Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Reconsideration of permanent percent for art works in the public sphere: a case study of public art commissioned by the community redevelopment agency of the city of Los Angeles
(USC Thesis Other)
Reconsideration of permanent percent for art works in the public sphere: a case study of public art commissioned by the community redevelopment agency of the city of Los Angeles
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RECONSIDERATION OF PERMANENT PERCENT FOR ART WORKS IN THE PUBLIC
SPHERE: A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC ART COMMISSIONED BY THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
by
Lauren Davis
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC, ROSKI SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF PUBLIC ART STUDIES
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Lauren Irene Davis
ii
Dedication
To Henry
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to dedicate this thesis to all my friends and family who understood
and respected the time and effort it took to complete this work, especially to Scott who
had to understand and respect this daily.
Thank you to my mother, father and brother who have supported me in
everything I do. Also thanks to them, along with my friends in Chicago – largely to Erica,
Meg and Whitney, for unselfishly supporting my move to Los Angeles to study in this
program.
My gratitude to all the students of our program who went through this undertaking
with me, primarily to Becky, Lauren, Liz and Sarah who provided great encouragement
and assistance.
Much appreciation to Janet for guiding my writing and special thanks to my Mom
for giving this work its final review. A special thanks to Susan who has not only played a
large part in this work, but also in my professional development.
Lastly, I extend thanks to Robert Harris for introducing me to his theory in my
first architecture class at USC and inspiring this work.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Figures vi
Abstract viii
Introduction 1
Introduction to Robert Harris’s Remodeling Theory 2
Percent for Art and Its Legal Protections 4
The Need to Understand Context When Reconsidering Percent for Art Works 6
Introduction Endnotes 8
Chapter 1: The City of Los Angeles and its Community Redevelopment Agency 9
The City of Los Angeles 9
Downtown Los Angeles 11
The Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles 12
Further Considerations of Success 16
Case Studies and a Modified ‘Remodeling Theory’ 18
Chapter 1 Endnotes 21
Chapter 2: Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion 22
Introduction 22
Considering the Remodeling Questions 30
Conclusion 36
Chapter 2 Endnotes 41
Chapter 3: Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza 43
Introduction 43
Considering the Remodeling Questions 49
Conclusion 56
Chapter 3 Endnotes 58
Chapter 4: Mark Lere, Untitled Four 59
Introduction 59
Considering the Remodeling Questions 65
Conclusion 70
Chapter 4 Endnotes 72
Conclusion 73
Commissioning Percent for Artworks 73
Conserving Percent for Artworks 74
Collection of Percent for Artworks 78
Closing Remarks 79
Conclusion Endnotes 80
v
Bibliography 81
Appendix A 85
Remodeling Theory 85
Notes Towards a “Remodeling Theory” 86
Appendix B 89
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Art Policy 89
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
Downtown Region 101
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Central
Business Project Area (including the South Park Neighborhood) 102
The Community Redevelopment of the City of Los Angeles Little Tokyo
Project Area 103
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Garden of Conversion site. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
January, 2009. Hope Street terminus from 17th Street. 24
Figure 2. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by
Lauren Davis, September, 2008. Steel lantern. 27
Figure 3. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by
Lauren Davis, September, 2008. Base. 28
Figure 4. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by
Lauren Davis, September, 2008. Empty holes of past plantings. 28
Figure 5. Joesph Young, Triforium, 1975. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
September 2008. Sculpture at Los Angeles Mall in Downtown. 39
Figure 6. Isamu Noguchi, To the Issei, 1983. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
January 2009. Sculpture and seating. 46
Figure 7. Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza, 1983. Photographed by Lauren
Davis, January, 2009. Plaza seating. 47
Figure 8. Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza, 1983. Photographed by Lauren
Davis, January 2009. Plaza walls. 48
Figure 9. Teramachi Condominiums (left) and San Pedro Apartments
(right, under construction). Photographed by Lauren Davis, January,
2009. Housing Adjacent to the JACCC. 52
Figure 10. Intersection of San Pedro and 3rd Street. Photographed by
Lauren Davis, January, 2009. Start of Toy District and housing complex
across for the JACCC. 52
Figure 11. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lesley Elwood,
November 2006. Location at Staples Center. 60
Figure 12. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
November 2007. Fountain. 61
Figure 13. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
November 2007. Sphere. 61
Figure 14. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
November 2007. Bench. 62
Figure 15. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
November 2007. Form. 62
vii
Figure 16. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
November 2007. Artwork now at USC. 64
viii
Abstract
This paper argues that artworks commissioned for permanent integration into the
public realm through percent for art programs have processes and considerations more
in common with fields such as architecture and urban design, than with artworks
commissioned for inclusion in personal collections, museums, or galleries. Architect and
academic Robert Harris developed a Remodeling Theory for the reexamination of
features of the built environment, which presents a relevant method for evaluating
percent for art public art. The application of Harris’s method systemizes the artwork’s
value through consideration of its relevance to the surrounding environment. It
demonstrates how pieces may be reconsidered to adapt to their changing context and
improve their potential to meet the goals of the commissioning agency. Case studies will
be provided through the lens of Downtown Los Angeles and the artworks commissioned
through the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.
