How Can the Public Art in Philadelphia Promote the Quality
of Public Users’ Life?
The Public Perception Surveys in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of Drexel University By Shu-Yi Kao (Drexel ID:10906183) In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of Master of Arts Administration Spring 2008 Table of Contents
I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………3
II. Literature Review……………………………………………………………...5
III. The Development of Public Art in Philadelphia…………….……………….17
IV. Research Design and Methodology…………………………………………..27
V. Finding in the Surveys………………………………………………………..31
VI. Discussion and Summary…………………………………………………….51
List of References…………………………………………………………………….64
Appendix A—Survey Question Classification……………………………………….70
Appendix B—Survey Copy………………………………………………………….80
Appendix C—Survey Results………………………………………………………..86
Appendix D—Survey Pictures……………………………………...………………119
2 I. Introduction
Problem Statement
This research will examine the perception of public art by public users, including environmental, aesthetic, cultural, social and economic, and interpersonal impacts in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the past decades, public art has successfully received considerable attention. Initiated in 1967, the contemporary movement in public art rapidly spread out from the establishment of the Art in Public Places
Program at the National Endowment for the Arts, which piloted various levels of governmental agencies to fund for the idea of public art support (Beardsley 1982;
Lacy 1996). When the notable case of Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc occurred in 1989 aroused vigorous debate about public art and its funding sources, it led people to rethink about the acceptance and the relationship of public art by the public. The more public art in public places is given a public use, the more involvement of government, communities, artists and public users is inevitable coordinated with multidisciplinary issues (Blair, Pijawka and Steiner 1998). Through 1050 anonymous questionnaires based on three surveys, this study will be an example to elaborate on and clarify the link between the role of public art by the perceptions as well as by the preferences and its interaction with public users, including residents and visitors in the City of
Philadelphia. The result of this research may provide some suggestions to the
3 governments, community developers, city planners and suburban designers in the future.
Delimitation and Limitation of this Research
This research confines itself to surveying, observing and analyzing the
interaction between public users and public art, defined here as outdoor sculptures in
Philadelphia. In this quantitative study, the findings could be subject to other
interpretation. Because of three sculptures selected from various types of sculptures in
Philadelphia, the purposive sampling procedure would not be generalized to all forms
of public art. Additionally, the public users exposing themselves to outdoor activities
would be liable to weather so that the finding of this survey was restricted within the
limited period of a year.
4 II. Literature Review
(II-I) The Theoretical Definition of Public Art
What is Public Art
The definition of Public Art could vary from the elementary (Hein 1996; Norman
2000; Russell 2004; Fleming 2005) to an extensive and complicated subject (Lacy
1996; Stephen 2006). Simply, public art, unlike gallery art or sequestered private art, is made for the public and usually exists “outside museum and gallery walls”
(Finkelpearl 2001; Russell 2004; Fleming 2005).
From the public art agency’s point of view, Becker (2004) defines public art as
“work created by artists for places accessible to and used by the public” and can be
“encompassed by a much wider spectrum of activities and approaches.” As an art educator, Argiro (2004) deems that public art, referring to any form of art in public spaces, “includes architecture, landscape and urban design.” Russell (2004) even provides a fundamental category to cover the various forms that public art can take,
“such as murals (e.g., wall paintings and mosaics), three-dimensional works (e.g., statuary and earthworks), and performance pieces (e.g., Happenings).”
The term of public art has been used to describe sculptures installed in open spaces, such as parks and plazas, and traditionally been commemorative of great
5 people or events, or illustrative of common sociopolitical goals (Beardsley 1981; Blair,
Pijawka and Steiner 1998). Appearing in public places where is hailed as particular
opportunities to create potential new exhibition spaces for the art previously only found in museums and private collections, public art has been created with minimal
concern for the effects of the installations and the relationship between the public and its implication although its initial purpose is to celebrate heroism and transcendence
as well as to display splendid ornamentation. Barbara Goldstein (2005) once pointed
out that public art has been created not for the single intention; it is supposed both to
advance public space and expose its intended audience to the visual artwork that is
basically different from museum art. Before going deeper into the realm of public art, it must be realized that there is a clear distinction between “public art” and “gallery art” (Fleming 2005).
“Public” and “private” are opposite words that do not exclude but entail one
another. According to Finkelpearl’s (2001) definition, “ ‘public’ is associated with the
lower classes as opposed to the word ‘private,’ which is associated with privilege.”
Finkelpearl implies that “art is generally associated with the upper classes, at least in terms of those who consume it—collectors and museum audiences.” Public art here plays a significant role that tends to integrate the contradictory boundaries and is meant to bring them together. What people can tolerate and appreciate in the gallery,
6 however, might result in serious criticism when displayed in a public space. Therefore, public art has to be obvious to the general public and aims at communicating with them because it is inevitably involved in the experience of the public’s daily life.
Fleming (2005) supports that public art must not only be aware of artistic contents—artwork’s theme, subject, location and material—but discern its implication for the public. What public art represents is all about the public utility and should be
expected as a matter of particular pieces of quality art.
While Stephens (2006) generously considers that “if the art is located in a space
that is easily accessible by the general public, it can be classified as art for the public,”
Lippard (1995) strictly narrows the scope of public art. Without referring to the
concerns, challenges, involvements, and consultations of the audiences for or with
whom the artwork is made, no matter how large or impressive it may be, it is still
under personal creativities as private art. Rather than the concrete physical appearance,
public art is recently more emphasized on the effect of mental level of public society.
Phillips (1995) indicates that “public art is about the commons—the physical
configuration and mental landscape of American public life.” In the past four decades,
the component of our society is increasingly varied and pluralistic that raises social,
political and religious values which coexist within it. Public art need not always
directly express progressive socially or politically, but the essence of it ought to be
7 socially referenced. Hein (2006) insists that public art should not be as simple as the
use of art for social purposes; it must be art and be social at the same time.
As a tool, art can bridge the gap between artists and its audiences. Expectantly
with the physical and social values in both its unity and diversity, public art attempts
to draw the communities together and to participate with its audiences (Raven 1995).
While facing the controversial critique, public art is gradually accepted by the general public that encourages artists to launch their more self-conscious and grass-roots creativities. According to Bach (1992), public art is “….a manifestation of how we see the world—the artist’s reflection of our social, cultural, and physical environment.”
Additionally, Lippard (1995) supplies that the commitment of artists is “not to a vanishing notion of small town space but to the experiences of social change and communal continuity embodied by the commons.” As a consequence, public art can represent the aesthetic expression that corresponded to people’s requirement for social empowerment (Hein 2006).
What is Public Art for
Lennard (1987) indicates that the responsibility of public art is “to enhance the
quality of civic life and the sense of community, and to humanize cities.” For
supporting that point, Becker (2004) divides what accomplishment public art is able
8 to reach into four areas: “1) to engage civic dialogue and community; 2) to attract attention and economic benefit; 3) to connect artists with communities; and 4) to enhance public appreciation of art.” The artworks in the public place can satisfy certain populations not usually served by museums and offer them an opportunity in the creation of art. While most consider that people can directly obtain the exclusive accomplishments of artists by public art, some suggest that the public art must be something about to make people comment on or discuss or even can inspire people’s emotion. Otherwise, it is merely an isolated piece of studio art placed in inapplicable public space (Goldstein 1994; Russell 2004). But it can not deny that a good public artwork indeed cultivates the public of the appreciation of beauty as well as the value of culture and history (Becker 2004).
Although functional art descended to the formulaic in the eighties, after the symbolic well-known artwork of Maya Lin, Maya Lin promoted public artworks toward “useful” art such as plaza designs and walkways, (Finkelpearl 2001). From the realistic practice, public art is more frequently conceived as a tool of urban planning and suburban regeneration (Beardsley 1981; Muschamp 1993). Through the integration of local authorities and communities, public art as a catalyst can cross boundaries to address social, cultural and economic issues and can help to attract investments. Rather than monumental, public art presents a sense of local history as
9 well as a venue for residents’ voices so that it can agglomerate the centripetal
self/community identity. Additionally, public art is an influential medium for
communication, especially in the process of artists and communities working together
(Stephens 2006).
(II-II) Orientations of Public Art with Extended Implication
More recently the essence of public art is no longer only about honoring past privilege and wealth; public art should be regarded more about the identity of art and
emphasized with its contemporary significant connection instead of displaying past
heroism as commemoration. Based on Russell’s (2004) classification broadly
corresponding to pre-modernist, modernist and post-modernist approaches and cited
the term from his definition, the following section is the selected literatures that
elaborated the intrinsic philosophy of public art with its historical gradation in
different classifications.
Hero-on-a-Horse (Pre-Modernist)
Russell quoted the term “Hero on a horse” from Raven (1993), which
characterized the traditional image of public art and placed it under pre-modernist
category as the representative. Tracing back to the initial artwork in public, Baca
(1995) infers that the idea was derived from the “cannon in the park” and its purpose
10 was to evoke a past period in which the “splendid triumphs” and “struggles of our forefathers” established the glorifying direction of history. The other statement of
foraging in the source indicates that it began after the Civil War while the people
acted to memorialize their history, victims and victors (Hein 2006). Thus monumental
construction and mural decoration were created by then and rapidly spread out across
the county.
It is said that the purpose of monuments is to bring the past into the present to
inspire the future. Holding mediated symbolic meaning, the commemorative artwork
imperceptibly guides people with different past memories to encounter others and
together experience the memory contained beneath this site where it is regarded as an
occasion for ideological historic learning passed on to the next generation (Baca 1995;
Hein 2006). However, according to Baca’s current observation from the general on
horseback to the contemporary corporate versions, more and more of such kinds of
artworks fall into the service of dominance and the capital authority tends to utilize
them as a beautifying vehicle to provide a homogenized visual culture.
Form-and-Freedom (Modernist)
Since the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) launched the Art in Public
Places Program in 1967, it encouraged artists to create diverse expressive approaches
11 guided by modernist principles for public art. Unlike the previous phase of authoritative symbols, public art gradually evolved with public input. Artists were not only satisfied with self-serving but pursued their individual visions—a “be me for
thee” philosophy. Russell broke the apparent form down to two sections:
insight-serves-site and site-serves-insight.
1) Insight-Serves-Site
Most artworks under this group can fit anywhere if there is space for them
because they are often created before the space is selected. It is generally assumed
that the location has no connection with artworks but provides the accommodating
space so that artists can focus on the “insight serves the site” perspective (Russell
2004). While from the modernist standpoint it exemplifies that the public may profit
from the artist’s individual aesthetic achievements, some argue that such an art piece
“is often plunked down in the middle of a public space without due consideration for
and consultation with those who live or work around it.” Thus the term “plop art” is
raised (Morning Edition 1994; Plangens 1995); and Lacy even names such artwork
“plunk” and criticizes the artists who to “parachute into a place and displace it with
art.” Further, Kelley (1995) explains plop art “often referred more to the perceptual
precision fitting of disembodied modernist objects into dislocated museum spaces
than to an acknowledgment of the social and cultural contents of a place.” Therefore,
12 the term “site” here tends to mean a place for art rather than the art of place.
2) Site-Serves-Insight
Despite the question of the priority between self-achievement of artists and the
awakened sense of public space, involved with the input from the community, the
process of public art participation can enhance the self-worth of local residents who
act/live there and inevitably interact with the place. In 1974, the NEA began the other new strategy: commissions selected particular artists to produce what is referred to
“site-specific” artworks. Rather than simply displaying in public place, the artworks
are required to “make places” for the site (City of Los Angles 1996; Sugiyama 1996;
Russell 2004). Artists were asked to consider the qualities and characteristics of the
place at the beginning of their conception when they were commissioned and engage
it by the finished piece. This is also what Russell defines as “site serves (the artist’s)
insight.” This intention is directly opposing to the artworks mentioned earlier as “plop
art.” Kelley (1995) describes this transformation as “the sites of art become the arts of
place,” and further explains that “the extent to which the content of a place resonates
in other places is the extent to which an art of place has resonance.” In general,
site-specific artwork is a compatible container to express the particular implication of
the community and to blend with the artists’ creativity and aesthetic based on its
unique character.
13 Collaborate-and-Create (Post-Modernist)
At the other end of the scale from traditional public art, Russell implies that we
enter the post-modernist era, which is what Lacy (1995) calls “new genre public
art”—“visual art that uses both traditional and nontraditional media to communicate
and interact with a broad and diversified audience about issues directly relevant to
their lives.” While previous modernist artists concentrate on the formulaic forms
between the properties of specific sites and artworks, post-modernist artists actively
focus on dealing with some significant social and political issues of our time.
New Genre Public Art
New genre public art requires the active participation of artists and audiences. It
is no longer the same as “actively-give-and-passively-receive” because the inherency
of public art is social intervention (Lacy 1995). It has continuously conveyed that art
is made for the public by addressing public issues not confined in the forms. The new public artists invite outside assistance and more input from the public who will be
impacted by the artwork to create a series of dialogues from the artists’ original
conception, cooperates process and realizes work. New genre public art actually is not
a thing, but is regarded as a process in the social or political level as well as the relationship between and among artists and publics. It is created to build a community
14 linking each member inside it and to expose them to experience through it. By the
process-oriented approach, new genre public art causes the fluent reciprocity and
separates the work from a position of authority. Some confirm that is the educative
function and the potential democratic representative of new genre public art (Phillips
1995; Hein 2006).
Although there are many versions of identifying public art forms, most agree that
the new art form is “not [built] on a typology of materials, spaces, or artistic media, but rather on concept of audience, relationship, communication, and political
intention” (Hein 2006). Also, Lacy (1995) suggests that it “challenges artists to stretch
their traditional skills and results in works that are similarly transformed through some cooperative stimulation.”
