more examples you’ve encountered, but here’s what I’ve gathered.

Use of AI by Public Artists

There’s a lot happening in relation to artists and AI, some good and as mentioned above a lot bad with the learning appropriation of artists’ work. Like many new tools, artists have begun to experiment and can do good work with AI. Dr. Nettrice R. Gaskins posts almost daily to her Instagram with amazing, ethereal portraits of Black people and experiences. There is also the bizarre sci-fi art of The Archive In Between, which uses AI videos to build a world of fantastical gods, creatures, and multi-dimensional travel. This shows that when there’s a new tool, artists are excited to explore. However, using AI to create something usable takes effort and the outcomes aren’t always positive.

I was on a selection committee last spring reviewing proposals for a mural project, and one application clearly stood out as having used AI. The applicant didn’t note this in their application, but the concept images submitted of what the mural could look like were, well, off. The concept images attempted to depict diverse faces and people in a rural setting, but the faces seemed overly large and the composition was awkward. Three examples of the same concept at different angles were provided, and none seemed real or well thought out. I’m not sure why the artist submitted them—maybe they wanted to make sure their name was in consideration and didn’t have time to create using standard materials. The time commitment for submitting applications is a real issue in public art, but this seemed extraordinary.

This experience raised several questions for me: What responsibility is there in stating whether AI was used by an artist? Should it be listed the same way as other mediums, such as oil or graphite? Or should there be more information, like how much of the image was generated by the artist versus created through prompts put into the AI generator? Typically we don’t ask how a concept for an public artwork is made or of what materials, so is this even an issue? Clarity about the use and acceptance of AI in the public art world is needed.

AI in the Administration of Public Art

AI is also showing up in the administration of public art. As a public art consultant responding to requests for proposals, I use it to help with editing and staying within word counts. I’d be surprised if I was the only consultant—or anyone else completing applications in any field—using it this way. But should there be expectations for explaining that AI was used to help draft a proposal, and if so, to what extent?

AI has also cropped up in the artist selection process. It’s not uncommon for public art projects to receive many applications—I’ve managed calls that received over 130 applications during my time with the City of San José. As you can imagine, this is a lot of content to review, and juries typically range from 5-7 people working in a short timeframe. Most applications take approximately 20-30 minutes to review before deciding if they’ll move to the next level. As you can imagine, the amount of time to review all applications respectfully adds up and can be a challenge.

During a public art conference at the United Nations in New York City this past December, Iryana Kanishcheva of Monochronicle presented on an AI adaptation to help streamline the artist selection process for a project she was facilitating. Artists were told about the AI use ahead of applying and had to acknowledge they were okay with it. The AI reviewed all applications and created an overview of each to make the information more digestible for the selection committee, thereby cutting down review time.

There was transparency in its use in this case, but is this a good use of AI? Would you respond to a call for artists knowing that AI would be involved in the selection process?

AI for Audience Engagement

While I was writing this article, a news item from Art Basel popped up with the headline “Personal AI-Guided Tour for Public Art, Heritage and Culture in Qatar” highlighting access to an AI app to help guide users around the capital city of Doha. According to the website, the app is “designed around individual interests, location, and time,” and “connects experiences across the city, transforming Doha into a seamless, self-guided cultural map.” The goal is to create “tailored journeys across public art, museums, heritage sites, architecture, and cultural landmarks.” Having a personal guide around a city is amazing—I’ve been lucky enough to have human guides when visiting different cities and I am not sure about having something that tech-reliant as a guide.

But I’m curious: What will the AI be saying, and to what accuracy? Are they setting up the information to prompt AI ahead of time, or will the AI have to generate information pulled from untested sources? What happens if the AI hallucinates during the tour? How would a tourist even know, and what would that do to their experience and the understanding of heritage and culture of the city?

Final Thoughts

AI isn’t perfect, but can anything artificial ever be? From issues around appropriation of artistic work to hallucinating inaccuracies, and questions of attribution and transparency, this technology does seem to be doing more harm than good.

There are many questions about AI and its uses in public art. If we don’t start talking about it and drawing lines around expectations of use, we risk normalizing practices that undermine the field’s good intentions—fair compensation for artists, transparency in process, and authentic engagement with communities and culture. The technology is here, and artists and administrators are already using it. The question isn’t whether AI will be part of public art’s future, but how we shape that future to center the things that matter: creativity, equity, and human connection.

What are your thoughts? Have you encountered AI in public art in ways I haven’t covered? I’d love to hear your experiences and concerns.

