Our earlier discussions, focused on Bob Fisher's work and the relevance of New Social Movement theory, is very much a part of what Thomas Tresser is arguing for. Art, at least when it is of, by, and for a community, becomes part of that community's culture. The art gives substance and voice to the community's beliefs, values, and dreams. Strong communities are strongly expressive. Think of the music of the Civil Rights movement, the body art of the counter-culture, the literature of the women's movement.
Art does indeed help build both identity communities and geographic communities.
It helps them lay claim to a space, and empowers them to define it, defend it, and build from it. I am not so sure, and wonder if we should think of art as part of community organizing rather than community development. As he mentions, his discussion is not meant to provide the exhaustive list of what community art is good for, but I am still concerned that, by emphasizing physical development, buildings end up more important than community. CDCs can help fund art, they can help commission materials and procure space for it. But I wonder if art that is to be developed and owned by the community is better initiated and led through community-based organizing efforts.