Re: OFFICIAL - Bartle Hall Expansion construction
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:27 pm
First of all, I have made 2 posts and none of them were direct towards any of you. I have never conveyed any anger as you implied and simply stated my opinion which I have reasons for besides how it makes me feel. I also never said anything about a KC inferiority complex. Why are you so defensive? Did you work on the project?
Secondly, I don’t think you have really made any credible point to refute mine other than “you like it" and "it's better than what was there."
With that logic, am I to infer that you would take the same position regarding the marriot lighting as sophisticated with good graphic and lighting design and then rationalize it because it is better than a bland brick building and is one of the largest LCD displays? I surely hope not and hope that isn't all you have to bring to the discussion?
If you have “bigger issues to deal with,” then, in my opinion, you might be a bit short sided in what is one of my objections: It’s my money and your money paid for this PUBLIC project. Money that could have been better spent towards the bigger issues that confront our city.
I think voltopt has clarified almost the exact same criticisms I have. So, maybe I'm not so off base?
But since you would prefer further clarification, here it is:
1) If you take the time to look at Zhao’s art work, you will notice that he A) has never worked on a piece of this scale B) he has never worked with this material. C) For typical projects the artist are evaluated and must show achievement in Media, Materials, Content, Style, Scope and Experience. For this type of commission, Zhao lacks in most of these areas but was selected. While I prefer to let artists critique art, it is my opinion that most “Artists” are considered successful because they have mastered their medium or worked with it in a different way which makes them unique. If you consider any of these points alone and look at the end result you might be able to see why I think it should have been much better.
2) The architect showed very little and understanding or respect to the historical nature of the building and its roots in modernism and long span structures. Since the form is a result of the structural geometry and how the loads are transferred and the building supported, they should have worked closer with the artist to create a complementary design in lieu of an whimsical appendage. Since they as well had no experience in public art projects we see the end result. In contrast, the southern addition, while not including an artist, was fairly successful of integrating the new and the old in a holistic manner without simply replicating or deviating from the original.
3) It is a public art project. It uses our tax dollars to create structures that are going to be in the public domain for a long time. One important criteria is that the Public Art’s primary intention is to enhance the public domain. To do this, it can’t be whimsical and immediately dated.
4) Zahner Metals is an amazing company and works all around the world with the best artists and architects and we are fortunate to have them in Kansas City. Working with them opens up every possibility you could imagine and this is what we get? Look at their web site. Zahner is always consistent in being innovative with a high caliber of work. However, it is the artist and architects who dictate the design and in comparison to what they have done on other projects, the design team has clearly underachieved.
5) Just because it is a loading dock doesn’t diminish its impact to the image of the City and the expectation for future art commissions. If you know anything about the Downtown Plan, 12th street beautification is a high priority as our tallest structures are adjacent to this street as well as our City Government. So to dismiss this as simply a loading dock and it’s lack of importance might indicate that maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to pass judgment. But that is just my opinion of course.
Thanks for “calling me out” on the issue.
Secondly, I don’t think you have really made any credible point to refute mine other than “you like it" and "it's better than what was there."
With that logic, am I to infer that you would take the same position regarding the marriot lighting as sophisticated with good graphic and lighting design and then rationalize it because it is better than a bland brick building and is one of the largest LCD displays? I surely hope not and hope that isn't all you have to bring to the discussion?
If you have “bigger issues to deal with,” then, in my opinion, you might be a bit short sided in what is one of my objections: It’s my money and your money paid for this PUBLIC project. Money that could have been better spent towards the bigger issues that confront our city.
I think voltopt has clarified almost the exact same criticisms I have. So, maybe I'm not so off base?
But since you would prefer further clarification, here it is:
1) If you take the time to look at Zhao’s art work, you will notice that he A) has never worked on a piece of this scale B) he has never worked with this material. C) For typical projects the artist are evaluated and must show achievement in Media, Materials, Content, Style, Scope and Experience. For this type of commission, Zhao lacks in most of these areas but was selected. While I prefer to let artists critique art, it is my opinion that most “Artists” are considered successful because they have mastered their medium or worked with it in a different way which makes them unique. If you consider any of these points alone and look at the end result you might be able to see why I think it should have been much better.
2) The architect showed very little and understanding or respect to the historical nature of the building and its roots in modernism and long span structures. Since the form is a result of the structural geometry and how the loads are transferred and the building supported, they should have worked closer with the artist to create a complementary design in lieu of an whimsical appendage. Since they as well had no experience in public art projects we see the end result. In contrast, the southern addition, while not including an artist, was fairly successful of integrating the new and the old in a holistic manner without simply replicating or deviating from the original.
3) It is a public art project. It uses our tax dollars to create structures that are going to be in the public domain for a long time. One important criteria is that the Public Art’s primary intention is to enhance the public domain. To do this, it can’t be whimsical and immediately dated.
4) Zahner Metals is an amazing company and works all around the world with the best artists and architects and we are fortunate to have them in Kansas City. Working with them opens up every possibility you could imagine and this is what we get? Look at their web site. Zahner is always consistent in being innovative with a high caliber of work. However, it is the artist and architects who dictate the design and in comparison to what they have done on other projects, the design team has clearly underachieved.
5) Just because it is a loading dock doesn’t diminish its impact to the image of the City and the expectation for future art commissions. If you know anything about the Downtown Plan, 12th street beautification is a high priority as our tallest structures are adjacent to this street as well as our City Government. So to dismiss this as simply a loading dock and it’s lack of importance might indicate that maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to pass judgment. But that is just my opinion of course.
Thanks for “calling me out” on the issue.