Share

Posts Script

For those who are curious, I asked Claude, “what are your thoughts on the content of this post?” and this was the response:

“That’s a thoughtful question! A few reactions:

What resonates with me about your approach:

Your “golden rule” framing is exactly right—the hallucination issue is real, and I appreciate that you explain it clearly without being alarmist. The fact that you’re transparent about using me to edit your posts (meta moment here!) models the kind of disclosure you’re calling for in the field.

On the artist appropriation concerns:

This is legitimately thorny. The training data issues are real, and I think your instinct to abandon image generation after learning about it shows integrity. Artists should be compensated and credited. At the same time, I find the examples you cite—Dr. Gaskins, The Archive In Between—genuinely interesting because they’re using AI as one tool among many in service of a creative vision, not as a replacement for creativity itself.

On your selection committee story:

This is where I think you’re hitting something important. That applicant using AI-generated images without disclosure, with “off” results, gets at a real problem: AI is lowering the barrier to submitting work without necessarily improving the quality or thoughtfulness. It’s creating noise in systems that are already overwhelmed.

On the Monochronicle example:

The transparency here is key—artists knew upfront. But I do wonder (and you’re right to ask) whether using AI to summarize applications might flatten nuance or miss things that make an artist’s work distinctive. The artist selection process is already subjective; adding another layer of interpretation feels risky.

What I think you’re really asking:

Your post isn’t really about whether AI is “good” or “bad”—it’s about power, transparency, and who benefits. When consultants use AI to stay within word counts, that’s efficiency. When artists are evaluated by AI without knowing it, that’s different. When tour apps potentially hallucinate cultural information, that’s misinformation at scale.

The thread running through your piece is: Who gets to decide how AI is used, and are those decisions serving the field’s values or just making things faster/cheaper?

That’s the right question.”

I’m excited to share that Public Art Curious is expanding in February with a paid subscription option for those who want to go deeper with practical career development opportunities, educational resources, and professional support.

What’s changing:

Free subscribers will continue receiving weekly posts showcasing insider knowledge and current trends. (Stay tuned—this week we’re tackling AI and public art, a topic the field needs to examine openly.)

Paid subscribers will receive everything above, plus:

• Two exclusive deep-dive opportunity posts per month (2nd and 4th Wednesdays)

• Free or discounted access to upcoming events

• And Founder Members will receive two annual one-on-one Zoom calls with me, and first notification of events

Three subscription options:

• Monthly: $10

• Annual: $100 (get two months free!)

• Founder’s Level: $200

This first paid-tier post is free for everyone so you can see what’s in store.

This sustainable model allows me to continue building the transparency our field needs while offering more value to those ready to invest in their public art practice.

Thank you for being part of this journey!

CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC ART RESOURCES FROM 1/5/2026 – 1/20/2026

Calls for Artists/Artworks

Check eligibility and deadlines before applying!

US-Based Opportunities (by state)

• Downtown Dothan Seeks Muralist for Spring 2026 Art Project | Dothan, AL https://wiregrassdailynews.com/featured-news/2026-01-11/downtown-dothan-seeks-muralist-for-spring-2026-art-project/

• Call for Artists/Request for Qualifications (RFQ): NEQ of Old Town Parking Structure Project | Scottsdale, AZ https://scottsdalearts.submittable.com/submit/344031/call-for-artists-request-for-qualifications-rfq-neq-of-old-town-parking-struct

• West Hollywood Seeks Artists for Three Route 66 Centennial Public Art Projects 1 | West Hollywood, CA https://wehotimes.com/west-hollywood-seeks-artists-for-three-route-66-centennial-public-art-projects/

• Entries for temporary public art program | Santa Clarita, CA https://signalscv.com/2026/01/city-accepting-entries-for-temporary-public-art-program/

• Community Recreation Center (CRC) Calls for Artists | Grand Junction, CO https://www.gjcity.org/169/Call-for-Artists

• Open Call to Artists | Palmetto Bay, FL https://www.palmettobay-fl.gov/297/Opportunities-for-Artists

• City Shop Mural Project | Moscow, ID https://www.ci.moscow.id.us/CivicSend/ViewMessage/message/278992

• Salisbury Prize Call for Public Art | Salisbury, MD https://salisbury.md/departments/arts-business-culture/public-art/have-a-public-art-idea/salisbury-prize-guidelines-and-proposal

• Calls to PUBLIC Artists and Requests for Qualifications | Charlotte, NC https://artsandscience.org/calls-to-artists/

