EVALUATION OF PUBLIC ART PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER THE LOTTERY

FINAL REPORT TO THE ARTS COUNCIL OF ENGLAND

December 1999

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES	5
1	SUMMARY	6
1.1	Objectives	6
1.2	Key Findings	6
2	INTRODUCTION	8
2.1	Objectives	8
2.2	Structure of the Report	8
2.3	Problems Experienced In Developing Public Art Under the Lottery	8
3	ANALYSIS OF FILE RECORDS AND TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS	10
3.1	Introduction	10
3.2	Presence or Absence of Public Art	10
3.3	Character of Public Art	12
3.4	The Lottery Process	19
3.5	Consultation and Access	21
3.6	Selecting and Briefing Artists	23
3.7	Impact	24
4	SURVEY OF ARTISTS	27
4.1	Introduction	27
4.2	Art Produced	27
4.3	Appointment	27
4.4	Relationship with the Team	28
4.5	Terms of Engagement	28
4.6	Character of the Artists	27
4.7	Good Practice	29
5	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	30
5.1	Re-stating Commitment to Commissioning	30
5.2	Clarifying the Definition of Commissioning	30
5.3	Protecting the Interests of the Artist	31
5.4	Ensuring High Standards in Commissioning	31
APPENDIX ONE: CASE STUDIES	33
1. Angel of the North, Gateshead	34
2. Artranspennine	36
3. Art in Healthcare, Leeds	38
4. DARTS, Doncaster	40
5. National Glass Centre, Sunderland	42
6. Emslie Horniman Pleasance Park, London	44
7. Leicester International Youth House	46
8. Chrysalis Arts, Gargrove, North Yorkshire	48
9. Henshaw’s Arts and Crafts Centre, Knaresborough	50
10. Leadenham Village Hall 2000	52
11. The Lux Centre, London	54
12. Quay Arts Centre, Isle of Wight	56
13. Sheepfolds, Cumbria	58
14. Pembrooke Street Estate Redevelopment, Plymouth	60
APPENDIXONE: PROJECTS IN THE TELEPHONE SURVEY	62
APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF ARTISTS	67
BIBLIOGRAPHY	69

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: File Information on Public Art (% of art type mentioned)	10
Table 2: Budget for public art given in the application	11
Table 3: Type of applicant	12
Table 4: Stage	12
Table 5: File inspection data on number of elements	13
Table 6: File inspection data on permanence	13
Table 7: Telephone survey on number of elements	14
Table 8: Telephone survey on permanence	14
Table 9: Nature of the public art	14
Table 10: Size distribution of commissioning expenditure	15
Table 11: Expenditure ratios by stage of public art	16
Table 12: Source of funding	17
Table 16: Problems in commissioning public art	19
Table 17: Nature of the problem	20
Table 18:Public Consultation	21
Table 19: Audience numbers in an average week	22
Table 20: Objectives for the public art	24
Table 21: Intervieweesof the success of the public art (%)	Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 22: Impact of the commission	26

1	SUMMARY
1.1	Objectives
The objectives of the project were two-fold:
•	To quantify the art works commissioned under the Capital Lottery Scheme of the Arts Council.
•	To contribute to the debate about good practice in commissioning within the context of the Lottery, and the development of new Lottery programmes.
1.2	Key Findings
This analysis provides a snapshot of 230 of the larger projects, 70% of which are still in progress (Survey; July 1998 - July 1999) The figures given in this study are sizeable but the full sum of commissioned art funded through the ACE Lottery will be considerably greater.
1.2.1	Commitment
Our telephone survey found only 5.5% of cases where public art was planned for but not delivered.In some cases, projects that had not intended to include commissions later abandoned their plans. Where no art was commissioned, or where there was no intention to commission, this is usually because the application was for a feasibility study or for design and development only. (This early sample largely pre-dates the 3 Stage application process, introduced by ACE in 1997). Looking only at completed projects, the discrepancy between budget figures and subsequent out-turn was only 6%.

Further evidence of commitment to commissioning is shown by the high percentage of projects with multiple elements and the predominance of permanent work.Less than 1% of projects said that their only objective for commissioning was to win Lottery funding.Most mentioned positive objectives of improving the building or widening arts audiences.
1.2.2	Scale
Leaving aside schemes with no public art element or for which a costed commissioning plan was not appropriate at this stage of their application, 80% of the remainder had a budget for commissioning.These applications are worth in aggregate £37 million.Our survey shows that nearly £29 million has already been spent on commissions levered through Lottery money.

The Visual Arts Department estimates that the total expenditure for this first Capital Programme at it’s close in 1999 will be close on £70 million. This figure does not account for the match funding for each project, and it should be noted that projects in this first capital programme will not be finally complete until 2004.

The distribution is skewed.Applications costing more than £0.5 million account for just over 8% of all schemes but around 74% of the budget. 
1.2.3	Character
54% of surveyed applications consisted of commissioned art within larger arts projects (so-called ‘percent-for-art’) and 6% consist of stand-alone works.Music or other non-Visual art commissions makes up a little over 17% of the proposals, with about a further quarter as yet uncommitted
1.2.4	Integration
We found clear evidence of projects attempting to integrate the commissioning element within the overall building scheme.Over half of all work consists of commissions that are part of the fabric, fittings or furniture of the building.
1.2.5	Process
Most projects claim not to have experienced problems in commissioning.In many cases this reflects the greater complexity and size of the building project as a whole.Nonetheless, there are several areas where further advice from ACE would be welcomed: in particular, definingboundaries, good practice, and public consultation.
1.2.6	Impact
90% of respondents felt that their project was a success.Over 90% of those whose projects were at or nearing completion said that the commissioning process had resulted in value for money. 

Over 95% of projects say that the art is accessible to a general audience.We have figures to account for audiences to public art of between 5.1 million and 6.6 million people in an average week. These figures cover fewer than 120 of the surveyed projects.Those omitted include some of the largest projects, for which the audience comprises all travellers on a particular route or part of a city. 

2	INTRODUCTION
2.1	Objectives
The objectives of the project were two-fold:
•	To quantify the art works commissioned under the Capital Lottery Scheme of the Arts Council 
•	To contribute to the debate about good practice in commissioning within the context of the Lottery, and the development of new Lottery programmes.
2.2	Structure of the Report
Chapter Three brings together the work from the file inspection and the telephone survey.Chapter Four summarises the survey of artists carried out in the case studies.Chapter Five presents conclusions and recommendations.Appendix One describes the case studies.Appendices Two to Four provide details on the methodology and reference lists. 
2.3	Problems Experienced In Developing Public Art Under the Lottery
Interviews were conducted with officers at ACE and at RAB level, as well as with representatives of the Public Art Forum and the public art and commissioning sectors. Interviewees expressed concerns about the following areas of ACE Lottery-Funded commissions:
•	Compliance.There was a concern that both grant recipients and the Arts Council itself might see public art as a “soft option”– a budget that can be reallocated when other parts of the building overspend.Interviewees suggested that the offer letter should restate that commissioning is a condition of approval.Reiterating the importance of public art to the build monitors was also seen as potentially useful.
•	Eligibility.Grant recipients often do not have a clear picture of what would be acceptable, for instance, the commissioning of representational commemorative art and purchase of existing work.
•	Integration.Interviewees gave examples where public art had been bolted on at a late stage in the project without any thought to its scale or context; a failure of ACE procedures to guide good and effective practice.
•	Project management.Interviewees felt that weak project management in the main build project could reduce the co-ordination of the work, especially where no-one in the grant recipient had specific responsibility for commissioning work.
•	Selection of artists.Arts organisations might not know how to find appropriate artists or what questions to ask them to test their applicability: anecdotal evidence suggestedlow awareness of AXIS (the Arts Council-funded database of artists and crafts people) and Photostore (the Crafts Council database).Some projects need further expert advice, and the Arts Council could help by making this an allowable expense in the Lottery project.
•	The brief.PAF expressed the view that projects often define public art in specific terms that limit the effective creative freedom of the artist.Abstract briefs, with a clear statement of functional requirements without predetermining the artistic vision, are more effective.
•	Contracting.Officers in Lottery Projects found that copyright and responsibility for maintenance are not always clear in advance of commissioning .ACE has produced guidelines but these are not issued automatically to grant recipients so the readership is relatively limited. This was seen as an issue for both ACE Officers and for consultant assessors and build monitors.

3	ANALYSIS OF FILE RECORDS AND TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
3.1	Introduction
The evaluation project ran from July 1998-July 1999. 
File information was compiled on 234 Lottery Projects.
200 of these were subsequently subject to telephone interview. 
3.2	Presence or Absence of Public Art
The majority of Lottery projects made some kind of commitment to commissioning in their application form as is required by criterion 7 of the application. Only 8% of those surveyed contained no budget or subsequent figure for public art, and in our survey only 18% say that there was no commissioning intended in their project.Explanation for the later lies in part in the occurrence of projects where the Lottery bid was in stages, with public art only relevant to the later, as yet undefined stages. 
Table 1: File Information on Public Art (% of art type mentioned)
	Was budget given?		
Project type	No 	Yes 	Total	
Visual art within larger arts project	6.9	46.5	53.5	
Music or other non Visual art	3.8	13.5	17.4	
Stand-alone Visual art	0.0	5.9	5.9	
Details undecided in application	2.1	8.3	10.4	
Not applicable/not given	8.7	1.0	9.7	
Other	1.4	1.7	3.1	
Total	22.9	76.9	100*	
*One caveat to this positive finding is that nearly 15% of projects are undecided or uncommunicative about their proposals for commissioning at the application stage.

Leaving aside the schemes where there was no public art element or for which a costed scheme was not appropriate at this stage of their application, the commissioning budgets of the 80% remaining surveyed were worth in aggregate £37 million.

The distribution of these is highly skewed.Applications with budgets greater than £0.5 million account for 8% of all schemes but nearly 74% of the total budget for commissioning.Applications with budgets of less than £15,000 account for nearly 27% of all schemes but only 1% of the total budget.
 
Table 2: Budget for public art given in the application

Budgets by band sizes 	% of total count	%of total value	
Over £5m	1.2	34.0	
£1m to £5m	3.5	27.9	
£0.5m to £1m	3.5	11.9	
£0.25m to £0.5m	5.2	8.6	
£100k to £0.25m	11.6	8.4	
£75k to £100k	3.5	1.4	
£50k to £75k	9.2	2.5	
£25k to £50k	17.3	2.7	
£15k to £25k	18.5	1.7	
£5k to £15k	20.8	0.9	
under £5,000	5.8	0.1	
Total size/value	173 projects	£37 million	

The telephone survey gave a figure of£28.8 million spent on commissions levered through Lottery money. This does not account for match funding, set in CP1 at 10% for schemes under £100,000 and 25% for those above. The Visual Arts Department estimates that the total expenditure for the larger schemes, including work in the pipeline, will be almost £70 million at the completion of all CP1 projects, circa 2004.

In over three quarters of the cases interviewed the actual outcome had been stated on the application.This includes cases where applicants did not make a clear commitment on file, saying, for example, that they would include artists on the design team but not actually commission a piece of work, or that artists would be included in the “decoration” but without a budget being set aside for this.

In most of the 20% of applications where no commissions were planned this is clearly stated on file.For many of these cases, the public art commission was part of a later stage of the project. Notwithstanding this clear intention, 6.5% of cases that had not intended to have public art had changed their minds by the time of the telephone survey.This reflects either a change in intention during the project, usually recorded on file, or was the result of having artists or artist/makers closely involved in the project.
3.3	Character of Public Art
File information (Table 1) shows that 66% of applications consist of public art within larger arts projects (‘percent-for-art’) and 8% consist of stand-alone works.Music or other non-visual art makes up a little over 21% of the proposals.

There is a considerable mix of applicants, with about one third being of more than a single type of arts project.The main applicants are performance arts venues, reflecting the predominance of these organisations funded under CP1.
Table 3: Type of applicant
	Number 	
Performance arts venue	100	
Performance arts venue,Visual arts centre	23	
Performance arts venue,Educational establishment	15	
Performance arts venue, Visual arts centre,Educational establishment	5	
Performance arts venue,other	5	
Visual arts centre	19	
Visual arts centre,Educational establishment	5	
Visual arts centre,Local authority	2	
Visual arts centreother	3	
Educational establishment	11	
Local authority	7	
Hospital	2	
Private company	2	
Other	31	
Blank	4	
Total	234	

Nearly 78% of projects interviewed were able to say what stage their commission had reached.Nearly a third of the sample were already completed or had completed elements.The mix of stages within a single application reflects the complexity of even the smaller art commissions.
Table 4: Stage
	Total %	
Completed	29.0	
Completed & in progress	1.0	
Completed & in planning	2.0	
Completed, in progress & in planning	0.5	
In progress	21.5	
In progress & in planning	0.5	
Planning stage	23.0	
Sum of total	77.5	

Many of the commissions are not yet finished simply because integral commissions are completed at the final stage of a larger building project.This carries implications for costs and timescales.Sometimes the art is a fully integrated element of the building, so that the respondent could not sensibly isolate its cost for survey or evaluation purposes.At the final stage, the commission can be susceptible to value engineering on the main construction work, and thus maybe affected in scale.

