University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Public art in corporate downtown Los Angeles

(USC Thesis Other)

Public art in corporate downtown Los Angeles

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PUBLIC ART IN CORPORATE
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
by
Thomas Peter Koros
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(Public Art Studies)
May 1995
Copyright 1995 Thomas Peter Koros
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
PUBLIC ART STUDIES
University Park Campus
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0292
This thesis, written by Thomas P f3 -h < = > r K nrns_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
under the direction ofh_____ Thesis Committee, and approved by
all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Dean of
the School of Fine Arts, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Public Art Studies.
Dean of the School of Fine Arts
THESIS COMMTmEE;
Jay WilliS^ Director o f the Public Art Studies Program
PUBLIC ART IN CORPORATE
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON PERSHING SQUARE 4
3. HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON BUNKER HILL 11
4. IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL CITIZENS 17
5. THE CORPORATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES 21
RESPONSIBLE FOR DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES' PUBLIC ART
6. PUBLIC ART SURVEY 27
7. CONCLUSION:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 37
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 44
Appendix A: DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES PUBLIC ART SURVEY 47
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0. The Corporations of Bunker Hill and Their Public Art. 24
Table 2.0. Pershing Square and Its Public Art. 26
Table 3.0. Results of the Downtown Los Angeles Public Art Survey. 28
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0. Pershing Square with skyscraper, Sixth Street and Hill Street. 2
Figure 2.0. Central Park, 1913. 4
Figure 3.0. Pershing Square, aerial view Northwest with Biltmore Hotel, 1928. 6
Figure 4.0. Los Angeles Central Library, 1994. 8
Figure 5.0. Pershing Square, 1994. 9
Figure 6.0. Bunker Hill estate and garden, 1898. 11
Figure 7.0. Santa Fe Railroad Hospital, 1905. 12
Figure 8.0. Angel's Flight with Ferguson Building, 1910. 13
Figure 9.0. Downtown Los Angeles showing skyscrapers and freeways, 1973. 16
Figure 10.0. Results of Question five of the Public Art Survey, "How often do you
occupy this downtown area of Los Angeles?" 31
Figure 11.0. Results of Question eight of the Public Art Survey, "Who do you think is
responsible for the exterior art in this area?" 34
Figure 12.0. Results of Question Nine of the Public Art Survey, "If you had the
opportunity to attend a free program that would educate you on public
art, which form would you choose?" 35
1
INTRODUCTION
The city of Los Angeles, considered one of the most vital, dynamic and prestigious
cities in the world, attracts and entertains all who enter its boundaries. The Los Angeles
metropolitan area serves as the economic and cultural heart of the entire Southern
California region. The city agencies of downtown Los Angeles have the responsibility of
providing their occupants with a safe and inviting environment in which to live, work and
visit. Public art is the cornerstone of the city's effort to aesthetically enhance this
downtown space and form a bridge between the area's massive corporate structures and its
citizens.
Public art is supported through many government agencies in L.A.,
including the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the L.A. Unified
School District, the L.A. Rapid Transit District, City Recreation and Parks
Department, County Parks and Recreation Department, and the City
Cultural Affairs Department.1
It is evident that, with this plenitude of civic support, public art is vital to the city of Los
Angeles.
It is the intention of this thesis to demonstrate how public art in downtown Los
Angeles affects its corporate environment. To understand existing public artworks in this
corporate area, it is important to first look at the background and historic information
regarding the areas being examined. This will be done by first defining the two specific
areas of corporate Los Angeles, Pershing Square and Bunker Hill. It is then important to
identify the individuals who occupied these spaces before their redevelopment. There
‘Gerry Riposa and Carolyn G. Dershch, City o f Angels (New York: Kendell/Hunt
Publishing Company, 1992): 75.
must also be an identification of which corporations and development agencies have come
to this area. The final focus of this first section will examine the public art commissioned
in these areas and the agencies responsible for their development.
The second section of this thesis will assess the needs of the occupants of the
spaces examined and discuss the development of a program that could educate individuals
on various aspects of public art. It will be necessaiy to address the "percent for art" policy
and also consider the various options to traditional public art projects.
The third section of the thesis will focus on the "Public Art Survey." The Public
Art Survey has been formulated to determine who the audience of the public art is in each
examined area. Through a series of questions addressing demographic, employment,
educational background and basic knowledge of public art, this survey illustrates the effect
of public art on its audience in downtown Los Angeles.
Figure 1.0 Pershing Square with skyscraper, Sixth Street and Hill Street.
Photo courtesy of USC Slide and Digital Collection.
The final section of this thesis will reflect my opinions regarding various aspects of
the entire public art process in corporate Los Angeles, and suggest ways of better
incorporating all occupants of this area in this process. This section will also review the
past, look at the present, then discuss the future options of public art projects in Los
Angeles with the hope of expanding the definition of what we now know as public art.
4
HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON PERSHING SQUARE
As in many other cities in the United States, citizens of Los Angeles yearn for a
green oasis amid a concrete jungle. The most prominent of these green spaces in Los
Angeles has been Pershing Square. The land for Pershing Square was initially set aside by
Mayor Aguilar on December 11, 1866, to ensure that a "public space" be available for the
use and benefit of the citizens of Los Angeles.2 This land was left undisturbed for seven
years until local citizens and the City Council raised $1,600 so that fundamental planning
and basic landscaping for a formal park, named "Central Park," could be raised. An
official park plan was not adopted until 1886. At this time, the need for a park was felt
even more, due to an overwhelming surge of visitors and settlers to Los Angeles resulting
from the advent of the national railroad. Parks became an important element to travelers,
so political predecessor to
Mayor Aguilar, Mayor
Fred Eaton and two city
engineers developed the
first draft of an "Official
City Park Plan."3
In the fall of 1886
the first park plan for the
Figure 2.0 Central Park, 1913. Photo courtesy of USC
Slide and Digital Collection.
2 Michael Quintanilla, "War of the Walls," Los Angeles Times, 14 July 1993, B2.
3 James Stele, The Contemporary Condition / Los Angeles Architecture (Phaidon Press
Ltd., 1993): 126.
area now known as Pershing Square was adopted. The park's initial design consisted of a
series of gravel pathways, low shrubs and flower gardens encompassing a central
bandstand. The city engineers felt that a local gathering place and entertainment forum
would ensure continued utilization of this centrally located park, however, the business
district at this time was some distance from the park, so its most common occupant was
not the businessperson, local resident or traveler, but rather the "undesirable." A
description of the individuals who occupied Pershing Square in the late 1880s included
"robbers, tramps, hideaways and vagabonds."4 The local citizens who provided the funds
to construct this community park feared that they would lose this space forever.
In 1902 local residents formally requested that the park be redesigned to attract a
more homogeneous and inviting visitor base and offer a more open feel. The local citizens
felt that it was imperative to provide a continuous police patrol of the area for safety
reasons. "In 1904 the City of Los Angeles redesigned the layout of this park by providing
more direct cross access and replacing the low shrubbery with pine, palm, eucalyptus,
pepper and acacia trees."5 The city engineers also modified the bandstand by enclosing the
base and constructing a structural backdrop, thus preventing it from being used as a
shelter for the homeless.