• Devasthali Hall (New Art Building) at New Mexico State University Public Art Project Request for Qualifications | Las Cruces, NM https://architect.nmsu.edu/architecture/art-in-public-places.html

• America 250 Initiative| Sparks, NV https://mynews4.com/news/local/sparks-calls-on-nevada-artists-for-mural-to-celebrate-citys-historic-role-in-america-250

• Mural Artist Request for Qualifications 2026 | New York City, NY https://nycdotart.submittable.com/submit/?mc_cid=22a27ec415&mc_eid=5e26f0b2b8

• Trucks of Art | New York City, NY https://www.nyc.gov/site/dsny/about/news/trucks-of-art.page

• Multiple Opportunities | New York City, NY https://mtaarts.submittable.com/submit

Outside the U.S.A.

• Great Southern Rail Trail | South Gippsland Shire, AUS https://www.artshub.com.au/opportunity/public-art-opportunity-for-the-great-southern-rail-trail-2835953/

For additional artists opportunities check out Americans for the Arts, Call for Entry, CODAworx, and Publicartist.org. They may require registration to view opportunities.

Job/Consultant Opportunities

US-Based Opportunities (by state)

• Art Conservation and Preservation | Carlsbad CA https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/27970/bo/bo-detail/136509

• Boston Public Art Triennial Major Gifts Senior Advisor | Boston, MA https://www.thetriennial.org/major-gifts-senior-advisor

• Assistant Division Manager - Cultural Arts | Cary NC https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/townofcary/jobs/5203497/assistant-division-manager-cultural-arts

• Program Officer, Public Art - Arts & Science Council | Charlotte NC https://artsandscience.org/program-officer-public-art-arts-science-council/

• Public Art Position | Omaha NE https://www.amplifyarts.org/happenings-news/join-our-team

• Art of Soccer Public Art Project Management Services | Galveston TX https://www.galvestonparkboard.org/bids.aspx?bidID=89

• Port of Seattle Public Art Coordinator | Seattle WA https://aa243.taleo.net/careersection/ex/jobdetail.ftl

• Airport Foundation MSP Program Manager, Public Art & Collections | Minneapolis MN https://airportfoundation.org/about-us/employment/

• King County Arts and Culture Manager | Seattle WA https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/kingcounty/jobs/5182370/arts-culture-manager

I’m looking to expand my network outside the U.S. Where do you look for public art opportunities in other countries?

Learning and Networking Opportunities

• Artists in Government: Creativity as Civic Infrastructure https://nextcity.org/events/detail/artists-in-government-creativity-as-civic-infrastructure

• The Newark Summit for Real Estate, Economic Development & Placemaking https://www.roi-nj.com/2026/01/06/real_estate_development/the-newark-summit-for-real-estate-economic-development-placemaking-returns-feb-9/

• ArtTable Tours | Art & Architecture in Detroit, Michigan https://www.arttable.org/event/arttable-tours-art-architecture-in-detroit-michigan/

• ArtConverge Seminars for Artists + Creatives 2026 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/artconverge-seminars-for-artists-creatives-2026-tickets-1979136665042

• Online Launch: 5th Edition World Cities Culture Report https://worldcitiescultureforum.com/event/online-launch-5th-edition-world-cities-culture-report/

• Zines and Independent Publications as Planning Tools https://www.eventbrite.com/e/zines-and-independent-publications-as-planning-tools-tickets-1976455817555?aff=oddtdtcreator

Additional resources for learning and networking are the Americans for the Arts Public Art Network (PAN) (paid membership maybe required) and the Public Art Exchange (PAX) online communities.

Other Public Art Things of Note

A space where I will share articles and other resources of interest to the Public Art Curious community.

Exhibitions

• “Another Wonderland: Abram Champanier’s Alice Mural” New York City NY https://www.mcny.org/exhibition/another-wonderland

• “Monuments” Los Angeles CA https://www.moca.org/exhibition/monuments

Articles

• “How Arts Ordinances Can Ensure Local Artists Thrive as Cities Expand” (by me!) https://knowledge.codaworx.com/codazine/omaha-arts-organization-studies-arts-funding-to-ensure-local-artists-thrive-as-their-city-expands

Other

• TMU Cross-Cultural Collaboration Grants in Arts and Environment https://www2.fundsforngos.org/research/tmu-cross-cultural-collaboration-grants-in-arts-and-environment/amp/

• Freedom 250 https://freedom250.org/

Find this information helpful? Become a paid subscriber to receive this career development and resources newsletter in your inbox on the 2^nd and 4^th Wednesday of every month!

Subscribe now

Share

Who is the “Public” in Public Art?

