book of days serial #3

(note (web exclusive!): I don’t believe this fragment of text ended up in the final print edit.)

The ‘City of Los Angeles’ authority is the largest statutory authority in LA, however, within the radius of metropolitan Los Angeles there are also a number of smaller individual cities who are self-governing and set their own percent for art programs, one of these is Culver City, a district located a few miles from downtown LA. A number of years ago the council in Culver City, amended their percent for art ruling by permitting architecture in certain circumstances to be considered public art. They added a proviso that the artwork should be clearly distinguished from the building architecture and standard design features.

A critic standing amidst the crowd as a new sculpture opened was heard to balk: “Instead of Culver City’s atavistic view, consider this: If a work of architecture is good enough, it transcends its lowly status and becomes?”

“Good architecture.”

“Yes. If a building is bad enough, it is bad architecture, and if it is mediocre enough, it is mediocre architecture. Never, however is architecture art. Architecture is architecture. And what is wrong with that? Why should it be embarrassed about its status and seek some holier-than-thou consecration as a work of art? Why should the richness of the commonplace be overshadowed by the garishness of intention?”

Critical Response:

« | »