Where's Our Grand Public Art?

Chris Burden's urban lights is gorgeous, monumental, and timeless. I like Olafur Eliasson, but his waterfall project is a retarded waste of $15M. It's New York spending a bunch of money to make itself feel important. 10 Years from now kids will still run among the light posts preserving LA's history and inspiring us to see things different at LACMA. Nobody is going to remember some stupid tepid waterfall under a bridge. $15M might be a down payment for a MOCA expansion, or we can give the $15M to Robert Irwin to transform Pershing Square to whatever he wants. Imagine his Getty garden in the middle of downtown. That is a permanent project worth giving money to.

Interesting questions. I wonder whether architecture has any play in Los Angeles' role as an art center.

While most of the exciting stuff of the past decades has been private residential architecture, there's nonetheless a whole lot of public and semi-public architecture on display.

Take CalTrans' neon lighting display, for example -- a great piece set in an amazing building.

Then there's the natural beauty of LA and surrounding environs, not to mention sweeping urban vistas from, say, Kenneth Hahn Park, Griffith or Runyon Canyon, bringing a completely different way to experience the city.

Not that it takes the place of large-scale installations, which can make a statement while at the same time obviously an attempt at filling the city-imposed art fee (Bunker Hill corporate sculptures, for one).

$15.5 million for an installation seems a bit steep.

I regret not visiting the Gates installation in Central Park.

hey rich whats wrong with the angelenic website.

Robert Irwin does Pershing Square! That is a great idea!

YEAH!

Arent they going to install a giant suspended train replica in front of LACMA?

Given this not a temporary installation from what I've read.

Yes, Bob Irwin. Fab. But he's gotta include a carousel crafted by Jonathan Borofsky and Red Grooms. Only way.

Otherwise, how about a tall monument by Frank on Hope Street, north of Pico? It could even include a memorial element to Jim Morrison, given the history of the adjacent hotel.

Yes: a tall civic monument, a symbol of Los Angeles set in a garden of delight. Novel architectural form (Disney Hall) need not be a singular prescription in transforming civic consciousness.

so, Crandell, are you saying all art is bad? All artists are bad? Irwin has a long track record as a rational, responsible, accountable public artist. He thinks his projects through and considers every angle of a project.

He is a real treasure in this day of celebrity bull shit artists.

And, BONUS, he is a local kid too!

Tim, I once attended a day-long program at UCLA Dickson Auditorium on the congruence of Art & Architecture. Irwin was one of the featured speakers; he was AMAZING, was heads and shoulders above all of the other great (including Frank) speakers. I couldn't agree with you more!

Now that I think about it, I'd say those "Camel Toe" markings on the ground in the Historic Core qualifies as temporary art =)

New Yorkers are always talking about how their city has Culture and Art. What they fail to mention is their poor public school system and ridiculous income gap. Let them waste their 15 Million dollars on a temporary piece of art. I say we take our 15 million and put it towards the billions we need to extend the Gold Line. With all the film and music in Los Angeles, do we really need to prove our artistic value?

Listen here, Sammy,

we need, ought to make an artistic, symbolic statement to the outside world on a similar level to Paris' Eiffel Tower or New York's Lady Liberty. Such a statement should be located at the center of L.A. and it should embrace the spirit of the future, reflect collective aspiration rather than simply represent the broad racial/ethnic array of our population. All we need is leadership, on a level far above what G-L-O-R-I-A exhibited this past week.

I get what you are saying, but the waterfalls are LAME.

Also, I think the lack of public art with that kind of funding has something to do with LA being one of the few cities that actually is running a large deficit (in a state with an even larger one)

I think LA needs to learn how to spend it's money more wisely before dropping $15 million on public arts projects.

New York City does not pay for much of the public art projects, but they provide logistical support (transit, security, etc.)

Money is usually provided by foundations, grants, private donations, or the sale of stuff (Christo paid for the gates with the sale of prints). Public Art Fund funnels money (some of which does come from government sources, but on a state level and not a city level) and combines it with funding raised from other sources; the intent being to make art available to the public.

Los Angeles has become a world-renown arts destination on its own over the past 20 years anyway. Give it some time for the infrastructure to form around the collectors and the art establishment. That type of funding will follow. The lead comes from the arts establishment, not from the government.

Leave it to the government only and you usually get a lot of crap.

It's all been downhill since Chicken Boy left his roost.

Let us remember the Central Park 'Gates' project. Yes, classy! I think Los Angeles has a much more unique relationship with water that doesn't translate well to New York, it's called the ocean! New York has a unique relationship with urine that I don't necessarily want to experience either. Stop the comparisons with stupid New York...

Why don't we cut the insider/elitist condescending thread? Being an L.A. native, I get so sick and tired of persons who come here from other parts, with their nostrils set way close and narrow.

Downtown is the natural place for a symbol, for pre-eminent placemaking. And L.A. is acutely in need of an element far greater than the puerile entertainment image represented by the Hollywood Sign, something which could register all across the social spectrum, within and without. Sorry, but as superlative as it is, Disney Hall just doesn't register in many parts of town.