On the other hand, not all art world professionals have the same prospect of new
genre public art. Hein (2006) asks who will be in a position to appreciate the whole
new process-oriented artwork and have no individual solely responsible for it. Rather
than the permanent exhibition, new genre public art work is “a discontinuous
temporal entity, defined by a loosely connected knot of relationships—physical,
economic, personal, emotional, political, and aesthetic.” Similarly, Plagens (1995) is
concerned that the new genre public art disturbs mainstream public art and produces
the unmanageable; his perception is that public art must be “popular with the general
15 public, inoffensive to minorities and alternative points of view, profit-inducing (if
connected with a private development), administration-enhancing (if connected with a
civic one), and, somehow, aesthetically meritorious. And, it is not allowed to disturb
very much.” After new genre public artwork is done, it would be absorbed in a limited
form with each retelling to posterior and totally lapses its initial intention of
procedural participation.
Jacob (1995) mentions “the production of art as an instrument of change.” This
can be divided into three groups:
1) Emblematic—objects or actions that embody the social problem or make a political
statement and by their presence in a public setting hope to inspire change;
2) Supportive—works conceived and created by the artist that, upon presentation, are
designed to be linked to others, ultimately feeding back into an actual social system; and
3) Participatory—whereby the collaborative process to make a lasting impact on the lives of
the individuals involved, be of productive service to the social network, or contribute to
remedying the social problem.
Besides the ideology bracket of new genre public art, Lippard (1995) elaborates an inventory of the existing outline of representative approaches of new public art,
which may be flexible and overlap:
1) works prepared for conventional indoor exhibition that refer to local communities, history,
or environmental issues; 2) traditional outdoor public art (except the “plop art”) that draws
16 attention to the specific characteristics or functions of the places where it intervenes; 3) site-specific outdoor artworks that significantly involve the community in execution, background information, or ongoing function; 4) permanent indoor public installations, with some function in regard to the community’s history; 5) performances or rituals outside of traditional art spaces that call attention to places and their histories and problems, or to a larger community of identity and experience; 6) art that functions for environmental awareness, improvement, or reclamation;
7)direct, didactic political art that comments publicly on local or national issues; 8) portable public-access radio, television, or print media; and 9)actions and chain actions that travel, permeate, or appear all over the country simultaneously to highlight or link current issues.
III. The Development of Public Art in Philadelphia
(III-I) Introduction of Public Art Development
From the earliest time, public art was created to record the activities of humans; it could be regarded as development of human history, from the cave paintings of the ancient period, to monumental sculptures and architectural embellishment of the
Middle Ages and the following Renaissance, and to all forms of the public-conscious activities of nowadays. Early public art in the United States generally adhered to precedents built in Europe. In the 1930s, during Roosevelt’s presidency, public art had reached its first peak of federal support through the Federal Art Project of Works
Progress Administration (WPA) and Treasure Section Art Programs (Cruikshank and
17 Korza 1988). After that, it had once diminished due to the currency inflation and
economic contraction until the sixties which brought the federal government’s
renewed interest in public arts. First with the Art-in-Architecture Program conducted
by the General Services Administration (GSA), it hastened to bring art and
architecture together at the initial conception of the building, including present
buildings and historic landmarks (Redstone 1981). In 1963, the GSA established the
legitimacy of government-sponsored public art—an allowance for fine arts of 0.5 to 1
percent of the estimated construction costs for each new federal building, and the
earliest percent-for-art legislation passed in the city of Philadelphia in 1959. The other
essential government support program is the Art in Public Places (APP) Program created by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1967. Through the APP
Program which was initially conceived as a method to honor outstanding contemporary sculptors, the NEA supported matching funds for community-initiated public art projects and promoted subsequent to the state arts agencies.
The 1960s and early 1970s were the prevalence of civic art collection that
intended to spread out the arts beyond the museum to the widest potential audience
and accomplished the goal of NEA which is “to give the public access to the best art
of our time outside museum walls.” Simultaneously, minimal artists such as Richard
Serra proliferated and concentrated on their works without contemplating the context
18 and link of community and public users. Furthermore, arts administrators and political
collectors were gradually aware of the role of public art involved with the community.
Public art has successfully gained substantial attention in terms of multilevel and
stimulated networks of multidisciplinary communication. While artists began to
explore the potential possibility of public art, federal and state agencies started to seek
the scale and criteria of requirement for public art, as well as the extent of funding to
value a qualified artwork.
In the early 1970s, an important issue was addressed that differentiated “public
art” and “art in public places.” The former took into account its site and other
contextual issues and the later only stressed the space and location rather than any
other thing. In the retrospect of the development of governmental support for the arts,
according to the note of Lacy (1995) and Finkelpearl (2001), in 1974 the NEA
guidelines implicated that the commissioned artwork should be “appropriate to the
immediate site;” in 1978 the applicants should “approach creatively the wide range of possibilities for art in public situation;” in 1979 the NEA required “methods to insure an informed community response to the project;” and in 1983 the grantees should submit “plans for community involvement, preparation, and dialogue,” and “to educate and prepare the community,” which both were later mentioned as
“educational activities which invite community involvement” in the early nineties.
19 Similar to the WPA programs, the nationwide Comprehensive Employment
Training Act in the late 1970s stimulated artists to work within local communities
(Becker 2004). In addition to the GSA, the Department of Transportation launched a policy to integrate art and architecture into all the facilities of transportation in 1977.
In the same year, the NEA established a new architectural program—the “Livable
Cities” program which provided a significant character for city planners to improve the quality of life in cities (Redstone 1981). As government sponsorship rapidly grew, public art had become a specialized discipline and had become part of a municipality’s sense of the major cities. There were numerous successful public art projects and marked programs sponsored by the government in the 1970s and 1980s.
However, some of them generated a crucial series of controversial debates, such as
Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc and Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This was the outset to point out that the requirement and acceptance of the public should be seriously discerned; after all the debate argued whether public artworks should be simply as “for the art sake” by expressing the freedom of artists or a considerable element integrated into the environment.
Compared with the centralization of the WPA period, the support for public art through late 1980s to current is composed of diversified members in the public art realm, such as government, non-for-profit partnerships, religious organizations,
20 private patronage and individual donors. Furthermore, the progressive changes
include the varied origins of local projects, such as artist-initiated projects, gifts and
memorials, community-generated projects, design team projects, and
artist-in-residence projects (Goldstein 2005). Being in the first decade of the
twenty-first century, artists are not satisfied with keeping all these present models but
more ambitiously increasing any possibility to communicate their works to the public
through the Internet as well as other interactive media, which validly serve as a
purpose of condensing the sense of community either physically or mentally.
(III-II) Public Art in Philadelphia
Philadelphia was one of the earliest cities in the United States to involve public art in the city’s infrastructure. As early as the eighteenth century, the city of
Philadelphia, as the first model, created a street-lighting system (Bach 1989). In 1867,
the General Assembly of Pennsylvania passed a special act to authorize the city of
Philadelphia to buy land along the Schuylkill River to expand the city’s estate to the northern Wissahickon as well as the city’s watershed (Bach 1988). In the same year, an Act of Assembly established the Fairmount Park Commission to inspect the overall public park, whose mission is “to maintain the Park forever, as an open public place and park, for the health and enjoyment of the citizens of Philadelphia, and the preservation of the purity of the water supply to the City of Philadelphia (FN1).” Two
21 years after, an Act continually increased and rendered the specific authority of the
Fairmount Park Commission to set up a Fairmount Park Guard. Until 1951, the
Fairmount Park Commission was integrated as a part of the Philadelphia City
government with the adoption of Philadelphia (FN2).
According to Bach (1988), executive director of the Fairmount Park Art
Association, she implies that the formal establishment of Philadelphia’s outdoor
sculpture tradition was begun by Henry Fox and Charles Howell in 1871. Initially,
those two young men decided to reform the city of Philadelphia from what people
described as the “reproach of excessive industrialism” and then established the
Fairmount Park Art Association in 1872 with a mandate “to promote and foster the
beautiful in Philadelphia, in its architecture, improvement and general plan.” In
Philadelphia, the first American city to found a private, nonprofit corporation of this
kind, the Art Association began focusing on enriching the Fairmount Park with
sculptures (FN3); actually “not only with the commission of public sculptures but also
with the placement and relationship of the sculpture to the plan of the city and to the
spirit of the city (Bach 1988).”
In addition to its initial mission, the Art Association proclaimed that it was “for a city whose undeveloped lands were threatened by the ruthless advance of private enterprise (Cruikshank and Korza 1988).” In the Art Association’s early years of
22 establishing numerous outdoors sculptures throughout the city, its report in 1906 indicated that “the tendency of its officers and members is to interpret its purpose in terms of the most liberal and inclusive effort for the expression of high civic ideals in forms whose beauty and dignity are synonyms for Art.” While the Art Association suggested those public sculptures could grace the cityscape, most of the works at that time were “private art for public spaces (Bach 1982).”
Over the century, the Art Association has completed several astonishing projects which integrated art and urban planning composed of historic and contemporary issues. For example, in 1907, the Art Association conceived a plan for the Benjamin
Franklin Parkway commissioned by the notable French landscape designer Jacques
Greber and launched the “Committee on a Municipal Art Gallery” to place the
Philadelphia Art of Museum at the end of the Parkway (Bach 1982). In 1944, a plan for the development of Independence National Historic Park, one of the earliest urban renewal projects in the United States, was commissioned by the Art Association (Bach
1992). Besides, there were three major international sculpture exhibitions held in
1933, 1940 and 1946, from which seventeen sculptures were placed in the Ellen
Phillips Samuel Memorial Garden in Fairmount Park (FN4). Additionally, in the
1960s, the Art Association established an ongoing program—the International
Sculpture Garden located at Penn’s Landing to “displace ancient and historic artworks
23 to demonstrate and celebrate the impact of other cultures on the American experience
(FN5).”
In the late nineteenth century, the Art Association’s Tricentennial Committee
provided an essential objective, “to integrate art into the public context through use as
well as placement,” and advanced a series of creative projects, including “Form and
Function: Proposals for Public Art for Philadelphia,” the initiation of a sculptures
conservation program; and “Light Up Philadelphia,” a leading investigation of urban
lighting for the city (Bach 1982; Cruikshank and Korza 1988; FN6). For the comprehensive evaluation, the conservation of existing public artworks should be the
primary concern of sponsoring agencies. Therefore, concerning the need of its vast
holdings and the condition of bronze and marble sculptures in Philadelphia, the Art
Association organized a Sculpture Conservation Program in 1982, the first of its kind
in the nation (FN7). Through this program, the Art Association not only kept the
maintenance of outdoor sculptures before experiencing serious damage or
deterioration, but tended to arouse public consciousness of contemporary sculptures in
Philadelphia.
Although the Art Association was originally in a position to commission
abundant artworks, many of them had been actually donated to the city of
Philadelphia for a long while, which led the Art Association to a complicated situation.
24 Because the Art Association had donated the works to the city, apparently the city was the owner and the Art Association was ineligible for funding from most sources, such as the NEA that only funded the projects when the owner was the grantee. This addressed the issues of the responsibilities of maintenance and ownership. “There is often a difference between the patron, the owner, and the agency that was jurisdiction or custodianship over the work. Over the year, as cities, agencies, and public art have evolved, there has been a diffusion of responsibility (Bach 1982; Cruikshank and
Korza 1988).” While tracing back the early documents of the Art Association’s growth in its first fifty years, Bach (1988) notes that the predecessors did not leave any consideration or thought to what would become of these works in the next generation, such as how to deal with pollution, vandalism and other damages by nature. In 1982, the city’s Art Commission and the Fairmount Park Commission granted the Art Association to institute a specific project which described an agreement with the issues of cost, responsibilities and record keeping. To extend its potential sources of funding and maintenance of outdoor sculptures, the Art
Association now considers educational seminars for selected volunteers to effectively concern about those public artworks.
Another important city-support agency is the City of Philadelphia Art
Commission established in 1907, whose mission is “to insure that anything built in
25 the City of Philadelphia is of the highest quality of design possible and that the many individual pieces that make up the physical City fit together to make a strong whole so that the City remains a vital and desirable place to live, do business and visit
(FN8).” As an approval body, the Philadelphia Art Commission is designed to admit the designs and alteration of all the constructions paid with City funds or on publicly owned land, and also “reviews conservation and relocation plans for City-owned sculptures and public artworks (FN9).”
Besides the Fairmount Park Art Association and Philadelphia Art Commission, public art in Philadelphia is involved with varied agencies, some important ones mentioned as follows. As to the first model of adopting the
“One-Percent-for-Fine-Arts” in 1959, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority is the pioneer and integrates public art into the urban renewal process (FN10).
Furthermore, the City of Philadelphia Public Art Office is “responsible for the municipal public art collection in its entirety and is the centralized agency for all City public-art-related responsibilities, including the selection, purchasing, commissioning, conservation, maintenance, and day-to-day management of the City’s public art collection (FN11).” The City of Philadelphia Public Art Program is composed of two parts: the Percent-for-Art program established in 1959 (FN12), and the Conservation and Collection Management program instituted in 1998 (FN13). The Percent-for-Art
26 program is to commission artists to create artworks specifically responding to public spaces and has commissioned over 300 outdoor sculptures throughout the city. While the Conservation program is charged with undertaking the conservation treatment and repair of public art, the Collection Management program superintends the condition of overall assessments and the maintenance of the inventories.
IV. Research Design and Methodology
Discussion of Survey Methodology
Perception of and responses to the public art, defined here as outdoor sculptures
in Philadelphia, were assessed quantitatively through three surveys and qualitatively
through site observation. The survey selected three distinct sculptures and distributed
350 questionnaires around each spot. The reason this method was chosen for this research was because a city-wide sample population would be efficient to obtain sufficient information in a limited amount of time, and generalizing from a sample to a population helped to infer the general circumstance of this population (Babbie,
1990). The number of questionnaires has assessed a sufficient amount of data to obtain reliable results. Qualitative observations were made on the uses of and behavior of people at each site.