Because of increased usage and the continued growth of downtown Los Angeles,
the park experienced a major face-lift in 1910. Architect John Parkinson created a new
4 MichaeI Quintanilla, "War of the Walls," Los Angeles Times, 14 July 1993, B2.
5 Reyner Banham, Los Angeles / The Architecture o f Four Ecologies (New York: Penguin
Books, 1971): 161.
look for this evolving space by widening the diagonal paths that extended across the entire
length of the park. He then replaced the existing bandstand with an elaborate central
fountain and seating area. Ornamental balustrades were also added to every entrance of
the park in an attempt to develop a series of location markers.
During World War I this park served a more momentous purpose. This area was
utilized as a forum for Angelenos to express their opinions regarding the United States’
military involvement overseas. It was also at this time that the park was officially named
Pershing Square, after American Army Officer John Joseph ("Black Jack") Pershing.6 The
official dedication ceremony naming Pershing Square took place on November 8, 1918
and was a triumphant event for the local citizens and businesses that fought hard to
resurrect and elevate Pershing Square into national status.
In the 1920s
Pershing Square
experienced a series of
transformations. A
succession of palm and
banana trees were planted
to reflect the new civic
style of greater Los
Angeles and neighboring
Figure 3.0 Pershing Square, aerial view Northwest with
Biltmore Hotel, 1928. Photo courtesy of USC
Slide and Digital Collection.
6 Michael DeCertedu, "Making Do: Uses and Tactics." The Practice o f Everyday Life
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984): 44.
cities. The district surrounding Pershing Square also continued to change. Development
of downtown Los Angeles was encroaching on the park. The Los Angeles Central Library
opened in 1927, adding a new dimension to neighboring Pershing Square. Pershing
Square acted as an extension of the library by opening an outdoor reading area, which
served 100,000 visitors on its opening day.
It was the construction of the Central Library, and the expansion of the downtown
Los Angeles business district in the 1930s, that gave Pershing Square its reputation as the
most inviting and famed park in all of Los Angeles. Over the next 20 years Pershing
Square continued to attract residents, businesspeople and other visitors with its charm and
tropical layout. In the early 1950s the park began its most extensive and costly
transformation. Due to the continued growth of downtown Los Angeles, automobile
parking became a major issue in the city's future. It was proposed to eliminate Pershing
Square and construct a multilevel public parking structure to accommodate the area's
growing commuter base as well as those visiting the library and the theater district.
Neighboring residents refused to allow the city to take away their park, so a compromise
was reached. A three-story parking stmcture that could accommodate 1,800 cars was
constructed beneath Pershing Square.
There was, however, a second motive for the construction of such a parking
facility. The growing threat of attack from Cuba forced the major political figures of Los
Angeles to construct a series of air-raid shelters. The public parking structure was
8
designed to double as a shelter and holding area in the event of a bombing or invasion.7
With the construction of this parking structure, various alterations also needed to be made
to the layout and other elements of the park. The central fountain that was installed in the
1920s, along with much of the flora and large trees, had to be removed, leaving the park
mainly composed of large grassy areas divided by the familiar dissecting pathways. The
central fountain was replaced by two smaller matching fountains donated by the Roth
family of Los Angeles. These new fountains were equipped with a lighting system that
operated in sequence with the water in the fountain to create a reflective light show.
The change and evolution of Pershing Square continued in the 1960s. Most of the
low brush and shrubs were removed along with many of the historic trees. Because most
Figure 4.0 Los Angeles Central Library, 1994. Photo courtesy of USC
Slide and Digital Collection.
7 John Logan and Harvey Molotch, "Places as Commodities." Urban Fortunes: The
Political Economy o f Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987): 45.
of the flora and trees were full grown — and, of these, many were considered rare and
valuable — Walt Disney purchased most of the trees and had them transplanted to
Disneyland. Unfortunately, Pershing Square lost much of its charming allure and began
to decline, due to a lack of patronage of white-collar workers from downtown offices,
along with the abandonment of the area by residents in close proximity to the park. The
City Parks Department also provided less care and attention toward the upkeep of the
park during this time, causing physical decay to this once lively public space. These
factors caused new individuals to take possession of this historic gathering place: the
homeless. It seemed that, overnight, Pershing Square went from a place to bring the
family for a picnic to a place you would be afraid to pass through while walking from
Broadway to the Central Library.
Figure 5.0 Pershing Square, 1994. Photo courtesy of USC Slide and
Digital Collection.
Attempts were made in the 1980s to clean up the park, in an aesthetic manner, in
10
preparation for the upcoming 1984 Summer Olympics. It was important for city officials
to present a city that was safe and inviting. However, this temporary concern for the
park's well-being was abandoned after the Olympics were completed. Music was no
longer heard, banners were removed and regular police patrol was no longer present. The
same park that community members and local businesses financed and cherished was once
again abandoned and neglected.
11
HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON BUNKER HILL
The area of downtown Los Angeles known as Bunker Hill is recognizable today by
its corporate skyscrapers, multilevel parking structures and maze of walkways and
pedestrian corridors leading in a multitude of directions. Bunker Hill encompasses 135
acres in the northwest sector of downtown Los Angeles, bound by First Street to the
north, Hill Street to the east, Fifth Street to the south and the Harbor Freeway to the west.
However, this portrait of Bunker Hill is a recent one, only 30 years young. An earlier
picture of Bunker Hill is quite different.
Bunker Hill was
once an elite residential
area, the location of some
of the most impressive
private residences in all of
Southern California. The
architectural styles of the
Figure 6.0 Bunker Hill estate and garden, 1898. Photo
courtesy of USC Slide and Digital Collection.
homes ranged from
Victorian gingerbread
estates to Finnish granite mansions. These styles were borrowed from the Eastern and
Southern cities from which the area's residents migrated, but the homes all exhibited
elements unique to Los Angeles.8 Many were built with multilevel balconies and
8 William Moruish and Catherine Brown, "Toward a New Infrastructure," Architecture,
August 1993, 72.
12
porticoes, mansard roofs with distinctive double slopes and — the most prominent Los
Angeles-specific feature ~ separate carriage houses. These homes were not judged by
their commitment to traditional architecture, but for their stylishness and frills, a practice
that is as prevalent in Los Angeles today as it was over 100 years ago.
Bunker Hill also possessed an illustrious reputation for its grand lawns and
elaborate gardens. A Sunday afternoon in the late 1800s would set the stage for garden
parties and croquet matches or other elaborate gatherings held for international diplomats
or presidents.9 The landscaping of these homes was as vital an element to an estate's
overall composition as the residence itself. As land became scarce, these great estates had
to fight to retain control of Bunker Hill.
. . . . . ,; ; v .
Figure 7.0 Santa Fe Railroad Hospital, 1905. Photo courtesy of USC
Slide and Digital Collection.
9 James Steele, The Contemporary Condition / Los Angeles Architecture (Phaidon Press
Ltd., 1993): 101.
13
In 1901 a new
element was added to the
commercial area Bunker
Hill: Angel's Flight, a
charming cable railway that
transported passengers up
the side of Bunker Hill
from Hill Street to Olive
Street. It was the "world's
j . > 4 L '
* |- ,< I ) t
K . »«™Vr 1 '
..}■>-& : 1 I .
I . < J
t -
. . r, ,
5 ‘ — •? ,: -
“ ■ \ , / ;
. t ■ . < y * ', f 5 kx 0 f
4 [} ' ! ‘ 4 ^
j " : .-tf. j , ' ^ ■ ■ * ’ !.[
■ &+ rv ^ ;- • ‘ ' '.vt
f V - ■ ;v V :- ' " ' ■ ■ ' ■ • u ' • *
, ■ ' ‘ N’- ' -
Figure 8.0 Angel’ s Flight with Ferguson Building, 1910.
Photo courtesy of USC Slide and Digital
Collection.
shortest railway,"1 0 measuring 325 feet. For the ticket price of five cents, this 45-second
