PROVIDENCE — Amid an outcry over the state’s public art program — and the sometimes abstract art displays it produces — Rhode Island lawmakers have proposed amending the law, funneling less money to outsized installations and more to struggling community arts programs.

The compromise proposal, introduced last week at the General Assembly after weeks of discussion, would start by capping the dollars the state spends on public art.

Right now, under a 20-year-old law, at least 1 percent of construction budgets for new or refurbished state buildings must be set aside for an art installation that makes the building more inviting. The idea is to promote the arts in well-traveled public spots, and the law has helped place dozens of sculptures, paintings and murals around the state.

The amended law, if approved, would limit the money spent on such projects to no more than 1 percent of the construction budget, with at least 0.25 percent earmarked for local art and arts education programs. Building projects with a total budget of less than $250,000 could see the entire 1 percent allocated to community arts.

The plan also gives preference to local artists and allows the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts to limit the number of public art projects it approves each year.

Sen. Leonidas P. Raptakis, D-Coventry, who had previously questioned spending thousands on sculptures as the state struggles with a huge budget deficit, helped craft the new proposal and called it “a good compromise.”

(It was Raptakis, too, who questioned the artistic value of some of the more conceptual projects, namely the one he and others dubbed “the bird machine,” a sound installation at the Kent County Courthouse that was meant to mimic the calls of chirping birds.)

Randall Rosenbaum, director of the Council on the Arts, and a strong defender of the program, worked with Raptakis to rewrite the law.

“There are some projects out there that don’t need a full 1-percent budget,” Rosenbaum said, referring to the proposed cap. “They may lend themselves more to a series of paintings or murals as opposed to an outdoor sculpture that’s big and heavy and involves more expensive materials.”

Giving preference to Rhode Island artists, by guaranteeing that at least one is chosen as a finalist for each project, helps ensure that local artists remain competitive, Rosenbaum adds.

In the past, about half the projects were commissioned by artists from out of state, something critics had frowned upon. But arts officials had cautioned against prohibiting out-of-state artists from applying for Ocean State commissions, citing fears that other states could then discriminate against Rhode Islanders.

The real highlight of the new proposal, the Arts Council believes, is the section that earmarks a portion of the funds for community arts at a time when many local programs have fallen victim to budget cuts.

“The [designated] money will go into [one] state fund that the local communities, senior centers, schools and others can apply for,” House sponsor Eileen Naughton, D-Cranston, said.

Establishing a state-run community fund helps ensure that all cities and towns have equal access to public art money, regardless of whether they play host to state buildings, Rosenbaum said. Schools that have lost their art programs could apply for a grant, so could towns that would like to see a sculpture on their local green.

“Many communities throughout the state could use cash for public art or arts facilities,” Rosenbaum said. “It’s a way of infusing art into the areas where people normally live.”

“Senior centers have had to cut arts programs that are so important to people, so have school systems. This would help them,” Naughton added.

Identical versions of the new public art bill were submitted to the House and Senate last week. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the proposal Tuesday at the conclusion of the afternoon floor session.

cneedham@projo.com