Art, engineering and design: all drawn together somewhere along Hope Street in South Park. Collective aspiration - in other words.

Maybe Los Angeles should start by taking care of the smaller public art pieces and memorials it already has? The Ft. Moore piece springs to mind. It's quite lovely, and if the waterfall, fountains and lighting were restored would be not only beautiful, but show some much needed respect to the subject mater of the memorial itself. Just a thought.

The dancing woman off the 110 Freeway at Canvas LA -- temporary art installation? I also think the Space Invaders are worthy of mention.

Great comments all, Without going into the LA vs NYC thing, yes, we need a great working public piece from a California artist. One whose works represents our City and connects, let's say, the L. A. River connecting to the Metro area. A waterfall under the bridge, visible by ferry and tourist passerbys, was sold by a hell of a sales/artist and I give him/her full respect in how they got the project completed.

Hod up on the camel toe, Chicken Boy, Triforium reference. These are actually the real L.A.

The City, CRA, Cultural Affairs, private funds etc. must understand the economic presence of the Art Walk and new surge of residents to L.A.

As an established artist living in downtown LA, I'm inspired by the enthusiasm of Art Walk, mostly as it re-injects the importance of gallery-going in day-to-day life, especially in a city where driving is such a necessity. That said, I can't say that I've seen much art that's left much of an impression on me. I hate to say it but outside of a couple of Chinatown galleries, the westside still is the only viable source for art that matters in LA.

"the westside still is the only viable source for art that matters in LA."

You don't get out enough.

"That said," .... shore got said-ed, and sundered.

Bert's assessment is accurate on both counts:

1) The Westside hardly defines the end all be all of art in Los Angeles. Westside dominance of Hollywood and consumerism may be true, but not art.

2) New York City has dominated the art world scene for the better part of 60 years (since WWII in my opinion) and was a mega-player around the globe for another 50 to 100 years before then (since industrialists like Henry Clay Frick set up their serious art collecting operations there). Los Angeles continues to grow as a destination for emerging artists and has long now been a place where world class artists like Ruscha, Viola and Hockney live and work.

Tsk, tsk, Bert. The truth is that I get out plenty, both around and outside this city, as well as this country. Your attempt at snideness only enforces how delicate and territorial (or is it insecure?) LA's downtown art collective remains.

Ben, never did I bring up the useless LA vs. NY non-argument but someone out there might be interested. You should at least cite deserving, acclaimed artists who live downtown like Gronk and Lily Lakich. Ed, a Westside lifer, is repped by Gagosian Gallery in Bev Hills (not an Art Walk destination), Viola lives and works in Long Beach, and Hockney, if he even still lives here, was in the Hwd Hills and Malibu, and is repped by LA Louver in Venice. Nothing to do with downtown. Ed might have a piece at Cirrus Gallery now and then (along with other art masters) but with the re-orientation of "art walk," Cirrus isn't viewed as part of that art-going scheme.

The fact remains: to investigate current art practices that telegraph potency or importance in Los Angeles, one must often leave downtown. Sorry for the sting, ladies.

Teach Her: Your statement that "the westside still is the only viable source for art that matters in LA" is an absolute. It implies that there is NOTHING to be found in downtown LA of value. You then later say "to investigate current art practices that telegraph potency or importance in Los Angeles, one must often leave downtown."

I don't disagree with the second statement, but only with the complete dismissal of downtown in the first statement. I can point you to lots of crappy art at Bergamot Station, Culver City, Mid-Wilshire, etc. Yet you see things you don't like and entirely dismiss downtown. That's bias, pure and simple. We face a lot of that in LA from people who simply will not open their minds and look closely at what is here.

Ever been to bank? REDCAT? Morono Kiang? Call it defensive if you wish, but I know provincialism when I see it.

I was actually surprised by Bert's response. He is usually very courteous. I think the better response would have been, "Please explain your opinion of downtown's art scene." I think TH's point is that in the global art economy downtown still isn't a power center. Which is not to say it isn't worthwhile.

Teach Her really begs the question of where does her/his art hang?

And, if not in a Westside gallery, then is her/his art a worthwhile endeavor?

Such a provocative speculation, Ben.... Coming from a man, I love the idea of asking "where I hang." And Ed, you're only reinforcing my original argument that it's vital to leave downtown to experience better art, as every place you mentioned is outside of the downtown rectangle. I don't foresee Regen Projects or Rose Gallery or Blum & Poe leaving their posts anytime soon, with or without a 'mobile art party bus" or whatever that noisy thing was driving around on thursday. Sheesh.

I do give credit to the gallerist(s) operating out of rented moving trucks. Bravo.

And for those of you who only want LA to have their own water-themed art work (since many only look to copy what's been done elsewhere):

Pedro's got it in place for you.

http://www.sanpedro.com/media/San_Pedro_Fanfare.htm