ride serviced 100 million commuters and tourists in the 68 years of its existence. Angel's
Flight was removed in 1969 so that 30 feet of Bunker Hill could be cultivated for
development, retiring the railway’ s two orange-and-black cable cars, Sinai and Olivet.
(The restoration and reconstruction of Angel's Flight is now under way in Bunker Hill.
Although there is no formal date scheduled for the railways reopening, the City of Los
Angeles, in cooperation with the CRA, has begun the planning stages of the restoration.)
The late 1920s initiated the decline of the residential elite in Bunker Hill. What
was once the district of prestigious mansions of the 19th century became an area of retail
stores and boardinghouses. Most of the area's extremely wealthy residents moved to the
west side of Los Angeles or north into the Valley. The next 20 years demonstrated the
1 0 James Steele, The Contemporary Condition / Los Angeles (Phaidon Press Ltd., 1993):
66.
14
most dramatic decline and abandonment of residential property in all of Los Angeles'
history.
Bunker Hill did serve an important purpose in the 1940s. It was a place where
immigrants and domestic laborers could find affordable housing in close proximity to their
place of employment. But after World War II, Bunker Hill had an even more tragic
decline, with the massive influx of homeless and unemployed transients. Downtown Los
Angeles was changing, and Bunker Hill was the most poignant example of this change.
It was in 1959 that the city of Los Angeles designated the community of Bunker
Hill as a "blighted area."1 1 More than four out of five dwelling units were deemed to be in
extremely dilapidated, substandard or poor condition. The then-young Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) started purchasing parcels of Bunker Hill in 1961. More
than 30 parcels were acquired by the CRA, including many of the historic mansions and
prominent estates built in the 1890s.
Angelenos soon became concerned about the fate of the historical residences in
Bunker Hill. The city government supported the CRA's proposal of redeveloping the bulk
of Bunker Hill into a corporate municipality, although there were many civil rights issues
raised during this time. The individuals who lived in the converted mansions on Bunker
Hill had no place to move. They had formed a community based on bartering and
gathering for survival, and the one advantage on their side — a roof over their heads — was
about to come down.
nHerbert I. Schiller, "The Corporate Capture of the Sites of Public Expression," Culture
Inc. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989): 44.
15
The demolition of these structures began in the fall of 1973. The media was split
in its perception of the events taking place on Bunker Hill at this time. Some sided with
the sympathetic minority, voicing open criticism of the city of Los Angeles and the CRA
over the harsh treatment of the individuals displaced by the bulldozers. In their eyes,
Bunker Hill was transforming from a lively residential neighborhood into a cold, concrete
metropolis.1 2
However, in opposition to those on the side of the area’ s residents, articles were
written quoting Angelenos who made statements like, "It is about time this area was
cleaned up." This faction of the media also emphasized the rebirth and economic change
that commercial development would bring to the blighted area. The monetary
manifestation in the development of this area would elevate Los Angeles to a level of
global proportions.
Bunker Hill is in a unique position to capitalize upon this anticipated
growth with large parcels of land available at fair market prices. Early
development indicates a bright future for Bunker Hill as well as a great
challenge. Bunker Hill Towers have rented very well and have
demonstrated the need for rapid development of the other amenities
required to round out the project. Interest in locating in Bunker Hill is
strong with developers recognizing the value of its ’ total project'
approach.1 3
Regardless of which side of the issue one chose to support, it was obvious that
Bunker Hill was changing, as were the occupants of this space.
1 2 Michael Quintanilla, "War of the Walls, " Los Angeles Times, 14 July 1993, B2.
1 3 Wurster, Bemardi and Emmons, Inc., Architects, Technical Report on the Bunker Hill
Redevelopment Project, 26 March 1971: 2.
16
Figure 9.0 Downtown Los Angeles showing skyscrapers and freeways,
1973. Photo courtesy of USC Slide and Digital Collection.
IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL CITIZENS
17
The shortest route between Heaven and Hell in contemporary America is
probably Fifth Street in Downtown L.A. West of the refurbished Biltmore
Hotel, and spilling across the moat of the Harbor Freeway, a post-1970
glass and steel skyscraper advertises the land rush of Pacific Rim capital to
the central city. Here, Japanese megadevelopers, transnational bankers,
and billionaire corporate raiders plot the restructuring of the California
economy. A few blocks east, across the no-man's-land of Pershing Square,
Fifth Street metamorphoses into the 'Nickel': the notorious half-mile strip
of blood-and-vomit-spewn concrete where several thousand homeless
people — themselves trapped in the inner circle of Dante’ s inferno — have
become pawns in a vast local power struggle.1 4
The citizenry of both Bunker Hill and Pershing Square have been diverse and
eclectic, since the areas were first developed over 100 years ago. The focus of this
identification is to acknowledge the citizens who occupied these areas prior to their
redevelopment and discuss their relationship to these areas.
Bunker Hill
Who were the individuals who made up the neighborhood adjacent to and
surrounding Bunker Hill prior to its redevelopment? These citizens were mainly
composed of domestic and manual laborers from a variety of nations and cultures. The
largest single ethnic entity represented in this area were Mexican Americans, who came to
this area because of its affordable housing and its proximity to jobs in the downtown area.
The Mexican Americans transformed the street of Broadway into a Latin marketplace
filled with colors, sounds and smells, bringing life to this forgotten street of historical
theaters and movie houses. Broadway's goods and services included grocery stores, retail
clothing stores, restaurants, beauty salons, bookstores and a variety of souvenir and
1 4 David Reid, Sex, Death and God in L.A. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992): 19.
18
entertainment facilities. A large number of the businesses on this street were, and
continue to be, owned and operated by Mexican Americans, and the labor force in this
area is 79% Latino. Today, the success of Broadway has allowed this street to continue
to prosper, creating an avenue that is an authentic (living and breathing) version of
Universal's "City Walk."
African Americans were the second most prominent ethnic group living in housing
complexes adjacent to Bunker Hill. This groups wasalso composed of civic and service-
oriented labor. Differing from the Mexican Americans, who owned or worked in
businesses in close proximity to their homes, the African Americans left the Bunker Hill
area to work. This became a concern for many of those who were single parents and had
to leave their children without supervision for most of the day. With easy access to
abandoned buildings in Bunker Hill, many children exploited the area for a variety of
mischievous and illegal activity. This adolescent activity in Bunker Hill escalated into
territorial confrontations between opposing youth gangs. The major cause for these
territorial disputes was the excessive drug trafficking that plagued Bunker Hill and its
surrounding downtown areas. The 15 years from 1960 to 1975 saw the most volume of
blatant drug activity in Bunker Hill's histoiy.
Prior to its redevelopment, Bunker Hill was also populated by a considerable
number of homeless. Their dwellings were comprised of mobile shelters constructed from
a variety of disposable materials found in abundance throughout the area. The homeless
lived virtually undisturbed by local authorities and developed communities encompassing,
in some cases, whole city blocks. These members of the community had absolutely no
19
rights when it came time to redevelop Bunker Hill. With the thousands of pages of
notification material distributed to area residents regarding Bunker Hill's redevelopment,
not one personal correspondence was addressed to the homeless in notification of the
developers' intentions. The attitude of city officials regarding the redevelopment was
general and all-encompassing: "We are acting in the best interest of the citizens of Los
Angeles by designating Bunker Hill a redevelopment area."1 5 It seems that it was in the
best interest of everyone except the individuals who were actually occupying the space.
Pershing Square
Pershing Square has a story similar to that of neighboring Bunker Hill. Pershing