27 According to Fink (1995), there are four types of data collection: 1) self-administered questionnaires; 2) interviews; 3) structured record reviews to collect financial, medical, or school information; and 4) structured observations. In this research, “self-administered questionnaires” would be used. Three questionnaires were developed with market research methods and were formulated in order to identify the following categories, also attached in Table 1:
* Environmental construction
* Aesthetic acceptance
* Cultural circulation
* Social and economic affection
* Interpersonal interaction
Most of the questions in the three surveys were identical in order to figure out
the general perceptions and attitudes of how people act toward public art. In the
aspect of the environmental construction, for example, how do people think the
accessibility of public art and what do people usually do around there? In the aesthetic
acceptance, how much do people consider that public art can enrich the city and what
is the popular form of public art that people enjoy the most? In the cultural circulation,
how can public art cultivate people? In the social and economic area, how can public
art raise self/community-identity and how can it attract investment by tourism? In the
interpersonal part, how much would people share their pectoral feeling inspired by
28 public art with others? As to the rest, they were specifically devised to reveal how
people directly felt about the selected sculptures. A survey question classification and
a copy of survey are attached in Appendix A and in Appendix B respectively.
Fieldwork Procedure
Three sculptures of this research were selected from three spots of Benjamin
Franklin parkway, which starts from the center of the city (Arch street and 16th street), through Logan circle and ends at the front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA).
Also this section of parkway covers the most area where commuters, residents and visitors would walk through. Each of three sculptures—Love statue at Love Park,
Swann memorial fountain at Logan circle and Rocky statue in front of PMA—had
representative pieces of different kinds of sculptures in Philadelphia and had been
distributed over thousands of surveys.
From July 15, 2007 to August 10, 2007, the Philadelphia-wide surveys were
personally distributed around those three sculptures in order to ensure that all the
respondents—either residents or visitors—had seen the specific artwork which was
mentioned in the questionnaires. Respondents were randomly selected from people
showing up at those three spots.
29 Research Paradigm (Table 1)
Public Users’ Quality of Life Impacted by Public Art
Impacts of Public Art in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Environmental Aesthetic Cultural Social and Economic Interpersonal
Accessibility Interaction Space Beautification Atmosphere Predilection Education History/Heritage Social Value Self/Community Tourism Interpersonal Personal Utilizing Identification Interaction Experience
30 V. Finding in the Surveys
(V-I) The Preposition Process of Surveys
How to Conceive the Survey
It is proud of being in such a city which possesses over thousands of public artworks throughout the city, including murals, mosaics, paintings, stained glass, reliefs, sculptures, and architectural adornments. Meanwhile, the City of Philadelphia highly eulogizes itself “no other city in the United States, and few in the world, can boast of so rich and varied a heritage of outdoor public sculpture as Philadelphia”
(Brenner 2002). On account of the both advantages above, the motive of this research came into being. Among the varied outdoor sculptures, most of them are located along the Kelly Drive and Benjamin Franklin parkway, which is regarded as “museum without walls” by an array of public artworks. Importantly, the Benjamin Franklin parkway is a magnificent boulevard, connecting center city from City Hall, through several museums to Fairmount Park, and is the essential section that diverse audiences must be through on weekday or weekend. Hence, three different types of outdoor sculptures were selected from Benjamin Franklin parkway as examples to examine the perception and preference of public art by public users.
This survey was designed to assess key perceptions and preferences about the
31 role of public art and its interaction with public users (see Table 1). First of all, it was
necessary to realize the importance that public users of Philadelphia comprehending visitors and residents gave to public art in general. The principal dependent variable was to measure whether public art could promote the quality of public users’ life, either in concrete or in intangible aspect. The other dependent elements were to perceive public users’ personal savor of public art so that might provide some suggestions for city planner in the future. Additionally, public preferences might have
been affected by socio-demographic factors, such gender, age, race, education,
resident and non-resident.
The Backdrop of Each Example of Public Art
The following are the concise background introduction of each selected outdoor
sculpture. Also on Map 1 it displays the corresponding positions of three selected
sculptures on map.
32 1) Love Sculpture
Installed in 1978 in Kennedy Plaza where is the initial of Benjamin Franklin
parkway as well as adjoining to City Hall, Love sculpture is a 6-inch-high painted
aluminum object based on 7-inch stainless steel and created by Robert Indiana, whose original conception was “love is the biggest subject in the whole world.”
2) Swann Memorial Fountain
Build in 1920 by Alexander Stirling Calder but opened to public in 1924, Swann
memorial fountain is in Logan Circle, the meddle spot of Benjamin Franklin parkway,
and is known as “Fountain of the Three Rivers,” which symbolizes three rivers of
Philadelphia—the Delaware River, the Schuylkill River and the Wissahickon Creek.
3) Rocky Sculpture
Rocky statue stands 12 feet, 8 inches tall bronze and is created by A. Thomas
Schomberg. Throughout shooting the movie Rocky III in 1987, Rocky statue
displayed its debut atop the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA). After filming the movie, Rocky statue was once moved to the Wachovia Spectrum in south
Philadelphia due to its initial commercial purpose. However, it was accepted by its representative of “indomitable spirit of man” and returned to the front of PMA in
September 2006, where is the other end of Benjamin Franklin parkway.
33 (V-II) Findings from the Surveys
Through 1050 anonymous questionnaires based on three surveys, this section includes six parts. The findings begin with an identification of the demographics of public users, such as gender, age, race, education and place of residence. Then, the analysis moves to the findings in the comprehended five issues as following:
* Environmental construction
* Aesthetic acceptance
* Cultural circulation
* Social and economic affection
* Interpersonal interaction
The detail results of finding are attached in Appendix C.
1) Demographic Information for Public Users of this Survey
Among 1050 respondents in general, Chart 1 presents that female occupied 55.3 percentage that roughly higher 10 percent than male respondents. For the category of age, there was a very wide range in Chart 2: most respondents were between the ages of 21 to 30 and the next three brackets in turn were under 20, 31-40 and 41-50. As to the groups of 51 to 60 and over 61, each of them was less than 10 percent.
34 Gender (Chart 1) Age (Chart 2) Over 51-60 4% Under 20 7% 16% Male 41-50 45% 14%
Female 31-40 55% 16% 21-30 43%
Chart 3 indicates that White/non-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander and
Black/non-Hispanic were the main groups of respondents, among White/non-Hispanic occupied over half (53 percent). The highest attained education levels were also distributed across a wide range for respondents. As seen in Chart 4, the largestsections of the sample were high school and Bachelor that both almost seized 70 percentages
of the whole.
Race (Chart 3) Education (Chart 4)
American Indian/Alaskan Native Professional Degree 3% 8% Other PhD 5% Asian/Pacific Islander 3% 18% High School Master 36% 19% Hispanic 7%
White/Non-Hispanic 53% Black/Non-Hispa BA 14% 34%
According to the residents identified information gathered from the survey in Chart 5,
the most respondents were local residents, near 54 percentages of population; and
among of this group, those who have lived in Philadelphia over fifteen years were observed in its 41 percentages in Chart 6. Comparing with residents, the primal
35 non-residents were the first time visitors shown in Chart 7.
The Ratio of resident and non-resident (Chart 5)
Non-resident 46%
Resident 54%
Yes, I am a resident of Philadelphia and I have lived here X years (Chart 6)
1 14% Over 15 2 41% 11% 3 7%
4 6% 5 5% 15 6 3% 3% 14 7 9 8 0.7% 13 10 3% 1% 1% 0.8% 12 3% 0.3% 11 0.5%
No, I am a vistor. This is my X visit to Philadelphia (Chart 7)
1 48%
Over 15 2 14% 14%
3 12 5 4 9% 0.8% 3% 5% 11 0.4% 10 3% 9 6 0.2% 8 7 1% 1% 1%
From personal observation, people coming to each spot comprised diverseness but each spot with different characteristics might specially draw certain people at times. Love park, for example, is not only a must-through path for most businessmen
36 and commuters but also is a well-known spot for visitors. While some high school students and visitors transiently hanged around, however, most people stayed longer in Love Park were vagrants and hobos. As to Swann fountain and Rocky statue, people appearing up there were majority of well-educated, students, young professionals, family and visitors probably because of the geographic area close to museums.
The other reason that made people decide to stay certain spot longer or not was whether there was any shadow of tree or any seat available. Therefore, people might stay longer at Love Park rather than the other two sites. At Logan Circle with water works, people only took a seat in the late afternoon while most other time they just quickly walked through. Around Rocky statue, there were not too many friendly seats available so that rare people would really stop by, except while they took pictures.
2) Environmental construction
The environmental construction covers three aspects: accessibility of public art, interaction between public users and public art, and space utilizing by public art. First of all in general, over 80 percentages of respondents would like the public artworks easy to access and touch; even though the sculptures might be distant to reach, there were near 80 percent of respondents still highly interested in them. Moreover, there
37 was one specific question for the Swann memorial fountain respondents; whether water is an important element to induce people like the sculpture and about 75 percentages of respondents agreed with that.
The reasons people like the specific spot were distributed across a wide range for
the respondents. The two main responses in general were “surrounding environment”
that was up to 41 percentages of the population, and “nothing in particular” that
approximated to 16 percent of the whole. Also, the ruling activities people did around
each spot were very different. Data from the surveys (Table 2) implicates that whether
ranking top or down on each spot, the commonest things those respondents did were
“relax” and “spend time with friends,” especially highly ranking at Love Park and
Swann fountain, while the primary activity people did around Rocky statue was “take
pictures.” Other top-ranking activities people around Rocky statue did were “walk
around” and “exercise” rather than people around the other two spots were just
“think” and “chat.” The dissimilar activities might result from the attribution of
groups attracted by sculptures, such as the background of public users, and from the
integral environment mentioned before, such as available seats, and the shadow of trees.
38 The top five activities public users did around three sculptures (Table 2)
Love sculpture Swann fountain Rocky statue
1. Relax (63.6%) 1. Relax (58.9%) 1. Take pictures (37.5%)
2. Spend time with friends (45.5 %) 2. Walk around (43.4%) 2. Walk around (30.8%)
3. Think (42.6%) 3. Spend time with friends (35.1%) 3. Spend time with friends (30.6%)
4. Take pictures (40.6%) 4. Take pictures (34.0%) 4. Relax (28.0%)
5. Chat (38.6%) 5. Think (33.7%) 5. Exercise (17.3%)
Further, about half respondents in general considered that they would still do the
same activity around the spots even if the sculptures were replaced by others. A very
high proportion of respondents positively accepted that the space created by the three
artworks was welcoming; in which near 90 percent of approvers was from Love and
Swann fountain respondents.
3) Aesthetic acceptance
Three issues are addressed under aesthetic acceptance as following: the
beautification of public artworks, the atmosphere built by the selected sculptures, and
the predilection of public users. In this survey, 47 percentages of non-residents
indicated that in their hometown sculptures played an essential part of their life, and
about 60 percent of the whole in general valued the landscape of Philadelphia
benefited from sculptures, among 34.3 percent “strongly agree.” Although over 50
percent of respondents agreed that vegetation is better than sculptures for beautifying
39 a city, some insisted that sculptures were supposed to be as significant factor as plants for enriching the beauty of a city.
Table 3 shows that the subjectively sensory reception of three surveys respondents for the overall atmosphere of three sites. Additionally, it listed the top four character rankings of the entire atmosphere by each site. The comparison can also be visualized in the Chart 8.
The integrated atmosphere of three sites (Table 3)
Love Park Logan Circle In front of PMA
1. Relaxing (61.3%) 1. Relaxing (49.9%) 1. Pleasant (43.6%)
2. Peaceful (53.3 %) 2. Peaceful (45.9%) 2. Beautiful (38.4%)
3. Pleasant (51.0%) 3. Pleasant (45.3%) 3. Relaxing (28.5%)
4. Beautiful (37.0%) 4. Beautiful (40.5%) 4. Peaceful (27.9%)
The integrated atmosphere of three sites (Chart 8)
70
60 Relaxing Peaceful 50 Pleasant Beautiful
40
)
% ( 30
20
10
0 Love Park Logan Circle In front of PMA
At Love Park, half respondents deemed that Love sculpture was the significant element to contribute such atmosphere for the site. Similarly, up to 67 percent
40 respondents supported such perspective on Swann fountain. However, near 70 percent
of Rocky respondents did not consider that the atmosphere in front of PMA
advantaged from Rocky statue, even 35 percent “disagree” or “strongly disagree” on a
five point scale.
As to the favorable forms of sculpture of respondents, it generally choruses
“fountain” shown in Chart 9. Moreover, “human figures,” “abstract” and “mythical creatures” were popularly accepted by public.
The favorable forms of sculpture of public users (Chart 9)
Commerical icons 2.3%
Heros on horses Others 7.1% 1.4% Fountains Objects 29.5% 7.3% Animals 10.3%
Mythical creatures Human figures 12.4% 16% Abstract 13.7%
In Chart 10, respondents from three surveys in general considered that the principal
reasons of being attracted by a sculpture were “theme” and “meaning.” If there is any
further possibility, “shape,” “historic value” and “location” were subsumed in most
respondents’ consideration.
41 The most attractive element of sculptures for public users (Chart 10)
Material Other Theme 6.2% 1.2% Size 17.3% 9.5% Color 9.7% Meaning 16.6% Location 10.1%
Historic value Shape 14.4% 15%
From each 350 respondents in three surveys, over 50 percent of the Love sculpture
respondents would rank Love sculpture as one of their preferences, approximately 45 percent of Swann fountain respondents would value Swann fountain as one of their favorites, but 55.5 percent of Rocky respondents would not count Rocky statue.
4) Cultural circulation
In cultural circulation, it would identify two functions of public art—education
and historic value. From the city sample, over 55 percent of respondents felt that the sculptures were either “extremely important” or “important” to the community somehow. No matter how the education level of the respondents had, most of them held the supportive and similar attitude. Furthermore in those city-wide surveys in
Chart 11, 75 percent of respondents in general highly approved that outdoor sculptures indeed provided them an access to appreciate some kind of art, in which approximately 50 percent “strongly agree.”