1
Introduction
In the late 1950s Philadelphia passed the first city percent for art ordinance,
requiring developers to allocate a percentage of their building development costs to the
commissioning of public artworks not only for the aesthetic and economic benefit of their
site, but also for the cultural sustenance of the city at large. It started a wave of similar
programs across the United States, and literally thousands of public artworks, in all
different forms and media, were created and permanently sited throughout the last few
decades. For purposes of this essay, “public art” refers to artwork commissioned through
percent for art programs for permanent integration into the public domain. City percent
for art programs strive to make art more accessible and visible to the public, usually as
an expression of a certain community or as a landmark for the city. Projects are typically
site-specific and are integrated into the infrastructure surrounding the work to enhance
not only public spaces but also the civic architecture.
With many of these programs being established over two decades ago, time has
not only altered the physical appearance of the pieces they have sited, but also has
presented the opportunity to gauge the work’s effectiveness in view of the rapidly
changing environment of American cities. With benefit of a retrospective view, one may
evaluate whether these types of artworks remain true to their original intent, and if it is
possible to make changes to these artworks so they may truly be advantageous to their
transforming environment.
Traditional preservation approaches used for artworks included in private
collections, museums, or galleries generally focus on works commissioned exclusively
for a controlled indoor environment and are too costly to use within the context of
percent for art program, which exposes the artwork to an outdoor or open environment,
with limited civic resources to fund care and conservation.
2
The processes that bring about the inception and management of percent for
artworks must consider a broad audience and divergent reasoning behind their
creations— with an emphasis on permanence, community benefit, and integration into
the built environment; thus, works have more in common with the other elements of the
public domain that surround our everyday life such as architecture and urban design. A
Remodeling Theory for the reconsideration of the built environment, created by architect
Robert Harris in 1983, offers useful criteria applicable to considerations of how to alter
conditions for the betterment of percent for art’s purpose.
Through this thesis I will explore the ways in which the Remodeling Theory can
be applied to percent for art public works. Using Los Angeles, a prime example of a
consistently transforming American city, and its Community Redevelopment Agency’s
Percent for Art policy, I will engage in a critical examination of three of their program’s
permanently sited artworks. In doing so, I will illustrate how a revised version of the
theory can measure and increase the success of the artwork in terms of the goals
established by its commissioning agency and by the original intent of the artist.
Success, in this regard, can be seen in the capacity of an artwork to create or enhance a
sense of distinctive space in its surrounding physical environment, while contributing to
community cohesion, pride, and well-being.
Introduction to Robert Harris’s Remodeling Theory
Harris’s theory draws attention to the value of preexisting elements of an urban
form as an ideology based upon the awareness that every constructed space has a past
that should be considered important to any changes that are to come. He created his
theory with the belief that “Every new action or policy remodels its existing context.
