The finance of installation art has been a topic that has interested me recently. While working at Disney in a very successful brand with merchandise that is identifiable worldwide, it makes me think about the financing of art. Because Disney is interactive installation art, it draws crowds and money.

After a recent trip to NYC, I began thinking about the financing of art installation. At MOMA is saw a room size installation. It was impactful however; it was all words and in my opinion lacked any graphic or interactive depth. I began to wonder if at any time was the cost a constraint for the artist that affected the decision making for the installation art design.

From the early history of Disney parks, there have been many sponsors of the installations. Some of these sponsors included General Electric 1964-1985 at Carousel of Progress or Eastern Airlines 1972-1978 at If You had Wings (original site for what is now Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin).

Today as Disney has grown into a successful recognizable brand, they self-fund the installations based on their media success. Three of the newly constructed or renovated installations include Guardians of the Galaxy (EPCOT), Tron (Tomorrowland – MK) and rebranding of Splash Mountain to Princess and the Frog (Frontierland – Magic Kingdom).

From the operational side of Disney even on their most successfully branded rides, Disney cannot afford to keep it all running. The Stitch ride at Tomorrowland in Magic Kingdom was too expensive to maintain and operate in Disney’s budget so the ride is closed. In the second most popular ride in Animal Kingdom, Everest (rollercoaster) the Yeti costs too much to repair. It originally would swoop toward the coaster but now it just hoovers over the track. The Yeti has been non-functional since before the pandemic.

From my observation, installation art requires a solid funding source and additional budget for on-going costs including maintenance and up keep.