Looking in more detail at the kind of commissions proposed, findings are consistent between the file inspection and the subsequent telephone survey:
•	The majority of projects include several pieces rather than one element of commissioning.
•	The majority of projects are intended to be permanent rather than temporary.Some of the temporary work has a short life and is intended to be renewed at annual or similarly short periods.
Table 5: File inspection data on number of elements
Multiple	115	
Single	15	
Na	102	
Total 	232	
Table 6: File inspection data on permanence
Permanent	94	
Temporary	1	
Elements of both	19	
Na	118	
Total 	232	
Table 7: Telephone survey on number of elements
1 to 2	71	
3 to 5	41	
6 to 10	18	
11 to 20	4	
21 to 50	3	
51 to 100	1	
Many (exact figure unknown)	17	
Total	155	
Table 8: Telephone survey on permanence
Permanent	124	
Temporary	12	
Undecided/unknown	8	
Both	2	
Total	146	

Our telephone survey produced information on 629 individual pieces of commissioned new work.
Table 9: Nature of the public art
Building structure	37.6	
Building	9.9	
Fittings	7.1	
Lighting	7.1	
Gates	5.0	
Screen	5.0	
Windows	3.5	
Building finish	13.5	
Furniture	6.4	
Mural	5.0	
Landscape	1.4	
Decoration	0.7	
Art forms	48.9	
Visual	21.3	
Sculpture	19.2	
Film	2.8	
Multimedia	2.1	
Electronic	1.4	
Music	1.4	
Refurbishment of existing artifacts	0.7	

The commissions cover a wide range of art forms and are often an integral part of the larger building project.More than half the schemes are related to the structure or the finish of that building.Some are an integral part of building furniture, such as flooring, entranceways, staircase lighting, gates and security fences or windows, and internal glass screens.Others are discrete pieces, such as sculptures of light and glass.

The telephone survey obtained information on commissioning costs from 131 projects.Some figures are still provisional, since many of these projects are incomplete.Some figures are estimated or apportioned, since the costs of the public art have become integrated into other parts of the main project and are thus impractical to isolate. 

The survey shows that commissioning costs range from a few thousand pounds to several million.Distribution is skewed.The 73 surveyed schemes receiving less than £25,000 account for 2.6% of the expenditure while over 63% of the expenditure goes to four schemes each receiving over £1 million.

Almost half the schemes are complete or include completed commissioned art works but these account for only 11% of programme expenditure.Over half the expenditure is on work that is still in procurement.Nearly one third of the public art expenditure in this programme is still being planned.

Table 10: Size distribution of commissioning expenditure
Size band for public art commission	Number of schemescost 	As % of total commissioning cost	
Schemes up to £10,000	39	£204,884	0.7	
£10,001 to £25,000	32	£541,940	1.9	
£25,001 to £50,000	20	£728,800	2.6	
£50,001 to £100,000	14	£1,028,000	3.6	
£100,001 to £200,000	15	£2,271,014	8.0	
£200,001 to £500,000	7	£2,460,000	8.7	
£500,001 to £1,000,000	4	£3,190,000	11.2	
Over £1,000,000	4	£18,000,000	63.3	
Total	135	£28,424,638	100.0	

The ratio of commissioning expenditure relative to total budget varies considerably between the schemes.This is to be expected, since in some cases the public art is a very small feature of a large building project, and in others the whole project is a large-scale public art commission.However, the percentage of the total project given over to public art varies according to the stage the art is at.Completed schemes have taken much less of the total project budget than is estimated for those still in progress, and very much less than is forecast for those still in planning.
There are four possible explanations for these time-based changes in budget ratios:
•	Projects cut the size of their public art budget once the project is underway.The analysis above has already demonstrated that this is not the case.
•	The Arts Council might have tightened its procedures requiring commissioning during the Lottery project.
•	Projects are better at controlling the cost of public art than other building costs.The ratio falls, then, not because the public art element drops but because the total project cost rises.
•	There is a time lag in completing any commission.Completed projects have a smaller percentage of the budget committed to public art because they are smaller, and therefore the first to come to general completion.

The last two of these possible explanations seem particularly likely.The average size of commissions for projects in progress is some seven times larger than that for completed projects.
Table11: Expenditure ratios by stage of public art 
		Public art expenditure	
Stage of public artof cases *commission *	Average size	% of total for each stage	
Completed 	59	£3,367,298	£57,073	11.5	
In progress	42	£16,440,900	£391,450	56.3	
In planning	38	£9,418,440	£247,854	32.2	
*Some projects are at more than one stage, and have been counted for each stage mentioned.

Match funding for the public art element comes from a wide range and mix of sources.Fewer than 20% of schemes used solely Lottery grant funding for their commission.Most schemes are funded by a combination of Lottery and partnership and about 8% of schemes draw on other sources than these.

Table 12:Source of funding
Commission source	Total	
Both	57.2	
Both & Other	2.0	
Lottery	19.1	
Lottery & other	1.3	
Partnership	15.8	
Partnership & other	1.3	
Other	3.3	
All 	100.0	
(Number of cases surveyed: 152)
3.4	Geographical spread
We have the application budget for 171 projects, which can be analysed by Regional Arts Board.The dominance of London is undercut by the activity of the Northern Arts Board, a reflection of the Year of Visual Art 1996 held in the Northern Region, producing a disproportionately large number of funding-ready stand-alone schemes.
Table13: Distribution of projects by RAB
EAB	16	
EMAB	9	
LAB	55	
NAB	17	
NWAB	24	
SAB	23	
SEAB	16	
SWAB	24	
WMAB	29	
YHA	20	
More than one	1	
Grand Total	234	
Table 14: Budget application by RAB
	Count	Total Budget	Average budget	
LAB	30	£11,587,800	£386,260	
NAB	16	£8,437,662	£527,354	
WMAB	24	£4,565,542	£190,231	
YHAB	16	£3,451,000	£215,688	
SWAB	20	£1,296,082	£64,804	
SAB	18	£1,234,069	£68,559	
EAB	12	£523,977	£43,665	
NWAB	17	£429,738	£25,279	
SEAB	9	£153,320	£17,036	
EMAB	7	£135,000	£19,286	
More than one RAB	2	£4,883,260	£2,441,630	
Total	171	£36,697,450	£214,605	

Table15: Stage of public art by RAB
RAB	Completed	With some completed elements	In progress	In plan	
LAB	10	1	11	8	
SWAB	9	2	4	3	
SAB	6		3	7	
SEAB	6	1	3	5	
NAB	5		5	3	
NWAB	5		1	9	
WMAB	5		7	6	
YHA	5	1	4	3	
EAB	4		4	1	
EMAB	3	1	2		
All	58	6	44	45	

3.5	The Lottery Process
Nearly 55% of the sample said they experienced no problems in the commissioning.In many cases, the far greater scale of the main project meant that any commissioning problems paled into insignificance.Some were given support, usually via RABs, to take them through the process from Lottery application to preparing the brief and selecting the artists.
Table 16: Problems in commissioning public art
	%	
None	54.7	
Yes 	44.6	
DK	0.7	
(Based on 95 cases surveyed)

The main problems mentioned were: 
•	Logistical problems. Problems include tying artists down to time scales, finding that insufficient time had been allocated for commissioning, or that the site for the art had not been identified in the originalproject plan. Some interviewees commented that the decision-making on building projects necessitates compromise and consensus which can affect notions of artistic quality. When the main building project had to be fitted between performance seasons, all work became rushed, with costs rising to meet deadlines.In such cases commissions, as a descrete part of a wider project, ended up squeezed both in time and costs. The message is that public art needs to be better integrated – and given a higher priority - within project planning.
•	Financial problems.Financial problems are common across all Lottery projects but public art seems to suffer especially from cash flow; artists lack reserves and often need payment upfront.Several projects also experienced problems in finding the funding to undertake the commission where the main project had run over-budget. 
•	Communication problems.Interviewees gave several examples of pieces that failed or would have failed functional requirements; for example, furniture that was intended to be moved frequently but is too heavy.Some of the lighting schemes failed because they did not work with the ambient conditions, such as in daylight or with normal levels of lighting required under safety regulations; reflecting a problem in the writing of effective briefs.More broadly, there were several examples of conflicts between artists and architects: especially where architects were committed to a utilitarian vision for the building, and artists were attempting to humanize or soften the design.Giving artists an equal role in the design team was essential.
•	Procedural problems.Projects complained that they did not understand the full range of options open to them.Several projects said they would have liked clearer guidance on the breadth of public art that was acceptable to ACE.The examples given in this report should help to address this gap.Linked to this, interviewees complained that creativity is restricted by inflexibility in the Lottery approval process.Projects that are part of a larger organisation, such as a local authority or university, experienced their own inflexibilities, such as rules about tendering.
•	Technical and project management difficulties where projects are innovative, experimental or ambitious. Often building projects are not set up for the demanding technical and managerial requirements of art commissioning. Artists will not have, or not be resourced to provide, their own project teams. There are problems with large-scale industry construction contracts (JCT80), and how the needs of artists and their projects, as, contracturally speaking, small-scale subcontractors, are addressed within such large projects.

The case studies give specific examples within these broad categories of problem.
Table 17: Nature of the problem
	Those saying they had:	
Specified problem	No problem	Some problem 	
Money	1	15	
Management of project		15	
Bureaucracy	1	8	
Site difficulties, builders		8	
Artistic decisions	2	8	
Working with artists	2	5	
Practical development of the art		5	
Arts Council		5	
Drawing up the brief		3	
Timing of elements		2	
Opposition from public/members		2	
Help and advice	8	1	
Legal		1	
Accident		1	
Nothing specified	63	5	
			
Sub totals	77	84	
Total		161	

Notwithstanding this, almost 60% of interviewees could think of no improvements to the application or development process.In some cases the respondent felt that the current process had already moved to solve the problems they had encountered in the early lottery phase. They say that there is less bureaucracy and more help than when they made their applications.The general feeling is that budgets will always be restricted, the process is no worse than they would expect, and usually is more time-consuming than difficult.For many, the real problems were inside their own organisations rather than with the Arts Council or Lottery scheme.

The central complaint of those who feel that change is needed is with the speed and complexity of the processes.Interviewees would like closer and more personal contact with the Arts Council and the Lottery officers.They argue for fewer forms to fill in and more sources of help, especially into good practice and the limits of what will be acceptable.Many respondents did not realise how creative they could have been and would have welcomed examples of good practice.

This last point is echoed in concerns that the whole process needs to clarify definitions of public art and take a broader view of what can be commissioned. 
3.6	Consultation and Access
Arts organisations have clearly made some effort to involve members of the public in their commissioning.Almost a third consulted local people about the brief, the work itself or in its interpretation.There has been considerable proxy public consultation through community leaders such as the town councillors, school governors and members of local interest groups, and art or craft specialists would also be invited to advise on the brief or the selection of the artists. In some cases the public display of the final designs in response to the brief is taken as public consultation.Care was often taken to make sure that the public agencies most likely to be affected were consulted, and informal consultation with the local community is assumed to result from this.
Table 18:Public Consultation
None	46.9	
Not public but with appointed panel or members of organisation	4.4	
Yes, local people involved in brief	22.5	
Yes, local people involved in designing/producing art	7.5	
Yes, local people given presentation by artists	2.5	
Other	10.6	
Don't know	2.5	
NA	3.1	
Total	100.0	
(Number of cases surveyed: 160)

The data suggests many different approaches, and thus a degree of confusion over the meaning and process of public consultation. There is a greater familiarity with peer-group and expert consultation.This raises the question of the purpose of public consultation on the public art element of a building or space and what form of consultation is appropriate.Strong conviction about the role, purpose, and meaning ofcommissioned art was argued by some to produce higher quality work and, therefore, greater public benefit.The case studies show that different levels of consultation are appropriate for different circumstances. 

Turning to the issue of access, over 95% of projects say that the art is accessible to a wider public.In some cases, access is limited to certain hours, or to certain groups (such as audiences of an arts event).In other cases, a work has massive public visibility.The Lottery has funded several cases where work is sited on a main public highway.In these cases interviewees were not able to estimate the number of people who will see the art work in a typical week, since this is ostensibly all those using the city centre. 

The telephone survey asked respondents to indicate the likely minimum and maximum audience numbers in an average week.For some pieces sited in performance venues, where there might be limited access, the number cannot be expressed as a typical week or, where the art is publicly sited in the open air, the number is not known by the arts organisation.However, 113 respondents were able to estimate the minimum number and 118 gave an estimate for the maximum.