There are no vacant sites, and there are no conditions without current behaviors.” He
3
also developed four questions to guide the use of the theory when considering a built
element:
What already exists that is of great value and quality that should not be
damaged? What already exists that is valuable and may be able to be further
enhanced? What exists that is detrimental, that requires significant
transformation, or is beyond repair, and should be fully replaced, rejected,
demolished? What is missing?
1
He applies the questions to every act of construction, not only to physical structures, but
also to the creation of tertiary spaces involved in any kind of building and to open spaces
built to exist on their own. Harris places emphasis on the visible, material context that
surrounds and affects the site or structure, as well as the context that has made the
space important in its own right historically and culturally. The theory is not used to
employ the past as a strict guiding force, but rather as a reflection of what has previously
been beneficial or detrimental. The discoveries, according to Harris, assist in the effort to
create a sense of wholeness within the site or structure, and in conjunction with the
elements surrounding it. Extracting the information from the site takes diligent
investigation, but can accurately guide the remodeling of a space to identify an
appropriate course of action, ranging from “elegant refinement to radical
transformation.”
2
Though not published, Harris’s theory is extensively articulated through his public
lectures and courses taught during his longstanding career at University of Southern
California, first as Dean of the School of Architecture for more than ten years, then as
Director of the Master of Architecture programs for a little more than a decade and,
finally, today as a lecturer, Emeritus, and Director of the Master of Landscape
Architecture Program. Harris also serves as a respected voice on numerous city
planning committees and actively helps to develop cultural art in the City of Los Angeles.
This includes serving on and holding the title of Chair of the Downtown Los Angeles
4
Strategic Plan Advisory Committee, Co-Chair of the Downtown Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council’s Land Use and Planning Committee and current member of Los
Angeles’s Cultural Affairs Commission Design Review Process Steering Committee.
The Remodeling Theory presents a relevant way to assess elements in our
public spaces that are in need of restructuring using a method to evaluate the strengths
and weaknesses and to consider the work’s relationship to its environment. I will
demonstrate how art brought into the public realm through percent for art programs has
much in common with the type of spaces that Harris would consider appropriate for
remodeling, with similarities in the method, production, and siting of a piece.
Through this thesis I will ask the following four questions to explore how and if
the theory can be applied to public art:
• Is it truly feasible to keep public artworks unchanged over time while the city
around them changes?
• Can public artworks, along with aspects of their care and site, be reconsidered
and changed to better fit their transforming environments?
• Can the theory be restructured to fit the specific concerns and attributes of public
artworks funded through percent for art programs?
• Can the theory be used to help the works remain interesting and vital to their
surroundings?
Percent for Art and Its Legal Protections
Percent for artworks go through specific and extensive consultation, and
approval and monitoring processes, which are administrated through the commissioning
agency in concert with the community and the developers of the property where the work
is being sited. The artist selected to create a work for the specific location, and the
resulting artwork becomes a part of the physicality of the premises. For better or worse,
5
the piece is then maintained by whoever owns the property, be it a private developer or
the city; in some cases another responsible entity adopts the maintenance of the work.
The works are almost always expected to exist as an important cultural lure to the
location, the neighborhood, and the city. The comparability between percent for
artworks and other built components of public space are evident, but the most important
difference between art and architecture is that the former are creative manifestations
protected under state and federal law. Unlike architecture, the owner cannot arbitrarily
modify artwork unless first specified under a special agreement with the artist.
In 1979 California became the first state to pass a law that addressed artists’
rights. The California Art Preservation Act Civil Code 980-989 (CAPA) was created,
which
Finds and declares that the physical alteration or destruction of fine art, which is
an expression of the artist’s personality, is detrimental to the artist’ s reputation,
and artists therefore have an interest in protecting their works of fine art against
any alteration or destruction; and that there is also a public interest in preserving
the integrity of cultural and artistic creations.
3
Further recognition passed through congress in 1990 with the Visual Artists Rights Act
(VARA) “to protect a visual artist’s work from being destroyed or altered by the owner of
the work without the consent of the artist.”
4
The act is complicated, but it helps to uphold
a moral standard with legal consequences of art ownership in a public or private realm.
