FrankRider wrote: ↑Jun 27, 2023If I'm not mistaken, the views of the urban landscape from within the sculpture is part of the "art" in that piece. If that is the case, then moving it to Laumeier would not be in keeping with the vision of the original artist.
Great news for my profession. Both projects are great investments.sc4mayor wrote:Forest Park water projects, Citygarden expansion advance
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... vance.html
9th between the two sides of the park will be officially closed and converted into a part of the garden.
I don’t know if I would touch or move the sculpture, but I think better interaction is a discussion worth having.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote:I'm fine with keeping the sculpture but the park itself needs to evolve. Some landscaping, pathways, and lighting would go a long way. I've always thought it would be cool if they turned it into a plaza and mirrored the entire sculpture like the Chicago Bean. It would be selfie heaven.
Not to personally call you out but as a fan of the sculpture, how often do you go interact with it and in what way?pop_scientist wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2023I’m starting to think that I’m the only one in St. Louis that likes the Serra Sculpture.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This! Maybe the only change I'd make to that idea would be to do it in the stainless steel of the Arch to more tie it in with that famous headpiece. But yeah, you'd loose those great reflections so....GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2023I'm fine with keeping the sculpture but the park itself needs to evolve. Some landscaping, pathways, and lighting would go a long way. I've always thought it would be cool if they turned it into a plaza and mirrored the entire sculpture like the Chicago Bean. It would be selfie heaven.
Ha omg, well what if this is the artists intent... its sacrosanct.gone corporate wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2023I remember a buddy who worked at AT&T next door to the Serra Sculpture saying how his office looked down onto it when he was there maybe 15 years ago. Notably, his office watched as bums would meet up inside the sculpture to smoke crack and have buttsecks in the middle of Downtown in the middle of the day and have relative anonymity at street level - just not for anyone unfortunate enough to look down upon it. Now, I'm not saying that this is why SBC/AT&T relocated to Dallas from 909 Chestnut, but I do think Downtown STL's vitality would be better off if the Serra Sculpture were relocated to Laumeier Park.
Was there a legally binding agreement between Serra and the city of St. Louis that his sculpture would always remain in this location? Did he provide it for free to the city or did someone pay for its creation and installation? If the city were to decide that the sculpture was a public health or safety issue due to activities that occurred within it, I wouldn't bet in Serra's favor. Yes, there are inherent rights covering art work, but as the Titled Arc sculpture lawsuit shows, those only go so far.framer wrote: ↑Jun 28, 2023If Richard Serra himself opposes moving the sculpture, it could prove legally difficult to get it done. Artists have inherent rights covering their work. His Tilted Arc sculpture in New York was even more hated, but it took years to get it removed.
https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/richa ... tilted-arc
Is it serving an artistic purpose, though? I've had visitors literally ask me if it was left over steel plates from nearby construction. In my opinion, art installed in very public spaces (whether generic, safe, or controversial) should have the primary purpose of bringing more people to that location to experience it. The Serra sculpture simply does not have that effect at all, and a large part of that is because it's just bad. Say what you will about Serra, but at least his other sculptures look like something more than a poorly-placed rusting metal triangle. It needs to go.pop_scientist wrote:I would love to see CityGarden expand to include Twain and update the landscaping to induce more interaction. I'm not supportive of it's removal...unless we want to remove all of the parks between the Old Courthouse and CITYPARK.
Honestly, I find polarizing art to be some of the best art created.
We're all talking about it now...so it does invoke conversation. The problem is interaction, and I think there are conversations to be had towards improvements, maintainability, and safety.Suds wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Is it serving an artistic purpose, though? I've had visitors literally ask me if it was left over steel plates from nearby construction. In my opinion, art installed in very public spaces (whether generic, safe, or controversial) should have the primary purpose of bringing more people to that location to experience it. The Serra sculpture simply does not have that effect at all, and a large part of that is because it's just bad. Say what you will about Serra, but at least his other sculptures look like something more than a poorly-placed rusting metal triangle. It needs to go.pop_scientist wrote:I would love to see CityGarden expand to include Twain and update the landscaping to induce more interaction. I'm not supportive of it's removal...unless we want to remove all of the parks between the Old Courthouse and CITYPARK.
