The board noted a concern regarding the lack of artist submissions, especially with approaching deadlines. Members discussed the potential barriers discouraging artists from engaging with the board’s projects. A suggestion emerged to simplify the submission process with a more straightforward flyer or public service announcement. This approach was seen as necessary to demystify the process and potentially increase artist participation.

A contentious topic was the board’s stance on AI in art submissions, which had caused a divide among artists. A participant shared insights from the Seminole County Arts Council, highlighting differing opinions on the acceptability of AI-generated work. Some voiced concerns that a strict prohibition on AI could alienate artists who use it as a tool, potentially harming relationships with the local artistic community. The discussion suggested that the board’s current approach might not be effective, and there was a call to maintain a healthy rapport with artists while navigating the council’s directive against AI usage.

In response to the challenges, the board considered introducing a two-step application process for artists. This would initially require artists to submit examples of their previous work without creating new designs. If selected for the next phase, artists could receive a small stipend for a tailored design, thereby incentivizing participation without imposing financial burdens.

The board also deliberated on the evaluation criteria for sculpture projects, discussing the weight of experience in the rating process. Members agreed that experience with comparable projects should carry more importance, particularly given the larger budget for sculptures compared to murals. A proposal to adjust the points allocated in various evaluation categories was made. This included reducing points for corridor enhancement to elevate the significance of experience.

The meeting also touched on public feedback, with a letter from a resident opposing the sculpture project and suggesting a focus on living flora and fauna. Despite this single piece of feedback, the board emphasized the importance of context and environmental considerations in evaluating submissions.

The board explored how to improve outreach efforts and rebuild trust within the local artist community. There was a suggestion to engage artists through direct communication, such as phone calls or emails, to encourage resubmissions and reassure them about the process. Members also proposed involving high school art classes in the submission process or organizing community painting events to foster collaboration and community involvement.

A member highlighted the lack of resubmissions from artists who had previously submitted designs, noting concerns about the current outreach efforts. Suggestions were made to rethink the call for artists process, including utilizing social media more effectively.

The board expressed a commitment to fostering an inclusive application process, acknowledging that not all interested artists may have formal training or a traditional portfolio. The potential for artists to submit non-traditional work, such as basic drawings or sketches, was discussed to broaden the applicant pool.

The meeting concluded with logistical discussions about upcoming events, including a ceremonial unveiling of student artwork from Hagerty High School and a potential field trip opportunity to the Norton Simon Museum. The board recognized the need for better outreach efforts, particularly in making the teacher from Hagerty High School aware of the call to artists.