History

Imagine your parents decided to put a huge statue in your room without asking you. The statue is beautiful, made by a well‑known artist, but it takes up half the room and is nothing like what you like. That’s roughly how Seattle residents felt in 2004 when they learned which sculpture was going to be placed in their beloved park. The story of what happened next changed the rules for every American city that buys art with taxpayers’ money.

Seattle has long had a program simply called "1% for Art." The rule works like a beauty savings account: when the city builds a new school, library, or park, it sets aside one percent of the total budget to purchase a work of art. If a school costs $10 million, $100,000 goes to a statue, mosaic, or mural. The program started in 1973, and thanks to it Seattle now has more than 400 pieces of public art — from giant sculptures to tiny details on library walls.

But this attractive idea had a tricky problem: who decides which art to buy? The artists? Officials? Or the people who will see the sculpture every day?

The sculpture that split the city

In 2004 the Seattle Art Museum was creating a new Olympic Sculpture Park — a scenic spot on the shore of Puget Sound where people could walk among artworks and look out over the water. For the park, experts selected a work by the famous sculptor Richard Serra — an artist whose enormous metal sculptures stand in museums around the world. His works look like huge rusted steel walls you can walk between.

Serra proposed a sculpture called "Wake" — five enormous curved steel plates as tall as a four‑story building. They were intended to sit on a hill and evoke the waves left behind by a ship. For the artist and museum experts it was the perfect work: a renowned master, a sea‑related theme (Seattle is a port city), contemporary art of world‑class calibre.

But when Seattle residents saw the design, many were outraged. "It looks like a rusty fence!", "It will block the view of the water!", "Why didn’t anyone ask us?" — people said at public meetings. An elderly neighborhood resident, Margaret Page, told reporters: "I’ve lived here 40 years. I walk down to the waterfront every morning. Why does a group of museum experts get to decide what I should see every day?"

The dispute grew louder. Some defended artists’ right to create challenging, provocative art. Others demanded that public art should please the public. Newspapers printed angry letters from both sides. It wasn’t just a fight over a single sculpture — it was a fight over who the city belonged to.

What changed after the scandal

In the end Richard Serra withdrew from the project. He said he didn’t want to work in a place where his art wasn’t welcomed. Instead of "Wake," the park got other sculptures — lighter, brighter, more accessible works. Today the park includes, for example, Dale Chihuly’s red glass conservatory and the playful sculpture "Father and Son" — two little figures seemingly looking out over the water.

But the most important change didn’t happen in the park, it happened in the rules. After the controversy, Seattle completely reformed the process for selecting public art. Now the "1% for Art" program works differently:

• Mandatory public meetings: Before selecting an artist, city officials hold at least three meetings with neighborhood residents. People explain what matters to them, which stories they want art to tell, what they like or dislike.

• Committees with ordinary people: Selection panels now include not only experts and artists but also ordinary residents — teachers, shopkeepers, retirees, children.

• Transparency: All proposals are published online well before approval. Anyone can leave a comment or attend the discussion.

• Flexibility: If a project raises serious objections, the panel can ask the artist to revise the work or choose a different artist.

Kimberly Derr, director of the "1% for Art" program, told reporters in 2010: "We realized our job is not just to buy good art. Our job is to help communities tell their stories through art."

Lessons for other cities

Seattle’s story proved important for many cities around the world. "Percent for Art" programs exist in hundreds of cities — from New York to Tokyo, from Paris to Melbourne. But after the Seattle controversy many of them began to change their rules.

For example, Portland, Oregon now requires artists to meet with local residents before creating a work. In Denver, Colorado, schoolchildren vote on the art that will appear in their schools. In Vancouver, Canada, they created special "art walks" — tours where residents look at existing public art and discuss what they like and don’t like.

Researchers at the University of Washington studied 50 cities with public art programs and found an interesting pattern: cities that actively involve residents in art selection spend roughly the same amount of money but experience far fewer conflicts. In Seattle there hasn’t been a serious public art scandal since 2004, even though the program has installed more than 150 new works.

But there’s another side. Some artists and critics worry that too much public participation makes art bland and safe. They argue that real art should surprise, provoke, and make people think — not simply aim to please everyone. As art critic Michael Upstill wrote in Artforum: "If we asked the public which painting to hang in a museum, we’d never see Picasso."

What this means for us

The fight over Richard Serra’s sculpture seems like a story about art, but it’s really a story about democracy. When a city spends taxpayers’ money — your parents’, your neighbors’, your teachers’ — who should decide how it’s spent? Experts who know more? Or the people who will live with the result?

Seattle found a compromise: listen to both experts and residents. It doesn’t work perfectly — some projects still spark debates, and some artists refuse to participate in such complex processes. But the city has shown that it’s possible to create interesting, high‑quality art while respecting people’s opinions.

Today Seattle has public art to suit every taste: giant metal trolls under bridges, mosaics that tell immigrants’ stories, interactive fountains where children play in summer, sculptures made from recycled materials that remind people about conservation. Each work is the result of a conversation between artists and residents.

And Richard Serra’s "Wake" was never built. But it permanently changed how cities think about public art. Sometimes the most important lessons come not from what we build, but from what we decide not to build.

Maybe next time you see a statue or mural in your city you’ll wonder: who decided to put it there? Did they ask the people who live nearby? Those are important questions, because a city belongs to everyone who lives in it — adults and children alike.

❮ ❯