In light of the amount of data we collect and are given, we have decided that it would be not only interesting but also possibly advantageous to share some statistics, and provide some analysis.

Looking at the data currently stored gives an interesting insight into both the type of art going in Leeds and the type of people that are using us as a disseminating service. The dominant statistic from Figure 1 is the high presence of multidisciplinary art, with 49% of art on the map being described as this. This evidently implies that the exhibitions for this period have featured a range of medias. This could imply a few things, a) that there is a trend among artists currently to engage with a variety of materials/forms of art, and b) that institutions are diversifying their exhibitions to appeal to a wider audience which may also relate to a drive for higher visitor numbers to validify funding. It will be interesting to keep a close eye on this statistic to see if any particular trends appear over time.

Rather than just looking at what art is available, we thought that given the current climate it would be interesting to visualise who is helping to make it available. We first decided to breakdown our data into two catergories, commercial and non-commercial. The defining characteristic being simply whether an exhibition is taking place in a dedicated art space, or a venue primarily focused on commercial interests. Figure 2 shows that there has been 60% of art events took place in non-commercial settings during this period. As this is our first analysis, it is perhaps unwise to try to infer too much from this statistic, instead we aim to track this dynamic over time and observe how the balance fluctuates.

The statistics we found most interesting are illustrated in figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 demonstrates another classification we have made about the provision of art; Independent and Municipal. While the previous chart (commercial/non-commercial) refers to the physical setting of an event, it is important to make clear that our definitions here refer not to the ownership of a venue, instead it looks at the provision and delivery, i.e. the kinds of organisations or groups who are actually putting it on. The line is a blurred by virtue of the fact that municipal institutions often support behind the scenes to varying degrees. With this in mind, and given that it would be impossible for us to know the financial and administrative nuances of all events and make a judgement call on an individual basis, we are defining ‘Municipal’ events as those explicitly provided by municipal insitutions and promoted as such. The presence of events on the map during this period was split 61.9% ‘independent’, to 38.1% ‘municipal’ (these definitions are based on the organisers of the event rather than the venue). Comparing those statistics with those shown in figure 4 we can draw some conclusions about the engagement and use of Leeds Art Map.

While all the previous charts have been about our database of art regardless of whether it was submitted to us or found by us, Figure 4 is made by analysing the submissions that we have received from organisations. It shows us that a far higher amount of the submissions to the map were to promote independent exhibitions than municipal ones. One of the objectives of our mapping projects was to create a level platform, and remove the issue of cost from being a barrier to receiving exposure. Logically then, one would expect this to be embraced more by independent institutions, and these engagement statistics seem to reflect this.