42 Outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation (Chart 11)
60
48.9% 50
40
(%) 30 26.1%
20 13.1% 10 7.0% 4.9%
0 Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree
As seen in Table 4, especially, those who had higher education more agreed with that.
The approval of art appreciation and education level of respondents (Table 4)
High school BA Master PhD Professional degree Entirety
Strongly agree 49.0% 45.9% 54.0% 58.6% 45.1% 48.9%
Agree 22.6% 27.5% 28.3% 31.0% 29.3% 26.1%
Neutral 14.2% 15.1% 11.1% 3.4% 7.3% 13.1%
Disagree 8.6% 6.4% 4.5% 0% 11.0% 7.0%
Strongly disagree 5.6% 5.1% 2.1% 7.0% 7.3% 4.9%
The other remarkable result is that a very high proportion of respondents (84.6
percent) in all kind of education level assented that outdoor sculptures offered an opportunity for them to learn something about the past history. In Chart 12, it is worth to mention that even though the public was not aware of the story or purpose of the sculptures, about 30.8 percent “extremely likely” and 33.6 percent “likely” stopped by to appreciate the outdoor artworks. Meanwhile, either Philadelphia residents or non
43 residents represented the identical results as above.
How likely to appreciate an outdoor work without understanding its story or purpose (Chart 12)
Not likely at all Not likely 2.8% 8.6% Extremely likely 30.8% Medium 24.2%
Likely 33.6%
5) Social and economic affection
Social and economic affection discusses three parts: 1) social value—how public art be valued by donation of public users; 2) self/community-identified—the awareness of public art by public; and 3) potential economic resource—tourism. In
Chart 13 the results for the social value indicate that 48.3 percent of respondents in general would like donate their taxes for purchase as well as for maintenance of sculptures, 20.2 percent supported for maintenance only, 4.5 percent only upheld purchasing something new, and 27 percent chose neither one.
44 The willing of support sculpture by donating taxes on the purchase and/or the maintenance (Chart 13)
No 27%
Yes, for both Yes, only for purchase 48.3% 4.5%
Yes, only for maintenance 20.2%
Comparing the reaction of Philadelphia residents and non residents (Chart 13-A and
Chart 13-B), it indicates that non residents (52.2 percent) had higher willing than
Philadelphia residents (45 percent) to donate their money for both support and maintenance of sculptures. It also reveals that more Philadelphia residents (31.6 percent) than non residents (21.7 percent) would not disburse any for either way to support sculptures.
The willing of support sculpture by donating taxes on the purchase and/or the maintenance --Philadelphia residents (Chart 13-A)
No 32% Yes, for both 45%
Yes, only for purchase 4% Yes, only for maintenance 19%
The willing of support sculpture by donating taxes on the purchase and/or the maintenance --Non residents (Chart 13-B)
No 22% Yes, only for purchase 5%
Yes, for both 52% Yes, only for maintenance 21% 45 On the other hand shown in Table 5, education level might affect respondents to make
different decision about donation.
The reason/willing of donation and education level of respondents (Table 5)
High school BA Master PhD Professional degree Entirety
Yes, for both 38.0% 51.5% 55.9% 72.5% 53.0% 48.3%
Only for purchase 4.3% 3.6% 5.0% 0% 8.4% 4.5%
Only for 21.0% 21.0% 20.8% 17.2% 13.3% 20.2% maintenance
No, nothing 36.7% 23.9% 18.3% 10.3% 25.3% 27.0%
Based on the entirety pattern, it implies that those with high school education level
had much lower willing to donate. Contrarily, people with higher education would
usually like to donate their money for the reasons of purchase and maintenance of
sculptures. People with PhD level, for example, apparently had high enthusiasm for
supporting sculptures and rare declinature.
Although money cannot be regarded as an indicator of judgments, the willing of
donation represents one’s attitude of treating public art and one’s degree of valuing
sculptures. As seen in Chart 14, the amount from those who would like to support
either purchase or maintenance of sculptures was distributed a wide range; one dollar
was accepted by 26.2 percent of respondents, five dollars by 16.2 percent, ten dollars
by 13.2 percent, twenty dollars by 13.6 percent, and more than 20 dollars by 14
46 percent. There is no significantly different performance between Philadelphia
residents and non residents or between education levels.
How much to donate in year taxes for public sculptures (Chart 14)
1 Cent More than 20 Dollars 2.2% 5 Cent 14.0% 4.3% 10 Cent 20 Dollars 5.0% 13.6% 25 Cent 5.3% 10 Dollars 13.2%
5 Dollars 1 Dollar 16.2% 26.2%
Moreover, there was one specific question for Rocky respondents: “Does the
commercial meaning of Rocky statue reduce its original value as a memorial
sculpture?” The memorial meaning here did not really commemorate a historic person
or a fictional character but emphasized on the spiritual symbol “never give up.”
Approximately half (49 percent) believed that the spiritual value of Rocky statue would not be reduced by its initial commercial purpose.
In self/community-identified section, the data from the results shows several
findings. First, 50 percent of respondents in general “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that
getting closer to sculptures could identify themselves in getting more familiar with
this community. Second, up to 62.5 percent of the sample esteemed the importance of
public involving in choosing public artworks. Thirdly, the relative majority of the
47 whole respondents were less careful about the numeral of sculptures in Philadelphia;
the minority could exactly sense that there were over three hundred sculptures
throughout the Philadelphia. As Chart 15 shows, the minor respondents of
Philadelphia residents and non residents were 13 percent and 8 percent respectively.
The ratio of Philadelphia residents and Non residents responded to the amount of sculptures in Philadelphia (Chart 15)
Wrong Answer (Include residents and non) Right Answer 78% (Philadelphia residents only) 13%
Right Answer (Non Philadelphia residents only)
8%
The representative symbol of a city could be viewed differently by local residents and by external visitors, and Table 6 presents a dissimilar value from respondents. From
Philadelphia residents’ point of view, they more highly ranked Love sculpture as their local representation than sightseers did. As to Swann fountain and Rocky statue,
Philadelphia residents and visitors carried the similar viewpoint; over half of either group could accept Swann fountain and Rocky statue to be an emblem of
Philadelphia.
48 Can the specific sculpture represent a good symbol of Philadelphia (Table 6)
Philadelphia residents Non residents
Love Swann Rocky Love Swann Rocky
Strongly agree 51.4% 30.2% 26.4% Strongly agree 26.6% 25.1% 28.5%
Agree 18.8% 22.3% 27.8% Agree 33.1% 26.5% 26.9%
Neutral 15.6% 30.9% 25.0% Neutral 23.0% 37.0% 29.2%
Disagree 8.5% 10.1% 10.4% Disagree 10.8% 9.0% 7.7%
Strongly disagree 5.7% 6.5% 10.4% Strongly disagree 6.5% 2.4% 7.7%
Tourism could be regarded as a biggest potential opportunity to raise the
reputation of a city and to consequentially bring the considerable resource from
visitors. Usually, the reason that most respondents (73.8 percent) of three surveys
came to Philadelphia was not purposely for the specific sculpture. The data implicates
that Love sculpture and Rocky statue had been received more attention of respondents
before they came to Philadelphia; over 50 percent of respondents had known those two sculptures before. Comparing with that, Swann fountain was apparently less famous and only 20 percent acknowledged that they knew it before they visited
Philadelphia. However, after their visiting, near 70 percent of Love and Swann fountain respondents willingly return back, and so do 40 percent of Rocky respondents. Meanwhile, 43 percent in general hope that they could visit more sculptures in Philadelphia if they had time, and 31 percent indicated their absolute willing to visit more.
49 6) Interpersonal interaction
Interpersonal interaction presents two aspects: the interaction with other people and the personal experience. For the interpersonal effect from three surveys in general, over half (55.3 percent) respondents would like to share the specific site with their family and friends (“a lot” and “some”) on a five point scale. Whether sculptures could inspire people’s personal emotion or memory, it might be due to the limit of theme or type of sculptures. The numbers from the surveys reveal that 45 percent of Love respondents felt Love sculpture recalled them some feeling, near 50 percent of Swann fountain and 52 percent of Rocky respondents did not experience any feeling in particular.
Last but not least, Chart 16 shows that the public users’ priority ranking of dependent variables for public art.
The priority ranking of public users for public art (Chart 16)
25
20 Selected sculpture itself 6 6 6 Nearby environment Friendly seating 15 1 1 1 Convenient location 2 Wireless access (if there is) 3 3 Beautiful view 10 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 2 0 Love Park Logan Circle Front of PMA
The more priority of ranking, The larger area (6: highly valued; 1: less valued) 50 For most respondents, obviously, “beautiful view” was their first preference than any
other option and “wireless access” would be the last consideration. “Nearby environment” was highly taken into account as well. Generally, the preferential demands of respondents were from the whole to narrow certain specific points. For example, most esteemed the “beautiful view” first, and then focused to “nearby
environment,” and then narrowed to “friendly seating,” and then to “convenient
location” and the other. If there was some specific valued higher than the original
order, respondents then cut it into the sequence, such as Swann fountain ranked on the
second.
VI. Discussion and Summary
In order to explore the perception of public art by public users, the survey results
based on 1050 anonymous questionnaires of three sculptures cover five issues and the
mixture of contexts provide an opportunity to identify the strengths and challenges in
their contributions towards public users and city managers, including environmental,
aesthetic, interpersonal, cultural and social, and tourism impacts in the City of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In this section, an overview of the discussion of the
findings and implications of this study would be presented in order.
51 1) Environmental construction
The fixed frame of infrastructure and the placement of public artworks
apparently might limit the approachable connection and lower people’s attention to
the sculptures. According to the city-wide survey results, however, the accessibility of
an artwork is not the exclusive element to promote the interests of the audiences but a
definite reason to induce people lingering. In the American city and county (2001), it
once addressed an inquiry about the suitable propriety that how could public approach
the sculptures since the outdoor artworks had been classified as “art.” The public art
works in public as the benches in the parks all belong to people. Inevitably, the city might face the vandalism or deal with deteriorating sculptures so that the expense of
maintenance would increase. While many people were still interested in sculptures
which were distant from them, such as out of reach or high up, the survey results
show that more people enjoyed directly accessing or touching the artworks. This
appears that most people were well educated and realized how to appreciate the value
of sculptures but they also expected to have more interaction with outdoor works.
From the one specific question for Swann respondents, it indicates that water as a
medium was a significant factor to draw people’s attention and to affect their attitude
toward the sculptures.
52 2) Aesthetic acceptance
Since public art is generally supported as an important community amenity, the survey results reflect two points as following: the predilection of public users, and the beautification of the city. Although the traditional model when most people refer to public art is hero on horses or monumental figures (Hein 2006), the survey results present a direction for city planners about the favorite forms of as well as the main attractive elements of sculpture by public. First, fountain is a quite popular and highly acceptable form of sculpture. This again proves that water is able to allure people into the ground and to raise their reception of sculptures. Besides fountains, the other four forms of sculptures which make people have the gravitation toward public artworks are human figures, abstracts, mythical creatures and animals. On the other hand, the level of public users’ interest in public artworks hinges on four principal characters of sculptures in order: theme, meaning, shape and historic value. These survey results do not define the guidelines for artists or for city planners but point out some reasons that what kind condition of sculptures can impress people the most.
Along with the early development of public art, the city of Philadelphia gets benefits of the urbanization and beautification. Comparing with other places, up to 47 percent of non-residents expressed that in their hometown sculptures played an essential part of their life. This implies a trend not only that public art is familiarly
53 involved into people’s life but also that more and more governments and city planners
take public art as a specialized discipline. Gratifyingly, about 60 percent of
respondents, including Philadelphia residents and non-residents, approved that the
landscape of Philadelphia benefited very much from sculptures.
Most people agree that public art can enable the environment more beautiful and
raise the quality of life (Lennard 1987; Argiro 2004). Yet public art can not embrace
all the embellishment of a city. While some insisted the indispensability of sculptures,
half respondents indicated that vegetation is better than sculptures for beautifying a
city. Therefore, the best complete way to enrich a city should cover vegetation and
public artworks; the former which symbols a connection between people and nature
apparently displays the vivid vitality of life in a city, and the latter which connotes the spirit of the city intrinsically exhibits the level of local cultivation.
3) Personal experiences
First, for public users, the preferential interests of overall environmental
construction and atmosphere drew from the whole picture to narrow down certain
details and were shown as following in order: beautiful view, nearby environment,
friendly seating, convenient location, selected sculptures and others. Only when the
specific sculpture was highly valued by public, it broke the preferential order and
54 made the exception, such as Swann fountain. This implies that people lingering on the
site did not determine on single reason, such as the specific sculpture, but were
affected by the whole. For instant, people who showed up at Love Park or Logon
circle stayed longer than those around Rocky statue because there were more seats
available and a lot of shadow of trees at Love Park and Logon circle. Besides that, the
background of audiences also affects the reasons they stop by and the activities they
do around those spots.
Becker (2004) defines certain characters of public art “inspire awe, draw out deep emotions, make us smile, engage young people and refresh our perspective.”
Fleming (2005) also deems that the artworks in public are gradually magnifying and
provide enjoyment to public. Based on the previous prospects, the survey results
present the people’s emotion triggered by the whole atmosphere of three sites and
their feeling for sculptures. Generally, the sense of most people received relaxing,
peaceful, pleasant and beautiful; the former two affections were highly ranked by
Love and Swann respondents and the later two by Rocky respondents (see Chart 8 in
Chapter V). In addition, most people consider that the sculptures exhibited around
these three spots created a welcoming space, among high supports from Love and
Swann respondents. This evidences that outdoor sculptures exist as a necessity for
public and can provide an entertaining place for rest and for interpersonal
55 communication.
