I was invited several weeks ago, to be a part of a fundraiser for a relatively new organization, the Arvada Vitality Alliance, or AVA for short. The AVA is dedicated to the furtherance of public art displays in Arvada Colorado. My first thought was "why would something like this be necessary?" I was certain that more than enough public funding would be available for any art installations around the city, much like so many other cities across the Front Range. But it turns out that's really not the case.
Public art is woefully underfunded in Colorado, as it has been for many decades. No matter which party is in power, expenditures for what are seen as frivolities either don't make it through the political process at all, or when they do, the funding has been severely restricted. This is short sighted for a couple of reasons.
First, public art creates an identity for the area. One has only to look at Paris, Egypt, New York, St. Louis, or a hundred other cities whose identities are forged specifically by their public art installations. I'm not talking about museums. The pieces you have in mind when thinking of these cities are giant, imposing, memorable artworks that will remain in your mind for the rest of your life. And when you do think of those pieces, you'll invariably think of the cities they live in. Having your home city spring into people's minds as they move through their lives is not only good for tourism, it's good for the cultural legacy of the city in general, helping ensure that successive generations stick around to continue the work their parents started.
Second is the return on investment, or ROI. The City of San Diego for example, found that in fiscal year 2011, for their $7 million investment in public arts, there was a resulting income increase of $170 million in outside spending, with two million visitors arriving specifically as a result of the Arts. It also found that 6,000 jobs were created as a result, and that out-of-town visitors who came for Arts events stayed an average of two days longer than the typical tourist, and spent twice as much.
This is pretty serious money, though blogger Smart City Memphis would disagree. SCM believes that talking about investment return shouldn't be on the table when Conservatives are in power. I can't imagine why that would be the case, and SCM doesn't offer any alternatives. Just that ROI shouldn't be brought up. To the contrary, ROI is precisely what Conservatives are begging to hear about. In a Governmental context, they don't care about aesthetics. Conservative dogma doesn't allow for that. It only responds to specific reasoning, which proponents of public funding (most often Liberals) have historically been weak at presenting. The public benefit of a public project needs to have a specific reason to be funded. Fortunately, Public Arts has all the firepower needed for such a discussion. Please be clear: I'm not attempting to create a split between Conservatives and Liberals, nor am I trying to promote one agenda over the other. Rather, I'm attempting to bring the two sides together for a common goal.
Barring the public funding aspect of the Arts, private donations are often brought in to supplement. The AVA exists for precisely that reason. Friday's event was a gala get-together and art auction presented in the Lamar Street Center space, often called Steel Affairs. This event, like most others at Lamar, had an automotive theme, showing off the cars of board members, active community members, and Larry Winkler, owner of of the center. The event was a great success, resulting in art sales, donations, and a wonderful time had by all who attended. Some of the rarest cars in the world were there to see, and attendees wove around them during the night.
One facet of Conservative mindset would be that this is the way to fund all public art - by private donation. This mindset may exist because it's believed that the donors somehow reap the benefits of their donation by getting something back in the form of ROI. They don't. They're donating because they believe in the cause, and for that reason alone, since they receive literally nothing back for their money. They're so sold on the concept of public art that they're willing to give their money away with no chance of profit, rather than see less public art installed.
They're stepping in, at their own expense, to try to supplement inadequate funding for something that benefits us all. True Conservatives and true Liberals alike know that the benefits of public Arts funding are tangible, and necessary for a thriving society. Let's all work together to achieve a goal that brings us all so many benefits.
My thanks go out to Ereka O'Hara for having me be a part of it. I hope to see you all there next year!