CAPA differs from VARA in terms of what it considers art, in the duration of the artists’
rights after death, as well as what compensation is rewarded. CAPA is more beneficial
towards an artist than VARA because of its more specific considerations. Both laws
include clauses requiring the owner to notify the artist, or, if the artist is deceased, his or
her benefactor, in writing if the owner intends to remove and modify the artwork 90 days
in advance of such alteration. Respect for these rights is now acknowledged in the Best
Practice Goals and Guidelines of the national Public Art Network of the Americans for
6
the Arts, which identifies a “standard professional practice that agencies agree not to
intentionally alter, modify, change, destroy, or damage the work of art without first
obtaining permission from the artist.”
5
Thus, an artist’s intent and creative work is a primary factor in the reconsideration
of Remodeling Theory as applied to public art, and the basic principles of the
Remodeling Theory can be modified to include artists, as well as the sponsoring
agencies, property owners, and the community, to reconsider if the artwork successfully
fulfills the goals of its placement and if any changes can be made to better attain those
objectives. Harris’s fundamental questions can be restructured to assess the physical
elements of the artwork and also to evaluate the administrative duties, such as care and
maintenance, that relate to the success of the work.
The Need to Understand Context When Reconsidering Percent for Art
Works
Because of the varying objectives and civic locations of percent for art programs,
it is important to examine Harris’s theory with regard to both the artwork’s locality and
the objectives of the program siting the piece. My investigation will specifically use
Downtown Los Angeles as its backdrop and the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Los Angeles’s Cultural Arts Program. I am interested in this specific Agency
because its main goal for Los Angeles is to revitalize and strengthen its economically
depressed communities, and its Cultural Arts Program seeks to place permanent works
through a percent for art policy as part of the CRA/LA’s effort to revive specific
neighborhoods of the City. It is also the second oldest percent for art program in the
nation and thus provides a range of case studies for consideration. I will discuss how the
Agency’s objective remains elusive within its largest redevelopment area, Downtown Los
Angeles. As a section of the City frequently adapting and changing, Downtown presents
7
a shifting context that may counter the artistic intent of its site-specific pieces, and
ultimately run counterproductive to CRA/LA’s goals to improve public space.
8
Introduction Endnotes
1
Robert Harris, “Remodeling Theory” (University of Southern California, 1983), 1.
2
Robert Harris, “Notes Toward a Remodeling Theory” (University of Southern California, 2004), 2.
3
San Francisco Arts Commission, “PA05.3: California Art Preservation Act,” Public Art Documents,
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubartcollection/documents/pa05-mural-guidelines/pa05-3-california-art-
preservation-act/ (accessed 29 March 2009).
4
Susan M. Bielstein, Permissions, A Survival Guide (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2006),
57.
5
Public Art Network, “Public Art Network Best Practice Goals and Guidelines” (Americans for the
Arts, February 27, 2009), 3.
9
Chapter 1: The City of Los Angeles and its Community Redevelopment Agency
The City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles is an interesting setting for any study because of its unique and
complex history, which creates a distinctive environment. In a few centuries, Los
Angeles has grown to be the second largest city of the nation, along with one of the most
diverse. Native Americans, mainly the Chumash and Tongva tribes, settled in the area
hundreds of years before the Spanish colonized the land through missions. In the 16
th
century, Mexican settlers then moved up to the area and formed a pueblo, Spanish for
small town or village. African homesteaders and Asian immigrants soon joined the Anglo
colonists who had moved to the warm climate to participate in the growing agricultural
development in California during the late 18
th
century. The area formed as an official city
around 1850, but its major growth did not occur until a few decades later. Edward Soja,
a postmodern political geographer, urban planner, and professor who writes on topics of
planning and cultural geography, has extensively researched and investigated the City,
and believes that:
Los Angeles never fully experienced the intensive geographical
centralization of production that characterized the 19th century industrial
capitalist city and shaped the early expansion of most American cities east of the
Rockies. Although founded in 1781, the City of Los Angeles remained a small
peripheral outpost until a century later, when the prevailing urbanization process
had become more decentralized, extensive residential suburbanization had
begun, and clusters of separately incorporated municipalities started to rim the
central metropolitan city. The rapid population growth, which occurred between
1880 and 1920, when Los Angeles County expanded from 35,000 to nearly a
million, was thus shaped primarily by the social and spatial relations of the
Corporate City.