Square started out to be a true testament of community caring from its conception.
Although it did go through a series of transformations, it seemed that this park would
continue to serve as Angelenos' favorite gathering place. However, its future was not to
be so bright.
Prior to the recent renovation of Pershing Square the occupants spanned the
spectrum of race, creed and color with one characteristic in common: the park provided a
space to assemble and communicate. If Bunker Hill was the place to purchase narcotics,
Pershing Square was the place to consume them and then retire for the evening. When the
1984 Olympics bid its farewell to Southern California, Pershing Square became a welcome
location for the homeless, drug addicted and penniless. In the three years following the
Olympics, Pershing Square was among the top 10 locations in the city of Los Angeles for
I5 Brad Berton, "Bunker Hill Associates," Los Angeles Business Journal, 26 April 1993:
5.
20
narcotics-based arrests. The agencies involved in the development of Bunker Hill were
concerned that the occupants of Pershing Square would decide to cross Fifth Street and
begin occupying their space.
As in the cases of both Bunker Hill and Pershing Square, occupants of these
spaces predevelopment utilized these areas by necessity, in the forms of shelter and
communal living. City agencies viewed these areas as opportunities to redefine downtown
Los Angeles as a centrally located corporate area by developing these areas in an attempt
to bring Angelinos back to downtown Los Angeles.
21
THE CORPORATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES' PUBLIC ART
Now that Los Angeles has assumed the title of 'Capital' of the West Coast,
a suitable vertical profile of skyscrapers is considered to be of the utmost
importance for the downtown area. Downtown Los Angeles is where the
city began in 1789 and it is becoming increasingly prominent as a cultural
and financial focus. Not only is it composed of powerful corporate
interests, but it forms an industrial base that employs more than 60,000
people and generates upwards of $12 billion annually.1 6
The area of corporate Bunker Hill and its public art is bordered by Second Street
to the north, Olive Street to the east, Fifth Street to the south and Flower Street to the
west. As a result of the CRA's "percent for art" requirement, this eight-square-block area,
populated with skyscrapers and concrete land formations, accommodates over 20 separate
public art projects funded by 14 separate corporations (see Table 1.0). If ever there was
an example of corporate funding for the arts, this is it. The dollar amount in funding such
a large-scale concentration of public art is in excess of $25 million. The CRA was the
city organization responsible for guiding and advising the development agencies in the
installation of thepublic art in this area.
An example of a Bunker Hill development responsible for the presence of public
art in downtown Los Angeles is the Wells Fargo Center. The Wells Fargo Center is
composed of twin towers with a facade of polished brown granite and tinted glass. These
towering structures were designed by Skidmore, Owens and Merrill in 1983 and
developed by Maguire Thomas Partners. Between the towers is The Court, a glass-walled
1 6 James Steele, The Contemporary Condition / Los Angeles Architecture (Phaidon Press
Ltd., 1993): 196.
22
garden designed by Lawrence Halprin, with sculpture by Jean Dubuffet, Joan Miro, Louise
Nevelson and Robert Graham. The public art in this courtyard was funded by the
developers in compliance with the CRA's "percent for art" policy. It was determined by
Maguire Thomas Partners that a grouping of public artworks would be displayed so that
individuals occupying this space could view them in a complementary setting. The practice
of acquiring largescale works of stationary sculpture and placing them in corporate plazas
without regard to their specific siting is referred to as "plop art."
The viewing audience of this corporate art has altered this public art form. In an
attempt to accommodate the needs of the occupants of corporate spaces, developers and
administrators have expanded their definition of public art into a variety of options.
In 1979 the city of Los Angeles's Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) offered for development an 11.2-acre site of uncommitted land on
Bunker Hill. As a routine policy, the CRA stipulates that between LO and
1.5 percent of the total budget of any development within its jurisdiction be
set aside for the purchase of a work, or works, of public art.... The
partnership regarded the museum with such enthusiasm that, in addition to
providing $23 million for the construction of the MOCA building, it
contributed $1 million in support of the museum's endowment.1 7
The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in downtown Los Angeles,
completed in 1986, is a fusion of Western geometry and Eastern tradition. This structure is
the first major United States building designed by Japanese architect Arata Isozaki.
Constructed of red sandstone with pyramid skylights, this structure is an attempt to create
a solid mass out of light and color.
1 7 Darl Rastorfer, "Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles," Architectural Record
(January 1988): 102.
23
The courtyard adjacent to MOCA is the design of Brent Saville. This area includes
a 162-seat auditorium used for film, video and performance arts presentations with
regularly programmed events. MOCA and its surrounding facilities were all funded
through the "percent for art" requirements in the CRA's policy of redevelopment. This
entire structure is an example of an alternative to traditional public art projects, which
should set an example to future development in corporate Los Angeles.
Another example of a successful corporate development with a vision into the
future of public art is the California Plaza and Spiral Court. These projects were, and
continue to be, funded by the "percent for art" requirement in conjunction with the CRA
and the development agencies of the three structures involved - One California Plaza, Two
California Plaza and The Intercontinental Hotel. Mr. Michael Alexander is the Artistic
Director of Performance Arts Services. He directs a program which presents 55
performance arts events a year, with half the events taking place at the noon hour during
the work week and the rest in the evenings and on weekends. The performances include
modem dance, jazz music, poetry readings, a variety of ethnic presentations and other
activities preformed by individuals of all ages and colors. This program has been
embraced by the occupants of this area, and also by people coming from all areas of
Southern California. In speaking with Mr. Alexander, he informed me that the elderly are
one of the largest groups present at noon performances. They take advantage of the
Metro Rail's senior citizen rates, which gives them the opportunity to experience quality
live music and dance presentations, at an affordable price.
24
Table 1.0
The Corporations of Bunker Hill and Their Public Art
Corporation/Development
Agency and Location
Artist Title Date
Ronald Reagan State
Building
Betty Gold Redwood Moonrise 1990
(Lobby artworks) Elsa Flores California Dreamscape 1990
Mary Chomenko California Grizzly 1990
Gwynn Murrill California Cougars 1990
John Okulick Vents & Doors 1990
Laddie J. Dill Glass Design 1990
B.A. Bengston Sedan 1990
(Cafeteria artworks) Joe Fay Golden State 1990
M. Hooper California 1990
Mary Fuller Stone Beauties 1990
Lower California Plaza
(CRA)
Lili Lakich L.A. Angel 1992
Grand Promenade (CRA) Michael Davis Grand Promenade 1988
Wells Fargo (CRA) Nancy Graves Sequi 1985
Louise Nevelson Night Sail 1985
Joan Miro La Caresse d'un
Oiseau
1967
Robert Graham Crocker Fountain Fig. 1984
Jean Dubuffet Le Dandy 1982
333 So. Hope Street Bldg. Alexander Calder Four Arches 1975
(CRA) Woods Davy Sierra Leone 1985
Verdugo 1986
Covina 1986
25
400 So. Hope Street Bldg.
(CRA)
A. Liberman Ulysses 1988
Fourth Street Lower
Grand (CRA)
Lloyd Hamrol Uptown Rocker 1986
Bunker Hill (CRA) Robert Graham Source Figure 1991
444 Building (CRA) Bruce Nauman Trench, Shaft, Pit,
Tunnel
1982
First Interstate World
Center (CRA)
Vitaly Komar & A.
Melamid
Unity 1992
Gas Company
Tower(CRA)
Frank Stella Dusk 1992
One Bunker Hill Merrell Gage Hydro Electric Energy 1930
Bill Barrett L.A. Family Baroque 1992
Hugo B allin Apotheosis o f Power 1930
Barse Miller Transmission/Distrib. 1930
Conrad Buff II White Coal 1930
Calif. Plaza Water Court 1992
Calif. Plaza Spiral Court 1985
Museum of Contemp. Art 1986
(CRA)
26
Table 2.0
Pershing Square and Its Public Art
Location Artist Title Date
Pershing Square (CRA) B. McCarren Untitled 1994
A. Forester Beethoven 1932
H. Pedretti Doughboy 1924
S.M. Goddard Spanish American War
Memorial
N/A
27
PUBLIC ART SURVEY