Projects that gave us figures on audiences show that work funded through the Lottery can be seen by between 5.1 million and 6.6 million people in an average week.Most of the individual commissions are open to between 100 and 10,000 people a week.Relatively few have audiences of less than 100 a week, and these account for a very small proportion of the total potential audience.The schemes with audiences of between 10,000 and 100,000 a week account for almost twice as many people as the main bulk of the schemes but it is the two or three schemes of over 100,000 who dominate in terms of audiences. 
Table 19: Audience numbers in an average week
	Schemes with this minimum 	Schemes with this maximum 	
Audience size band	Number	Audience	Number		
Up to 100	14	936	4	190	
101 to 1,000	51	29,281	43	28,000	
1,001 to 10,000	39	146,130	56	250,715	
10,001 to 100,000	7	338,423	12	526,423	
Over 100,000	2	4,620,000	3	5,920,000	
All	113	5,134,770	118	6,725,328	

3.7	Selecting and Briefing Artists
The telephone questionnaire did not go into the details of selecting and briefing artists, but the case studies, which were done face-to-face, did.Some projects invited a select number of artists to prepare proposals. This was seen to have the advantages of:
•	Opportunity to develop ideas seen elsewhere, or integrate with other local work.
•	Reassurance that the artist had the relevant experience, and understood the culture and requirements of the type of organisation commissioning the work.
•	Greater account of the practicalities of commissioning e.g. bias towards artists who live or have worked locally.
•	Choice of groups of artists, or artists and architects who have worked together 
•	Chance to develop ideas with artists from a relatively rough stage.

Other projects employed an open process because this offered the benefits of:
•	Bringing in new ideas and approaches not immediately available or known.
•	Seen to be in keeping with policies around equal opportunities. 
•	Giving a chance to artists and practitioners not already ‘in the loop’. 

However, at its most extreme, this approach is time consuming and excludes the busier artists, who may not reply to cold tenders or advertisements.There are also risks that artists will under-price themselves to obtain the work, that designs will be developed without knowledge of the site, and that artists will feel that they should avoid innovative designs.If a large number of artists reply, then time is spent weeding out the unsuitable.

A third approach, to use competitive tender, was universally rejected. It assumes an equality of service provided from tenderers, and privileges the financial element, neither of which have relevance to the effective selection of art works. 

With the exception of competitive tendering, the other two approaches each have strengths and weaknesses, and their validity depends on the circumstances.This, again, illustrates the inappropriateness of producing one model of good practice for commissioning.
3.8	Impact
Projects were asked about the intended objectives for their public art.Most respondents gave a mix of architectural and art-related objectives.Another given objective for the public art was to market the building, improve its image or give it a unique identity.This was often an important part of a wider initiative to develop audiences or increase the profile of the arts organisation. Commissions appear, then, to be contributing to the ongoing viability and effectiveness of arts organisations. 

Only three projects than 1% of our survey - stated that the only objective was to win Lottery funding.
Table 20: Objectives for the public art
	Number of occurrences	
To enhance the site	108 	
To bring art to a wider audience	102 	
To support artists	92 	
Functional role	80 	
To strengthen the organisation’s image	59	
To win lottery funding	39 	
Other	60 	

90% of respondents felt that the project was a success.The remainder were waiting for more time to make their assessment.
Table 21: Intervieweesof the success of the public art (%)
Yes 	92.5	
Too soon to say	2.5	
Possibly 	3.8	
Not fully working yet	1.3	
(Based on 80 relevant replies)

Interviewees were often extremely enthusiastic about their commissions:
•	“Provided visual impact and a talking point.”				
•	"Astonishing finished product."					
•	“The cost of such media coverage would far outweigh the cost of the piece.”
•	"Makes the building look spectacular"	
•	"The more I see of it, the more I recognise how well we've done.”
•	“We used to have a lot of vandalism, and now we have much less.”	
•	“We have had good feedback.It is an object of beauty.”
•	“It has enhanced the site and brought modern art to a conservative audience.”
•	“It focuses colour in a cold architectural space.”
•	“People feel less intimated by the building and it has a higher profile.”
•	“It proved that successful collaborations can occur between artists and architects.”
•	“It has made the building unique.”
•	“It is now used as our logo on our letterhead.”

The responses suggest that integration between commissions and the main project can have a tangible impact on the perceived success of the work.The most straightforward responses are when the public art is well related to the larger building project and can therefore be seen as complementing and enhancing the building.

The survey asked respondents to say whether they or others thought the art was value for money.This is, of course, subjective, and was asked in order to judge arts organisations’ reaction to public art.Over 90% of those who were in a position to make a judgement said that their public art had been value for money and only 2% said that it had not been.There is such variety within and across the projects that summaries do not represent the views here, but it is clear that one of the most valued achievements was the way that the commission had stretched definitions and perceptions of the meanings and value of public art.

Of course, good value for money, as expressed by non-specialists is not necessarily a favourable result.Some respondents expressed value for money in terms of the artist had under-pricing their work.Where projects had multiple pieces – as was often the case were able to compare the fees from different artists and noticed inequalities.

Of course, many respondents felt that it was too soon to judge. Given the number of projects still in progress and at the planning stage there will be scope for further assessment in the future.

Interviewees were asked about their views on the wider impact of the work.Responses were highly favourable.The public art is judged to have achieved artistic, architectural and community ends, sometimes on very grand scales.The single most cited achievement of public art is in improving the physical environment.Some of this work was felt to have been able to make a statement about a whole region.Others have played a vital role in the regeneration of urban and old industrial areas, bringing "a breath of fresh air”.
Table 22: Impact of commissions
Improved the physical environment	76	
Brought art nearer to the public	71	
Introduced visual art to new audiences	62	
Humanised the architecture	62	
Increased local community involvement with the building	45	
Created sense of local ownership	39	
Increased use of the open spaces in the building	38	
Other	14	
(Based on 82 relevant surveyed cases)

More narrowly, the commissions have helped give the centre or organisation a stronger image and presence and, in this, to help develop arts within the local community.One of the strongest impacts has been in improving buildings, as more attractive and “friendly” places as well as making them into better working environments; an implicit criticism of brief-writing to architects. Consistent with this is the benefit from having public art as part of the building process and demonstrating the success of collaboration between artists and architects.

4	SURVEY OF ARTISTS
4.1	Introduction
We looked specifically at the benefits to artists.We have information on 245 artists who were involved in the commissions. The predominance of multiple pieces means that the number of artists benefiting exceeds the number of projects.In some cases, ten or more artists were involved in the commissions for individual projects.There is some repetition in the artists employed but more noticeable is the wide range of individuals that have benefited from the Lottery programme.

We interviewed 24 artists involved in the case study projects.Most artists were happy about the way they were appointed, the terms on which they were engaged, the relationship they had with the rest of the design team, and the quality of the artwork produced.Notwithstanding this, the survey produces limited evidence that financial benefits are not filtering down to artists with a high percentage of their fee taken up in expenses. 

The case studies were chosen because of they illustrated points of general interest.These results might be more positive that would be found across a random sample of artists commissioned under the Lottery.
4.2	Character of the Artists
Sixteen of the artists had carried out public art commissions before.
4.3	Art Produced
Artists were overwhelmingly positive about the art produced.Twenty out of the twenty-four artists said they felt that their conception had been realised, and the same number said they were happy with the eventual outcome.Only one of these expressed some reservations about the quality of the result.The remaining three were all in the process of completing the work and felt it was too early to comment.
4.4	Appointment 
Ten of our sample had been subject to a competitive selection process/tender, twelve had not, and two could not remember.Comments about competitive selection were predominantly negative, and fall into three classes:

•	Communication difficulties.Artists are not equipped to present their ideas in the same language as architects. and thus were at a disadvantage when presenting to a project team. Clients are not always able to articulate their needs appropriately. 
•	Limitations on creativity.The process is too narrow and briefs too prescriptive.The results can reflect the organisation’s agenda, not the artist’s agenda, which negates the involvement of the artist.
•	Abortive effort.Artists waste time in preparing their case.

The positive comments were that the process was fair, and could give the commissioning organisation a good choice of artists.

Twelve artists used new technology in the art work.However, this figure is affected by the inclusion of the Lux project.We would expect a larger survey to produce a lower representation of new technology.
4.5	Relationship with the Project Team
There was a mix of reporting arrangements: nine reported to the architect but six of these also reported to other individuals.Six reported to two or three people.Four reported to a project manager, and three worked through a public art agency.

The survey suggests good integration.Fifteen artists said that they felt part of the design team.Eight did not and one did not think the question was relevant (because their work was physically separate).Out of those who did not feel integrated, only one felt a closer relationship with the design team would have been desirable.Eighteen artists felt they had been involved early enough in the project.Only five artists felt they were not involved early enough (and another one did not feel the question was relevant).One artist said they would have liked closer contact with the commissioning organisation, rather than the project (two more did not express a view).Slightly more (four) would have liked greater contact with the project’s audience.

Twenty-one artists said they were given sufficient support to carry out the tasks allocated to them.Six would have liked more control over other areas of the project: mainly publicity and talking with users.
4.6	Terms of Engagement
Twenty-one thought they had had sufficient time for the work.Slightly fewer thought they had had sufficient financial resources for the work.

Only two artists thought the terms of engagement were not fair.Satisfaction reflects in part a feeling that the artist had the choice whether to accept the terms or not.

Notwithstanding this, in general the financial benefits to artists do not seem to be great.Nineteen artists felt able to give a figure for the amount they were paid.These ranged from £650 to £25,000.However, many artists paid out the majority of this in expenses.Ten of the nineteen seem to have made under £1,000 after expenses.Three more earned £2,000 to £5,000 and only three made over £10,000. This strengthens an general argument for project budgets to separate out fabrication and expenses from the artists fee.

Ten artists were able to tell us their income before and after the commission.Figures average £13,000.Only two artists appeared to show an increase between the two years, and this is not necessarily due to the Lottery commission.However, a longer-term effect was noticeable.Half the survey had received publicity as a result of the commission, and twelve thought they had gained additional work as a direct result of the Lottery project.
4.7	Good Practice
Artists were asked about their views on good practice in public art.Responses fall into four categories:

•	Commissioning involves artists in a large number of meetings for administration, education, and public consultation.This needs to be acknowledged and communicated to the artist up front, and, if necessary, reflected in the fee paid.

•	Care should be taken in preparing the budget for the project, so that the artist’s fee is not absorbed by expenses.One artist emphasised the important contribution his dealer/representative made in protecting his interests.

•	Clarity of task and lines of responsibility, and good planning are all very important.

•	Competitive Tendering should be discouraged, as it is counter-productive to commissioning quality, therefore, effective, work.

Artists were also asked how the Arts Council could help artists during the commissioning process.The main response was that the Arts Council should be helping to ensure artists are paid properly and regularly, and in addition ACE should be able to provide legal advice.A couple of respondents would like the Arts Council to act as an independent arbiter in disputes arising between the artist and other members of the design team.
5	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONs

This report has demonstrated the rich mix of public art that has been funded under the Capital Lottery.Three central conclusions spring from this analysis:
•	Grant recipients have generally embraced public art with enthusiasm and commitment.
•	The majority of projects are still in progress.The Arts Council has scope to guide and influence these so as to ensure a positive result.
•	These commissions have made a major contribution towards the Arts Council’s access objectives.We have figures to account for audiences to public art of between 5.1 million and 6.6 million people in an average week.Final figures will be many times this.

These three conclusions lead to the following recommendations:
5.1	Commitment to Commissioning
The Arts Council should reinforce its commitment to supporting commissioning through the Capital Lottery.Commissioning art works provides a vital route to broaden the audience for art across England.In many cases, this has been achieved without increasing the overall construction budget because artist designed pieces are simply replacing elements of fitting out.Public art has had many other highly beneficial results: brought groups together with their users and other partners; improved the physical environment; contributed towards large scale regeneration; raised the profile of the organisation and made a real contribution towards its marketing and publicity.

Commissioning should be an integral element in the Arts Council’s review of its Lottery Strategy and the development of the new Lottery programme CP2.
5.2	 Definition of Commissioning
Our research found that applicants did not always understand what the Arts Council would accept as commissioned art works.Some innovative projects took longer because they did not fit into the Lottery standard categories.Other projects only realised the full scope of what they could do when it was too late to integrate work within the overall building design.Clarifying the breadth of work allowable under the Capital Lottery will increase innovation and improve project planning. Restating the need to commission as a condition of funding when a grant is made would encourage earlier and more effective integration.

Clarifying the definition of commissioning should include:
•	Clarifying the parameters within which temporary works are allowable.These often provide a vivid marketing tool for the project.
•	Setting out a strong policy framework.
•	Emphasising that functional pieces are acceptable.
•	Making exclusions explicit. 
•	Encouraging innovative and cross-art form work.
5.3	Protecting the Interests of the Artist 
The Arts Council has a unique role in ensuring that artists are treated fairly during commissioning.Our research found that there is a widespread problem of artists carrying out work, especially consultation, education and maintenance work, for which they are not paid. Equitable treatment for artists should always outweigh concerns over project costs.