4) Cultural and social value
One of the responsibilities of public art is to humanize cities by cultivating
citizen (Lennard 1987). The respondents with the education level from high school to
PhD held the supportive and similar attitude to that outdoor sculptures provided some
access to art appreciation. Especially, those who had higher education would be more
sensitive about the surrounding artworks and more agree with the raising experience
of art appreciation. Even if people do not visit museums purposely, they think that
they still have opportunity to experience art and to invisibly enhance their life. This
evidences that public artworks can cultivate and influence people daily somehow.
A very high percent of respondents declared for the historic value of sculptures
and considered that they could learn something from the past and cherish the history
by visiting those sculptures. In other words, people had a connection with past
throughout those sculptures. This proves that people received the remarkable value of
sculptures which is to memorialize the rewarding events and people over our time.
According to the survey results, people were generally willing to stop by and to appreciate the artworks even though they did not realize the meaning or purpose of
sculptures. That implies a positive phenomenon that from the works of artists, most
56 people did get or feel something which they could express or comment on whether
good or bad. And this outcome reaches what Goldstein (1994) identified the essential of public art for.
It was addressed that the money under ‘percent for public art’ related programs
of many cities largely allocated to the creation of public art, rather than to its
conservation projects (The American City and County, 2001). Becker (2004) further
explains that this trend reflected the “lack appropriate attention to the conservation
and preservation of existing public art” of many policies. On the other hand, with the
awakening to the involvement of pubic art, tax payers claim their right to govern the
allocation of tax (Hein 2006). From the survey results, it reveals that one half of
respondents were willing to donate taxes on both maintenance and purchase of
sculptures. Except just very few who focused on the input of new artworks, most
people expected to emphasize on the maintenance of the existing sculptures, rather
than the originality. This represents a very different point of view from the theory or
from the traditional impression of ordinances so that city planners or urban managers
should further consider whether people had been satisfied with the current situation
but the conservation of sculptures or whether the sculptures in Philadelphia had
reached the saturated condition. Either the two former possibilities or others, the
government should take this point seriously and resolve an innovation in order to
57 advance in a more comfortable living environment.
The other remarkable point from the survey results was that Philadelphia
residents had lower willing than non residents to donate their taxes to either
maintenance or purchase of sculptures, and were even indifferent toward sculptures.
Although money cannot be regarded as an indicator of judgments, the willing of
donation represents one’s attitude of treating public art and one’s degree of valuing
sculptures. Therefore, this might be a warning for the authority whether local
residents felt less satisfied about current living condition or specifically about those
sculptures in Philadelphia.
5) Self/community identification
In the part of identification of this study, it presents two aspects; one is how the
public treat the relationship between public artworks and community, and the other is the self and community identification of public. First, only 56 percent of respondents in all kinds of education level approved that the sculptures were either “extremely important” or “important” to the community. And half respondents stated that getting
closer to sculptures could be a way to get more familiar with local community. This
insinuates that there is still the other half of people who had less awareness of
sculpture and its relationship with community. Additionally, the survey results
58 discover that only relative minority of the whole respondents could exactly sense the
numeral of sculptures in Philadelphia. Among the respondents, although more local
residents than non residents responded well to the amount of sculptures due to the
superior advantage of familiarity with the city of Philadelphia, this was not strong
enough to say that public artworks in Philadelphia had successfully been involved into
people’s life. The perceived lack of the connection between public artworks and
community might be associated with the insufficient art education programs by local
art agencies. To increase the general sense of valuing public artworks, Grant (1999)
suggests two dimensions to improve. One of which is to encourage local art
institutions increasing public art education programs, and second is to promote public
actively participating in decision making of the process of public artwork
commissions. The latter leads an issue of how important of public involvement in
choosing public artworks.
From the survey results, up to 62.5 percent of respondents opined that sculptures
meant to them especially when they collaborated with the decision making. It brings people a consensus of considering issues directly relevant to their daily lives. Once
people feel being part of the process and then identify with the community, it can help
to reduce the graffiti or defacing of the public artworks. Those approvable sculptures,
meanwhile, stand for a visible symbol of community pride and express the shared
59 characters of their own community. Yet the representative symbol of a city or a
community can be viewed differently by local residents and by external visitors. Love
sculpture, for example, was much higher ranked as city landmark by local residents than by visitors. And from the postcards, traveling brochures and official publications
of Philadelphia, it can easily discover the picture of Love sculpture. This means that
Philadelphia residents identify with the meaning of “the city of brotherly love,” and
identify themselves with this city. As to Swann fountain and Rocky statue, rather than
the embodiment of Philadelphia, both local residents and visitors generally valued
them as beautiful artworks. Consequentially, the community identity depends on how
people tie to this place where they live and on how people value this relationship.
6) Tourism
Being one of the fastest growing industries in the world, tourism can be regarded
as a device to raise the reputation of a city as well as the economic benefit. Becker
(2004) claims that public art can pilot visitors blending into the veins of local community and can effectively promote cultural tourism. In three case studies, the results turn out the reason that most people came to Philadelphia was not for any specific sculpture. But there were still some who especially came to visit Rocky statue and followed running up the stars of the Museum because of the famous movie of
Rocky. Possessing with the profuse heritage of public artworks, nevertheless, the city
60 of Philadelphia does not provide any related guided tours for sculptures. It dissatisfies the needs and interests of the audiences, especially the survey results reveal that a very high portion of respondents willingly return back after their trip and near half expected to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia. Economically, those public sculptures can activate the culture tourism and stimulate the related business.
Goldstein (2005) suggests that developing a guided tour of public artworks can raise knowledge about public art and result in many businesses contributing to this field, such as lighting, printing, design, installation and so on. The public art services should be regarded as a trigger for flourishing the development of local communities. But before going further, the cultural tourism strategy should be deliberated on the balance of local community needs with the interests of external visitors.
Summary
There is little in the literature that describes the commission and the current development of public sculptures in the City of Philadelphia as well as its conservation and maintenance, except some outdated documents of the initial plans in
Philadelphia. In this study, it also addresses the other potential crisis. Possessing the luxuriant cultural heritage, especially its proud amount of sculptures, the authority of
Philadelphia does not provide the sufficient correspondents to support the interests of public for the public artworks. On the whole, the existence of public sculptures is
61 indispensable. Those public sculptures can greatly contribute to promote the quality of
people’s life and can bring considerable benefit for the city if well applied in terms of
all aspects. The city-wide surveys in Philadelphia reveal that the public users view
outdoor sculptures as a device of linking them with history and with the entire
construction, and also appreciate landscape design as the beautification of the city.
The space built by the outdoor sculptures, meanwhile, supplies a platform for the public to experience the relaxed recreation and to have the interpersonal communication. Those sculptures play a strong positive role in stirring the connection among the environment, the public and the community.
Actually, public art cannot be separated from its context, whether concrete as
physical shape or intangible as social value. The invisible mental part is composed of
more complex areas, such as identification, participation and spirit of community, and
each of those characters can influence people the external behavior and the internal
identification linking to the place where they act and live. A more interactive process
of commission and selection of sculptures involved with more people will have
produced more approvable artworks in order to reduce vandalism, and have inspired
more centripetal sense of public to cherish this community. An urgent strategy should
be to clarify the process of public sculptures commission and to recruit public
participation even though it might be a time-money-manpower consuming program.
62 But the consequence can be even greater, and then advance the willing of donation as well as the attention of local residents. The larger lesson of this study is that no matter how the social and demographics change, public art should always mean to the public because the public is the final beneficiary of public art.
63 List of References
References
1. Anonymous (May 2001). “Monumental Undertakings.” The American City &
County, Vol. 116 Issue 7.
2. Argiro, Carol (Jul 2004). “Teaching with Public Art.” Art Education, Vol. 57 Issue
4.
3. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4. Bach, Penny B. (1989). “To light up Philadelphia: Lighting, Public art, and Public
space.” Art Journal, Vol. 48, pp 324-330.
5. Bach, Penny B. (1992). Public Art in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Temple
University Press.
6. Baca, Judith F. (1995). “Whose Monument Where? Public Art in a Many-Cultured
Society.” Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art.
7. Beardsley, John (1981). Art in Public Places: A Survey of Community-Sponsored
Projects Supported by the NEA.
8. Becker, Jack (2004). Public Art: An Essential Component of Creating
Communities. Washington, D.C., Americans for the Arts.
9. Blair, John M.; Pijawka, David K.; and Steiner, Frederick (1998). “Public Art in
Mitigation Planning: The Experience of the Squaw Peak Parkway in Phoenix.”
American Planning Association, Journal of the American Planning Association,
Vol. 64 Issue 2.
10. Brenner, Roslyn F. (2002). Philadelphia’s Outdoor Art: A Walking Tour, 3rd
edition.
64 11. City of Los Angeles (1996). “Placemaking: Public Art in Los Angeles.”
Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles.
12. Fairmount Park Map and Visitor’s Guide. Philadelphia’s Park System.
13. Fairmount Park Art Association (1974). Sculpture of a City: Philadelphia’s
Treasures in Bronze and Stone. Walker Publisher Co., New York.
14. Fairmount Park Art Association (1982). Form and Function: Proposals for Public
Art in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the
Fairmount Park Art Association, Philadelphia.
15. Fink, A. (1995). The Survey Handbook. Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
16. Finkelpearl, Tom (2001). Dialogues in Public Art.
17. Fleming, Ronald L. (2005). “Public Art for the Public.” Public Interest, Vol. 159.
18. Gablik, Suzi (1995). “Connective Aesthetics: Art after Individualism.” Mapping
the Terrain: New Genre Public Art.
19. Gee, Malcolm (1995). “Yes in My Front Yard: Community Participation and the
Public Art Process.” High Performance, Vol. 18 Issue 2.
20. Goldstein, Barbara (2005). Public Art by the Book.
21. Grant, Daniel (1999). “Rethinking Public Art.” American Artist. New York, Vol. 63
Issue 689.
22. Hein, Hilde (1996). “What is Public Art?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
Vol. 54 Issue 1.
23. Hein, Hilde (2006). Public Art: Thinking Museums Differently.
24. Huebner, Jeff; Gude, Olivia (2000). Urban Art Chicago: A Guide to Community
Murals, Mosaics, and Sculptures.
65 25. Jacob, Mary J. (1995). “An Unfashionable Audience.” Mapping the Terrain: New
Genre Public Art.
26. Jacob, Mary J.; Brenson, Michael; Olson, Eva M. (1995). Culture in Action.
27. Kelley, Jeff (1995). “Common Work.” Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public
Art.
28. Korza, Pam; Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. (1988). Going Public: A Field Guide to
Developments in Art in Public Places.
29. Lacy, Suzanne (1995). Ed. (1996). “Introduction.” Mapping the Terrain: New
Genre Public Art.
30. Lacy, Suzanne (1995). “Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys.” Mapping
the Terrain: New Genre Public Art.
31. Lacy, Suzanne (1993). “Fractured Space.” Art in the Public Interest.
32. Lennard, Suzanne H. (1987). Toward Criteria for Art in Public Spaces. Vol. 46
Issue 3.
33. Lippard, Lucy R. (1995). “Looking Around: Where We Are, Where We Could
Be.” Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art.
34. Lippard, Lucy R. (1993). “Moving Targets/Moving Out.” Art in the Public
Interest.
35. The Economist. London: (Apr 20, 2002). Britain: Getting it up; Public Sculpture.
The Economist Newspaper Ltd. London, Vol. 363.
36. Morning Edition. Washington, D.C. (Aug 10, 1994). Debate Rages over
Definition of “Public Art.”
37. Muschamp, Herbert (1993). “When Art Becomes a Public Spectacle.” The New
66 York Times, (Aug 29), Section 2.
38. Norman, E.H. and Norman, J.M. (2000). “Community Operational Research
Issues and Public Art Practice: The Art Director System.” Journal of the
Operational Research Society.
39. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the Fairmount Park Art Association,
(1982). FAF:PFPAFP, Form and Function: Proposals for Public Art for
Philadelphia.
40. Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau (2003). “Bringing Rocky Back.” pp.
11.
41. Phillips, Patricia C. (1995). “Public Constructions.” Mapping the Terrain: New
Genre Public Art.
42. Plagens, Peter (1995). “What Happens When American Art Goes Public?” New
England Review, Vol. 13 Issue 3.
43. Publishers, Chelsea H.; Thalacker, Donald W. (1980). The Place of Art in the
World of Architecture.
44. Raven, Arlene (1993). Art in the Public Interest.
45. Redstone, Louis G.; Redstone, Ruth R. (1981). Public Art.
46. Roth, Moira (1993). “Suzanne Lacy: Social Reformer and Witch.” Art in the
Public Interest.
47. Russell, Robert (2004). “A Beginner’s Guide to Public Art.” Art Education, Vol.
57 Issue 4.
48. Stephens, Pamela G. (2006). “A Real Community Bridge: Informing
Community-Based Learning through a Model of Participatory Public Art.” Art
67 Education, Vol. 59 Issue 2.
49. Storr, Robert (1993). “Tilted Arc: Enemy of the People?” Art in the Public
Interest.