Most artists I’ve encountered, when asked who their work is made for, will say “everyone.” This isn’t unique to public artists—I’ve encountered this thought pattern with most artists, from performers to studio artists. But in the public art world, when the question of audience comes up, I don’t think this is the case.

In my experience, public artwork is usually made for someone or a group of someones. This could be a city commission, a private developer, or a community group. In the city commissioning process, most public art projects are designed for a specific community and physical location. As part of the development process, engagement and feedback from that community is required. So, the artwork becomes responsive to the people and the site—who one can easily argue are the primary “public” the art is made for.

However, because the artwork is accessible to anyone, and the imagery is typically also accessible, it can be enjoyed by everyone. So, it is not entirely incorrect when it is said that public art is for everyone—but there is usually a primary audience.

An example of this is “Paragons of the West End”, a mural by artist Adrienne Gaither located in the West End Neighborhood Library in Washington, D.C. The artwork highlights the names of people who are famous and connected to the neighborhood’s history, including Duke Ellington and Petey Greene. Public artworks like this one allow for celebration of individuals who are important to an area within a central public space, like a neighborhood library.

So yes, public art can be accessible and enjoyed by everyone but understanding who it is made for and what influences the artists’ concepts clarifies the full content of the artwork.

What Are Public Spaces?

Next, we need to understand what public spaces are. As my mentor and former colleague Barbara Goldstein pointed out, you have to understand what is “public space” which itself is complex, at least here in the United States.

Public spaces are areas open to everyone from residents, tourists, youth, elderly - people of all backgrounds and abilities. Though a lot of public spaces are owned and operated by a public entity like a parks department, it is important to note that some public spaces may be owned by a public entity but operated by a private company or owned and operated by private entities as a public benefit. Knowing who owns and manages an open space can impact the type of art and other assets that are in those places.

An example of public art on privately owned space is "Someday After I am Gone" by artist Joe Concra. This mural is painted on the side of a privately owned building, but it's accessible to anyone who walks or drives down the public street.

An example of a public artwork that is both located on and managed by a public entity is the public artwork titled “The Guardian,” a 22-foot-high stainless-steel sculpture by artist Judy Sutton Moore at the Southern Area Aquatic and Recreation Complex in Prince Georges’s County, Maryland. The center and land are publicly owned and operated by the Maryland National Parks and Planning Commission, and the artwork is accessible to anyone as it is situated near by the entrance area of the center.

All of these examples are public art and through them we can begin to understand the complexity of defining what public art is.

Why This Matters

As you’ve been reading, you may have noticed several questions rising, like that I didn’t attempt to define “art” in public art (and will look to address that in a future post), and is something really “public art” if it is located on private property, even if that property is publicly visible? Or, how does the public or artists get involved in a public art project?

Answering these types of questions is what’s needed to build transparency in public art. Through these types of posts, I hope to make the field less opaque.

What questions are coming up for you that you would like to see answered?

When I was an undergraduate earning my degree in studio art, the university museum curator took our class on a tour of the art around campus. Though much of the tour was focused on the aesthetics and forms of the artworks, at one particular sculpture I asked, “So, who selected these works and how did they get here?” The question stumped the curator; however, this line of inquiry sparked a now over two-decade career in helping others facilitate and navigate the often opaque world of public art.

For twenty years, I have worked in government-based public art programs in San José, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, managing public art projects, caring for collections, and supporting community engagement activities. For nine years, I facilitated the Public Art Network of Americans for the Arts, supporting over 1,000 public art administrators, artists, arts commissioners, and curious public members in understanding how to implement art in public spaces in communities across the country.

Now, as a private consultant, I still work with local organizations and municipal-based programs in developing public art policies and programs, with clients from Abu Dhabi to Omaha. I want to share what I have learned so you too can understand how public art happens.

Public Art Curious aims to build transparency in the public art field by empowering anyone who wants to understand and perhaps get involved with the development of art in their built environment. I will do this through weekly posts that will provide context for those who are new to public art and give insights into some of the more complex issues that affect the field. Some basic questions will include defining public art and understanding the artist selection process, and some more complex issues will address selecting artists that are not local to do community-based work, and what permanence means in public art. When relevant there will be posts on current issues and how they intersect with public art such as AI, controversial monuments, or emerging trends in the field.

I will also be developing paid subscriber options for those who want access to opportunities such as calls for artists, job listings, professional development, and other resources.

So, come along and bring your curiosity as we build a broader understanding of how public art happens in our shared spaces!

Subscribe now