1
This version of Los Angeles, as the sprawling heavily populated City of clustered
communities that grew after the late 19
th
century, resembles the version of the city that
exists today. Los Angeles is now home to people from more than 140 countries,
speaking 224 different identified languages, and has over three million residents.
2
10
Through growth in many industries, such as oil, agriculture, entertainment,
manufacturing, and aerospace, Los Angeles has become an important commercial
center. Trade also became a major industry, with the Port of Los Angeles as one of the
busiest harbors of the nation. Rapid industrial growth, along with the many cultures and
vocations that already existed, has created a constantly changing and growing mega-
metropolis with influences reaching beyond its borders and shaping the greater Los
Angeles area, with shortcomings mounting as quickly as strengths.
Reyner Banham, an architectural critic, writer, and professor who studied the
complexities of Los Angeles almost a decade ago, describes the City as an
“extraordinary mixture of geography, climate, economics, demography, mechanics and
culture,”
3
illustrating the vast differences that exist in the City both physically and
culturally. But Banham brings attention to another distinct characteristic when he
portrays the metropolis as one that is concentrated on motion, where “the language of
design, architecture and urbanism in Los Angeles is the language of movement.
Mobility,” he explains, “outweighs monumentality there to a unique degree.”
4
He notes
that the City places more importance on horizontal growth and how physically to get
from here to there than on forming a real connection between existing parts.
Tom Marble, a Southern California architect, urban planner, and author, uses
observations about Los Angeles in his recent publication After the City, This is How We
Live and speaks of the City’s attention to movement. He writes: “Its not so much a city of
collective memory but of collected memories, which makes the city unique and specific
to each individual and never anything that everyone can agree upon...”
5
The diversity of
Los Angeles, along with the attentiveness to movement instead of interconnectivity, has
created multiple pockets, with diverse cultures that move from one location to the other
with no consideration to what lies in between. Because of its close connection to the port
11
of Los Angeles, the need to move goods through the city also contributes to an auto-
centric freeway system that both unites the city and separates its neighborhoods.
American social commentator, activist, urban theorist, and historian Michael Davis,
speaks of the separation, saying, “The social polarization has increased almost as
rapidly as the population”
6
which effects how the built environment adapts to the different
lifestyles shifting throughout the City.
Notably, Banham also recognizes a lack of monumentality in Los Angeles.
Because of the rapid and diverse manner of growth, the City— where very few spaces
have an impressive quality— rarely evokes admiration through its size, quality, or skill of
production. A lack of logical planning rationale behind the City’s development, especially
as relates to achieving connectivity throughout the entire municipality, leaves Los
Angeles stretched to its limits and feeling rather ordinary.
Downtown Los Angeles
Downtown is a prime example of a subsection of Los Angeles that has
experienced the difficulties of adapting to disconnection. It struggles to adjust to the
quick changes occurring since the City was founded and grapples to achieve the
monumentality of other American city centers. In the early 19
th
century, before it became
the city’s official center in 1850, downtown was solely a residential area. Soon land was
sold to private investors with the intent to attract retail and office development in the
early 20
th
century. Buildings started forming the area, growing taller and grander, but
later in the century, major businesses started moving out when other centers of Los
Angeles started to form, such as Hollywood and the Wilshire Corridor.
The major change of the area can be seen in Banham’s identification of mobility
as a main characteristic of the City. During the rise of the automobile, downtown streets
12
became major thoroughfares for the city and parking became a concern, contributing to
a different layout of area. Marble references the growing car culture stating,
The automobile gave us the ability to go wherever we wanted in a city, not just
where the subway happened to stop… The tragedy of a city like LA is that it was
born as a rail city and worked incredibly well that way. It not only had a
functional center downtown, but it turns out that it also had the most extensive
rail system of anywhere in America, including New York… power brokers
downtown saw the opportunity to make a boatload in real estate if they embraced
the car, so they ever so subtly degraded the rail systems, promoted freeways
and using the local press to their advantage, created a perception that urban
renewal was needed. Then they blew out downtown, to the point that it still looks
as if it was hit by some sort of firestorm… And it’s all because it was conceived
under one kind of technology and totally fell apart when a new one was
superimposed on top of it.