Foot Notes
FN 1: Fairmount Park (Philadelphia’s Park System) website:
http://www.fairmountpark.org/FpcCommission.asp
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 2: Fairmount Park Commission website:
http://www.phila.gov/phils/Docs/inventor/Graphics/agencies/A149.htm
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 3: Fairmount Park Art Association website: http://www.fpaa.org/about_us.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 4: Fairmount Park Art Association website:
http://www.fpaa.org/samuel_garden.html (Last accessed date: Apr. 20 2008)
FN 5: Fairmount Park Art Association website: http://www.fpaa.org/intl_garden.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 6: Fairmount Park Art Association website: http://www.fpaa.org/other_prog.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 7: Fairmount Park Art Association website: http://www.fpaa.org/cons_pres.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 8: The Office of the City Representative (Department of Commerce) website:
http://www.phila.gov/commerce/rep/oac/ac_home.htm
68 (Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 9: Fairmount Park Art Association website: http://www.fpaa.org/pa_agencies.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 10: The City of Philadelphia Public Art program website:
http://publicartphiladelphia.org/PercentForArt.asp
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 11: City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property website:
http://www.phila.gov/property/art_Cityhall.html
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 12: The City of Philadelphia Public Art program website:
http://publicartphiladelphia.org/PercentForArt.asp
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
FN 13: The City of Philadelphia Public Art program website:
http://publicartphiladelphia.org/ConservationManagement.asp
(Last accessed date: Apr. 20, 2008)
69 Appendix A—Survey Question Classification
Case Examples of Public Art in Philadelphia:
1. Love Sculpture: Kennedy Plaza (15th Street & John F. Kennedy Boulevard)
2. Swann Memorial Fountain: Logan Circle (19th Street & Benjamin Franklin Parkway)
3. Rocky Sculpture: At the front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (26th Street & Benjamin Franklin Parkway)
Impacts of Public Art in the City of Philadelphia
I. Environmental II. Aesthetic III. Cultural IV. Social and Economic V. Interpersonal
I-A. Accessibility II-A. Beautification III-A. Education IV-A. Social Value V-A. Interpersonal Interaction I-B. Interaction II-B. Atmosphere III-B. History/Heritage IV-B. Self/Community-Identified V-B. Personal Experience I-C. Space Utilizing II-C. Predilection IV-C. Tourism
70 1. Love Sculpture I-A A-1 Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Accessibility A-2 If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion I-B B-1 What is your favorite thing about Love Park? (check one option) Interaction □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______B-2 What kind activities do you like to do around Love sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play
I. Environmental I. Environmental □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______B-3 Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Love in the same location of Love Park, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______I-C Space utilizing C-1 Do you think that the space created by Love sculpture is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion II-A A-1 If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? Beautification (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-2 Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 II-B B-1 What is the overall atmosphere at Love Park? (check all that apply)
II. Aesthetic Atmosphere □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______B-2 How much does Love sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 II-C C-1 What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option)
71 Predilection □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______C-2 What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______C-3 Is Love sculpture one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion III-A A-1 How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 Education A-2 Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 III-B B-1 Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it?
III. Cultural III. Cultural History/Heritage (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-2 Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion IV-A A-1 Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures? Social Value □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No
A-2 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures? □ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars
IV-B B-1 Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) Self/Community -Identified □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300 IV. Social & Economic IV. B-2 Do you think that Love sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia?
72 (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-3 Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-4 How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 IV-C Tourism C-1 Were you aware of Love sculpture before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion C-2 Was Love sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion C-3 Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □ Probably not □No □ No opinion C-4 The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Love sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion V-A Interpersonal A-1 How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? Interaction (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 V-B B-1 Does Love sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Personal Experience B-2 Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time at Love park. (1=most important, 6=less important)
V. Interpersonal Interpersonal V. □ Love sculpture itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
73 2. Swann Memorial Fountain I-A A-1 Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Accessibility A-2 If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you think water is an important reason you like this sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion I-B B-1 What is your favorite thing about Logan Circle? (check one option) Interaction □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______B-2 What kind activities do you like to do around Swann Memorial Fountain? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play I. Environmental I. Environmental □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______B-3 Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Swann Fountain in the same location, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______I-C Space utilizing C-1 Do you think that the space created by Swann Fountain is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion II-A A-1 If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? Beautification (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-2 Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 II-B B-1 What is the overall atmosphere at Logan Circle? (check all that apply) II. Aesthetic Atmosphere □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______B-2 How much does Swann Fountain contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5
74 II-C C-1 What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option) Predilection □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______C-2 What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______C-3 Is Swann Fountain one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion III-A A-1 How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 Education A-2 Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 III-B B-1 Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it?
III. Cultural III. Cultural History/Heritage (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-2 Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion IV-A A-1 Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures?
Social Value □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No A-2 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures? □ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars
IV-B B-1 Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) Self/Community □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300 IV. Social & Economic IV. -Identified B-2 Do you think that Swann Fountain is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia?
75 (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-3 Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-4 How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 IV-C Tourism C-1 Were you aware of Swann Fountain before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion C-2 Was Swann Fountain one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion C-3 Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □Probably not □No □ No opinion C-4 The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Swann Fountain? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion V-A Interpersonal A-1 How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? Interaction (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 V-B B-1 Does Swann Fountain evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Personal Experience B-2 Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time at Logan Circle. (1=most important, 6=less important)
V. Interpersonal Interpersonal V. □ Swann Fountain itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
76 3. Rocky Sculpture I-A A-1 Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Accessibility A-2 If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion I-B B-1 What is your favorite thing about in front of Museum? (check one option) Interaction □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______B-2 What kind activities do you like to do around Rocky sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play
I. Environmental I. Environmental □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______B-3 Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Rocky in the same location in front of Museum, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______I-C Space utilizing C-1 Do you think that the space created by Rocky sculpture is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion II-A A-1 If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? Beautification (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-2 Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 II-B B-1 What is the overall atmosphere at in front of Museum? (check all that apply)
II. Aesthetic Atmosphere □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______B-2 How much does Rocky sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 II-C C-1 What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option)
77 Predilection □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______C-2 What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______C-3 Is Rocky sculpture one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion III-A A-1 How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 Education A-2 Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion A-3 Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 III-B B-1 Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it?
III. Cultural III. Cultural History/Heritage (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-2 Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion IV-A A-1 Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures? Social Value □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No A-2 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures?
□ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars
A-3 Does the commercial meaning of Rocky sculpture reduce its original value as a memorial sculpture? (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 IV-B B-1 Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) IV. Social & Economic IV. □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300
78 Self/Community B-2 Do you think that Rocky sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia? -Identified (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-3 Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 B-4 How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 IV-C Tourism C-1 Were you aware of Rocky sculpture before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion C-2 Was Rocky sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion C-3 Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □ Probably not □No □ No opinion C-4 The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Rocky sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion V-A Interpersonal A-1 How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? Interaction (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 V-B B-1 Does Rocky sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion Personal Experience B-2 Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time in front of Museum. (1=most important, 6=less important)
V. Interpersonal Interpersonal V. □ Rocky sculpture itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
79 Survey # ______Date______Appendix B—Survey Copy
Outdoor Sculpture in Philadelphia Survey Those questions explore the interaction between people and public art in Philadelphia. Your anonymous responses will be a part of Shu-Yi Kao’s master’s degree thesis in Arts Administration program, Drexel University.
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female 2. Age: □ Under 20 □ 20-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ 51-60 □ Over 61
3. Race:
□ American Indian/Alaskan Native □ Asian/Pacific Islander □ Hispanic
□ Black/Non-Hispanic □ White/Non-Hispanic □ Other ______
4. Education: (check the highest level attained): □ High School □ BA □ Master □ PhD □ Professional Degree 5. Are you a resident of Philadelphia? □ Yes, I am a resident of Philadelphia and I have lived here ___ Year(s) □ No, I am a visitor. This is my (1, 2, 3….) _____ visit to Philadelphia.
6. Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
7. If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
8. What is your favorite thing about Love Park? (check one option) □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______9. What kind activities do you like to do around Love sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______10. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Love in the same location of Love Park, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______11. Do you think that the space created by Love sculpture is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 12. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 13. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 14. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 15. What is the overall atmosphere at Love Park? (check all that apply) □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______16. How much does Love sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 17. What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option) □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______
80 Survey # ______Date______18. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______19. Is Love sculpture one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 20. How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 21. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 22. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 23. Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it? (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 24. Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 25. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures? □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No 26. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures? □ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars 27. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300 28. Do you think that Love sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 29. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 30. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 31. Were you aware of Love sculpture before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 32. Was Love sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion 33. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □Probably not □No □No opinion 34. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Love sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 35. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 36. Does Love sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 37. Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time at Love park. (1=most important, 6=less important) □ Love sculpture itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
Thank you very much for your participation!
81 Survey # ______Date______Outdoor Sculpture in Philadelphia Survey Those questions explore the interaction between people and public art in Philadelphia. Your anonymous responses will be a part of Shu-Yi Kao’s master’s degree thesis in Arts Administration program, Drexel University.
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female 2. Age: □ Under 20 □ 20-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ 51-60 □ Over 61
3. Race:
□ American Indian/Alaskan Native □ Asian/Pacific Islander □ Hispanic
□ Black/Non-Hispanic □ White/Non-Hispanic □ Other ______
4. Education: (check the highest level attained): □ High School □ BA □ Master □ PhD □ Professional Degree 5. Are you a resident of Philadelphia? □ Yes, I am a resident of Philadelphia and I have lived here ___ Year(s) □ No, I am a visitor. This is my (1, 2, 3….) _____ visit to Philadelphia.
6. Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
7. If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
8. Do you think water is an important reason you like this sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
9. What is your favorite thing about Logan Circle? (check one option) □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______10. What kind activities do you like to do around Swann Memorial Fountain? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______11. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Swann Fountain in the same location, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______12. Do you think that the space created by Swann Fountain is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 13. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 14. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 15. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 16. What is the overall atmosphere at Logan Circle? (check all that apply) □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______17. How much does Swann Fountain contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 18. What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option) □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______
82 Survey # ______Date______19. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______20. Is Swann Fountain one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 21. How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 22. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 23. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 24. Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it? (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 25. Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 26. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures? □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No 27. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures? □ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars 28. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300 29. Do you think that Swann Fountain is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 30. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 31. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 32. Were you aware of Swann Fountain before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 33. Was Swann Fountain one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion 34. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □Probably not □No □No opinion 35. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Swann Fountain? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 36. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 37. Does Swann Fountain evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 38. Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time at Logan Circle. (1=most important, 6=less important) □ Swann Fountain itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
Thank you very much for your participation!
83 Survey # ______Date______Outdoor Sculpture in Philadelphia Survey Those questions explore the interaction between people and public art in Philadelphia. Your anonymous responses will be a part of Shu-Yi Kao’s master’s degree thesis in Arts Administration program, Drexel University.
1. Gender: □ Male □ Female 2. Age: □ Under 20 □ 20-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ 51-60 □ Over 61
3. Race:
□ American Indian/Alaskan Native □ Asian/Pacific Islander □ Hispanic
□ Black/Non-Hispanic □ White/Non-Hispanic □ Other ______
4. Education: (check the highest level attained): □ High School □ BA □ Master □ PhD □ Professional Degree 5. Are you a resident of Philadelphia? □ Yes, I am a resident of Philadelphia and I have lived here ___ Year(s) □ No, I am a visitor. This is my (1, 2, 3….) _____ visit to Philadelphia.
6. Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
7. If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion
8. What is your favorite thing about in front of Museum? (check one option) □ Distribution of sculptures □ People who came here □ My favorite sculpture is here □ Surrounding environment □ The activities that take place here □ Nothing in particular □ Other ______9. What kind activities do you like to do around Rocky sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Exercise □ Chat □ Think □ Sleep □ Spend time with friends □ Picnic □ Play □ Take pictures □ Read □ Relax □ Walk around □ Spend time with family □ Hold Meetings □ Other______10. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Rocky in the same location in front of Museum, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion □ It depends on ______11. Do you think that the space created by Rocky sculpture is welcoming? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 12. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town’s landscape? (if you are a resident, please go to the next question): □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 13. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 14. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 15. What is the overall atmosphere at in front of Museum? (check all that apply) □ Boring □ Crowded □ Exciting □ Stressful □ Noisy □ Nostalgic □ Pleasant □ Romantic □ Peaceful □ Happy □ Beautiful □ Relaxing □ Other______16. How much does Rocky sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere? (1=a lot, 5=nothing) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 17. What kind sculptures interest you most? (check one option) □ Abstract □ Heroes on horses □ Animals □ Objects (ex, clothespin) □ Human figures □ Mythical creatures □ Fountains □ Commercial icons □ Other______18. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture? (Check all that apply) □ Shape □ Color □ Size □ Theme □ Location □ Meaning □ Historic value □ Material □Other______
84 Survey # ______Date______19. Is Rocky sculpture one of your favorite sculptures? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 20. How important are the sculptures to the community? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □1 □2 □3 □4 □5 21. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 22. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 23. Assuming that you don’t know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it? (1=extremely likely, 5=not likely at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 24. Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 25. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures? □ Yes, for both □ Yes, only for purchase □ Yes, only for maintenance □ No 26. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures? □ Nothing □ 1 Cent □ 5 Cent □ 10 Cent □ 25 Cent □ 1 Dollar
□ 5 Dollars □ 10 Dollars □ 20 Dollars □ More than 20 dollars 27. Does the commercial meaning of Rocky sculpture reduce its original value as a memorial sculpture? (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 28. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia? (Including Fairmont Park, Penn’s Landing and parks in Center City) □ Under 50 □ 50-100 □ 101-150 □ 151-200 □ 201-250 □ 251-300 □ Over 300 29. Do you think that Rocky sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 30. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community? (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 31. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures? (1=extremely important, 5=not important at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 32. Were you aware of Rocky sculpture before you visited Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 33. Was Rocky sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia? □ Yes □ No □No opinion 34. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia? □Yes, absolutely □Yes, if there’s time □Probably not □No □No opinion 35. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Rocky sculpture? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 36. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends? (1=a lot, 5=not at all) □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 37. Does Rocky sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory? □ Yes □ No □ No opinion 38. Please rank the importance (1-6) of each of the following elements in your decision to spend time in front of Museum. (1=most important, 6=less important) □ Rocky sculpture itself □ Nearby environment □ Friendly seating □ Convenient location □ Wireless access (if there is) □ Beautiful view
Thank you very much for your participation!