A successful work of public art requires two elements: the work of art being
presented and the audience who will view it. This Public Art Survey was developed to
define the specific viewing audience of the public art located in the two designated areas,
Bunker Hill and Pershing Square. Too often, individuals involved in the development and
analysis of public art (artists, developers, administrators and the media) will reference the
individuals interacting with public art by using catchphrases or politically correct terms.
Words like "community" or "environment" are regularly utilized in relation to public art
projects without specifically defining or characterizing who they are referencing. By
developing a 10 question survey, my intention was to better understand who is actually in
close proximity to the works of public art, their reason for being there, some of their
background information, how often they are in this space and if they know who
contributed the artwork. (See Appendix 1.0 for Public Art Survey.)
The Public Art Survey was conducted on three separate days of the week,
and at three separate times of the day. It was offered to every fifth individual in each
location to assure accurate results. (If the fifth individual refused to participate in the
survey, the subsequent fifth individual was asked to participate until there was a response).
A total of 150 individuals were questioned, 75 from each of the two designated areas. A
subsection of 25 occupants were surveyed at each of the survey times, which were as
follows: Tuesday, from 8:00-9:45 am; Friday, from 3:00-5:15 pm; and Sunday, from
11:00 am-3:30 pm. The survey was conducted in various locations within each designated
area. The results of the Public Art Survey are characterized in the form of a percentage in
28
relation to each individual question. (See Table 3.0 - Results of Public Art Survey.)
Table 3.0
Results of the
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES PUBLIC ART SURVEY
(150 individuals surveyed)_______ __________ __ _
Pershing
Square
Bunker
Hill
1 Sex Male 68% 53%
Female 32% 47%
2 Age 17-20 3% 11%
21-29 22% 16%
30-39 15% 21%
40-49 27% 20%
50-59 18% 12%
60-69 8% 9%
Over 70 0% 2%
3 Education Minimal education 21% 19%
High school education 47% 21%
Some college 13% 19%
College graduate 18% 32%
Post graduate 1% 9%
4 Occupation Medical 5% 12%
Finance 8% 17%
Sales 22% 24%
29
Law 1% 11%
Retail 5% 7%
Domestic labor 25% 0%
Electronics 0% 3%
Entertainment 3% 10%
Other 28% 10%
5 How often do you occupy Visitor/tourist 7% 2%
this downtown area of On occasion 28% 5%
Los Angeles? Once a month 10% 13%
Every other week 10% 8%
On weekends 19% 20%
During working hours every
day
16% 35%
6 Have you ever heard the Yes 10% 38%
term "public art"? No 90% 62%
7 Are you familiar with the Yes 2% 12%
"percent for art" policy ? No 98% 88%
8 Who do you think is U.S. Government 8% 2%
responsible for the exterior State Government 12% 15%
art (sculpture, murals, City of Los Angeles 42% 35%
fountains and other CRA 2% 8%
decorative amenities) that is Ind. development agency 12% 11%
30
in this area ? Companies that occupy 19% 28%
Private donations 5% 1%
9 If you had the opportunity Walking tour 38% 15%
to attend a free program
that
Video presentation 29% 32%
would educate you on
public
Slide lecture 2% 11%
art, which form would you
choose?
Panel discussion 3% 17%
10 If yes, what would be the Early morning 0% 1%
most convenient time of Noon 22% 41%
day? Late afternoon 17% 11%
Evening 13% 9%
Weekend 21% 5%
As I introduced myself as a graduate student from the University of Southern
California, most occupants of the two designated areas were attentive and stopped to
listen to what I had to say (regardless of how preoccupied or hurried they were to get to
their destination.) The survey was conducted with three clipboards working at once, so
that as two separate individuals were filling out the survey, I explained myself and the
survey to another. This system seemed to work efficiently, and it also created interest
among passersby. I initially had intended to set up a booth for the survey to take place,
but found that to have a truly random and accurate analysis of each area, I needed to keep
mobile. I am happy to state that I did not encounter one incident or confrontation from
31
building security or the local police department.
In reviewing the results of the Downtown Los Angeles Public Art Survey, the
findings were surprisingly optimistic in the interest of public art by the individuals
occupying these spaces. Although the first four questions on the survey were important to
determine specific information regarding the occupants of each space, question five, "How
often do you occupy this downtown area of Los Angeles?", is of great importance in
determining the true viewing audience of the public art in each area. (See Figure 10.0.)
Occupants of Downtown Los Angeles
Parching Square
f~l VlBltor/tourist
B Once a month
SH On weekends
Bunker Hill
On occasion
Every other week
During working hours every day
Figure 10.0 Results of Question Five of the Public Art Survey, "How often do you
occupy this downtown area of Los Angeles?"
32
As Figure 10.0 indicates, Pershing Square's largest number of occupants come to
this location "on occasion." This result was interesting due to the park's proximity to the
corporate area of Bunker Hill and Broadway. This indicates that Pershing Square is not
providing its local residents and corporate commuters with an adequate environment to
attract them and keep them coming back. These results also indicate that, in determining
the viewers of the public art in this area, the city of Los Angeles should keep in mind that
throughout the history of this important park, it was the local citizens who fought to keep
this area in existence. It is the needs of these individuals that must continue to be met, in
the hope that this area will become even more attractive and not fall deeper and deeper
into decay.
The results of the Bunker Hill survey were more consistent with what was to be
expected regarding its viewing audience. The survey shows that the response, "During
working hours every day," makes up 35% of the total individuals occupying this space.
The public art in this area is being viewed by a highly educated group of individuals whose
occupations are based mainly in sales and finance. The occupants are also viewing the
public art in this area during their time outside of work. It is important to note that the
plaza and courtyard areas of Bunker Hill are areas that occupants use for breaks or lunch
during working hours.
The next two questions on the survey specifically addressed public art, keying in
on the audience's knowledge of the term "public art" and the "percent for art" policy. The
results of this question show that the audience's knowledge of the term "public art" and
the "percent for art" policy is almost nonexistent. More of Bunker Hill's occupants
33
seemed to have heard the term "public art," yet not many had heard of the "percent for
art" policy. This is interesting, since the majority of public artworks in this area were
financed by the "percent for art" law.
The next question asked, "Who do you think is responsible for the exterior art in
this area," directly addressing the source or agency that provided the public art. It could
be argued that all of the following choices are involved in the existence of the public art.
However, the basis for this question was to determine who the occupants of each area felt
was most responsible for the public art, without giving them the option of combining their
answer. (See Figure 11.0.)
34
Responsible for the Exterior Art
Pershing Square Bunker H ill
F I U.S. Government H State Government
H City of Los Angeles | C R A
fH Ind. development agency | Companies that occupy
H Private donations
Figure 11.0 Results of Question Eight of the Public Art Survey, "Who do you think is
responsible for the exterior art in this area?"
The results in Figure 11.0 indicate that, in both locations, the agency most
considered responsible for the area's public art was "the City of Los Angeles." The survey
participants' overall impression was that these works of exterior art were affiliated with the
City Parks Department, and were installed in the same manner as a street light or drinking
fountain might be. The CRA generated some of the lowest responses from the occupants
of both areas, which is interesting, since the CRA's involvement, in general, is the most
prevalent and vital.
35
Free Public Art Program
Pershing Square Bunker H ill
P I Walking tour Q Video presentation
0 Slide lecture Panel discussion
Figure 12.0 Results of Question Nine of the Public Art Survey, "If you had the
opportunity to attend a free program that would educate you on public art,
which form would you choose?"
The responses to question nine of the survey were positive and encouraging. (See
Figure 12.0.) Most occupants of these areas would like to learn more about the art being