The Arts Council should consider working with PAF and RABs and other interested parties to produce a code of practice for employment of artists which includes:
•	Ensuring responsibilities for the work are clear.
•	Ensuring financial liabilities are clear.
•	Paying artists for consultation and education work.
•	Setting out, and keeping artists to time scales.
•	Scheduling payments so as to minimise the cash flow problems of artists.
•	Discouraging the practice of artists being responsible for ongoing maintenance of works without being paid.
•	Ensuring arrangements about copyright, and reproduction of the image are fair.
5.4	Ensuring High Standards in Commissioning
Our research found many examples of excellent work, but also cases where grant recipients would have done things differently in retrospect.The Arts Council needs to work with RABs and other partners to encourage and support the highest standards in commissioning.

Possible elements of this include:
•	Contributing towards a programme of workshops and seminars with architects. 
•	Increasing the level of involvement of Visual Arts officers in assessment, development, and monitoring.
•	Encouraging grant recipients to plan their commissioning work early on in their project.Proposals should progress in time with the three stage process.
•	Ensuring that works are site specific where appropriate.Inconsistency between works and their setting was observed as a problem with some projects. 
•	Producing effective advocacy material.
•	Producing a more attractive form for accrediting the Arts Council.

APPENDIX ONE: CASE STUDIES
These case studies are included:
•	To illustrate points made in the text.
•	To lighten the text and make it more vivid to the reader.
•	To illustrate the wider range of art carried out under and Lottery, and therefore inspire future applicants to greater experimentation.
•	To celebrate some of the great successes of the Lottery.

As the case studies are credited, they are purposefully of a positive nature.Negative points made during the interviews are all taken into account but are incorporated, anonymous in the main text.

1. Angel of the North, Gateshead
Lottery Number:			95-454
Organisation:			Gateshead Borough Council
Contact:				William MacNaught
Address:			Dept Libraries and Arts 
				Civic Centre, Regent Street
				Gateshead, Tyne and Wear NE8 1HH
Artist(s):			Antony Gormley
Public art advisors:		n/a
Design team: 			Ove Arup 
Lottery Grant			£590,000
Cost of commissions:		£790,700
Completion date:			February 1998.
Number of visitors/passers-by per week: est.630,000
Description
The Angel of the North is a 20 metre high landmark sculpture on the A1 motorway.
In ‘Case for An Angel’, (Making of An Angel 1998), the artist Antony Gormley notes: 
Difficulties
•	Press relations.The Angel became a politically contentious, and the press responded with headlines saying that the piece was a waste of money that was being imposed on an unwilling local populace.In the event, the controversy raised the profile of the Angel.Once the work was completed negative opinions were reversed.
•	Fund-raising.Raising money was difficult because of the controversy surrounding the Angel.The NAB unlocked the project and ACE Lottery provided the bulk of the money.ERDF provided an additional £150,000. Further sponsorship from British Gas, the National Art Collection Fund and local sponsors.Support from these later funders was important as an endorsement of the project at a time when it was under criticism.
•	Fabrication.The Angel presented all manner of planning and engineering problems.The risk of producing such a piece inflated the price of tenders because construction companies had to include contingencies.The local welding company that won the tender produced the structural rigidity through a series of geometric shapes in the body.Construction problems meant that construction took two years longer than anticipated.
Good Practice
•	Vision.Gateshead Borough Council has had a public art programme for ten years.In each case opportunities for public art reflected the availability of sites.The scale of the Angel was partly dictated by the site chosen, and partly inspired by the desire to have a flagship project forthe Year of Visual Arts 1996.
•	Regeneration.Within a short time the Angel has replaced the Tyne Bridge as the symbol for the North East.Early research suggests that the Angel has raised the profile of Gateshead, and linked it to images of optimism, confidence, and innovation.The piece has a remarkable ability to engage people, whether through its beauty, symbolism, or engineering skill.The Council is at the early stage of capitalising on its success through merchandising opportunities, with the artist having rights over how the image is exploited.
•	Education.A large number of different events were organised throughout the process of developing the Angel.Antony Gormley’s ‘Field for the British Isles’ was set up in Gateshead and attracted 20,000 people over a couple of weeks.In additional there have been talks, exhibitions and workshops about visual art or the symbolism of the Angel. Educational packs have been produced to help the large number of school parties who come to visit the Angel.Income from merchandising will feed back to support the educational trust so as to allow activities to continue.

A survey from the Council suggests that 5,000 people visit the Angel every week.This is in addition to the 90,000 who drive past it each day on the A1 motorway.

2. Artranspennine
Lottery Number:		96-2053
Organisation: 		Henry Moore Sculpture Trust and the Tate Gallery Liverpool
Contact:			Robert Hopper
Address:		The Henry Moore Institute,	
		74, The Headrow
			Leeds LS1 3AA
Artist(s):	Narelle Jubelin, Matt Mullican, Taro Chiezo, Helen Mayer Harrison, Newton Harrison, Chris Evans, Duncan Hamilton, Janet Hodgson, Anna Douglas, Bernd Becher, Hilla Becher, Mark Dion, Dominique Blain, Ilya Kabakov, Emilia Kabakov, Joseph Grigely, Nick Crowe, Graham Parker, Ian Rawlinson, Ulrich Ruckriem, John Newling, Alison Wilding, Atelier van Leshout, Langlands and Bell, Jorge Pardo, Francoise Quardon, Joseph Beuys, Peter Mitchell, Jan Erik Andersson, James Turrell, Jauma Piensa, Serge Spitzer, Jannis Kounellis, Peter Shelton, Jan van de Pavert, Anya Gallaccio, Lawrence Weiner, Joseph Bartscherer, Grennan & Sperandio, Tracy Mackenna, Edwin Janssen, Regina Moller, John Biddulph, Peter Hatton, Val Murray, Lynn Pilling
Public art advisors:	n/a
Design team: 		n/a
Lottery Grant:		£1.7 million			
Cost of commissions: 	£2.5 million
Completion date:		May-August 1998
Number of visitors/passers-by per week: Not available.
Description
The project consisted of a regional exhibition of international contemporary visual art showing 40 artworks by 54 artists in 30 sites.Out of the 40 artworks, 33 were newly commissioned pieces.In addition to the artworks, the project created a major archive of drawings, models, photographs, film and video cataloguing the process of the exhibition, including some of the temporary pieces. 
Following the exhibition, artworks are being gifted to regional collections subject to a contract that requires public access, maintenance and other conditions.
Difficulties
•	Lottery definitions.Difficulties in fitting the exhibition into Capital Lottery categories caused delay in processing the funding application.Each stage seemed to take longer because guidelines were not written with this type of project in mind.
•	Timescale.The dates for the exhibition had already been fixed (to coincide with the reopening of the Tate Gallery Liverpool), so the delay in approving the application reduced the time for organising the project.In retrospect, the team would have liked to have allocated more staffing to the task.
•	National critical reaction.The scale and spatial dispersal of the exhibition were inconvenient for art reviewers travelling from London.Regional publicity was excellent but national coverage was less than would be expected for an exhibition of this level.
Good Practice
•	Philosophical background.The exhibition engaged with the public at a variety of levels, from the philosophical to the deeply personal.The exhibition presented people, place, and art (in that order) in a way that encouraged the visitor to review preconceptions about the region: instead of defining boundaries on a north-south axis from London, the Transpennine region was defined horizontally, with the scope for future exhibitions to extend from Limerick to St Petersburg; instead of seeing the region as a place people travel through, the exhibition presented an inward looking view; instead of seeing the Pennines as a barrier, the mountains became a unifying feature.The exhibition thus helped to give a cultural dimension to economic concepts of regionalism.
•	Partnership.The project explicitly combined the dynamism and energy of the independent sector with the skills, contacts, and professionalism of curators.One advantage of this combination was that the galleries already knew, and had relationships with, a large number of artists who could produce appropriate work.Fostering small galleries and encouraging co-operation across the region was a central objective of the project.
•	Marketing.The public artworks were marketed as an exhibition, albeit one of site specific, dispersed pieces. £750,000 was spent on marketing, which was organised by a professional team.Publicity was stronger than is common for public art, a necessary task given the temporary nature of the exhibition. 

3. Art in Healthcare, Leeds
Lottery Number:			95-1999
Organisation:			General Infirmary in Leeds
Contact:				Gail Bolland
Address:			Jubilee Building, Calverley Street, Leeds
Artist(s):			Tess Jaray, Tom Lomax
Public art advisors:		Healthcare Arts
Design team: 	Llewelyn-Davies (architects), Higgs and Hill (construction), Ibstock Building Products (bricks)
Lottery Grant:		£700,000
Cost of commissions:		£1.4 milliondate: 		Spring 1998
Number of visitors/passers by per week: 18,500 (hospital vistors)
Description
The Lottery project was part of a £90 million redevelopment of the Leeds General Infirmary.The main element in the redevelopment was the construction of the Jubilee Wing.The art element constituted the design of the 4,250 sqm Jubilee Square at the entrance to the new wing. 

United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has had an arts programme since 1992.This is in keeping with the history of the hospital.The Gilbert Scott building, to which the Jubilee Wing is linked by a glazed bridge, has a strong artistic character, including stained glass, mosaics, carved wood, plaster work, and sculpture.The launch of this Victorian hospital had been celebrated by an international arts exhibition.

The Lottery project had two elements: Tess Jaray produced the concept for the square including landscaping, planters, seating, and lighting.Tom Lomax produced five linear green and blue patinated bronze sculptures entitled “Guardians of the Hospital.”
Difficulties
•	Timescales.The overall redevelopment was complex to organise because of its scale and the vital importance of maintaining hospital services.The public art had to take its place within this overall plan, which caused delay.
•	Differences in vision. The artist’s aim was “to make an entrance, and ambience, which honours the individual, gives a brief moment of calm and spiritual reassurance at a time of stress and anxiety, and softens the reality of hospital admission.”Since they were involved in a reletively late stage in the design process, some of the artist’s concepts conflicted with that of the architects. 
Good Practice
•	Artist’s terms.The lead artist was an equal member of the design team.Her fee assumed a day rate consistent with other members of the design team.This reimbursed work for consultation, meetings etc. and thus accurately reflected the time spent on the project.
•	Integration.Giving the artist an equal status in the design team was a major determinant of the success of the project.It prevented the artistic vision from being diluted or compromised during the construction process.The resulting piece draws power from the coherence and consistency of design element.
•	Innovation.Persistence in creating the artist’s vision required production of 80 different types of special brick shapes.The project has won building awards for its brick-making.
•	Consultation.The hospital trust took a focused, targeted approach to consultation.Different user groups (staff, disabled people, other special needs groups, cultural groups, the ambulance unit) were consulted about their needs of the space, and this information fed into the specification.

The art work is the subject of an independent evaluation.Initial results suggest that the soothing environment has improved recovery rates on the wards around the square.

4. DARTS, Doncaster
Lottery Number:			95-2644
Organisation:			Doncaster Community Arts 
Contact:				Elaine Hurst
Address:			The Point, 16 South Parade, Doncaster
Artist(s):	Usha Makenthiral, Philip Cox, Martin Smith, Brian Frisby, Wallscape, Adrian Moakes
Public art advisors:		n/a
Design team:			Groundworks
Lottery Grant:			£1.1 million		
Cost of commissions:		£35,000
Completion date:			May 1998 
Number of visitors/passers by per week: 100-400
Description
DARTS is a community arts organisation active across the art forms.
The commissions embody the character and spirit of the organisation.Ten pieces were produced:
•	Lino flooring and Creche by Usha Makenthiral.This used shapes produced in collaboration with user groups.The design leads the visitor through the building was well as illustrating the theme of art as a continual journey. Creche: Walls have cut out shapes and tactile boxes.A metal frame of shapes on the ceiling (“dreamlines) has many purposes: as a hoop for games or for hanging toys, hammocks, or equipment.
•	Paper figures by Philip Cox. A figure at the entrance to the centre was so popular with users that a second sculpture was produced for the café.This second figure holds the newspapers for the café.
•	A clock and signage by Martin Smith.The first consists of puppets of school children (a reference to the school that had been adjacent) that move to mark the hours.The second constitutes another puppet that operates on a sensor, and gesticulates to point visitors in the right direction along the corridor.
•	A wooden table by Brian Frisby. This contains wooden sculpture, secret compartments, inlays and tactile elements.The table is in a room used for writing, and itself serves as an inspiration to the creative process.Below the glass top of the table are compartments that give space for users to add their own written messages or objects.
•	Water sculpture by Adrian Moakes. The completed sculpture incorporates a three dimensional map of the town.The lower tank contains several water powered kinetic elements with local references, such as a large waterwheel, bike wheel, fairground wheel, tractor and a spade that “digs” the coal in the bottom of the tank.The speed and movement of the water can be controlled by the viewer by means of two lock gates and a time switch, activating a submersible pump to recycle all the water.
Good Practice
•	Coherence.The group had a clear image of the type of art required, arising from a strong understanding of their users.The ten art works produced by different artist have a similar character combining humour, colour, functionality and engagement with the user.This consistency was achieved in part because of the strong project management by the core staff.
•	Ownership.Visitors to the building have a close involvement with the art whether through touching it, using it, or adding to it.Humour ensures a direct relationship with the user.
•	Functionality.Artists have produced creative solutions to practical needs for users of the centre. 