85 Sophia Kao Thesis
1. Survey date
Response Response Percent Count
1 100.0% 1052
answered question 1052
skipped question 0
2. Survey #
Response Count
1018
answered question 1018
skipped question 0
3. Gender
Response Response Percent Count
Male 44.7% 470
Female 55.3% 581
answered question 1051
skipped question 0
4. Age
Response Response Percent Count
under 20 16.2% 170
21-30 42.8% 450
31-40 15.9% 167
41-50 13.6% 143
51-60 7.4% 78
Over 61 4.2% 44
answered question 1052
skipped question 0
Page 1 5. Race
Response Response Percent Count
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2.6% 27
Asian/Pacific Islander 17.5% 184
Hispanic 7.2% 76
Black/Non-Hispanic 16.6% 175
White/Non-Hispanic 51.3% 540
Other (please specify) 4.8% 50
answered question 1052
skipped question 0
6. Education(check the highest level attained)
Response Response Percent Count
High School 35.7% 373
BA 34.2% 358
Master 19.4% 203
PhD 2.8% 29
Professional Degree 7.9% 83
answered question 1046
skipped question 0
7. Are you a resident of Philadelphia?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Yes, I am a resident of Philadelphia 13.8% 10.8% 6.7% 6.0% 4.6% 2.8% 3.0% 1.4% 1.2% 3.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% and I have lived here X year(s) (78) (61) (38) (34) (26) (16) (17) (8) (7) (19) (3) (2) (5)
No, I am a visitor. This is my X visit to 47.9% 13.8% 8.9% 4.8% 2.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.2% 2.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% Philadelphia (232) (67) (43) (23) (14) (6) (7) (5) (1) (13) (2) (4) (0)
8. Which sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Love sculpture 33.3% 350
2.Swann fountain 33.3% 350
3.Rocky sculpture 33.4% 351
answered question 1051
skipped question 0
Page 2 9. Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 83.4% 292
No 3.4% 12
No opinion 13.1% 46
answered question 350
skipped question 0
10. If sculptures are distant from you, (high up, out of reach, etc.), are you still interested in them?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 78.7% 270
No 8.8% 30
No opinion 12.5% 43
answered question 343
skipped question 7
11. What is your favorite thing about Love Park?
Response Response Percent Count
Distribution of sculptures 6.9% 24
People who came here 11.4% 40
My favorite sculpture is here 5.1% 18
Surrounding environment 35.7% 125
The activities that take place here 9.7% 34
Nothing in particular 18.3% 64
Other (please specify) 12.9% 45
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 3 12. What kind activities do you like to do around Love sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Exercise 9.7% 34
Chat 38.6% 136
Think 42.6% 150
Sleep 8.2% 29
Spend time with friends 45.5% 160
Picnic 18.5% 65
Play 18.2% 64
Take pictures 40.6% 143
Read 31.3% 110
Relax 63.6% 224
Walk around 38.1% 134
Spend time with family 21.0% 74
Hold meetings 5.4% 19
Other (please specify) 4.3% 15
answered question 352
skipped question 0
13. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Love in the same location of Love Park, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 51.7% 180
No 20.4% 71
No opinion 18.4% 64
It depends on 9.5% 33
answered question 348
skipped question 2
14. Do you think that the space created by Love sculpture is welcoming?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 89.9% 311
No 3.8% 13
No opinion 6.4% 22
answered question 346
skipped question 4
Page 4 15. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town's landscape?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 48.8% 104
No 33.3% 71
No opinion 17.8% 38
answered question 213
skipped question 137
16. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 55.6% 190
No 25.2% 86
No opinion 19.3% 66
answered question 342
skipped question 8
17. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 33.2% 116
2.Agree(75%) 23.5% 82
3.Neutral(50%) 24.1% 84
4.Disagree(25%) 9.5% 33
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 9.7% 34
answered question 349
skipped question 1
Page 5 18. What is the overall atmosphere at Love Park?
Response Response Percent Count
Boring 2.0% 7
Crowded 8.3% 29
Exciting 20.8% 73
Stressful 2.3% 8
Noisy 5.7% 20
Nostalgic 12.8% 45
Pleasant 51.0% 179
Romantic 36.8% 129
Peaceful 53.3% 187
Happy 39.0% 137
Beautiful 37.0% 130
Relaxing 61.3% 215
Other (please specify) 2.6% 9
answered question 351
skipped question 0
19. How much does Love sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 28.7% 97
2.(75%) 18.9% 64
3.Medium(50%) 29.9% 101
4.(25%) 12.4% 42
5.Nothing(0%) 10.1% 34
answered question 338
skipped question 12
Page 6 20. What kind sculptures interest you most?
Response Response Percent Count
Abstract 27.7% 97
Heroes on horses 14.0% 49
Animals 19.7% 69
Objects 17.4% 61
Human figures 25.1% 88
Mythical creatures 22.0% 77
Fountains 57.7% 202
Commercial icons 6.9% 24
Other (please specify) 3.4% 12
answered question 350
skipped question 0
21. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Shape 41.0% 144
Color 30.5% 107
Size 29.3% 103
Theme 44.4% 156
Location 30.2% 106
Meaning 50.4% 177
Historic value 34.8% 122
Material 15.1% 53
Other (please specify) 4.0% 14
answered question 351
skipped question 0
22. Is Love sculpture one of your favorite sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 51.1% 179
No 28.9% 101
No opinion 20.0% 70
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 7 23. How important are the sculptures to the community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 23.7% 80
2.Important(75%) 34.7% 117
3.Medium(50%) 25.2% 85
4.Not important(25%) 9.2% 31
5.Extremely not important(0%) 7.1% 24
answered question 337
skipped question 13
24. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 57.7% 199
No 30.7% 106
No opinion 11.6% 40
answered question 345
skipped question 5
25. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Stronly agree(100%) 46.7% 164
2.Agree(75%) 24.2% 85
3.Neutral(50%) 14.3% 50
4.Disagree(25%) 8.6% 30
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 6.3% 22
answered question 351
skipped question 0
26. Assuming that you don't know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely likely(100%) 33.8% 118
2.Likely(75%) 31.0% 108
3.Medium(50%) 24.4% 85
4.Not likely(25%) 7.2% 25
5.Not likely at all(0%) 3.7% 13
answered question 349
skipped question 1
Page 8 27. Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 84.4% 287
No 7.9% 27
No opinion 7.7% 26
answered question 340
skipped question 10
28. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, for both 46.4% 163
Yes, only for purchase 6.3% 22
Yes, only for maintenance 17.1% 60
No 30.2% 106
answered question 351
skipped question 0
29. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Nothing 30.1% 106
1 Cent 2.3% 8
5 Cent 3.1% 11
10 Cent 4.3% 15
25 Cent 4.8% 17
1 Dollar 21.0% 74
5 Dollars 11.4% 40
10 Dollars 8.0% 28
20 Dollars 7.7% 27
More than 20 dollars 7.4% 26
answered question 352
skipped question 0
Page 9 30. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Under 50 2.3% 8
50-100 16.5% 58
101-150 15.6% 55
151-200 16.5% 58
201-250 15.1% 53
251-300 13.6% 48
Over 300 20.5% 72
answered question 352
skipped question 0
31. Do you think that Love sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 41.5% 146
2.Agree(75%) 24.7% 87
3.Neutral(50%) 18.5% 65
4.Disagree(25%) 9.4% 33
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 6.0% 21
answered question 352
skipped question 0
32. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 26.9% 94
2.Agree(75%) 28.0% 98
3.Neutral(50%) 27.7% 97
4.Disagree(25%) 10.6% 37
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 6.9% 24
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 10 33. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 36.9% 129
2.Important(75%) 28.3% 99
3.Medium(50%) 22.0% 77
4.Not important(25%) 8.0% 28
5.Extremely not important(0%) 4.9% 17
answered question 350
skipped question 0
34. Were you aware of Love sculpture before you visited Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 54.8% 189
No 34.2% 118
No opinion 11.0% 38
answered question 345
skipped question 5
35. Was Love sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 15.5% 52
No 66.3% 222
No opinion 18.2% 61
answered question 335
skipped question 15
36. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, absolutely(100%) 37.8% 130
Yes, if there's time(70%) 40.7% 140
Probably not(40%) 9.6% 33
No(0%) 2.6% 9
No opinion 9.3% 32
answered question 344
skipped question 6
Page 11 37. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Love sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 70.9% 236
No 7.8% 26
No opinion 21.3% 71
answered question 333
skipped question 17
38. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 36.0% 125
2.(75%) 22.8% 79
3.Medium(50%) 26.2% 91
4.(25%) 8.4% 29
5.Nothing(0%) 6.6% 23
answered question 347
skipped question 3
39. Does Love sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 45.2% 156
No 41.5% 143
No opinion 13.3% 46
answered question 345
skipped question 5
Page 12 40. Rank the importance of each following elements in your decision to spend time at Love Park.
1.Most 6.Less Response important 2.(80%) 3.(60%) 4.(40%) 5.(20%) important Count (100%) (0%)
39.8% Love sculpture itself 12.2% (31) 11.8% (30) 7.9% (20) 18.5% (47) 9.8% (25) 254 (101)
39.4% Nearby environment 20.1% (52) 17.4% (45) 14.3% (37) 7.3% (19) 1.5% (4) 259 (102)
39.8% Friendly seating 15.9% (42) 15.5% (41) 14.4% (38) 12.1% (32) 2.3% (6) 264 (105)
41.3% Convenient location 13.5% (35) 13.5% (35) 12.7% (33) 15.4% (40) 3.5% (9) 259 (107)
70.0% Wireless access(if there is) 11.0% (23) 2.9% (6) 3.3% (7) 6.2% (13) 6.7% (14) 210 (147)
60.5% Beautiful view 16.9% (50) 8.8% (26) 9.1% (27) 2.7% (8) 2.0% (6) 296 (179)
answered question 351
skipped question 0
41. Do you like sculptures which are easy to access and touch?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 86.3% 303
No 4.0% 14
No opinion 9.7% 34
answered question 351
skipped question 0
42. If sculptures are distant from you, are you still interested in them?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 82.4% 286
No 10.1% 35
No opinion 7.5% 26
answered question 347
skipped question 3
43. Do you think water is an important reason you like this sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 74.8% 261
No 16.1% 56
No opinion 9.2% 32
answered question 349
skipped question 1
Page 13 44. What is your favorite thing about Logan Circle?
Response Response Percent Count
Distribution of sculptures 14.0% 49
People who came here 7.7% 27
My favorite sculpture is here 3.1% 11
Surrounding environment 42.2% 148
The activities that take place here 10.0% 35
Nothing in particular 16.8% 59
Other 6.3% 22
answered question 351
skipped question 0
45. What kind activities do you like to do around Swann Fountain?
Response Response Percent Count
Exercise 7.4% 26
Chat 26.9% 94
Think 33.7% 118
Sleep 5.7% 20
Spend time with friends 35.1% 123
Picnic 9.7% 34
Play 11.7% 41
Take pictures 34.0% 119
Read 24.3% 85
Relax 58.9% 206
Walk around 43.4% 152
Spend time with family 21.7% 76
Hold meeting 3.4% 12
Other 7.1% 25
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 14 46. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Swann Fountain, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 44.4% 154
No 15.0% 52
No opinion 26.8% 93
It depends on 13.8% 48
answered question 347
skipped question 3
47. Do you think that the space created by Swann Fountain is welcoming?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 90.2% 312
No 1.7% 6
No opinion 8.1% 28
answered question 346
skipped question 4
48. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town's landscape?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 47.3% 114
No 43.6% 105
No opinion 9.1% 22
answered question 241
skipped question 109
49. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 43.8% 148
No 31.1% 105
No opinion 25.2% 85
answered question 338
skipped question 12
Page 15 50. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 33.5% 115
2.Agree(75%) 28.0% 96
3.Medium(50%) 22.2% 76
4.Disagree(25%) 9.6% 33
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 6.7% 23
answered question 343
skipped question 7
51. What is the overall atmosphere at Logan Circle?
Response Response Percent Count
Boring 1.1% 4
Crowded 10.0% 35
Exciting 19.9% 70
Stressful 2.6% 9
Noisy 10.0% 35
Nostalgic 6.3% 22
Pleasant 45.3% 159
Romantic 16.5% 58
Peaceful 45.9% 161
Happy 29.3% 103
Beautiful 40.5% 142
Relaxing 49.9% 175
Other 2.6% 9
answered question 351
skipped question 0
52. How much does Swann Fountain contribute to create such an atmosphere?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 37.5% 128
2.(75%) 29.6% 101
3.Medium(50%) 20.8% 71
4.(25%) 8.2% 28
5.Nothing(0%) 3.8% 13
answered question 341
skipped question 9
Page 16 53. What kind sculptures interest you most?
