 |
 |
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>