5. National Glass Centre, Sunderland
Lottery Number:		95-441
Organisation:		National Glass Centre
Contact:			Geoff Woodcock		
Address:		Liberty Way , Sunderland
Artist(s):		Laura Johnson, Zora Palova, Bridget Jones
Public art advisors:	n/a
Design team: 	Gollifer Associates (architects), Ove Arup (engineers), Battle McCarthy (engineers)
Lottery Grant	£5.9 million
Cost of commissions:	£102,000
Completion date:		June 1998
Number of visitors/passers by per week: 5000 
Description
The Glass Centre is a visitor centre and focus for craft glass making in Britain, based in Sunderland, where glass was first made. It includes galleries, a shop, restaurant, conference rooms and state-of-the art manufacturing facilties.

The building contains three commissions:
•	‘ShoalLaura Johnson. Suspended dichroic glass shapes to give the impression ofmovement There are 80 one metre long shapes hanging from steel wire.The artist describes the inspiration for the pieces as “observing the amazing shapes created by migrating birds and shoals of fish as one form, although made up of many.”
•	‘Light TransformerZora Palova .This is a landmark sculpture, a lens supported by six steel points. It was constructed in three segments, each 330kg of glass. 
•	Stained glass panels by Bridget Jones.The history of Sunderland’s involvement in glass making in a symbolic and celebratory rather than a literal sense. 
Difficulties
•	Selection of the artists.The centre advertised the commissions widely, including in the European journal.In accordance with the European Procurement Directives they had to keep clear assessments for each respondent.As 500 artists replied to the advertisements, this was a time consuming exercise.
•	Maintenance.The wires from Shoal obstruct access to the underside of the roof, where there are strip lights.Changing the bulbs will require removing some of the glass elements.This will be difficult because original installation was carried out by a team of mountain climbers abseiling from the roof and positioning the wires on the instruction of the artist, who was making fine adjustments working in three dimensions.
•	Vandalism. ‘Light Transformersuffered from some attacks by vandals, due to its exposed position.
Good Practice
•	Co-ordination.Dialogue ensured that the resulting effect satisfied the three artists and the architect.
•	Softening the building.The architect wanted a utilitarian building in steel and concrete, symbolising the history of the area.It is felt that the commissions add elements of colour, movement and detail.
•	Innovation.Light Transformer is the largest piece of cast glass in the world, representing a real technical achievement.

6. Emslie Horniman Pleasance Park, London 
Lottery Number: 			96-2339
Organisation: 			London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Contact: 			Andrew Venard
Address;			Central Library, Phillimore Walk, Holland Park
Artist(s):	Peter Fink, Sophia Clist, Paul Burwell, Andrew Smith, Avtarjeet Dhanjal, Mannifest, Moose Azim, Fiona Hawthorne
Public art advisors:		North Kensington Arts
Design team: 			Studio E Architects, EDAW.
Lottery Grant:			£190,200
Cost of commissions: 		£120,000
Completion date: 		August 1998
Number of visitors/passers by per week: 1000
Description
The objective for the commissions was to tie together the three separate parts of the park: sports, recreation, and formal garden.
As well as the work of the lead artist, Peter Fink, specific commissions included:
•	Playground wall apertures.Circular apertures in the perimeter wall accommodate interactive play sculptures from the two artists Sophia Clist and Paul Burwell.
•	Voysey Garden Pennants.The garden had had metal pennants hand painted by Voysey.These have been reinterpreted in a modern idiom by Andrew Smith, and hung from the original brackets. 
•	Quiet seating area.The artist Avtarjeet Dhanjal transformed this circular seating area with a curved granite and oak bench, a slate bowl and two carved York stone “guardian” seats.The bowl and stone sets bear engravings of poems and text chosen with local people.
•	Encoding the landscape.Mannifest worked with local people to develop a poem, together with symbols and motifs, which will be displayed in the park.
Difficulties
•	Project management.The garden had to be open for the Notting Hill Carnival in August 98 carnival is held partly in the park.However, only two of the five commissions were complete by this date.Timetabling of the public art was difficult because building work delayed the start date, by which time artists had already taken other commissions, so causing knock-on delays. 
•	Regulations.Childrens’ playgrounds naturally have to meet strict standards of health and safety.In retrospect, the local authority feel they could have given more information about regulations to the artists early in the commissioning process.
•	Ownership.Work produced from one of the consultation exercises was cancelled at the last moment because councillors were unhappy with some of the results.The group involved in the process were disappointed with this reaction.
•	Damage. Elements of the project have suffered from repeated vandalism, from a small group of trouble makers.
Good Practice
•	Integration.The artist Peter Fink was appointed to the design team.He contributed to the overall concept as well as being responsible for specific elements: the fence, gates, coloured safety surface for the playground, feature lighting.Peter was involved in the selection of artists for the other commissions.
•	Consultation.North Kensington Arts were appointed to co-ordinate the work of the individual artists within a wide programme of public participation.Paul Burwell worked with children from the Horniman Adventure Playground to produce musical instruments, including a xylophone made from old railway sleepers.Sixty local children and staff from nearby primary schools worked with local photographer Moose Azim to create a series of larger than life size action photographs.Digital artist Fiona Hawthorne worked with children to create digital montages using computer software.In a further stage, North Kensington Arts will give access to the public art by putting it on their web site.There are also events planned for the park, working with a local group called the Friends of Emslie Horniman Pleasance. 
•	Developing the brief.Short listed artists were given a small sum to cover the costs of preparing designs for the commissions.This was fairer to the artists, and helpful to the panel because ideas could were more clearly explained. 

7. Leicester International Youth House 
Lottery Number: 			96-891
Organisation: 			Leicester International Youth House
Contact: 			Mike Farrant
Address: 			Narborough Road
Artist(s):	Anuradha Patelm, Binita Walia, Bius, Marion Brandis, Kerry Morrison
Public art advisors: 		Jasia McArdle
Design team: 			Leicestershire County Council, Dept. of Property
Lottery Grant			£395,420			
Cost of commissions: 		£50,000
Completion date: 		August 1998
Number of visitors/passers by per week:Not available.
Description
The stated objective for these commissions was to give the building an ‘arty feeling’ that would be attractive and welcoming to young people from different cultures.

Different elements of public art in the building comprised:
•	External railings, entrance gates, and canopy.Anuradha Patel produced images of spring, partly inspired by Indian folk art, cut into sheet metal.
•	Glazed conservatory.Binita Walia used images and text to evoke the growth and development of young people.The glass also serves to highlight the river and to screen some of the less attractive buildings nearby
•	Reception desk.Mary Little and Peter Wheeler from Bius used recycled plastic sheet to produce a desk five metres long.The material was easily shaped into curves and itself produced a multi-coloured effect without expensive finishing. 
•	Signage.Marion Brandis produced textured ceramics using universal images rather than text.Signs were placed relatively low on the wall so that users could touch them.Colour contrast and position were designed to reflect the needs of blind people.
•	Landscaping.Kerry Morrison worked with landscape architects to create an internal children’s garden.
Difficulties
•	Consultation.All artists were required to consult with the client and user group but there was limited time in which to do this.There was therefore little chance for planning and clarification of expectations.In one case, an artist spent time contacting youth organisations in order to find out their favourite quotations for inclusion in the art work; however, the Youth House had expected the words to be generated with their own users.
•	Integration.A public art consultant, Jasia McArdle, was appointed to help select and manage the artists.Jasia identified several areas where elements of the construction programme could be delivered through public art.However, at this stage a contractor had already been appointed, and the design elements, such as colours, were fixed.In retrospect the Youth House believes that earlier involvement of the public art consultant and extension of her brief to decoration, furniture and fittings would have produced a more coherent design concept.
•	Conflicting cultures.The contractors were concerned that the artist-designed signage did not meet fire or health and safety regulations.They therefore insisted on erecting plastic black and white signs, in some cases duplicating the artist-designed signs.
Good Practice
•	Equal opportunities and cultural diversity.The Youth House has a strong commitment to equal opportunities practice that was reflected in its recruitment procedures for artists.The commissions were advertised nationally, with additional regional mail shots.The cultural diversity of the organisation was emphasised in the brief to artists.Forty-five applications were received and short-listed artists were invited for a site visit and interview.Explicit criteria were used for the selection process.
•	Environmental awareness. The reception desk is made from recycled plastic bottles.
•	Costing.The public art budget was relatively small so the public art consultant advised the organisation to keep this for artists.Ancillary administration, site preparation, and in some cases artists, accommodation, and recruitment and selection expenses came out of other budgets.

8. Chrysalis Arts, Gargrove, North Yorkshire

Lottery Number: 			95-915
Organisation: 			Chrysalis Arts
Contact: 			Rick Faulkner, Development Director
Address:			Asquith Industrial Estate, Eshton Grove, Gargrave
Artist(s):			Kate Maddison
Public art advisors:		Chrysalis Arts
Design team:			Wales, Wales & Rawson
Lottery Grant:			£90,000	
Cost of commissions: 		£8,000
Completion date: 		December 1997
Number of visitors / passers by per week: c. 20
Description
Chrysalis Arts are a public art education and commissioning agency.Construction of their new, purpose designed building gave them the opportunity to demonstrate “the difference an artist can makea building.Commissioned art was, then, integral to the fabric and ethos of the building. 

The commissions were carried out in-house by Kate Maddison of Chrysalis Arts and comprised of:
•	A fibre-optic external floor feature. A colour-shifting lighting ‘path’ leads the visitor to the building entrance, its shape reflecting the canal running behind the building.
•	Canopy brackets and entrance door.Unsatisfied with standard brackets available for the building’s front canopy, bespoke brackets were designed.The pattern of light and shadow created by these brackets was used to create a design that was sand-etched into the glass entrance door.
•	Internal mosaic tile floor features.The glass front of the building is designed to open out completely into the courtyard area.The mosaic work blurs the distinction between external and internal by continuing the flowing water and canal theme of the fibre-optic work.
•	Signage.Individually sand-cast glass letters.
•	Seating area / dry stone walling.Designs worked into the walling echo the canal and water themes.
•	Letter-box.An embossed metal surround for the letterbox was added at a late stage when standard options were again felt to be inadequate.
Good Practice
•	Integration. The artist was involved in the genesis, evolution, and design of the project from the very first meeting.The commissions were a key part of the design process, and Chrysalis was prepare to suffer delay (which in the end did not occur) to ensure quality.
•	Development of the brief. The brief was written as a collaborative and ongoing process between the artist and the architect.
•	Response to site. All the pieces have a thematic unity and refer explicitly to the location of the building. 

The project has won two architectural awards: the Rural Design Building Award, for the best building in the educational category, and the RIBA White Rose award.

9. Henshaw’s Arts and Crafts Centre, Knaresborough

Lottery Number: 			96-1551
Organisation: 			Henshaw’s Society for the Blind.
Contact: 			Maggie Harrison
Address;			John Derby House, 88-92 Talbot Road, Manchester
Artist(s): 	Nicola Henshaw, Colin Rose, Amanda Wray, Colin Wilborn, Ailsa Magnus, Ian Randall
Public art advisors: 		Public Arts
Design team: 
Lottery Grant;		£1.8 million	
Cost of commissions: 		£60,000
Completion date: 		April 1999
Number of visitors / passers-by per week: c. 500
Description
Henshaw’s Society for the Blind is a further education college based in Harrogate.All the students are visually impaired and might have additional disabilities and learning difficulties.The project represents both an arts and crafts department for the organisation, and a venue for visually impaired and sighted people to share experiences through participation in, and enjoyment of, the arts.The centre comprises arts and crafts workshops, a large multi-purpose space, and a retail / cafe area.

The commissioning agency Public Arts and a lead artist - Nicola Henshaw - co-ordinated the commissions, which comprised:
•	Gates.Sculptural metal gates by Colin Rose.
•	Wall-pieces.Relief sculptures set into the entrance-area wall based on the five senses by Amanda Wray.
•	Guiderail.Carved wooden guide rail around the site by Nicola Henshaw.
•	Children’s area.A series of stone and wood sculptures, text panels and an articulated fold-out wooden seat set within a children’s ‘storytelling areaColin Welborne.
•	Wall Mosaic.A tiled mosaic with relief elements referring to the local area by Ailsa Magnus.
•	Sign / exterior sculpture.A large pod-shaped sculptural sign outside the centre, including over-sized Braille text, by Ian Randall.
Difficulties
•	Communication. The project experienced initial minor problems in establishing routes ofcommunication between the architect and the artists. 
•	Specification. The specification for one of the pieces was changed at a late stage in the process, increasing costs.
Good Practice
•	Integration.The commissions were planned as an integral part of not only the building but of the overall ethos of the centre.A lead artist was appointed to act as a conduit between the artists and the architect. 
•	Access.The briefs made explicit the end-users of the piece, to which the artists responded with appropriate sensitivity.The physical accessibility of the pieces was a major objective of the commissions.
•	Clarity.The briefs were detailed and clear.Arrangements for sub-contracting, responsibility, timetabling and fees were all explicitly laid out in the contract.
•	Ownership.Shortlisted artists were given a short brief to respond to in presentations to the client.Public Arts sifted the initial applications and offered advice, but did not select the successful candidate - this was entirely the responsibility of the client.
•	Education.The lead artist spent three weeks at the Henshaw’s college running workshops with the users of the centre.Workshops were held in local primary schools, where the lead artist would take two or three of Henshaw’s clients.In addition, all but one of the artists carried out workshops with Henshaw’s clients during the development stages of the commissions. 

