Thanks for the clarification about those facts, Barbara.

I agree with your points about keeping it simple and understanding your
medium.  Perhaps one way to think about it is that gallery/festival work
afford to be a lot more adventurous and push more boundaries at once
than public art?  In my view someone always does need to keep pushing
the limitations of the medium.  Maybe public art just needs to lag a
little in terms of what can be done, technically - It reminds me of a
story I once heard about the space program (not sure if it is true, or
at least any more...) that they were only allowed to use components that
were at least 10 years old to ensure a track record with the technology.

The most interesting insight from the D+S Moscone piece, then, seems to
be the funding for the Arts Commission staff and recognizing the need to
build in funding from the start for the "human systems" that will be
required to tend to New Media artwork.

<M>

 


On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:49:34 -0700, "Goldstein, Barbara"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
> Matt:
> 
> You are somewhat mistaken in your assumptions about the Diller & Scofido
> artwork. First of all, it is not in a private development.  It is funded
> through public % for art money and, therefore, had to stay within its
> original budget.  Secondly, the problems with the work are not
> maintenance-related, the work has so far never been completely
> functional,
> although it is installed. I know that the following explanation is an
> aside
> from the public/private discussion but it may be instructive.
> 
> To summarize the D & S artwork it is a huge screen suspended from a track
> attahced to the roof of the building.  The screen is meant to traverse
> the
> sides of the exterior of the convention center.  Facing the street the
> screen shows pre-recorded video vignettes and live-time projections from
> survellance camera/s inside the convention center.  Facing the convention
> center interior are computer generated images based on some sort of
> algorithm created by Hansen & Rubin I believe.
> 
> I will see if I can get Jill to speak for herself.  However, to summarize
> what I know about it -- the problem with the artwork is  basically, that
> it
> is extremely complex and has required very precise tolerances from the
> building itself in order for the suspended exterior frame of the screen
> to
> rotate around the building.  Mechanical problems in other words.  The new
> media components work. The artwork was extremely expensive to fabricate
> and
> the abudget line set aside for Arts Commission staff to spend time
> trouble-shooting project management of this is long gone.  Furthermore
> the
> arts commission has no control over the construction of the building and
> many of the mechanical problems are related to construction issues.
> Bottom
> line, the project was more complex than the artists or the arts
> commission
> anticipated and has not yet been fully installed as a result.
> 
> In my view, this project, and even Jumpcuts,the D & S artwork in San
> Jose,
> has one too many ideas in it.  Every time you add one more factor (e.g.
> surveillance + pre-recorded images + hook up to live streamed images in
> the
> building + mechanical systems + architectual integration) you are adding
> another possible problem and bringing in another set of players who may
> or
> may not be able or willing to assist. (I guess that's the reason computer
> folks employ the K.I.S.S. principle .... keep it simple, stupid.) 
> 
> I find the challenges with the two Bay Area Diller & Scofidio artworks to
> be
> bery very interesting in light of my past experiences with another
> project.
> When I was directing the public art program in Seattle, in 1995, we
> installed a large Sheldon Brown new media work that also alternated
> pre-recorded media with survellance and live streamed images.  Aside from
> the early shakeout period, annual dusting and replacing dead monitors,
> the
> artwork has been running for 11 years virtually trouble free.  It cost
> under
> $150,000.  The biggest concern has been that the building might be
> remodelled and the work moved.  With all due respect to Diller &
> Scofidio, I
> think that Sheldon Brown's work was more trouble free because his design
> was
> simpler and he had a deeper understanding of the limiations of the media
> he
> employed.
> 
> bg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Gorbet
> To: Goldstein, Barbara; [log in to unmask] '
> Sent: 7/27/2006 6:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Permanence and public art - recap and
> then...
> 
> 
> I could be mistaken, but I believe that hammering out such tensions
> between the commissioning body and the eventual stewards of the artwork
> has been one of the underlying factors in the continuing experiment of
> Diller+Scofidio's ambitious Moscone project.  Quite an interesting story
> there.  I'm not sure if all the lessons that can be learned from that
> project have been articulated yet...  Is Jill Manton on this list?
> 
> <M>
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:15 -0700, "Goldstein, Barbara"
> <[log in to unmask]> said:
> > Matt:
> > 
> > You're right, when developers are required to provide a public art
> > component
> > by a government agency the outcome is more like a standrd public art
> > process.  Most public agencies that monitor mandatory private arts
> > development projects require maintenance and long term stewardship of
> the
> > art as part of the requirement.  I don't know about how well these
> > requirements are enforced...
> > 
> > bg
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Gorbet
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: 7/27/2006 9:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Permanence and public art - recap
> and
> > then...
> > 
> > > as far as I am concerned, works commissioned by developers are not  
> > > public art...
> > 
> > I agree, but I think there is a spectrum here - what do you think of
> > work commissioned for siting within a private development by a public
> > body as part of a mandatory % for art program?  To be successful here
> > the developer/property-owner's constraints, particularly w.r.t.
> > long-term maintenance and upkeep need to be taken into consideration,
> > but the commissioning process is much closer to a public art in public
> > spaces model.
> > 
> > <M>