presented to them. The survey shows that individuals surveyed in Pershing Square would
rather participate in a walking tour, while Bunker Hill occupants would prefer a video
presentation. The result of survey question 10 indicate that both groups would prefer to
attend a free public art program at the noon hour.
This Public Art Survey was an important educational experience in better
36
understanding the opinions of each area's occupants. There seemed to be an
overwhelming feeling of disassociation between the individuals surveyed and the works of
public art, with an almost unanimous feeling of disregard concerning these occupants1
opinions of what they might want to have present in these spaces. One individual
surveyed in the Pershing Square area made a statement on my first day of surveying that
continued to recur in my mind throughout the two-week period I spent in these areas:
"You're a little late with this survey. I should have been asked these questions before the
artwork was.installed.1 ,1 8
1 8 Public Art Survey Interview, Bunker Hill, February 1995.
37
CONCLUSION:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
We have seen that, historically, public art has been present in downtown Los
Angeles for more than a century, in the form of public fountains, performance areas,
landscaping, location markers, banners and a variety of other art forms specifically
designed to enhance the space for which it was created. The development agencies
responsible for the construction of Bunker Hill and the renovation of Pershing Square
were also responsible for contributing to this civic tradition. Their contribution presented
new solutions to this public art legacy by creating water sculptures, a public fine art
facility, large stationary sculptures, performance spaces and a variety of temporary public
artworks. To continue the evolution of public art in Los Angeles, it is imperative that two
factors must be recognized and addressed: public involvement and education.
Increasing Public Involvement in the Process
The individuals occupying corporate Los Angeles must be included in the
fundamental design phase of the development of public art. In the process of distributing
the Public Art Survey, the one recurrent question about public art that continued to
surface was, "Why aren't we asked what we would want in the form of public art?"1 9
As I reviewed the history of both Bunker Hill and Pershing Square I found that
occupants of these areas - from domestic laborers to the homeless - had no input in the
process of these areas development. In the case of Pershing Square, it is apparent through
the survey that the individuals in close proximity to this park have needs that are not being
1 9 Public Art Survey Interview, Bunker Hill, February 1995.
38
met. The result of this lack of civic satisfaction is a park that is abandoned for most of the
work-week and on weekends. The street just one block from Pershing Square —
Broadway — is consistently busy every day of the week and on weekends, demonstrating
its true ability to fulfill the needs of its community.
The Public Art Survey revealed similar results regarding the corporate employees
and service oriented laborers involvement in the development of the public art in these
same areas. This continuous disregard for civic opinion in the development of public art in
neighborhoods and places of employment must end. Future public art projects in
corporate downtown Los Angeles must recognize the endless resources in the neighboring
community and in the corporate commuters which have a vested interest in this area.
In my two years as a graduate student in public art studies I have been fortunate to
meet many of the individuals involved in downtown Los Angeles' public art, and also
examine the process of this arts development. The standard practice of community
involvement in the public art process is an announcement to attend a city council meeting
or public notice fliers displayed in local merchants windows. As public art has evolved
and changed so must its development process. It is time to bring the process directly to
the people who must interact with the public art on a day-to-day basis. This can be
accomplished by implementing a program which would inform all interested occupants
regarding every aspect of public art, from first conception through its entire development.
Potential Public Education Programs
Those in corporate Los Angeles are certainly receptive to public art when the
concept is specifically brought to their attention. In analyzing the Public Art Survey, it
39
was apparent that there was great interest in learning more about this form of art. It
illustrated that video presentations and walking tours were the most desired vehicle of
communicating to occupants of these areas the information that would enable them to
better understand public art and its process. The Pershing Square occupants seemed to
feel that walking tours and lectures would help them better understand public art, while
corporate Bunker Hill liked the idea of a midday video presentation on this subject.
In both areas it would be vital to first discuss historical forms of art in public
spaces, then chronicle the evolution of public art to the present day. This would provide a
broad description of the art, and explain who is responsible for its development. This
historical information would demonstrate how, in earlier times, architects, artists,
craftsmen and patrons all worked collectively from concept to finished product. With
such information, occupants of any space would realize that art — in the public, for the
public ~ is as vital an element to a development as a window or an exterior lighting
fixture.
One way to communicate with all occupants of downtown Los Angeles' corporate
area is to provide a centrally located public art kiosk. This small structure could provide a
variety of resources like: historical information, information about the development
agencies which have come to downtown Los Angeles, public artist’ s biographies and
resumes, CRA materials and brochures, reports of public art projects from around the
country, schedules of public art events and activities, and most of all an individual which
will serve to answer questions and service all occupants in their public art needs.
One individual participating in the Public Art Survey stated, "Most of us who work
40
in these buildings have kids. They never get a chance to see where we work, and we don't
get much time to spend with them during the week. I think it would be great to have them
come down during the day and bring some of their art, or have a school band perform at
lunch."2 0 It is the concept of involving family, education and art that constitutes a true
community art project.
An example of another program that could be developed to unite the corporations
of downtown Los Angeles with the occupants of this area and their families, is the Public
Art Experience (PAE). This program could be held on Friday afternoons on a designated
day of the month, allowing children to leave school early and join their parents at their
place of employment. Families could then participate in a variety of educational and
interactive public art events ranging from performance art activities to touring the MOCA
facility to workshops, where parents and children could discuss public art. Families could
also meet the various individuals involved the creation of public art in downtown Los
Angeles. Discussions with members of the CRA, developers, artists, administrators,
architects, and community groups could open lines of communication and shed light on
the entire public art process. This could be accomplished as a consulting project working
in concert with downtown corporate public relations offices and arts organizations.
Postscript
One of the reasons I wanted to develop the Public Art Survey was to find out what
everyday citizens feel about public art. Although I have been fortunate to hear the
opinions of many experts in the field during the past two years I can not help but wonder...
wPublic Art Survey Interview, Bunker Hill, February 1995.
41
What are the needs of the individuals occupying corporate downtown Los Angeles
regarding public art? What is their involvement in the public art process? How can public
art play a part in those individuals’ lives?
As in any form of public construction, design or display, it is impossible to satisfy
everyone’ s needs or fulfill everyone's desires. Controversy and public works have gone
hand-in-hand since man's quest to enhance his space and to leave his lasting mark on this
earth began. From the Egyptian pyramids to the Eiffel Tower to the Washington
Monument, voices of opposition have plagued these innovative structural statements, and
only time has validated their historical significance. Contemporary public art projects do
not have the luxury of time to justify their significance; like the Central Library Maguire