10. Leadenham Village Hall 2000
Lottery Number: 			96-638
Organisation: 			Leadenham Village Hall 2000.
Contact: 			Mr A Phillips
Address:			9 Queensway, Leadenham.
Artist(s): 	Dee Honeybun, John Lilley, Shirley Palmer, Max Baker, Francis Anderson
Public art advisors:		n/a
Design team: 		Geoff Duck (architect)
Lottery Grant: 		£109,879
Cost of commissions: 		£8,400
Completion date: 		March 1999
Number of visitors / passers-by per week: 250
Description 
This scheme was for a new village hall for Leadenham, Lincolnshire.The hall provides a mixed-use venue for a range of amateur arts and other cultural and social activities. 

Commissioning artist-created elements within the hall was felt to be important.It was seen as a way to increase the sense of local ownership of the hall, placing the new building within the context of the village. 

The commissions within this build project comprised:
•	Railings.Figurative work was incorporated within the wrought-iron railings around the access ramp.This was designed and created by John Lilley.
•	Mosaic.An exterior wall-mounted mosaic sign was designed and created by Dee Honeybun.
•	Stained-glass window.A collection of local images was set above the entrance door to the hall, designed and fabricated by Shirley Palmer.
•	Stage curtain design.An embroidered work was designed and created by Fran Anderson.
•	Noticeboard.A carved stone feature was designed and created by Max Baker.
Difficulties
•	Brief specification.The briefs were intentionally quite open-ended,repeatingthe information from the commissioning advertisements placed in ‘Craft’ magazine.This meant that a significant and more than envisaged amount of time had to be devoted to negotiations on concepts and designs between the artists, the architect, the village hall steering committee, and the client.
•	Interests outside the project.One of the elements was sponsored by a local resident.This added a fifth opinion to the team of artist, architect, steering committee and client. 
Good practice
•	Concept.The commissions within the hall, whilst unique and individual, are also locally specific.The pieces make references to the surrounding area (in the case of the stained-glass), to local history (the wrought ironwork), and to the village population (the notice board, which also records the local contributors to fund-raising).
•	Attention to detail.The client took great pains to harmonise the fit-out of the building with the commissions.To continue and compliment the local element of the works, the colour schemes of carpets, walls, and seating were carefully considered to refer to and compliment the commissions, the building, and the locality.
•	Integration.While not actually members of a design team, the artists benefited from extensive access to, and discussions with, the architect.

11. The Lux Centre, London
Lottery Number: 			95-998 & 96-2295
Organisation: 			London Electronic Arts / London Film Maker’s Co-op
Contact: 			Michael Maziere
Address				Hoxton Sq, London
Artist(s):			Housewatch group, Daryl Viner, Elizabeth Wright
Public art advisors:		n/a
Design team:			McCreanor / Lavington (architects)
Lottery Grant:			£3 million
				£2.8 million
Cost of commissions: 		£50,000
Completion date: 		September 1997
Number of visitors / passers-by per week: 1000
Description
This project built and fitted-out a new purpose-built centre for film, video and new media in Hoxton Square, London.The building includes office space for London Electronic Arts (LEA) and the London Film Maker’s Co-op (LFMC), film, video, sound, and graphics suites, a 120 seat cinema, a bar/cafe, and a large gallery space.

The project included a number of temporary and permanent commissioned pieces.These were:
Conservatory.Created by the Housewatch group, this piece was a temporary video installation erected in the centre of Hoxton Square during the launch fortnight for the Lux Centre.The structure was a large Victorian-style conservatory whose glass sides were interior-projectedwith six short artists; The Kiss by Ian Bourne and John Smith, Cold Frame by Lulu Quinn, A Place For Tender Things by George Saxon, Heart of Glass at the Fountain Head by Tony Sinden, Loft by Stan Steele, Earthly Delights by Alison Winckle.
One-Minute Commissions.Eleven one-minute film/video works were commissioned for exhibition within the centre and subsequent archiving for distribution and future exhibition.These were:Assumption by Peter Gidal, Vampire Virus by Tina Keane, Knife Borne by Sandra Lahire,Project by Kayla Parker, Night Out Slippers and the Fairy by Joanna Woodward, The Dragon and the Fly by Vera Neubauer, Cat Food Women by Alison Murray, Confessions of a Bungee Jumper by William Raban, There’s a Friend for Little Children by Mark WallingerDas Pelzchen by Michael Curran, Circles by George Barber.
Light Curtain byDarrel Viner. A permanent architectural feature within the centre, this installation is within the main stairwell and features orange LEDs within the landings that are activated as the walker proceeds from one level to the next.
Pizza Delivery Moped by Elizabeth Wright.An oversized sculpture (145% of original size) of a Pizza Delivery Moped, placed in the entrance to the centre.
Difficulties
•	Fire Regulations.After the opening of the centre, the Health and Safety Executive ruled that the siting of the moped sculpture was in breach of fire regulations.The piece had to be removed and is currently in store, prior to a possible tour.
Good Practice
•	Scope of commissions.Temporary and permanent works achieved different purposes and gave an overall balance.Temporary, event-based pieces announced and commemorated the opening of the centre. Permanent works provided a place for art within the fabric of the building. 
•	Publicity.The centre’s launch events and permanent commissions were included in all programming / information material and publicity releases.The descriptions of the pieces and events took care to explain the who, what, why and how of each commissioned element.
•	Specification.David Viner and the architect had to collaborate closely on the light curtain to overcome the technical challenges of the piece’s size, usage and power supply.
•	Selection Process.The brief sent out to each of the short listed artists (around 25 for each piece) included architectural plans of the building, the history of organisations involved, the history of the site and surrounding area, and a detailed description of the objectives and philosophy of the LEA / LFMC partnership.

12. Quay Arts Centre, Isle of Wight
Lottery Number: 			95-664
Organisation: 			Steve Ross Foundation for the Arts.
Contact: 			Philip Cundall.
Address:			Quay Arts Centre, IoW.
Artist(s):			Jim Partridge, Molly Attrell, Mark Pimlott, Matthew Marchbank
Public art advisors:		n/a
Design team:			Tony Fretton (architect), Neil Geddes (project manager).
Lottery Grant:			£1.1 million
Cost of commissions: 		£120,000
Completion date: 		February 1998
Number of visitors / passers by per week: 2000
Description
The Quay Arts Centre is the only centre of its kind on the Isle of Wight and plays a vital role in arts provision for the island.This project involved extending the centre by linking it to a derelict neighbouring building, (the Rope Store), and the large-scale refurbishment and renovation of both the pre-existent building and the new areas.The project provided a new studio theatre, dressing rooms, craft gallery and shop, restaurant/bar area, box office, seminar/training spaces, reception area and office accommodation, and an upgraded exhibition space. 

The project included a number of commissioned elements within the capital build:
•	Footbridge.A wooden ‘green oaklinks the two ‘halvesthe centre, designed by Jim Partridge.
•	Tile mosaic.Sited in the open kitchen of the bar/cafe area, designed and created by Molly Attrell.
•	Furniture.Set in the bar/cafe, designed by Mark Pimlott and constructed by Matthew Marchbank.
•	Wall mosaic.Sited in the bar/cafe, designed and created by Jan Williams. 
Difficulties
•	Timetabling. The project experienced a minor over-run in the construction and fit-out of the kitchen area.The tiled mosaic work was completed and ready for fitting on time, but then had to be stored (an added expense) until the build work was complete.
•	Technical specification.Last-minute changes had to be made to the foot bridge when it was discovered that the original design would have compromised access to a boiler-room.Luckily, the changes required were minor, and easily accomplished.
Good Practice
•	Functional role. The project took the view that using artists to create functional elements would produce unique items of high quality.This has certainly occurred; the artist-designed furniture and bridge are visually attractive, redolent of quality and, (by testifying to how an environment can benefit from the input of an artist), an explicit reference to the multi-art form basis of the centre itself.
•	Artist involvement.Whilst the artists were not actually members of the project’s design team, they were involved in the early planning stages.
•	RAB relationship.The Centre kept in close contact with Southern Arts Board throughout the project, and made full use of their advice and experience in the commissioned elements of the project.

13. Sheepfolds, Cumbria
Lottery Number: 			95-2713
Organisation: 			Cumbria County Council
Address:			Cultural Srvices Unit, Arroyo Block, The Castle, Carlisle	
Contact: 			Bruce Bennison
Artist(s): 			Andy Goldsworthy
Public art advisors: 		Cumbria Public Arts
Design team:			n/a
Lottery Grant:			£342,000		
Cost of commissions: 		£600,000
Completion date: 		2000
Number of visitors / passers by per week: Not available
Description 
The Sheepfolds project is a major public art initiative covering the whole of Cumbria.The project grew out of Cumbria County Council’s desire to be involved with the 1996 Year of the Visual Arts. 

The project intends to renovate or rebuild around 100 dry stone wall sheepfolds across the region.The project responds to the unique history of the region by developing the pieces only where records show that sheepfolds actually stood.

As well as these structures, the project also includes the construction of nine cones within selected folds, referring to nine Cumbrian standing stones - the Standards - sited outside Penrith.Goldsworthy constructed a free-standing stone arch that travelled the region along an ancient north to south drove route through the county.The project has also included a number of temporary or ephemeral works across the region, ranging from snow sculptures to works with leaves within the completed folds.
Difficulties
•	Vandalism.The first cone constructed for the project was completely destroyed immediately after construction.This has now been rebuilt. 
•	Siting.The project had to convince site owners, in the main local farmers of the worth of pieces so as to obtain permission to sit them on working farmland.
•	ACE eligibility rules.The unique nature of this works made it initially difficult for the project to easily display its eligible for ACE Lottery.This was solved by careful research, justification and negotiation between Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Public Arts (public arts consultancy) and ACE Lottery and Visual Arts departments.
Good Practice
•	Public consultation. The unique nature of nature of the pieces, their number, and the insistence that they were placed on historical accurate sites meant that the project required extensive public consultation.Each individual piece was subject to its own consultation process.For some sites, this took two years.Meetings with local landowners, community groups, and parish councils were the backbone of the consultations.This degree of attention to public queries and feelings was designed to engender feelings of local ownership, involvement and investment, which appears to have been successful. 
•	Response to site.The project explicitly deals in the history of the region and the individual sites.The majority of the sites are not to be maintained or tidied in a conventional sense, rather allowed to return as working assets within the county.One exception to this is a sheepfold sited on the grass verge of a petrol station.However, even in this site the project is a direct response to the history and culture of the Cumbria region.
•	Education.The local authority has organised a number of school visits and workshops.An education pack is currently being prepared around the project, placing the project as a topic within the National Curriculum.When the project is fully complete, a two week series of workshops on environmental art will be held in the region.
•	Access.While not all of the sites are physically accessible to disabled people, the project includes a book on the works and talking tape guides.Disability art groups were consulted about access to the pieces from the earliest stages of the project.

14. Pembrooke Street Estate Redevelopment, Plymouth
Lottery Number: 			95-2557
Organisation: 			Mount Wise Greenlink
Contact: 			Lynn Bell.
Address:			102 Pembroke St
Artist(s): 	Sebastian Boyesen, Glen Eastman, Melissa Cole, Noel Perkin, Katie Lake, Andy Frost, Sundog Media 
Public art advisors: 		Dick Watson (consultant)
Design team: 		Christine Watts, Timber in Tents
Lottery Grant:		£563,995
Cost of commissions: 		£470,000
Completion date:			tbc. 
Number ofvisitors/passers-by per week: 1,000
Description
This project is a community led regeneration of a housing estate in the Stonehouse area of Plymouth.The management and regeneration of the area was taken over by the local residents in 1991 with assistance from the Estate Action fund.

From the earliest planning stages the regeneration strategy for the estate included commissioned and community-created public art.

Workshops with local residents took place over three years, building towards the final design of the pieces within the regenerated estate.All the commissions included extensive community involvement in either design, fabrication or both. 