Response Response Percent Count
Abstract 23.9% 84
Heroes on horses 9.4% 33
Animals 18.5% 65
Objects 11.7% 41
Human figures 30.2% 106
Mythical creatures 21.1% 74
Fountains 54.1% 190
Commercial icons 2.9% 10
Other 1.7% 6
answered question 351
skipped question 0
54. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Shape 37.7% 132
Color 25.4% 89
Size 23.1% 81
Theme 47.1% 165
Location 26.3% 92
Meaning 35.7% 125
Historic value 36.6% 128
Material 14.9% 52
Other 3.4% 12
answered question 350
skipped question 0
55. Is Swann Fountain one of your favorite sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 44.8% 155
No 21.4% 74
No opinion 33.8% 117
answered question 346
skipped question 4
Page 17 56. How important are the sculptures to the community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 29.8% 102
2.Important(75%) 27.8% 95
3.Medium(50%) 33.0% 113
4.Unimportant(25%) 6.7% 23
5.Extremely not important(0%) 2.6% 9
answered question 342
skipped question 8
57. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 67.3% 235
No 23.5% 82
No opinion 9.2% 32
answered question 349
skipped question 1
58. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 56.2% 196
2.Agree(75%) 22.1% 77
3.Medium(50%) 12.3% 43
4.Disagree(25%) 5.7% 20
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 3.7% 13
answered question 349
skipped question 1
59. Assuming that you don't know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a look at it?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely likely(100%) 31.5% 110
2.Likely(75%) 37.0% 129
3.Medium(50%) 21.5% 75
4.Not likely(25%) 7.5% 26
5.Extremely not likely(0%) 2.6% 9
answered question 349
skipped question 1
Page 18 60. Do sculptures give you an opportunity to learn more about our history?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 84.4% 291
No 6.7% 23
No opinion 9.0% 31
answered question 345
skipped question 5
61. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, for both 53.1% 186
Yes, only for purchase 4.3% 15
Yes, only for maintenance 19.7% 69
No 22.9% 80
answered question 350
skipped question 0
62. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Nothing 22.8% 80
1 Cent 1.7% 6
5 Cent 2.6% 9
10 Cent 2.3% 8
25 Cent 3.7% 13
1 Dollar 15.7% 55
5 Dollars 13.4% 47
10 Dollars 12.3% 43
20 Dollars 13.1% 46
More than 20 dollars 12.5% 44
answered question 351
skipped question 0
Page 19 63. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Under 50 5.4% 19
51-100 13.4% 47
101-150 15.1% 53
151-200 16.2% 57
201-250 15.7% 55
251-300 11.1% 39
Over 300 23.1% 81
answered question 351
skipped question 0
64. Do you think that Swann Fountain is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 27.1% 95
2.Agree(75%) 24.9% 87
3.Medium(50%) 34.6% 121
4.Disagree(25%) 9.4% 33
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 4.0% 14
answered question 350
skipped question 0
65. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familliar with this community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 22.9% 80
2.Agree(75%) 26.3% 92
3.Medium(50%) 36.9% 129
4.Disagree(25%) 8.6% 30
5.Strongly disagree(0%) 5.4% 19
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 20 66. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 32.5% 114
2.Important(75%) 31.9% 112
3.Medium(50%) 25.1% 88
4.Not important(25%) 7.7% 27
5.Extremely not important(0%) 2.9% 10
answered question 351
skipped question 0
67. Were you aware of Swann Fountain before you visited Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 19.6% 66
No 71.2% 240
No opinion 9.2% 31
answered question 337
skipped question 13
68. Was Swann Fountain one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 8.7% 29
No 79.7% 267
No opinion 11.6% 39
answered question 335
skipped question 15
69. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, absolutely 24.5% 82
Yes, if there's time 48.1% 161
Probably not 15.2% 51
No 5.1% 17
No opinion 7.2% 24
answered question 335
skipped question 15
Page 21 70. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Swann Fountain?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 65.9% 216
No 11.0% 36
No opinion 23.2% 76
answered question 328
skipped question 22
71. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 29.4% 102
2.(75%) 23.3% 81
3.Medium(50%) 34.3% 119
4.(25%) 7.8% 27
5.Nothing(0%) 5.2% 18
answered question 347
skipped question 3
72. Does Swann Fountain evoke you any emotion or any past memory?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 39.0% 135
No 49.7% 172
No opinion 11.3% 39
answered question 346
skipped question 4
73. Please rank the importance of each following elements in your desicion to spend time at Logan Circle.
100% 0%(Less Response (Most 80% 60% 40% 20% important) Count important)
46.2% Swann Fountain ifself 15.3% (42) 11.3% (31) 9.8% (27) 11.6% (32) 5.8% (16) 275 (127)
Nearby environement 36.0% (95) 22.0% (58) 17.4% (46) 11.4% (30) 10.2% (27) 3.0% (8) 264
Friendly seating 31.1% (83) 11.6% (31) 16.9% (45) 21.7% (58) 15.0% (40) 3.7% (10) 267
Convenient location 29.4% (73) 10.9% (27) 16.1% (40) 18.5% (46) 21.8% (54) 3.2% (8) 248
78.8% Wireless access 7.4% (16) 3.2% (7) 2.8% (6) 2.3% (5) 5.5% (12) 217 (171)
48.4% Beautiful view 21.2% (58) 16.1% (44) 6.6% (18) 7.0% (19) 0.7% (2) 273 (132)
answered question 350
skipped question 0
Page 22 74. Do you like sculpture which are easy to access and touch?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 75.2% 261
No 5.5% 19
No opinion 19.3% 67
answered question 347
skipped question 3
75. If sculptures are distant from you, are you still interested in them?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 77.6% 267
No 11.6% 40
No opinion 10.8% 37
answered question 344
skipped question 6
76. What is your favorite thing about in front of Museum?
Response Response Percent Count
Distribution of sculptures 11.8% 41
People who came here 5.8% 20
My favorite sculpture is here 3.7% 13
Surrounding environment 45.1% 157
The activities that take place here 13.5% 47
Nothing in particular 13.8% 48
Other 6.3% 22
answered question 348
skipped question 2
Page 23 77. What kind activities do you like to do around Rocky sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Exercise 17.3% 60
Chat 15.9% 55
Think 13.5% 47
Sleep 3.5% 12
Spend time with friends 30.6% 106
Picnic 7.5% 26
Play 8.4% 29
Take pictures 37.5% 130
Read 6.9% 24
Relax 28.0% 97
Walk around 30.8% 107
Spend time with family 16.4% 57
Hold meeting 2.6% 9
Other (please specify) 12.1% 42
answered question 347
skipped question 3
78. Image that today a new sculpture has replaced Rocky, would you still like to do the same activity around the new sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 52.9% 181
No 14.6% 50
No opinion 22.5% 77
It depends on 9.9% 34
answered question 342
skipped question 8
79. Do you think that the space created by Rocky sculpture is welcoming?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 63.3% 216
No 12.9% 44
No opinion 23.8% 81
answered question 341
skipped question 9
Page 24 80. If you are not a Philadelphia resident, are sculptures an important part of your town's landscapes?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 48.9% 88
No 38.9% 70
No opinion 12.2% 22
answered question 180
skipped question 170
81. Do you think that plants and trees are better than sculptures for beautifying a city?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 54.6% 184
No 23.7% 80
No opinion 21.7% 73
answered question 337
skipped question 13
82. Do you agree that the landscape of Philadelphia benefits from sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Strongly agree(100%) 36.3% 125
2.Agree(75%) 24.4% 84
3.Medium(50%) 24.7% 85
4.Disagree(25%) 10.2% 35
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 4.4% 15
answered question 344
skipped question 6
Page 25 83. What is the overall atmosphere in front of Museum?
Response Response Percent Count
Boring 2.3% 8
Crowded 10.5% 36
Exciting 22.7% 78
Stressful 2.0% 7
Noisy 7.3% 25
Nostalgic 11.9% 41
Pleasant 43.6% 150
Romantic 12.5% 43
Peaceful 27.9% 96
Happy 20.6% 71
Beautiful 38.4% 132
Relaxing 28.5% 98
Other 3.2% 11
answered question 344
skipped question 6
84. How much does Rocky sculpture contribute to create such an atmosphere?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 12.5% 42
2.(75%) 18.2% 61
3.Medium(50%) 34.8% 117
4.(25%) 14.6% 49
5.Nothing(0%) 19.9% 67
answered question 336
skipped question 14
Page 26 85. What kind sculptures interest you most?
Response Response Percent Count
Abstract 19.5% 68
Heroes on horses 13.5% 47
Animals 14.9% 52
Objects 9.2% 32
Human figures 27.6% 96
Mythical creatures 21.0% 73
Fountains 42.0% 146
Commercial icons 4.9% 17
Other 2.3% 8
answered question 348
skipped question 2
86. What is the major reason you like a particular sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Shape 38.4% 133
Color 19.4% 67
Size 22.0% 76
Theme 43.4% 150
Location 22.3% 77
Meaning 43.4% 150
Historic value 41.0% 142
Material 17.6% 61
Other 3.2% 11
answered question 346
skipped question 4
87. Is Rocky sculpture one of your favorite sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 25.0% 87
No 55.5% 193
No opinion 19.5% 68
answered question 348
skipped question 2
Page 27 88. How important are the sculptures to the community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 19.0% 64
2.Important(75%) 32.3% 109
3.Medium(50%) 37.7% 127
4.Not important(25%) 8.3% 28
5.Extremely not important(0%) 2.7% 9
answered question 337
skipped question 13
89. Would you define yourself as a museum/gallery person?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 61.9% 211
No 31.1% 106
No opinion 7.0% 24
answered question 341
skipped question 9
90. Do you think outdoor sculptures provide some access to art appreciation?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Stronly agree(100%) 43.6% 150
2.Agree(75%) 32.3% 111
3.Neutral(50% 12.8% 44
4.Disagree(25%) 6.7% 23
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 4.7% 16
answered question 344
skipped question 6
91. Assuming that you don't know the story or purpose of a sculpture, how likely are you to stop and take a loot at it?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely likely(100%) 27.1% 93
2.Likely(75%) 32.9% 113
3.Medium(50%) 26.8% 92
4.Not likely(25%) 11.1% 38
5.Extremely not likely(0%) 2.0% 7
answered question 343
skipped question 7
Page 28 92. Do sculpture give you an opportunity to learn more about our history?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 85.1% 291
No 7.6% 26
No opinion 7.3% 25
answered question 342
skipped question 8
93. Are you willing to allot a part of your taxes to purchase and/or support the maintenance of sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, for both 45.2% 157
Yes, only for purchase 2.9% 10
Yes, only for maintenance 23.9% 83
No 28.0% 97
answered question 347
skipped question 3
94. If you ansered "yes" to the previous question, how much would you be willing to donate in year taxes for public sculptures?
Response Response Percent Count
Nothing 28.0% 97
1 Cent 0.9% 3
5 Cent 3.8% 13
10 Cent 4.3% 15
25 Cent 3.2% 11
1 Dollar 20.8% 72
5 Dollars 10.7% 37
10 Dollars 8.7% 30
20 Dollars 8.9% 31
More than 20 dollars 11.0% 38
answered question 347
skipped question 3
Page 29 95. Does the commercial meaning of Rocky sculpture reduce its original value as a memorial sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 13.1% 45
2.(75%) 18.7% 64
3.Medium(50%) 29.2% 100
4.(25%) 16.0% 55
5.Nothing(0%) 23.0% 79
answered question 343
skipped question 7
96. Can you guess how many sculptures there are in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Under 50 4.9% 17
51-100 12.4% 43
101-150 16.4% 57
151-200 18.7% 65
201-250 14.7% 51
251-300 11.5% 40
Over 300 21.6% 75
answered question 348
skipped question 2
97. Do you think that Rocky sculpture is a good symbol of the spirit of Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Stronly agree(100%) 27.2% 93
2.Agree(75%) 27.5% 94
3.Medium(50%) 26.6% 91
4.Disagree(25%) 9.4% 32
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 9.4% 32
answered question 342
skipped question 8
Page 30 98. Do you think that getting closer to sculptures means getting more familiar with this community?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Stronly agree(100%) 20.1% 70
2.Agree(75%) 26.4% 92
3.Medium(50%) 34.8% 121
4.Disagree(25%) 13.5% 47
5.Stronly disagree(0%) 5.2% 18
answered question 348
skipped question 2
99. How important is public involvement in choosing new public sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
1.Extremely important(100%) 23.6% 82
2.Important(75%) 34.3% 119
3.Medium(50%) 30.8% 107
4.Unimportant(25%) 8.1% 28
5.Extremely unimportant(0%) 3.2% 11
answered question 347
skipped question 3
100. Were you aware of Rocky sculpture before you visited Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 51.6% 173
No 38.2% 128
No opinion 10.2% 34
answered question 335
skipped question 15
101. Was Rocky sculpture one of the reasons to make you visit Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 11.5% 38
No 75.5% 249
No opinion 13.0% 43
answered question 330
skipped question 20
Page 31 102. Do you plan to visit more sculptures in Philadelphia?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes, absolutely 30.3% 101
Yes, if there's time 42.9% 143
Probably not 14.1% 47
No 6.0% 20
No opinion 6.6% 22
answered question 333
skipped question 17
103. The next time you visit Philadelphia, are you likely to come back to Rocky sculpture?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 40.4% 129
No 34.2% 109
No opinion 25.4% 81
answered question 319
skipped question 31
104. How much do you like to share this place with your family members and friends?
Response Response Percent Count
1.A lot(100%) 28.5% 97
2.(75%) 25.8% 88
3.Medium(50%) 29.3% 100
4.(25%) 8.5% 29
5.Nothing(0%) 7.9% 27
answered question 341
skipped question 9
105. Does Rocky sculpture evoke you any emotion or any past memory?
Response Response Percent Count
Yes 35.7% 122
No 52.1% 178
No opinion 12.3% 42
answered question 342
skipped question 8
Page 32 106. Please rank the importance of each following elements in your decision to spend time in front of Museum.
100% 0%(Less Response (Most 80% 60% 40% 20% important) Count important)
Rocky sculpture itself 20.8% (53) 4.7% (12) 12.2% (31) 11.0% (28) 27.5% (70) 23.9% (61) 255
39.4% Nearby environment 33.5% (90) 14.5% (39) 6.7% (18) 4.1% (11) 1.9% (5) 269 (106)
Friendly seating 18.7% (47) 12.4% (31) 22.7% (57) 29.5% (74) 13.1% (33) 3.6% (9) 251
Convenient location 12.8% (30) 10.7% (25) 29.9% (70) 23.9% (56) 16.2% (38) 6.4% (15) 234
64.0% Wireless access 4.9% (11) 3.6% (8) 4.4% (10) 3.1% (7) 20.0% (45) 225 (144)
66.4% Beautiful view 19.7% (60) 5.9% (18) 3.9% (12) 2.6% (8) 1.3% (4) 304 (202)
answered question 343
skipped question 7
Page 33 Appendix D—Survey Pictures
Left: Love Sculpture at Love Park (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, May 13, 2007) Right: Rocky Statue in front of Philadelphia Museum of Art (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, May 13, 2007)
Above: Swann Memorial Fountain at Logan Circle (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, May 13, 2007)
119
Above: People at Love Park did survey (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, Jul 19, 2007)
Above: People sat by Swann fountain and did survey (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, Jul 28, 2007)
Above: People at Love Park did survey (Photo by Shu-Yi Kao, Jul 20, 2007)
120