Public art today. How public art sheds light on the future of the theory of commons

Public art and common goods, although belonging to apparently distant realms of inquiry, share a long history and, inevitably, an evolving meaning. This chapter investigates the evolution of the practice of public art with the objective to obtain a viable understanding of how the value of public art is produced today. With a focus on the future of public art, this chapter investigates three public art cases. The results of the qualitative analysis of these public art experiences are interpreted from an institutional economics perspective. The combination of public art and the theory of commons sheds light on what seems to be the most important attributes of common goods in the current debate, that is the social practices that constitute the act of making the commons.</p

Selling Streetness as Experience. The Role of Street Art Tours in Branding the Creative City

This article looks at the street art tours industry in London, and its function in constructing the geographic, economic and symbolic value of street art. The street art world of the capital has reached a substantial level of institutional endorsement as a proper urban creative practice, through backing such as by local councils and private developers, art galleries and book publishers. This article examines the role of walking tours in holding up street art as a cultural product of the creative city. It argues that London’s street art scene is constructed and legitimated by these tours through the strategic deployment of an authoritative discourse. Street art tours’ routes and locations are then integrated into a longer lineage of endorsements for the cultural field of street art, and interpreted as branding strategies for the creative city. In the conclusion, the role of walking tours in gentrification and urban change is discussed, with a focus on how street art works and murals contribute to performing Shoreditch as a hub of vibrancy and urban creativity

Transcription factor motif quality assessment requires systematic comparative analysis [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Transcription factor (TF) binding site prediction remains a challenge in gene regulatory research due to degeneracy and potential variability in binding sites in the genome. Dozens of algorithms designed to learn binding models (motifs) have generated many motifs available in research papers with a subset making it to databases like JASPAR, UniPROBE and Transfac. The presence of many versions of motifs from the various databases for a single TF and the lack of a standardized assessment technique makes it difficult for biologists to make an appropriate choice of binding model and for algorithm developers to benchmark, test and improve on their models. In this study, we review and evaluate the approaches in use, highlight differences and demonstrate the difficulty of defining a standardized motif assessment approach. We review scoring functions, motif length, test data and the type of performance metrics used in prior studies as some of the factors that influence the outcome of a motif assessment. We show that the scoring functions and statistics used in motif assessment influence ranking of motifs in a TF-specific manner. We also show that TF binding specificity can vary by source of genomic binding data. We also demonstrate that information content of a motif is not in isolation a measure of motif quality but is influenced by TF binding behaviour. We conclude that there is a need for an easy-to-use tool that presents all available evidence for a comparative analysis

In search of academic legitimacy : The current state of scholarship on graffiti and street art

Much has changed since the 1960s when the first scholarship on contemporary graffiti appeared. The current paper is an attempt to outline and contextualize a number of recurrent challenges facing researchers of graffiti and street art, as well as developments that have taken place in this scholarly field. The aim of creating this outline is to assist in increasing the amount, and improving the quality, of future scholarship on graffiti and street art. We recognize, however, that although many of the challenges have at one time seemed insurmountable, over time they have lessened as graffiti and street art have grown as art movements, and because a small cadre of tenacious scholars focusing on graffiti and street art has published and taught in this area. An increasing, though limited, number of academic venues focused on graffiti and street art scholarship has slowly emerged. We also recognize that with increased scholarship that has laid the foundation, new avenues to explore graffiti and street art have become apparent