Gardens, they must win over their viewers as soon as the last bit of cement dries or the
last brush stroke is completed.
As the Public Art Survey and history have demonstrated, the need for public art
exists, not for the politicians and bureaucrats, but for the everyday citizen. We have seen
that civic involvement in these corporate areas is the catalyst for public parks to be built
and areas to be developed. It is imperative not to lose sight of the variety of occupants of
a space when developing public art for a specific area.
The public's input and needs must be recognized and evaluated by accurately
obtaining their opinions. I have tried to demonstrate in this conclusion, all occupants of an
area must also be provided the education and information necessary for them to form
opinions regarding what they would like to view in the form of public art. We must
include the individuals of these areas in the initial phases of the commission of public art
42
works.
It is my opinion that corporate public art in downtown Los Angeles is developed
to enhance a space engulfed by glass, steel and concrete. The art is present so that
occupants of these spaces will possess a sense of significance in this overwhelming
environment by stimulating emotions that invoke "thought" or "pleasure." It has been
illustrated throughout this paper that the one agency most active in the quest for public
art's presents and future in corporate Los Angeles is the CRA. However, as seen in the
Public Art Survey, the CRA and the work that they accomplish is overlooked by
individuals which occupy these areas. Bridging the gap between the occupants of
corporate Los Angeles and the CRA would allow a communication to occur which could
develop into public art projects that are truly public. One way to accomplish this
communication is to invite individuals like Mickey Gustin, Art Planner for the CRA, to
speak to corporate occupants during their lunch hour, or act as guide of a CRA public art
tour. This would allow the viewers of the public art to ask specific questions regarding
the CRA's involvement in the public art of these corporate areas.
We have seen a substantial transformation in Los Angeles' corporate public art
from a stationary Alexander Calder sculpture ("plop art") to an innovative performance art
program like the California Plaza's Performance Arts Series. With the continued interest of
its citizens and a civic commitment by its development agencies, the city of Los Angeles
possesses a strong driving force capable of propelling public art, with the public in mind,
into the 21st century.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
43
Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles / The Architecture o f Four Ecologies. New York:
(Penguin Books, 1971.)
Benedict, Stephen, ed. Public Money and the Muse: Essays on Government Funding for
the Arts. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981.
Berton, Brad. "Bunker Hill Associates." Los Angeles Business Journal, vol. 15,(26
April 1993): 5.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Richard Nice, ed. "Introduction" and "Postscript." Distinction: A
Social Critique of the Judgement o f Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1984: 48-57.
Brill, Michael. "An Autology for Exploring Urban Public Life Today." Places, vol. 6,
no. 10 (fall 1989): 87.
Cenzatti, Marco and Margaret Crawford. "Public Spaces and Parallel Worlds."
Casabella (January/February 1993): 32.
Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. London: Verso, 1990.
. "Fortress Los Angeles, The Militarization of Public Space." Variations on a Theme
Park, edited by Michael Sorkin. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992: 109.
De Certedu, Michael. "Making Do: Uses and Tactics." The Practice o f Everyday Life.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984: 44.
Enriquez, Sam. "Council Tentatively OK's Developer Fees for Art." Los Angeles Times,
23 February 1991, Al.
Fraser, Nancy. "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy." The Phantom Public Sphere, edited by Bruce Robbins.
University of Minnesota Press, 1993: 107.
Grand, Daniel. "Public Art and Its Inherent Problems." American Artist, vol. 53, no.
567 (October 1989): 78-84.
Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Metheum, 1980.
Hurlburt, Laurance P. The Mexican Muralists in the United States. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 1989.
44
Kamerman, Jack B. and Rosanne Martorella, et al. Performers & Performances: The
Social Organization o f Social Work. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey
Publishers, Inc., 1983.
Logan, John and Harvey Molotch. "Places as Commodities." Urban Fortunes: The
Political Economy o f Place. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987:
45.
Mitchell, Claudine. "Entrepreneurs of the New Order: Bourdelle in the Park." Oxford Art
Journal, vol. 13, no. 2 (1990).
Mitchell, W. J. T. Art and the Public Sphere. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1992.
Morris, Robert. "Notes on Art as/and Land Reclamation." October, no. 12 (spring
1980): 87-102.
Morvish, William and Catherine Brown. "Toward a New Infrastructure." Architecture
(August 1993): 72.
Patton, Phil. "Los Angeles Exhibition of Influential Architectural Styles; Museum of
Contemporary Art." Metropolitan Home, vol. 21 (October 1989): 66.
Quintanilla, Michael. "War of the Walks." Los Angeles Times. 14 July 1993, B2.
Rastorfer, Dari. "Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles." Architectural Record,
vol. 176 (January 1988): 102.
Raven, Arlene. Art in the Public Interest. Ann Arbor and London: UMI Research
Press, 1989.
Reid, David. Sex, Death and God in L.A. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992.
Riposa, Gerry and Carolyn G. Dershch. City o f Angels. Kendell/Hunt Publishing
Company, 1992: 75.
Schiller Herbert I. "The Corporate Capture of the Sites of Public Expression." Culture
Inc. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 44.
Senie, Harriet. Contemporary Public Sculpture: Traditional, Transformation, and
Controversy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Senie, Harriet and Sally Webster. "Critical Issues in Public Art." Art Journal, vol. 48,
no. 4.
45
Senie, Harriet and Sally Webster, eds. Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context,
and Controversy. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Icon Edition,
1992.
Sorkin, Michael. Variations on a Theme Park. New York: The Monday Press,
1992.
Steele, James. The Contemporary Condition / Los Angeles Architecture. Phaidon Press
Ltd., 1993.
Stewart, Susan. "Ceci Tuera Cela: Graffiti, as Crime and Art." Art After
Post-Modernism, edited by John Fekete. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987.
Stremfel, Michael. "California Plaza." Los Angeles Business Journal (24 June 1991): 1
(2).
Tomulevich, Susan. "Whither Public Art ?" Inform (January/February 1991): 12-16.
Ward, Janet. "Public Works Become Public Art." American City and County
(September 1993): 55.
Wurster, Bemardi and Emmons, Inc., Architects. Technical Report on the Bunker Hill
Redevelopment Project (26 March 1971): 2.
46
Appendix A
DOW NTOW N LOS ANGELES PUBLIC ART SURVEY
1. Sex:_________ ___Female Male
2. Age: ___17-20 21-29 30-39 40-49
50-59 60-69 Over 70
3. Education: ___Minimal Education____________ ___College Graduate
High School Education ___ Post Graduate
Some College
4. W hat is your occupation?
Medical Law Electronics
Finance ___Retail Entertainment
Sales ___Domestic Labor / House Cleaning
Other_____________________________________________
5. How often do you occupy this downtown area of Los Angeles?
Visitor / tourist ___Every other week
On occasion ____On weekends
Once a month ___During working hours every day
6. Have you ever heard the term "public a rt" ? ___ Yes No
7. Are you fam iliar with the "percent for a rt" policy ? Yes No
8. W ho do you think is responsible for the exterior a rt (sculpture, m urals,
fountains and other decorative amenities) th at is in this area?
U.S. Government An independent development agency
State Government ___The companies that occupy this space
City of Los Angeles ___Private donations
California Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
9. If you had the opportunity to attend a free program that would educate you
on public art, which form would you choose?
Walking tour Slide lecture
Video presentation Panel discussion
10. If yes, what would be the most convenient time of day?
Early morning__________ ___Evening
Noon Weekend
Late afternoon
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with wnaH overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. M l 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
UMI N um ber: 1376471
UMI Microform 1376471
Copyright 1995, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Recommendations for public art and community art planning for Kobe, Japan

