I was encouraged by P.J. Lassek's, November 28 article in the Tulsa World explaining plans to apply guidelines for giving artworks to Tulsa for River Parks. It also outlines plans to reshuffle what River Parks already has.
River Parks is the repository of the kind of artworks loved by people that "don't know anything about art." That's all well and good but it leaves us with artworks of questionable value and artworks that project an amateurish image of Tulsa.
The current plan probably won't give us much to crow about but it presents the possibility of some improvement.
Art like everything else has an expertise and good and bad and popular manifestations. I would like to see the experts take back the visual landscape hereabouts and populate Tulsa with great public artworks. The kind you might see in an art history book or a world class museum. At least that's what I've always seen in important cities and Tulsa is an important city.
Here's the beginning of the article and a link to the complete article.
"Park may curb future art
Officials are considering guidelines for accepting future art acquisitions.
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Published: Friday, November 28, 2008
Officials are considering guidelines for accepting future art acquisitions.
With River Parks overflowing with art, officials are creating guidelines for future acquisitions.
"River Parks is not a cemetery. It's not here to commemorate a lot of people or events," California consultant Elizabeth Shreeve said during a presentation to the River Parks Authority, which is scheduled to consider guidelines at its December meeting.
Because of River Parks' popularity, it has received many pieces of art and commemorative installations through the years. The goal, Shreeve said, is to make sure the activity remains true to the park's mission.
"River Parks is not an art park; it's a recreational park," said Shreeve, who works for SWA, an architectural and urban design firm.
She is working with the River Parks Authority to craft a process for accepting art gifts so that officials can determine "whether we want them, don't want them, and how long we want to keep them if we accept them."
River Parks has 27 art installations, most of which are bronze wildlife sculptures donated by Nature Works.
"Obviously, art is a very hard thing to write guidelines for, because one person's aesthetics are not the same as somebody else's," Shreeve said.
...."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20081128_11_A13_Astatu834872
Um, are they recommending the removal of the fountain at the pedestrian bridge?
ART: Blair Fountain
LOCATION: Riverside Drive-Pedestrian Bridge
STYLE: Contemporary
RECOMMENDATION: Renovation or remove
oh would you look at that. all of the bronze animals that look better some place like a zoo are staying in place....while all of the contemporary "hippie stuff" is on the way out.
I think the person making the recommendations needs to stop shopping at Bass Pro and broaden their taste for art a little.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
oh would you look at that. all of the bronze animals that look better some place like a zoo are staying in place....while all of the contemporary "hippie stuff" is on the way out.
I think the person making the recommendations needs to stop shopping at Bass Pro and broaden their taste for art a little.
That's what I noticed Inteller. Only one piece of contemporary to be kept, the cube over by 19th & Riverside. The pole moved to the west side.
We are witnessing why Tulsa has lost so much of its past history. Too dated. Too identifiable with past tastes. Too contemporary. Needs updated, etc.
Many people contributed money or donated benches, art, trees, bike racks etc. when the RPA was needy and anxious to build support. Now, that spirit is being erased because it doesn't fit some suburbanite vision of "a clean recreational park". Couldn't we have kept some of its 70's contemporary hippie charm? Its like watching how we carved up other passe' styles in buildings across downtown. Now, RPA has a few deep pocketed trusts to carry the heavy lifting. Recreational indeed. Its nothing but a running park with WalMart art.
I agree the fountain needs renovation.. it's on what, like 10% of the time?
When they say "relocate" who says that means it's on the way ot of the park? Maybe they just want to move it to another area. The sailboat thing might fit better nearer the QT park with all of it's angular shapes.
So far relocation means moving them over to the west bank or public works.
For heavens sake! This consultant didn't think the donor plaques at the base of the trees should be retained.
You are right Inteller. You prompted me to reread and there is no mention of a curator in the selection process. The consultant could be a hired gun in the pocket of a heavy handed philanthropist sitting in the back room going, "I like this one, I don't like this one." I was picturing a curator from a reputable art institution like the Walker Art Center or the Denver Art Museum. And the selection does seem to favor animal art which is pretty far away from main stream.
I was wrong. This really isn't very hopeful at all.
We would do better to pull in some local curators to do this job. To give our public art collection a point of view. Seattle, or was it Portland, distinguished itself with a curated public art program. Tulsa could be an important venue for contemporary public art with a relatively modest investment.
I think one of the main problems that was starting to become apparent with the art, and even just the general design of the park and its facilities, was that it didnt have an over all plan. Things were starting to look like a jumbled mish-mash. It may have been ok to not really think about these things at first when there wasnt much art and such at all. But now your ending up with a situation where you have an animal sculpture next to a modern sculpture next to a figure next to a childrens sculpture, next to a commemorative plaque,,,, an area with brick sidewalks, an area with cement, an area with stone retaining walls, etc. etc. It was starting to look a bit of a hodge-podge and one could tell that with another decade or so of the same going in that it would really begin to look like a royal line of jumbled up crap all up and down the river.
There needs to be some over all thought process and plan, some discernible rhyme and reason, an order to things.
The park is probably too long to have one "look" or theme, but there should definitely be large segments that have solidly unique looks and feels.
I would like to see the contemporary art collected into a couple of distinct areas perhaps. It would be nice to have an area that could be a Contemporary Art Park. I have seen these in other cities and they are really fun to visit. Its nice to see a number of contemporary art pieces in a park. They compliment each other, the differences between them can show a sense of playfulness and added interest. It would give Tulsa another destination point or attraction. Perhaps over by the Waterworks facility where the poles are going, or in a mile segment on the West Bank, or both. But dont be throwing in some bronze animals, buffalo and Indians etc. in the mix lol.
It seems Tulsa in general the knack of having a little bit of this and that, scattered here and there with no critical mass. By having different types of art into distinct areas, they can create a sum thats greater than the "scattered parts". Currently imo, we have squandered potential. A contemporary art park as one example. Perhaps have a segment of the river with a native american theme, the little indian woman, the buffalo and other future things of that type along a segment of the river, and also have the sidewalks, trails, lighting, retaining walls, etc, have a unique design to enhance that theme. Since we have so many animal sculptures, they would likely have the largest segment of the river. But dont be willy-nilly mixing contemporary art in with them. This way too, as time goes on and more art is donated and approved, you know to which segment of the river they can go. If you know the theme of an area and want to build new retaining walls, sidewalks,,, say a gazebo, if you wanted a gazebo in the Native American/Western area you would know it would have to fit that theme. If someone were to want to build a gazebo in the contemporary art area it could be designed as a work of contemporary art itself. People could donate some incredibly creative and wonderful lights for such an area too. Each new addition would further enhance each segment of the river and really begin to create lots of distinctively unique and wonderful places to visit and even become added attractions unto themselves.
i say we melt down all of the Natureworks kitch and build the Oil Goddess. We could put it near the bathrooms and maybe it would deter a few riverparks visitors to go to turkey mountain instead.
OH NO BOOBS!
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think one of the main problems that was starting to become apparent with the art, and even just the general design of the park and its facilities, was that it didnt have an over all plan. Things were starting to look like a jumbled mish-mash. It may have been ok to not really think about these things at first when there wasnt much art and such at all. But now your ending up with a situation where you have an animal sculpture next to a modern sculpture next to a figure next to a childrens sculpture, next to a commemorative plaque,,,, an area with brick sidewalks, an area with cement, an area with stone retaining walls, etc. etc. It was starting to look a bit of a hodge-podge and one could tell that with another decade or so of the same going in that it would really begin to look like a royal line of jumbled up crap all up and down the river.
There needs to be some over all thought process and plan, some discernible rhyme and reason, an order to things.
The park is probably too long to have one "look" or theme, but there should definitely be large segments that have solidly unique looks and feels.
I would like to see the contemporary art collected into a couple of distinct areas perhaps. It would be nice to have an area that could be a Contemporary Art Park. I have seen these in other cities and they are really fun to visit. Its nice to see a number of contemporary art pieces in a park. They compliment each other, the differences between them can show a sense of playfulness and added interest. It would give Tulsa another destination point or attraction. Perhaps over by the Waterworks facility where the poles are going, or in a mile segment on the West Bank, or both. But dont be throwing in some bronze animals, buffalo and Indians etc. in the mix lol.
It seems Tulsa in general the knack of having a little bit of this and that, scattered here and there with no critical mass. By having different types of art into distinct areas, they can create a sum thats greater than the "scattered parts". Currently imo, we have squandered potential. A contemporary art park as one example. Perhaps have a segment of the river with a native american theme, the little indian woman, the buffalo and other future things of that type along a segment of the river, and also have the sidewalks, trails, lighting, retaining walls, etc, have a unique design to enhance that theme. Since we have so many animal sculptures, they would likely have the largest segment of the river. But dont be willy-nilly mixing contemporary art in with them. This way too, as time goes on and more art is donated and approved, you know to which segment of the river they can go. If you know the theme of an area and want to build new retaining walls, sidewalks,,, say a gazebo, if you wanted a gazebo in the Native American/Western area you would know it would have to fit that theme. If someone were to want to build a gazebo in the contemporary art area it could be designed as a work of contemporary art itself. People could donate some incredibly creative and wonderful lights for such an area too. Each new addition would further enhance each segment of the river and really begin to create lots of distinctively unique and wonderful places to visit and even become added attractions unto themselves.
Geez, Artist. You just described my neighborhood in your first paragraph...Maple Ridge. It is a hodge podge, mish mash of different eras and styles that range from Art Deco, Plaines bungalows, Georgian Revivals, Contemporary etc. Even the street planning represented different planning thoughts, from grid patterns with boulevards to following topography with swirling roads and islands. It became popular over time but at one point in recent history was populated with rentals and hippies. It was scheduled for destruction and replacement with expressways (indeed, some of it was razed for the IDL). Perhaps your concept of "rhyme, reason and order" are why McMansions are replacing modest homes over here.
I respectfully disagree with you. I admire your art perspective but simply disagree with how that order may be accomplished. You prefer form, I prefer chronological. There is a time history of the river and the period of 1968-1984
is was, well represented with all those personalized bricks, placques, benches, trees, fountains and contemporary art. Those were the incipient efforts at river development. Newer art was crammed in next to these period pieces and now are being used to replace them. In the process, we lose the spirit and feel of that time.
Newer art, like the sculptures of animals that never resided here, should be moved to newer development areas and represent their own time period and culture. If this were done, one could have started on the path at the late 1880's rail road bridge, progressed to the 11th street bridge where the Rte.66 station is and have moved southward noting the change in the culture of the river area during successive generations. It would have ended with Turkey Mtn and Jenks with the more animalistic sculptures and fountains so prized by the latest donors. But instead, the past is trashed along with its spirit and energies so that we may accomplish rhyme, reason and "order".
Its a slap in the face to previous generations by a consultant who is no doubt under 40 years old and not even a resident user of the park.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think one of the main problems that was starting to become apparent with the art, and even just the general design of the park and its facilities, was that it didnt have an over all plan. Things were starting to look like a jumbled mish-mash. It may have been ok to not really think about these things at first when there wasnt much art and such at all. But now your ending up with a situation where you have an animal sculpture next to a modern sculpture next to a figure next to a childrens sculpture, next to a commemorative plaque,,,, an area with brick sidewalks, an area with cement, an area with stone retaining walls, etc. etc. It was starting to look a bit of a hodge-podge and one could tell that with another decade or so of the same going in that it would really begin to look like a royal line of jumbled up crap all up and down the river.
There needs to be some over all thought process and plan, some discernible rhyme and reason, an order to things.
The park is probably too long to have one "look" or theme, but there should definitely be large segments that have solidly unique looks and feels.
I would like to see the contemporary art collected into a couple of distinct areas perhaps. It would be nice to have an area that could be a Contemporary Art Park. I have seen these in other cities and they are really fun to visit. Its nice to see a number of contemporary art pieces in a park. They compliment each other, the differences between them can show a sense of playfulness and added interest. It would give Tulsa another destination point or attraction. Perhaps over by the Waterworks facility where the poles are going, or in a mile segment on the West Bank, or both. But dont be throwing in some bronze animals, buffalo and Indians etc. in the mix lol.
It seems Tulsa in general the knack of having a little bit of this and that, scattered here and there with no critical mass. By having different types of art into distinct areas, they can create a sum thats greater than the "scattered parts". Currently imo, we have squandered potential. A contemporary art park as one example. Perhaps have a segment of the river with a native american theme, the little indian woman, the buffalo and other future things of that type along a segment of the river, and also have the sidewalks, trails, lighting, retaining walls, etc, have a unique design to enhance that theme. Since we have so many animal sculptures, they would likely have the largest segment of the river. But dont be willy-nilly mixing contemporary art in with them. This way too, as time goes on and more art is donated and approved, you know to which segment of the river they can go. If you know the theme of an area and want to build new retaining walls, sidewalks,,, say a gazebo, if you wanted a gazebo in the Native American/Western area you would know it would have to fit that theme. If someone were to want to build a gazebo in the contemporary art area it could be designed as a work of contemporary art itself. People could donate some incredibly creative and wonderful lights for such an area too. Each new addition would further enhance each segment of the river and really begin to create lots of distinctively unique and wonderful places to visit and even become added attractions unto themselves.
Geez, Artist. You just described my neighborhood in your first paragraph...Maple Ridge. It is a hodge podge, mish mash of different eras and styles that range from Art Deco, Plaines bungalows, Georgian Revivals, Contemporary etc. Even the street planning represented different planning thoughts, from grid patterns with boulevards to following topography with swirling roads and islands. It became popular over time but at one point in recent history was populated with rentals and hippies. It was scheduled for destruction and replacement with expressways (indeed, some of it was razed for the IDL). Perhaps your concept of "rhyme, reason and order" are why McMansions are replacing modest homes over here.
I respectfully disagree with you. I admire your art perspective but simply disagree with how that order may be accomplished. You prefer form, I prefer chronological. There is a time history of the river and the period of 1968-1984 is was, well represented with all those personalized bricks, placques, benches, trees, fountains and contemporary art. Those were the incipient efforts at river development. Newer art was crammed in next to these period pieces and now are being used to replace them. In the process, we lose the spirit and feel of that time.
Newer art, like the sculptures of animals that never resided here, should be moved to newer development areas and represent their own time period and culture. If this were done, one could have started on the path at the late 1880's rail road bridge, progressed to the 11th street bridge where the Rte.66 station is and have moved southward noting the change in the culture of the river area during successive generations. It would have ended with Turkey Mtn and Jenks with the more animalistic sculptures and fountains so prized by the latest donors. But instead, the past is trashed along with its spirit and energies so that we may accomplish rhyme, reason and "order".
Its a slap in the face to previous generations by a consultant who is no doubt under 40 years old and not even a resident user of the park.
If you go with a chronological order to the park, that could be one way to have "rhyme, reason and "order". But that is not what we have at all now, nor have ever really had with its art and architecture. The animal sculptures for instance arent "art-deco" nor are they seen to be in a contemporary style. They fit quite nicely into the classic "animalier" tradition.
If we were to assume that we are talking about there being some natural growth to the parks, starting from the north and running south, and that the art and architecture of each area reflects the time it was added on or added to... and each section was completed, as in once it was "done" it was truly done, no need to add more or change it. Then fine, leave each section alone. But many sections of the river are NOT done, so to speak. They were often just bought, a "make do" trail extended through, and some odd little art and or architectual features added. Unlike Mapleridge, what would there be for any new addition to match? The area around the pedestrian bridge would be somewhat of an exception. Now that we own most of what is needed to complete the park landwise, money, time and effort can be put into making different areas into what we would like them to be. The different sections along the river cant be seen as a "neighborhood built and mostly finished" a mostly done deal and any additions an intrusion "aka mc mansions". I cant look at many sections of the river and go, "oh yea, this whole area was built during the 30s, 50s, 80s, 00s, etc. reflecting that eras sensibilities and eye. For the most part there isnt much there to do that, and wasnt intended to be. Its not like some areas by a river in a big city where everything along some large section was completely done in a definite time period, the retaining walls, railings or ballustrades, sidewalks, fountains, lights, sculptures, facilities, etc. And even in those perhaps the rare "counterpoint" of something different "an art deco house in Mapleridge" would only add interest. Matter of fact there are only a couple of places along the river that could be seen that way, the pedestrian bridge area and its fountain, etc.
Unless we are to say the rive is to be stagnant, no more art, retaining walls, fountains, facilities, buildings, restaurants, restrooms, benches/tables, lights etc. added anywhere along the river except in the newest areas.... Not the areas that were done in the 90s because we wouldnt want to ruin the look of that time period...then we are going to have to figure out how to "finish out" and add to each area and not make each new addition look like the proverbial mismatched McMansion, that doesnt fit in. Plus one reason Mapleridge and some of those neighborhoods work is that even the different styles, aka, french, italian, english, etc. were mostly done with a similar sense of proportions, a similar "look". Even the occasional deco or other type home done in that time period is rare and acts more as a counterpoint and still often has similar proportional sensibilities. Thats why an Italian home of today may stand out so much, not because the style is Italian, but because of its proportions,details and materials. Things can "match" in many different ways. We have been through this argument many times before.
I am beginning to think you dont like change. Well change is going to happen to the river and whats along it in many areas. New things ARE going to be added in areas all up and down the river. Just like Kaiser is pretty much completely redoing the trails, adding retaining walls, different lights, benches, bridges, landscaping, etc. of a contemporary nature in an older area of the park, and QT is adding a large new park. Many, many more large areas will get redone like that. This isnt Mapleridge. Things are going to change dramatically in many areas. Really, I dont even know why I took the bait and replied to you lol. There are many neighborhoods that all match and have a theme that are undesirable, there are those that are a mixture that are also undesirable. Matching styles or not matching is beside the point with concern to Mapleridge, its desirable for many reasons and has very little relation to what the situation is with the River Parks and was imo, an absurd analogy which makes me wonder if you are seeing the situation as it truly is and MORE importantly a vision for how incredible more sections of the River Parks could be.
It's important that we put the esthetic decisions in the hands of a recognized art expert or a panel of recognized art experts and keep it out of the hands of petty tyrants. I thought the process used to select art for the BOK Arena was on target. I remember that a curator from Philbrook was a part of the process.
Contemporary art is relatively affordable. With it we could make a statement, add to the collection and stay within a budget at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
It's important that we put the esthetic decisions in the hands of a recognized art expert or a panel of recognized art experts and keep it out of the hands of petty tyrants. I thought the process used to select art for the BOK Arena was on target. I remember that a curator from Philbrook was a part of the process.
Contemporary art is relatively affordable. With it we could make a statement, add to the collection and stay within a budget at the same time.
I agree, that would be nice.
Well, I completely disagree with your assessment Artist. I would ask a few questions of you, the same as of the RPA leadership. Do you live in proximity to the river? Do you regularly use its amenities either through running, walking, biking, rowing, picnicing or any other activities? Not during festivals...regularly. Have you ever belonged to any of its support groups such as Oktoberfest, River Partners type associations or other benefactor organizations?
The reason I ask is two fold. Most of the current city/county/RPA leadership cannot answer affirmatively to those questions. The director lives in Jenks. Some of the board members have river interests but haven't done much but nod approvingly to benefactors and leadership. And secondly, you couldn't make such statements had you lived along the river corridor during the last two decades.
Of course the paths are now infested with contrasting artwork. It started to be done during the last 8 years. Before that it was pretty homogeneous in a seventies contemporary theme. It does have identifiable starting and ending points.
Start with the first period ranging from the late 1800's to the 1920's. Waterworks on Charles Page next to Newblock Park, and the adjacent neighborhoods are the first in Tulsa. They include Crosbie and Southern Owen Park. That period ends at the 1880's bridge of native stone that was the first to cross the river north of 11th street.
The next identifiable period begins at 11th street (highway 66) and runs to the pedestrian bridge near 31st. That is the boomtown expansion of Riverview, Indian Hills, Maple Ridge, Sunset, etc on the east and Westport on the west. The only river development of a popular nature in the period 1930-1984 was in the late 1960's thru the flood dates of the early 80's. That period of time in housing was decidedly contemporary and it was reflected in that river development and its art. Didn't take much to see those influences till current leadership decided to trash the whole period by diluting it with bronzes, widening the path to huge dimensions and pulling out trees and benches. Leadership simply has no sensitivity to these things. Money talks, history walks.
The last period of development has been in the nineties to current day and stretches from PSO, past Turkey Mtn and into Jenks. That also is clearly identifiable by the proliferation of bronzes and the extension of the bike paths. Not much else. That time was spent expanding the limits of the RPA empire as the rest of the park slowly aged.
I deduce a few things from your post. One is that you are involved with the redesign efforts and have some contact with the elitists conducting it. And two, you have accepted change that ignores the past as unworthy and disorganized and feels free to mould it into current philosophies. Much like redevelopers during urban renewal held little respect for downtown past efforts. No, I'm against that kind of change though I know it is now inevitable thanks to our new enlightenment. And three, you don't live in Maple Ridge. It has all kinds of size and scale discrepancies because of its long period of development and builder influence on the city (1912-1940). Lots of empty lots were built on in the 60's-70's which meant a low slung ranch house would end up next to a three story mansion across from an original farm house that sat near a contemporary around the corner from a duplex. Different setbacks too.
This lack of knowledge of our history and respect for it is our legacy.
It certainly wouldn't dilute the esthetics to give a curator some broad outlines, like a chronological scheme. It might be a good idea to include input from residents and experts to arrive at a scheme that answers two goals.
Your remarks about ignorance of our history and lack of respect for our history, are really important for Tulsa.
Most history that occurs outside of the mainstream is lost. For example, our local Gay Center publishes pamphlets stating that the Gay Rights Movement in Tulsa began in 1980 when it began at least as early as 1973, possible earlier. But because Gay History is rarely included in mainstream historic accounts, each generation of gays has to rediscover their history. A lot gets lost in along the way.
That's what has happened to Tulsa.
You know, Waterboy, you could cash in on your knowledge of our history. It's getting to the point that your database is quite encyclopedic.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
It certainly wouldn't dilute the esthetics to give a curator some broad outlines, like a chronological scheme. It might be a good idea to include input from residents and experts to arrive at a scheme that answers two goals.
Your remarks about ignorance of our history and lack of respect for our history, are really important for Tulsa.
Most history that occurs outside of the mainstream is lost. For example, our local Gay Center publishes pamphlets stating that the Gay Rights Movement in Tulsa began in 1980 when it began at least as early as 1973, possible earlier. But because Gay History is rarely included in mainstream historic accounts, each generation of gays has to rediscover their history. A lot gets lost in along the way.
That's what has happened to Tulsa.
You know, Waterboy, you could cash in on your knowledge of our history. It's getting to the point that your database is quite encyclopedic.
pancakes? So gay people go ungay as they get older and history is lost? Sounds like a group of confused people.
I think some sort of curator function is a good idea if not a little late.
HT, I'll contact you later with a pm. I would be interested in compiling a "peoples history" of the city in conjunction with another project. You have a unique perspective you've shared before on these threads. I am not the best source of past history, others have made fine attempts at that. Bates is an enthusiast too. However, there is lots of opportunity for simple error in what really happened and why. Seeing our near past history being misconstrued and misreported makes me wonder how accurate those attempts are or can be. Lots of ommissions and comb-overs.
edit ps: Artist you added to your earlier post after reading mine. Thats not fair! Now I have to address those remarks since you bait and switched me. It is not an absurd relation. It fits into my original remarks that we often trash our past in Tulsa in favor of the latest trend. I still remember when I sold real estate in the 70's and those outdated Art Deco homes were SLOW MOVERS! Nobody wanted them and considered them kitschy and over done. Lots of homeowners stripped off the elements and discarded them in garage sales. Maple Ridge homes were considered white elephants that you couldn't heat or cool. Those strange and out of scale homes were investment properties plopped on the lots because they were so cheap! If not for the efforts of those who appreciated unpopular styles from our history, they would have been plowed over and paved just like Ht's old hood. I see that same attitude being repeated now in a vendetta against 50's modern and 70's contemporary. Been to Cherry Street lately? The same arguments are always presented. Unprofitable, dilapidated, abused properties, too far gone to rehab, unsaleable, functionally obsolete, fire hazards etc. What do you think the owner of the Tulsa Club is doing to Tulsa? The same thing. We even trashed our Civic Center for similar reasonings.
Recognize it for what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I think some sort of curator function is a good idea if not a little late.
HT, I'll contact you later with a pm. I would be interested in compiling a "peoples history" of the city in conjunction with another project. You have a unique perspective you've shared before on these threads. I am not the best source of past history, others have made fine attempts at that. Bates is an enthusiast too. However, there is lots of opportunity for simple error in what really happened and why. Seeing our near past history being misconstrued and misreported makes me wonder how accurate those attempts are or can be. Lots of ommissions and comb-overs.
comb-over....hell, that could be a catch phrase for this entire city.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
It certainly wouldn't dilute the esthetics to give a curator some broad outlines, like a chronological scheme. It might be a good idea to include input from residents and experts to arrive at a scheme that answers two goals.
Your remarks about ignorance of our history and lack of respect for our history, are really important for Tulsa.
Most history that occurs outside of the mainstream is lost. For example, our local Gay Center publishes pamphlets stating that the Gay Rights Movement in Tulsa began in 1980 when it began at least as early as 1973, possible earlier. But because Gay History is rarely included in mainstream historic accounts, each generation of gays has to rediscover their history. A lot gets lost in along the way.
That's what has happened to Tulsa.
You know, Waterboy, you could cash in on your knowledge of our history. It's getting to the point that your database is quite encyclopedic.
pancakes? So gay people go ungay as they get older and history is lost? Sounds like a group of confused people.
The history gets lost when the old gays die and no accurate account of their times has been recorded.
I'm reaching for a pun about oral histories but nothing is surfacing.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I think some sort of curator function is a good idea if not a little late.
HT, I'll contact you later with a pm. I would be interested in compiling a "peoples history" of the city in conjunction with another project. You have a unique perspective you've shared before on these threads. I am not the best source of past history, others have made fine attempts at that. Bates is an enthusiast too. However, there is lots of opportunity for simple error in what really happened and why. Seeing our near past history being misconstrued and misreported makes me wonder how accurate those attempts are or can be. Lots of ommissions and comb-overs.
edit ps: Artist you added to your earlier post after reading mine. Thats not fair! Now I have to address those remarks since you bait and switched me. It is not an absurd relation. It fits into my original remarks that we often trash our past in Tulsa in favor of the latest trend. I still remember when I sold real estate in the 70's and those outdated Art Deco homes were SLOW MOVERS! Nobody wanted them and considered them kitschy and over done. Lots of homeowners stripped off the elements and discarded them in garage sales. Maple Ridge homes were considered white elephants that you couldn't heat or cool. Those strange and out of scale homes were investment properties plopped on the lots because they were so cheap! If not for the efforts of those who appreciated unpopular styles from our history, they would have been plowed over and paved just like Ht's old hood. I see that same attitude being repeated now in a vendetta against 50's modern and 70's contemporary. Been to Cherry Street lately? The same arguments are always presented. Unprofitable, dilapidated, abused properties, too far gone to rehab, unsaleable, functionally obsolete, fire hazards etc. What do you think the owner of the Tulsa Club is doing to Tulsa? The same thing. We even trashed our Civic Center for similar reasonings.
Recognize it for what it is.
Bates does pretty good but sometimes his historic accounts are a little wooden (and not above a few errors), your's has more life in it.
I like public art, but Tulsa seems to be stuck with an overabundance of uninspiring and ultra-conservative examples. Natureworks stuff is nice, in it's way, but...geez...enough lifelike reproductions of animals already!
How 'bout some nudes frolicking in the woods? (Talk about nature works!) It would be fun to have some art that really catches people by surprise and makes them think or laugh or care. One more elk here or there? So what?
It does seem like the Riverparks has been accepting any old thing, regardless of how it fits with its surroundings. The petite Native American sculpture over near 31st and Riverside is a good example. It's a 5' tall sculpture in an enormous circular foundation. You'd think they were laying the groundwork for the fountains at the Piazza Navona in Rome...and then you get this little speck of a sculpture in the middle. Looks goofy. (Mind you, I'm not suggesting we need a 15-story tall American Indian or anything...)
But I do think we need some grander, more bold and daring vision for public art in Tulsa. Not all these little knick-knacks. (Our public art is generally about as cutting edge as a collection of Hummel figurines...)
Is our art is just a reflection of our city? Boring, conservative, timid?
I hope not.