Guidelines for River Parks Artworks

[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.

[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 I still remember when I sold real estate in the 70's and those outdated Art Deco homes were SLOW MOVERS!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.

[inteller]

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.[}:)]

[Hometown]

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.

[Hometown]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.