The commissions include:
•	Outdoor floor mosaic.Designed and created by local residents and Sebastian Boyesen.
•	Bollards.Topped with symbols and images relating to the local area and history, designed by local residents and Glen Eastman.
•	Railings.Secure, but decorative steel railings, designed by Melissa Cole. 
•	Performance space canopy.A decorated all-weather cover for a community events and performance space, constructed by Timber in Tents and designed by local residents and Roger Brisley.
•	Gates.Currently under construction, and designed by local residents and Noel Perkin.
•	House name plaques.A project to give local residents the chance to name and ‘brand’ their blocks with decorative plaques.The initiative is being co-ordinated by artist Katie Lake, and up to thirteen artists will be commissioned to produce the plaques in conjunction with local residents.
•	Children’s Play Area.Currently being designed by local residents and Andy Frost. 
Difficulties
•	Geographical location.The project experienced problems with the ‘remotenessPlymouth - it being both expensive and time-consuming to get artists and other personnel such as funders to the area. 
Good Practice
•	Public consultation. The project is completely community-led.Every aspect of the project has been subject to wide-ranging and in-depth public consultation and contribution.
•	Urban regeneration.The project is a unique example of community-led urban regeneration, and has already been the subject of a number of graduate and postgraduate dissertations and theses.In addition, the project leaders have given presentations to the DETR on good practice in urban regeneration.

APPENDIX ONE: PROJECTS IN THE TELEPHONE SURVEY
This is the list of projects covered by the telephone survey.

A13 Public Art. Main Contact: Jeremy Grint
ACAVA. Main Contact: Duncan Smith
Airedale High School. Main Contact: Mr M Bucktrout
Altrincham Garrick Society Ltd. Main Contact: Neil Myerson
Art Transpennine. Main Contact: Sara Black
Arts in Healthcare. Main Contact: Gail Bolland
Artspace Bristol. Main Contact: Michele Farmer
Artsway. Main Contact: Linda Fredricks
Arvon Foundation - Lumb Bank. Main Contact: David Pease
Baltic Flour Mills. Main Contact: L N Elton
Bath College of HE. Main Contact: Mr M Osbourne
Battersea Arts Centre. Main Contact: Steve Mannix
Beaford Arts Centre. Main Contact: Bob Butler
Belgrade Theatre. Main Contact: David Beidas
Benslow Music Trust. Main Contact: David Moore
Birmingham Centre for Media Arts Ltd. Main Contact: Nicky Edmonds
Birmingham Hippodrome. Main Contact: Peter Todd
Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. Main Contact: Stuart Dalby
Birmingham University Hospital. Main Contact: Alison Deeley
Blackpool Grand Theatre. Main Contact: Stephanie Sirr
Bluecoat Display Centre. Main Contact: Maureen Bampton
Bolton Little Theatre. Main Contact: Michael Haworth
Bournemouth and Poole Study Gallery. Main Contact: Richard Dimbleby
Bradford Gallery / Yorkshire Craft Studio. Main Contact: Alan W Smith
Bradford Gallery. Main Contact: Alan Smith
Brewery Arts. Main Contact: Anne Pierson
Brewhouse Arts Centre. Main Contact: Maureen Milgram
Brewhouse Theatre and Arts Centre. Main Contact: Patrick Hodges
Bromley Youth Music Trust. Main Contact: Peter Mawson - Principal
Burton Borough High School. Main Contact: Mr P Boulton
Bute Street. Main Contact: Vivek Malhotra
Cambridge Arts Trust. Main Contact: Ian Ross
CandoCo Dance Company. Main Contact:Martina Crowley
Central Studio. Main Contact: David Hankin
Channel Theatre. Main Contact: Claudia Leaf
Chicken Shed Theatre Company. Main Contact: John Bull
Chipping Norton Theatre. Main Contact: Tamara Malcolm
Chrysalis Arts. Main Contact: Rick Faulkner
City Screen (Brighton) Ltd. Main Contact: Lyn Goleby
City Screen Stratford. Main Contact: Lyn Goleby
City Screen York. Main Contact: Lyn Goleby
Clean Break Theatre. Main Contact: Ms L Perman
Colchester Arts Centre. Main Contact: Anthony Roberts
Colchester Theatre. Main Contact: Ms P Trueman
Community Music East. Main Contact: Ben Higham
Contact Theatre. Main Contact: Fiona Gasper
Contemporary Applied Arts. Main Contact: Mary La Trobe-Bateman
Contemporary Arts Society. Main Contact: Gill Hedley
Cornerhouse. Main Contact: Virginia Tandy
Cornwall Theatre Company. Main Contact: Julia Twomlow
Cosy Hall, Newport. Main Contact: Susan Miles
Coventry Technical College. Main Contact: Alistair Scott
Craft Potters' Association. Main Contact: Elizabeth Gale
Cranleigh Arts Centre. Main Contact: Dr Catherine Pike
Crescent Theatre. Main Contact: H W Tuckey
CUBE. Main Contact: Graham Russell
Cumbria Arts in Education. Main Contact: Stephanie Simm
Cumbria Theatre. Main Contact: Mrs V Robinson
Dartford Grammar School. Main Contact: Michael P Conn
Dartington Hall Trust. Main Contact: Charles Taylor
DARTS. Main Contact: Elaine Hurst
Darwen Theatre. Main Contact: Mr. F R Wand
Derby City Council - Derby Dance Centre. Main Contact: Ian Yeomans
Dormston School. Main Contact: Barbara O'Connor
Dovecot Arts Centre. Main Contact: Carole G Cuthbertson
Durham Street Studio. Main Contact: Liz Carter
East Grinstead Arts Centre. Main Contact: Mr C J Rolley
East Yorkshire Borough Council - Bridlington Bay Public Art Programme. Main Contact: Andrew Knight
Eastleigh BC. Main Contact: Robert Tambini
Electric Theatre. Main Contact: David Watts 
EMAP tower. Main Contact: Tim Brooks
Estover Community College. Main Contact: Dr. P J Stevens
Forest Forge Theatre Co. Main Contact: Sharon Lawless
Fosmic. Main Contact: Anne Scott
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council - Regional Music Centre. Main Contact: L N Elton
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council - The Angel of the North. Main Contact: William J Macnaught
Gateway Theatre. Main Contact: Katy Spicer
Geoffrey Whitworth Theatre. Main Contact: Mr D A Johnson
Grand Theatre Wolverhampton. Main Contact: Brian Goddard
Group 64 Youth Theatre. Main Contact: Perry Kitchen
Guildhall Arts Centre. Main Contact: Andy Woods
Gujurat Samaj Nott. Main Contact: J Jani
Hackney Empire. Main Contact: Simon Thomsett
Hall for Cornwall. Main Contact: Chris Warner
Hampsted Theatre. Main Contact: Mr R Wakley
Hanover Band / Old Market Trust. Main Contact: Stephen Neiman
Harbour Lights Cinema. Main Contact: Rod Varley
Henshaw's Society for the Blind. Main Contact: Bernard Wallwork
Hitchin Thespians. Main Contact: Ann Crook
Ikon Gallery. Main Contact: Elizabeth Macgregor
IMAX Cinema. Main Contact: Peter Touche
Interchange Studios / The Hamden Trust. Main Contact: Alan Tomkins
International Youth House. Main Contact: Mike Farrant
Jerwood Space Ltd. Main Contact: Richard Lee
Jubilee Arts. Main Contact: Sylvia King
Kirklees Media Centre. Main Contact: Keith Jeffrey
Kirklees Metropolitan Council. Main Contact: Jenny Lockwood
Kirklees Theatre Trust. Main Contact: Ron McAllister
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Kirkby Library. Main Contact: Paul Bewick
Lancaster City Council. Main Contact: Carolyn Primett
Language Alive - Education Theatre Services. Main Contact: Rob Elkington
Leadenham Village Hall 2000. Main Contact: Mr A A Philips
Leyland Arts and Crafts Centre. Main Contact: Paul Callander
Little Theatre, Sheringham. Main Contact: Tony Nelson
Live Theatre. Main Contact: Jane Tarr
Liverpool Empire Theatre. Main Contact: David Morgan
London Borough of Bromley - Crystal Palace Concert Bowl. Main Contact: Robbie Stoakes
London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Main Contact: Julia Kyprianou
London Borough of Tower Hamlets - Brady Centre. Main Contact: Paul Ely
London Electronic Arts. Main Contact: Michael Maziere
Ludlow and District Community Association Ltd. Main Contact: Bob Rose
Lyric Theatre Hammersmith - Stage 1. Main Contact: Sue Storr 
Magic Circle. Main Contact: Rupert Connell
Magna Carta School. Main Contact: Mr C K Walker
Making Waves. Main Contact: Doff Pollard
Malvern Festival Theatre. Main Contact: Nicholas Lloyd
Milton Keynes Theatre and Exhibition Gallery. Main Contact: Pauline Scott-Garrett
Murray Park Community School. Main Contact: R Roberts
Music Works. Main Contact: Peter Davenport
National Film and Television School. Main Contact: Jim Rhodda
National Glass Centre. Main Contact: Geoff Woodcock
National Youth Theatre. Main Contact: Marilyn Eardley
Natural Theatre Company. Main Contact: Ralph Oswick
NCPM Sheffield. Main Contact: Tim Strickland
New Buckenham Village Hall. Main Contact: Dr Charles Oakley
New Everyman Theatre. Main Contact: Kevin Fearon
Newlyn Art Gallery. Main Contact: Emily Ash
Nomad Players. Main Contact: Geoffrey Partridge
Norden Farm Centre. Main Contact: David Hill
North Devon District Council - Pavilion Theatre, Ilfracombe. Main Contact: Rosemarie Lyons
Northern School of Contemporary Dance. Main Contact: Nadine Senior
Norwich Arts Centre. Main Contact: Pam Reekie
Norwich Playhouse Theatre Ltd. Main Contact: Henry Burke
Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery. Main Contact: Andrew Calver
Nottingham Media Centre. Main Contact: Stephen Mapp
Nottinghamshire County Council - Rufford Craft Centre. Main Contact: Peter Dworok
Nuffield Theatre. Main Contact: Mark Courtice
Ocean Music Trus (formerly Central Hall, Hackney). Main Contact: Mark Higham
Octagon Theatre Trust. Main Contact: Tony Hughes
Orange Tree Theatre. Main Contact: Gillian Thorpe
Oxford Playhouse. Main Contact: Heeda Beeby
Paddington Arts. Main Contact: Steve Shaw
Pembooke Street Estate. Main Contact: Christine Watts
Pendle Borough Council. Main Contact: Phil Storey
Photofusion. Main Contact: Julia Martin
Picture This Independent Film and Video. Main Contact: Rachel Drummond-Hay
Playbox Theatre. Main Contact: Mary King
Poole Arts Trust. Main Contact: Ruth Eastwood
Preston Borough Council - Guildhall and Charter Theatres. Main Contact: Brian Manning
Pro Corda Trust. Main Contact: Mo Crump
Prudhoe Art Trust. Main Contact: John D Baumber
Quay Arts Centre. Main Contact: Miss A Toms
Questors. Main Contact: Roger Kelley
RADA. Main Contact: Nicholas Barter - principal
Redbridge Drama Centre. Main Contact: Mala Dadlani
Redlees Arts and Crafts. Main Contact: Antony Martin
Rhyn Park School. Main Contact: Janet Warwick (head)
Rio Cinema. Main Contact: Mr C Rubinstein
Rosehill Arts Trust. Main Contact: C A Lloyd
Royal Albert Hall. Main Contact: Patrick Deuchar
Royal Exchange Theatre. Main Contact: Patricia Weller
Royal National Theatre. Main Contact: Maggie Whitlum
Royal Opera House. Main Contact: Jeremy Dixon (Architect)
Royal Society of Church Music. Main Contact: Charles King
Sadler's Wells. Main Contact: Ian Albery 
Salisbury Playhouse. Main Contact: Rebecca Horland
Salway Centre (Theatre Stratford East). Main Contact: Shirley Miller
Serpentine Gallery. Main Contact: Jackie McNerney
Sheffield Media and Exhibition Centre. Main Contact: Ian Wild 
Shire training Workshops. Main Contact: Lucas Schoemaker
Site Gallery. Main Contact: Carol Maund
Snape Maltings (Aldeburgh Trust). Main Contact: Sheila Colvin
Soho Theatre. Main Contact: Mark Godfrey
South Bank Employers Group. Main Contact: Camilla Cavendish
South Holland DC. Main Contact: Nigel Hawkins
Southend Borough Council - Clliffs Pavilion. Main Contact: Charles Mumford
Southwark Playhouse. Main Contact: Juliet Alderice
Southwick Community Centre. Main Contact: George Porter
Spitalfields Market Opera. Main Contact: Professor T Burgess
St Austell Band Club. Main Contact: Trevor Hitchens
St.George’s Music Trust. Main Contact: Mr J Stracey
Stamford Shakespeare Company. Main Contact: Mr D Harrison
Stoke-on-Trent Rep. Main Contact: Richard Masters
Strode Park. Main Contact: Gordon Browne
Strode Theatre. Main Contact: Liz Leyshon
Surrey Heath BC. Main Contact: Eamon Ryan
Surrey Institute of Art and Design. Main Contact: Ms. Kapteijn
Tacchi Morris Centre. Main Contact: Stephen Elliot
Team Pictures. Main Contact: Ron Peck
Teddington Theatre Club. Main Contact: Kenneth Mason
The Brick Train. Main Contact: John Cairns
The Courtyard. Main Contact: Hereford. Main Contact: R A Ford
The Crafts Council. Main Contact: Tony Ford
The Drum. Main Contact: Paul Udenze
The Greenfield Centre. Main Contact: Mike Thornton
The Lowry Centre. Main Contact: Chris Hulme
The Mountbatten School. Main Contact: Mrs Morffew
The People Show. Main Contact: Jane Martin
The Roadmender. Main Contact: Fergus Justice-Mills
The Spitz - Spitalfields Arts Project. Main Contact: Martin Burrows
The Tabernacle. Main Contact: Gill Fitzhugh
The Tramman Trust. Main Contact: D Quayle
Theatre Royal / Ustinov Theatre, Bath. Main Contact: Danny Moar
Theatre Royal Wakefield. Main Contact: Murray Edwards
Tile Hill. Main Contact: Ruth Westbrook
Tottenham Hale Public Art Project. Main Contact: Julia Isherwood
Tricycle Theatre Company. Main Contact: Nicholas Kent
Trinity Theatre. Main Contact: Micheal Stubbs
Trowbridge College - The Arc. Main Contact: Mr G Bright
Tyne & Wear Development Corporation - Art on the Riverside. Main Contact: Andrew Rothwell
Unity Theatre. Main Contact: Graeme Phillips
University of Wolverhampton. Main Contact: Kevin O'Sullivan
Upstagers. Main Contact: Gill Jackson
Valley Community Theatre. Main Contact: Carl Speare
Video Engineering and Training Ltd. Main Contact: Paul Williams
Walsall Gallery. Main Contact: Peter Jenkinson
Warrington Borough Council. Main Contact: Gail Thorne
Warwick Arts Centre. Main Contact: Alan Rivett
Washington Arts Centre. Main Contact: J P Devine
Wavendon. Main Contact: Jacky Scott
Welfare State International. Main Contact: Eileen Morgan
Wellhouse. Main Contact:Heather Ashton-Newton
West Laverington BC. Main Contact: Mr R W Giles
Whitechapel Art Gallery. Main Contact: Catherine Lampert
Wiltshire Music Centre. Main Contact: Diane Youle
Wimbledon Theatre. Main Contact: Robert Hobbs
Winchester Theatre. Main Contact: Russell Fairchild
Windlesham Working Men's Institue. Main Contact: Jim Fairman
Wolverhampton BC. Main Contact: Brian Bailey
Wraysbury Village Hall. Main Contact: Michael R Smith
Wymering Community Association. Main Contact: Chris Kearns
York Early Music Centre. Main Contact: Delma Tomlin
Zion Arts Centre/Manchester City Council. Main Contact: Josephine Beddoe