PDF

The mind, heart, and soul of Los Angeles: discovering the public art of downtown through walking tours

PDF

Children's immediate reactions to interparental conflict

PDF

Perceptions and realities: women, equality and discriminatory barriers in Japanese society and workplace

PDF

Predictors of pretend play in Korean-American and Anglo-American preschool children

PDF

Work for the masters degree

PDF

Meta-analysis on the misattribution of arousal

PDF

Violent environments and their effects on children

PDF

Assistive technology for clients with visual impairments of the Alaska Division of Vocation Rehabilitation: a qualitative evaluation

PDF

A thesis

PDF

In her own image

PDF

Law and order: a vanishing American concept?

PDF

Cross-cultural comparisons of long-term care practices: modifications to financing and delivery approaches in seven countries

PDF

Fine motor skills of two- to three-year-old drug exposed children

PDF

The relationship between alcoholism and crime: autonomic and neurpsychological factors

PDF

The dream becomes a reality (?): nation building and the continued struggle of the women of the Eritrian People's Liberation Front

PDF

The Cloisters Cross: a re-examination of date and style

PDF

Public art in Houston: administrative structure analysis and artist guidebook

PDF

Rationalizing risk: sexual behavior of gay male couples

PDF

If only I could remember

Asset Metadata

Creator Koros, Thomas Peter (author)

Core Title Public art in corporate downtown Los Angeles

School Fine Arts Department

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Public Art Studies

Degree Conferral Date 1995-05

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag fine arts,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, industrial,sociology, public and social welfare,sociology, social structure and development,urban and regional planning

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Willis, Jay S. (committee chair), [Koblitz, Karen] (committee member), Cusick, Jessica (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-2443

Unique identifier UC11357527

Identifier usctheses-c18-2443 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1376471-0.pdf

Dmrecord 2443

Document Type Thesis

Rights Koros, Thomas Peter

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA