Works of Fartâ„¢
Thread started by
Roadblock at 07.2.08 - 3:34 pm
this thread is dedicated to public infrastructure that might otherwise have cost less and been more useful had it been designed with the "form follows function" school of design thinking...
My pet peeve in particular... bike racks and subway stations. I would argue that in a city starving for public transportation dollazz, adding a level of bureaucracy (the time involved in the process of choosing an artist, adding committee meetings, funding for materials and one off manufacturing) is partly responsible for crippling the tiny increments of progress we could otherwise enjoy.
pictured: a "bike rack" just south of Hollywood on Vermont. I don't think I have ever seen a bike attached to it. I doubt I could attach my bike to it because it looks too wide to acommodate my u-lock.
reply
Hey RB
I've locked my bike to that rack before with a mini krypto lock. It's ugly and sketchy, but you can lock to it.
Still a big waste of money though.
kyber07.2.08 - 3:36 pm
reply
This is another wonderful Work of Fartâ„¢
Look mommy it's a bike rack in the shape of.... a bike! teehee! note the addition of actual useful bike loop bike racks put in after the tax payers wasted money on the nifty cookie cutter design.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 3:44 pm
reply
That bike cookie cutter thing is just awful, the one posted before that makes a lot more sense but i haven't used it before so i couldn't really say.
ben dangel07.2.08 - 3:50 pm
reply
Shit, I could make functional, cool looking, arty bike racks for a fraction of what it probably cost them.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 3:52 pm
reply
all of this stuff costs money materials energy and time to design folks and you can bet that under the surface is some nepotistic scratch my back hire my cousin the artist business dealings going on.... guaranteed.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 3:54 pm
reply
boo. the functionalist.
no... but speaking of ugly and wasteful in the name of art... they've "decorated" median in downtown where main and spring meet with these blue and green spheres half sunken into the ground. First, it looks like grade school project of the solar system built from spray painted foam balls. Second, it costs the MTA a whooping $380,000!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/traffic/la-me-downtown25-2008jun25,0,3258525.story
soso07.2.08 - 3:59 pm
reply
oh that is DEFINITELY a WORK OF FARTâ„¢
good work Jo. and equally accurate description. LOL!!! I made a solar system project in kindergarten wheres my cut of that LOOT. almost half a MILLION hard as fuck to find MTA dollazz for that piece of shit?!! WOW! good find.
where is the investigative journalism for this?? The LA Times ran it like a PR puff piece.
"Smith said the business improvement district will be responsible for the median's maintenance and lighting."
ahhh so some business interests hosed the MTA into this huh? bet the maintenance costs will still derive from annual MTA dollazz GUARANTEED
Roadblock07.2.08 - 4:03 pm
reply
I mean, I'm all for public art, in fact, I think it's amazing and would gladly make some. However, when the funds being used to create it could be better appropriated to things like signs, road markings, making service more efficient, etc. I find it to be a waste, and think someone should scold metro and make them get their PRIORITIES in order.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:06 pm
reply
i luv this!
i already know of a few...gotta get the camera out and find 'em again!!
ingipet07.2.08 - 4:09 pm
reply
um, yeah, those things aren't too soft on the eyes.
however, I don't think they qualify as "a big wast of money".
first off all transit projects have a certain percentage of their budget dedicated to artwork, this is usually a fraction of a percent.
Sure a lot of this stuff is ugly, other pieces are really nice.
I'm not trying to start a debate about aesthetics, because honestly, in this context, it's a big waste of time. Everybody has their own aesthetic taste so weather something is ugly or pretty is irrelevant.
What is at question is weather spending money on Metro art projects is a consequential waste of money.
I would argue that the teensy amount of money is simply shadowed by so many more things that are monumental wastes of money and have real effects on how the MTA system is used.
- Lack of bathrooms. Elevators that smell like piss have a negative effect on elective riders.
- Replacing the shitty ticket machines, with decent machines, then deciding that we need turnstiles now at a cost of millions of dollars
- lack of infrastructure for vendors in stations which would make subway stations living places that are safer, more comfortable, AND revenue generating.
- not incorporating infrastructure for advertising into the design of the stations and cars
- jacking up the price of the day pass and eliminating transfers to ensure more abuse and reselling of passes
yeah ... they've wasted a few pennies on ugly art, but thats a gripe that is that the bottom of my list. what about the millions of dollars they have wasted by not building a working system from the get go.
-----------------------------
I've said it before, but how is it that Mexico City can build a comprehensive system in a city that is poorer than la, larger then la, on a swamp, in a volcano crater, and get people on board for less then .20 a ride.
Until Metro employees are mandated to regularly use Metro it will for ever suck.
trickmilla07.2.08 - 4:15 pm
reply
"I mean, I'm all for public art, in fact, I think it's amazing and would gladly make some."
unless you are "someone important's nephew" you ain't in the running....
none the less I support your public art FUZZ and best thing is that it's FREE.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 4:15 pm
reply
in case it wasn't clear ... the point of that tirade is that ART funding and INFRASTRUCTURE funding come from different pots.
Somebody probably thought that making art that doubled as infrastructure was a brilliant idea as the art funding was paying for some infrastructure.
trickmilla07.2.08 - 4:18 pm
reply
"Until Metro employees are mandated to regularly use Metro it will for ever suck."
I've been really aware of this recently. The people who design this shit will never use it.
Good thread Roadblock, keep 'em coming! Unusable bike racks for the win.
City Hobgoblin07.2.08 - 4:18 pm
reply
trick, if you think spending $380,000 dollazz is a teensy amount of money then I want to be your adopted son so I can inherit your fortune someday.
this is not TEENSY $380,000 can hire 10 janitors to clean 10 elevators a day for one year of piss. ok prolly more like 5 janitors considering the pensions and benefits but they could also clean 10 elevators each so whatevs on that.
This stuff adds up and the worst part? ART IS SUBJECTIVE. The government IMHO should not be compelled to pay for art when it barely can function on it's own shoestring budget. first function, then when the MTA is flush and has nothing better to do then FARTâ„¢
Roadblock07.2.08 - 4:21 pm
reply
You guys aren't looking hard enough!!
The Main and Spring median decor is very well designed, but the intention of the design, its function, is something no one would ever admit to.
Every object on that median screams 'GO AWAY!'. Broken glass, spheres, spike trees (mean) and a lumpy succulent for ground cover.
Where is the grass, the oaks and the benches?
The intent of this work is to keep people from populating this public space. Well designed!!
Eric Hair07.2.08 - 4:22 pm
reply
Well, actually I see calls to artists go out for the metro programs all the time. most of which are for some area in a place where no one ever goes (Yeah, Huge expensive sculptures on a bike path in the middle of NOWHERE used by 10 people a month!), and I know of people who have gotten them.
What I am saying is, that yes, it is GOOD to have public art, but within priorities. There are many, many things the LA Metro needs to do before making the system pretty, like making it work.
The list trickmilla put up above is pretty good. I'd also say that while beautifying the system is important to make people want to use it, it's not the solution. The solution to increasing metro ridership (and the funds generated by such) is to make the system actually go places, and make people actually PAY for their trip. I have paid for every trip I have taken on the metro, other than Bike to Work day, when it's free with a bike. I see maybe 1% of the people entering and exiting trains actually go buy a ticket.. sure turnstiles will cost millions, but methinks it would pay for itself quickly.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:23 pm
reply
get ya cameras out people!!
" the point of that tirade is that ART funding and INFRASTRUCTURE funding come from different pots. "
BS to the 14th power. MONEY is MONEY. if there is a "pot for art" then it should be drained immediately into important shit like building more infrastructure that is useful to the average joe who gives two shits about art and just wants to lock a bike up.
$380,000 could have been spent on a couple sharrows at least.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 4:26 pm
reply
"There are many, many things the LA Metro needs to do before making the system pretty, like making it work."
NUFF SAID
"I'd also say that while beautifying the system is important to make people want to use it,"
Ride new york's stinky sweaty disgusting brick and mortar tiles for miles system and see that people actually use that because it FUNCTIONS. Over here we look like dickheads because the subway looks neeto but it don't function. I don't see spectacular FREEWAY lane art and bridge ART yet people have yawningly forced themselves to make due with a plain ole functioning piece of infrastructure - so much so that it no longer functions! ha.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 4:30 pm
reply
I'm not saying drain it completely, but maybe use it differently. Put Most of it toward where it NEEDS to be, but make sure there is some left for art. Good design in stations is important, at least major ones. Like it or not LA is an art town, not just a film town. LA is probably one of the top 5 art markets in the world (all those people with film money... they buy art, it's an investment, and many of them, being creative people, want to surround themselves with arts). We have 3 MAJOR, world class museums here (Getty/Skirball, LACMA, MOCA), plus a bunch of small ones, and there is a LOT of art in this town, and in all reality, not a lot of public art (look at a city like Boston, which is LOADED with public art) so I don't mind having some, but it should be funded from the right sources, and when you have one of the most cash strapped agencies in the city (which had most of it's budget pretty much STOLEN by the state), an agency that needs money to do what needs to be done to the system it oversees, art, which, in all reality, is a luxury, should be on the bottom of the list.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:32 pm
reply
a lot of decorative infrastructure in metro stations is designed to be "bum proof".
RB, I don't doubt that metro has spent that kind of money on art throughout the system. I'm say that is a teensy amount relative to Metro's over al budget.
But EVERY metro system and EVERY culture "invests" money on art. Other cities have metro systems that work. they also find money to spend on art.
I'm just saying, if were are talking, infrastructure, lets spin our wheels on the 100s of million$ in lost opportunities and failed infrastructure from not building the system correctly.
Its like we are complaining about an ugly hood ornament on an over priced car that is uncomfortable, inefficient, and slow.
its an issue ... but like i said waaaaaay that the bottom of my list.
trickmilla07.2.08 - 4:36 pm
reply
oh and Eric Hair, you're right, much of the public space in downtown has been designed to keep people from wanting to hang out there (unless you climb up on top, then there's all these cool elevated people spaces (they're for people, they're just not public space) with their own private security that are really quite beautiful in a Metropolis sort of way. Unfortunately DTLA was sort of designed with that mentality...
Hell they bulldozed all of bunker hill (what used to be a low income district, full of historically significant, and architecturally significant, Victorian Era homes) to build the edifice that is Grand and Hope Aves.
Horray for class warfare influenced design!
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:38 pm
reply
Trick, i think you and I are saying the same thing, but in different words.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:39 pm
reply
DAMNIT!!
Everyone's acting like it's one or the other. Art or infrastructure. Form or function.
A succesful design should be able to function like a mean mother, and look good while doing it (also like a mean mother).
Place the blame where it's deserved. The artists!
And don't place the blame on the steering comittee or non-artists involved. If the work is compromised, the artist should fix it or walk away.
Eric Hair07.2.08 - 4:41 pm
reply
I never said it was one or the other, however, I was talking about non-integrated art, like massive sculptures dropped into the middle of a barren plaza or on the concrete slab of a platform in the middle of the freeway, or badly designed bike racks (the original topic of this thread)... artwork integrated into the design of stations and such (something metro has been trying to do more of, from what I can tell from their last few calls for artists) is fine, however, within reason. I think the problem here is the glaring NEED for better service when metro comes up outweighs the need to beautify, at least for now. It's a priorities thing.
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 4:46 pm
reply
Werd.
massive sculptures dropped into the middle of a barren plaza
Caulder = excellent
Eric Hair07.2.08 - 4:53 pm
reply
Clearly, the artists are to blame for their own bad art, but the public agencies are also to blame for commissioning the bad art. The priorities of public art funding seem to dictate that the resulting work be as unsurprising, inoffensive and useless to as many people as possible.
I'm painting with a broad brush here (nyuk, nyuk), but I think it's fair to say that uninspired, technocratic agencies will select uninspired, technocratic pieces of art.
nathansnider07.2.08 - 4:55 pm
reply
RB, I'm afraid you're mistaken. That is not a bike rack. It was obviously placed there for another purpose.
indigis07.2.08 - 4:55 pm
reply
guise I'm not saying that art doesnt have it's place.... but when there is a distinct LACK of money available then elaborate non functional "one-off" type of public Fartâ„¢ has noooooooooooooooo place. besides it takes away from the cause in that your average joe looks at this shit and thinks "WTF who is in charge I dont want to give these cretins any more of my tax money this stuff is useless" which is defeating at the ballot box whenever a new tax is proposed to get at scarce dollazz.... even if the cost of this non funtional art is teensy - it gives the air of decadence which makes joe taxpayer rightly suspicious.
when something functions well it is by definition designed well.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 5:07 pm
reply
I suppose its progress for them to build those faceless skyscrapers, but why do they insist on leaving that turd in the plaza when they leave?
These public projects are forced to set aside a tiny percent of the budget for public art. Trouble is, many times they have no idea what they are doing when selecting the work for the site. Sad to say Roadblock is close to the truth, in many cases anyway. Its not who you know, its who you blow.
Creative Thing07.2.08 - 5:15 pm
reply
And true, Eric, that Calder is an Excellent Piece, and pretty much a Chicago Landmark, however, you could go the other way and refer to this NY piece by Richard Serra, known as Tilted Arc...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/tiltedarc_a.html
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 5:21 pm
reply
yep... roadblock's right... i do remember from grade school health class, art--or creative expression--being placed at the apex of maslow's hierchy of needs..
soso07.2.08 - 5:26 pm
reply
Well, part of the problem with public art is that often the people who pick them aren't artists or people knowledgeable about art (or if they are, they are usually overseen by someone who is not), and when it comes down to say, the last two pieces to be decided between, the budget often becomes the deciding factor. I've seen projects wherein both were under the required budget cap, and one piece was outstanding and the other was mediocre or even straight up FAIL, however the crappy one got the green light because it was a few dollars cheaper (or at least seemed that way in the proposal).
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 5:26 pm
reply
actually, sometimes im thankful for budget restraints... sometimes they inhibit or retard (as in this case) the erections of public eyes sores...
this one's currently just a proposal:
it's a $250,000 post-modern monument with no structural integritiy to be placed at the 5-Freeway to signal Orange County entry. It also requires an annual $25,000 maintenance cost.
Proposal still under discussion due to costly expenses.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-sign10-2008jun10,0,5615447.story
soso07.2.08 - 5:38 pm
reply
It ain't just LA. I wonder if Park City, UT thinks they're being hip with these new bike racks. At least they look U-lock-able.
two wheels good07.2.08 - 6:01 pm
reply
And what's with this NoHo nightmare?
Art?
Infrastructure?
Cosmic vomit?
No wonder I start tripping out whenever I try to trackstand here.
two wheels good07.2.08 - 6:01 pm
reply
It's just paint, nothing to get too worked up about, probably cost about the same as a regular crosswalk. Doesnt mean it's good looking.
Probably easier to trackstand on than those damn brick ones downtown... which are always fun to watch people try to corner on at speed in the rain...
FuzzBeast07.2.08 - 6:04 pm
reply
Not just paint. That shit's etched in there.
My bad, I should have posted that in the mushrooms thread.
two wheels good07.2.08 - 6:10 pm
reply
Those silly bike racks are all up and down vermont......
Just sayin...
-J-
Justin07.2.08 - 6:59 pm
reply
"It's just paint, nothing to get too worked up about, probably cost about the same as a regular crosswalk. Doesnt mean it's good looking. "
AMEN 2 WHEELS! good one!
I doubt it costs the same.... serious. painting two white stripes is more expensive?
those crosswalks are not just paint those are some kind of embedded materials... I've seen them at a few crosswalks but, they are confusing and UGLY as shit. AND they are non standardized so..... some private company will have to service it is my guess. the same one that put it in. it will cost more because a private company always charges more and creeps the budget, it demands profit... and that same demand for profit dictates that the company's workers are paid less and pressured to be non-union, the final slap in the face....
Roadblock07.2.08 - 10:59 pm
reply
these fuckin things stink!
I appreciate public restrooms... but who ever designed these things fucked up cause every time I go in one I have to wait 5 minutes for it to do it's cleaning biz from the last person and I go in and a log is still draped off the side of the rim!
Roadblock07.2.08 - 11:26 pm
reply
here is another Work of Fartâ„¢
c'mon now! how much did this cost. c'mon.... if those over sized styrofoam balls were $380,000 I mean... ok i guess it looks cool in a star wars kind of way... but c'mon... Los Angeles is STARVING for transit money.
PS: I hear you trickmills these are the small ends of the problems.... but it's also the loudest and sinc LA is STARVING RAVING STARVING for public transit then were in penny pinching mode.
Roadblock07.2.08 - 11:35 pm
reply
@roadblock
As far as public restrooms go, perhaps a couple of "stall-monitors" could prevent the gag-inducing experience of using the community dump.
I remember back in 12th grade, I was in this continuation school for people that got suspended(bb gun in the backpack was the cause) and everytime we had to go, an instructional aide checked the restroom before we used it, and checked it again after we left it.
This was mainly due to everyone, but myself and two others that had gang-ties/P.O. assigned to them.
bentstrider07.3.08 - 3:13 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