APPENDIX TWO: LIST OF ARTISTS 
This is the full list of artists mentioned by grant recipients from the telephone survey.

Vicki Abbot 
Graciela Ainsworth 
John Andrew 
Fran Anderson x2
Tim Armstrong
Paul Atkinson
Molly Attrell
Bahan Aunjan 
Brian Avery

Ralph Ball x2
Max Baker
George Barber
Nick Baraton
John Barratt
Juliet Beach
Alan Bennett
Maggie Berkowitz
Lyndsey Bloxham 
Evelyn Body
John Borossky
Jo Boswell
Ian Bourne
Stephanie Bourne
Paul Bowker
Sebastian Boyesen.
Paul Burwell x2
Oliver Budd x3
Angela Bullock
Marion Brandis x2
Micheal Brennant-Wood x2
Roger Brisley.
Martin Brockman
Helen Brown
Ken Brown
Lucy Broadhead x2
Andy Briggs
Bob Budd
Lucy Burbeck

Ron Carter x2
Kevin Carol
Paul Clifford x2
Sophia Clist
Julian Coode x2
Melissa Cole 
Peter Codling x2
James Common x2
Tom Costello
Jonathan Cross
Philip Cox x4
Peter Crowishaw
Michael Curran

Owen Dawson 
Hans Dieter-Kuhn
Hans Dieter-Pietsch
Avtarjeet Dhanjal x3
Martin Donlin x5
Terry Duffy
Peter Dunn

Glen Eastman
Caroline Eade x2
Brian Elliot
Graham Ellard
Mark Evans

Joe Fairfax
Peter Fink x4
Simon Filton
Peter Freeman x3
John Foster
Gabriella Folk
Marianne Forest x2
Jane Fordam
Brian Frisby x2
Andy Frost
Nick Fry

Susanna Gent
Lisa Galph Daniel
Tessa Garland,
Peter Gidal,
Andy Goldsworthy
Anthony Gormley
Dave Green

Glynn Boyd Hart
Helen Hale
Jonathan Hale x2
Ian Hamilton Finlay x4
Paul Harrison
Ron Hasleden x3
Anna Henrich
Tim Head
David Hersey
Nicola Henshaw x2
Tracy Holland
Dee Honeybun x2
James Horobin
Jane Hodgkin
Amber Hiscott x3
Gary Hulme

Walter Jack
Howard Jackson
Tess Jaray
Zoe Jelly
Graham Jobbins
Bridget Jones
Laura Johnsonx2
Laura Jones
Paul Jones
Paul Juillerat
Stephen Johnston

Micheal Kenny
Tina Keane,
John Keene
Rita Keegan
Richard Kindersley
Tania Kovats

Sandra Lahire
Katie Lake
Richard Land x2
Rick Lawler
John Lilley x2
Greg Lomas
Fred Laconte
Tom Lomax
Brian Lorden
Daphne Lindsay
Mary Little x2

David Mach
Kate Maddison x4
Kerry Morrison x2
Alison Magnus x2
Harry Malkin
Mark Major
Victor Mana
Usha Makenthiral x3
Julia Mannhein
Matthew Marchbank
Simon Marshall
Babette Maxwell
Rob Melville x2
Rob Moore
John Melson
Brandon McGuire
Bruce McLean x2
Adrian Mitchell 
John Mills
Adrian Moakes x2
Alison Murray
Juan Munoz
Anita Myatt

Vera Neubauer

Julian Opie

Kerry Packer
Leon Palmer
George Pardio
David Parfit
David Pearl
Noel Perkin 
Peter Parkinson x4
Tom de Paor
Zora Palovax2
Shirley Palmer x2
Simon Paynton
Vic Payfor
Mark Pimlott
Vivien Prideaux
Nicholas Pryke x2
Kayla Parker
Jim Partridge x2
Keith Piper
Anuradha Patel x3
Anna Potten 

Lulu Quinn x3

William Raban
Jill Randall
Ian Randall-Page x2
Piers Rawson
Gareth Roberts
Anne Robertson
Jim Robison
John Riddy
Jenny Ross x2
Dick Reed
Colin Rose x2
Andre Roy
Graham Rust

Wendy Sandiland
Slyvia Sayer 
George Saxon
Kate Schavarien
Melanie Sprote
Janice Shales x2
Charles Sharman-Cox
Christopher Stewart
John Smith
Martin Smith x2
Andrew Smith x2
Malcolm Smith
Ray Smith
Ann Smythe x2
Tony Sinden
Lucy S Simon
Marcus Steele
Stan Steele
Hans Stoffer
Mark deSuvero
Phillip Surrey
Matthew Sweeney 
David Swift

Louis Thompson
Lee Thompson
Simon Turner

Igor Ustinov

David Watson
Binita Walia x2
Robert Walker
Mark Wallinger
Luke Weatherall
Shaun Webb
Cleve West
Richard Wentworth 
Peter Wheeler
Richard Wilson
Colin Wilborn x2
Graham Wood,
Joanna Woodward
Johnny Woodford
Jim Williams
Jan Williams
Avril Wilson
Janice Wilson
Louise Wilson,
Billy Winter
Alison Winckle. 
Amanda Wray x2
Liz Wright x2
Elizabeth Wright

Patricia Volk
Daryl Viner x2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Eileen / Southern Band, (1997), Public Art: people, projects, processes, AN Publications, Sunderland.

Alston, David, (1986), Public Art Research Archive:A ‘percentage for art schemethe City of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/slidecol/pubart/info/sheff1.html.

Bellevue Arts Commission - Public Art Creating Community Connections, http://oasis.bellevue.k12.wa.us/art/bac.html 

British Urban Regeneration Association: The Role of BURA, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bura/index.html#rol

Burnham, Linda Frye / Durland, Steven, (1998), Citizen Artist: 20 years of arts in the public arena: an anthology from High Performance magazine, Critical Press, New York. 

City of San Antonio Department of Arts and Cultural Affairs Artists Registry, http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/DACA/pubart.html.

Dunlop, Rachel / Eckstein, Jeremy (eds.), (1995), Film, cinema and video: the benefits of public art (Cultural Trends: 23), Policy Studies Institute, London.

Examples of Public Art in China, http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jtyoung/chinaart.html

Harding, David / Buchler, Pavel, (1997), Decadent public art: contentious term and contested practice, Foulis Press, Glasgow.

Hercombe, Sue, (1986), What the hell do we want an artist here for? Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London.

Humphries, David / Monk, Rodney, (1982), The Mural Manual: a guide to community mural painting in Australia, Australia Council for the Arts, Sydney.

Khan, Naseem / Worpole, Ken, (1991), Travelling Hopefully: a study of the arts in the transport system, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London.

Knipe, Tony / Davies, Peter, (1984), A sense of place: Sculpture in Landscape, Ceolfrith Gallery, Sunderland.

Landscape Issues: The Landscape of Urban Regeneration: Public Art, http://www.chelt.ac.uk/cwis/pubs/laniss/vol12/page2.html.

Laumeier Sculpture Park, St Louis, Missouri, http://home.stlnet.com/~jimpotts/fire_ice.htm~image

Lee, Corner, (1995), Code of practice for the visual arts, National Artists Association, London.

Low, David & McConnell, Jeanne (National Endowment for the Arts), SPARC & Community…a 20-year Partnership, The Social and Public Art Resource Centre: Los Angeles, http://arts/enndow.gov/Features3/Sparc.html
Miles, Malcolm, (1989), Art for public places: critical essays, Winchester School of Art Press,Winchester.
New Public Art: woman with washer - City of Palo Alto, http://www.service.com/PAW/morgue/news/1997_Apr_23.WOMAN.html
Percent for Art Orleans, http://www.neworleansonline.com/pfa.html
Percent for Art Ordinance , http://www.ci.chi.il.us/ca/PublicArt/PercentForArtProjects.html
Percent for Art Program - New York City, http://www.nyc.ny.us/nyclink/html/dcla/html/pct1.html
Percent for Art Program , http://oac.ohio.gov/PERCART/PERCENT/pcntmain.html
Percent for Art Requirement - City of West Hollywood, http://www.ci.west-hollywood.ca.us/cddweb/percent.html
Petherbridge, Deanna, (1987), Art for architecture, HMSO, London.
Public Art ,Culture& Heritage, Toronto, http://www.ffa.ucalgary.ca/metrotor/public_art.html
Public Art Program - City of Pasadena, http://ci.pasadena.ca.us/planning&permitting/arts/publicart.html
Public Art Program - King County, Washington, http://www/metroke.gov/exec/culture/publicart/index.html
Roberts, Marian, (1993), Public art in private places: commercial benefits and public policy, University of Westminster: School of Urban Planning, London.
Scott, Diana, (1996), Public Art: Whose Version of History? San Francisco, http://www.monitor.free.whosehistory.html

Shaw, Phyllida, (1990), The Public Art Report: Local Authority commissions of art for public places, Public Art Forum / The Public Art Development Trust, London.

Shaw, Phyllida / Allen, Keith, (1997), ArtistsProgramme: a review of artistsfor exhibitions and commissions, National Artists Association, London.

Shaw, Phyllida, (1990), The Public Art Report: local authority commissions of art for public places, Public Art Development Trust, London.

Sheffield Hallam University, (1996), Going public: public art in Sheffield, PAVIC Publications, Sheffield.

Soros Centre for Contemporary Arts (Prague): discussion on the theme “Public Space”, http://www.ecn.cz/osf/scca/eng/talk.html

Summerton, Janet / Moody, Eric, (1995), The business of being an artist, City University, London.

The Angel of the North: “Gateshead’s Winged Wonder”, http://wkweb4.cableinet.co.uk/hesychast.angel.html

The Gunk Foundation Grants for Public Art, http://www.gunk.org/info/welcome.html

The Place of Public Art in the Contemporary Landscape (School of Geography, University of Oxford), http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/piercey.html

Towards a new analysis of Public Art - The PhD research programme of Jeremy Beach, http://www.unn.ac.uk/~hcv6/phd.html~Section

University of Westminster, (1993), Public art: the new agenda, (Keynote Address), University of Westminster, London.

University of Westminster, (1993), Public art: the new agenda (Panel: Evaluating Art, Craft and Design in Public Places), University of Westminster, London.