- ‹ Previous
- Next ›
Hi all.
I just read in the Los Angeles Times that “[o]fficials decided today to make the Walt Disney Concert Hall a little duller…. [T]he shimmering stainless steel panels that have wowed tourists and architecture lovers but have baked neighbors living in condominiums across the street.”
According to an LA County report, “Beams of sunlight reflected from the hall have roasted the sidewalk to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, enough to melt plastic and cause serious sunburn to people standing on the street.”
A woman who works in the vicinity of the Hall told the Times, "We feel like ants under a magnifying glass." In response, folks are at work now sanding down reflecting surfaces of the offending edifice.
由弗兰克·盖里设计的华特·迪士尼音乐厅立即被誉为建筑和声学上的奇迹。“一件令人惊叹的作品，”建筑周刊说。旅游指南Frommer 's Review称它“美得惊人”。Guardian Unlimited称这座建筑为“杰作”。Etc.
但是，那些被美景惊呆的人，和那些被随机闪现的强光惊呆的人是有区别的。
Public art always provokes contentiousness, of course. The most moving public memorial I have ever seen (in fact, the ONLY moving public memorial I have ever seen), was Maya Ying Lin’s Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, DC. Tom Wolfe sneered at it as “skill-proof.” Republican Henry Hyde called it “a political statement of shame and dishonor.”
对每个人来说，是的，但你如何在公共空间创造“艺术”，同时又不冒犯那些不想看到它的人的情感呢?这个问题重要吗?
What is the difference between a graffiti artist and an architect? Certainly, the latter has permission and money to create his or her blot (or “stunning piece,” depending) on the landscape. And Christo, another public artist often described as “controversial,” gets permission and puts up his own money for his irritating or beautiful projects.
Are those who post their personal expressions in public spaces marking territory, like dogs, or making art? Or both? At the very least, in my opinion, whatever their universal appeal, masterpieces should not blind the locals.
Comments(4)
Guest
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 -- 4:00 PM
Yeah, I'd draw the line at public art which is actYeah, I'd draw the line at public art which is actually physically hazardous to the public.
On a similar bent, I remember reading last year about some university students (both sexes, if I remember correctly) making a giant snow phallus which was promptly destroyed by some female students who found it offensive. "If they have the right to build it in a public space, we have the right to destroy it!" they angrily argued. Insofar as both activities are probably legal, I guess they do have the right to destroy it -- but I do feel that destroying art requires a greater moral justification than the act of creating it; I don't think they did have the moral "right" to destroy the giant snow penis just because it was on public property and offended them.
也许最让我困扰的是，他们选择摧毁它的方式——将它推倒——是如此缺乏创意。如果他们想抗议巨大的阳具，他们至少应该想出一个巧妙的方法来利用或摧毁它。把它打翻并不能解决问题。
Guest
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 -- 4:00 PM
There was a beautiful giant snow phallus on the ma几年前，在布朗的主绿地上有一个美丽的巨大的雪阳具，但我只记得它在那里的一个晚上。
我认为那些公寓住户应该得到几千美元来给他们的窗户着色，仅此而已。一想到要改变交响乐大厅，好让一些有钱人放松一下，我就感到难过。在公共场所拥有优秀的艺术和建筑的价值远远超过让每个公民的公寓舒适的价值。
Guest
Thursday, March 3, 2005 -- 4:00 PM
这听起来可怕的。When I am appointed supreme这听起来可怕的。当我被任命为世界的最高执行者时，我将确保只有有吸引力的艺术品被放置在那里。当然，这对每个人来说都是最有利的，所以我期待着我的确认函尽快到来……
Guest
Saturday, March 5, 2005 -- 4:00 PM
Its really a matter of values here. Do we value tIts really a matter of values here. Do we value the aesthetics of something over the right to have a peaceable living space for a handful of people? Generally speaking, I think the aesthetics of something has generally low value, mostly because of the practical implications of placing too high of a value on the aesthetic. Suddenly the practicality of the thing is less important than the appearance or artistic statement of the thing.
Look... I want to make an aesthetic statement by playing Nine Inch Nails loudly outside my home. But my neighbors want to live in a quiet neighborhood. Who's value trumps? Despite the fact that I know a lot of people would enjoy the fact that my home would be that house the blasts NIN all the time, the people who live with it everyday would not be very appreciative. Their rights are being trampled by the piece of art.
What is more disturbing is the increasingly abstract nature that artists give their artworks. The GFP bunny by Eduado Kac is supposed to include not only the glow-in-the-dark bunny itself, but the controversy and dialogue that forms around it. This comment is part of the GFP bunny "installation." Had Gehry said that the heat generated by the building is a PART of the installation, would make it even more problematic. Its one thing for a piece of art to annoy people, its another to say that the annoyance is part of the work. But increasingly artists are saying just that, its the reaction to the work that is the art itself.
But this gives artists, artistic license to offend, harm, bother, annoy people, for ART'S sake.