Honestly, I find polarizing art to be some of the best art created.
I do agree that landscaping would improve it, though. The fact that it's basically an empty plot of land besides the sculpture isn't doing it any favors.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
It's definitely not the most important thing for the city to focus on, but then again St. Louis often has a problem of focusing only on the big stuff and ignoring the small things that add up. Sure, the Serra sculpture, the terrible roads, the trash everywhere, and the Yaksap graffiti aren't as important as the crime issues (both real and perceived) plaguing Downtown. But I guarantee that if the city actively worked on fixing those less important things, it would make a significant and positive impact on the public perception of Downtown.Tim wrote:According to old news articles, the sculpture cost about $300,000, of which $50,000 came from the National Endowment for the Arts, $15,000 from the Missouri Arts Council, and the remainder from 35 corporations, businesses and individuals. Serra was paid $20,000 for the design. I'm not sure who technically "owns" it. But, the land is owned by the city. And unless they signed a long term lease with some entity regarding placement of the structure, I assume that the city could move it if they had the will to do so.
In today's dollars, moving the thing might cost as much as building it in the first place. Then, you've still got a big unappealing patch of grass, which we have too much of already. Well-to-do art people aren't going to be keen on moving (i.e., "destroying") this art piece to begin with, so probably aren't going to jump on board to fund additional expansion of City Garden in it's place. I think the funding aspect of all of this might be the most challenging. That, and doing nothing is always easier than doing something, especially when other priorities take precedence.
Right, but we're not discussing it's artistic value or meaning — we're discussing it solely in regards to removing it.pop_scientist wrote:We're all talking about it now...so it does invoke conversation. The problem is interaction, and I think there are conversations to be had towards improvements, maintainability, and safety.Suds wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Is it serving an artistic purpose, though? I've had visitors literally ask me if it was left over steel plates from nearby construction. In my opinion, art installed in very public spaces (whether generic, safe, or controversial) should have the primary purpose of bringing more people to that location to experience it. The Serra sculpture simply does not have that effect at all, and a large part of that is because it's just bad. Say what you will about Serra, but at least his other sculptures look like something more than a poorly-placed rusting metal triangle. It needs to go.pop_scientist wrote:I would love to see CityGarden expand to include Twain and update the landscaping to induce more interaction. I'm not supportive of it's removal...unless we want to remove all of the parks between the Old Courthouse and CITYPARK.
Honestly, I find polarizing art to be some of the best art created.
I do agree that landscaping would improve it, though. The fact that it's basically an empty plot of land besides the sculpture isn't doing it any favors.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Well we're discussing the future of Twain based on it's artistic value & meaning...some here do not find it valuable or meaningful and are lobbying for it's removal. Some do find it valuable and meaningful and are lobbying for it to stay.Suds wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Right, but we're not discussing it's artistic value or meaning — we're discussing it solely in regards to removing it.pop_scientist wrote:We're all talking about it now...so it does invoke conversation. The problem is interaction, and I think there are conversations to be had towards improvements, maintainability, and safety.Suds wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Is it serving an artistic purpose, though? I've had visitors literally ask me if it was left over steel plates from nearby construction. In my opinion, art installed in very public spaces (whether generic, safe, or controversial) should have the primary purpose of bringing more people to that location to experience it. The Serra sculpture simply does not have that effect at all, and a large part of that is because it's just bad. Say what you will about Serra, but at least his other sculptures look like something more than a poorly-placed rusting metal triangle. It needs to go.
I do agree that landscaping would improve it, though. The fact that it's basically an empty plot of land besides the sculpture isn't doing it any favors.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
I appreciate this sentiment. In other words, it does more harm than good (in it's current context). Therefore, the community should consider finding it a new home.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Jun 30, 2023Its not that its bad art, its that the cultural value of the art does not outweigh the unintended consequences of the art.