7
Downtown has struggled to hold its importance after the destructive imposition of
the automobile upon Los Angeles, on top of struggling to compete with other hubs of the
City, while forming and trying to adapt to the diversity of its residents and the changing
ideals of a modern city. And unlike other great American cities, like New York and
Chicago, which have legacies of established cultural institutions that develop their
residential and financial downtown identities, Downtown Los Angeles expanded without
any type of formal cultural presence to guide its growth in this arena. Still, Soja states
that in 1989 in Los Angeles “there was never any doubt about where the ‘centre’ was
located. Government, financial and commercial activities have always been
concentrated in the Downtown core of Los Angeles, the beacon of social control and
administration for more than two hundred years.”
8
Meant to represent the nucleus of the
heterogeneous city, Downtown has tried to adapt along with the other part of Los
Angeles, growing and changing as fast as the city that surrounds it.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles
One influential organization that works to help shape Los Angeles, physically and
culturally, is the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
(CRA/LA). It was developed in 1948 with a specific focus on Downtown LA
13
To attract private investment into economically depressed communities; eliminate
slums, abandoned or unsafe properties and blight throughout Los Angeles;
revitalize older neighborhoods through historic preservation and new
development; create and retain employment opportunities; promote the
development of new housing; support the best in urban design, architecture and
the arts; and ensure the broadest possible community participation in its
activities.
9
Under California Law, redevelopment is a process enabling local governments to identify
blighted areas in their jurisdictions in need of revitalization in order to form a
redevelopment agency with the specific goal of revitalizing deteriorated areas. The
agency is then overseen either by the local city council, a county board of supervisors,
and/or a separate appointed board, all accountable to the public.
10
Many cities in the
state of California have such redevelopment agencies that work to improve the city as a
whole by revitalizing its lesser parts. Since 1948 CRA/LA has expanded into 32
redevelopment project areas housed inside seven regions throughout Los Angeles,
including the Downtown Region, which includes seven project areas.
The City’s center went through some difficult changes when businesses started
to move out to other centers of the City as well as when residents started leaving
because of increased commercial activity. These conditions led to the deterioration and
decay of buildings due to neglect or lack of economic support. This in turn reduced
surrounding property values in Downtown, causing it to become a harbor for criminal
activity. The initial redevelopment goals for Downtown were specifically set to “provide
housing for all income levels, including and specially for very low-income households,
incentives for private investment and business development, address deteriorated
buildings and vacant blighted land, develop business opportunities, implement
landscaping and streetscape improvements, and rehabilitate key historic buildings.”
11
CRA/LA has always placed great emphasis on the value of the arts in
redeveloping a region, and more percent for artworks and cultural facilities are seen in
14
Downtown than any other of its project areas. CRA/LA functions with the understanding
that the incorporation of the arts helps areas like Downtown not just to provide more
housing, jobs, and a cleaner environment, but also to create spaces that are culturally
rich and reflect the community served. But Carl Grodach, a doctoral student who
completed a dissertation entitled Cultural Development and the Entrepreneurial City,
found when investigating CRA/LA and its cultural efforts that the endeavors aren’t solely
arts for art sake. Grodach interviewed a former CRA/LA Deputy Administrator and
quotes him as stating,
CRA clearly believed that the arts had an intrinsic social value… the Agency tried
to use the intrinsic value of the arts to promote its economic objectives… Since
the mandate of the CRA was and is to eliminate physical blight, promote the
development of affordable housing, and to encourage economic development,
the Agency was limited in regard to where it could put its resources. It does not
have a mandate to foster the arts purely for the intrinsic social value of the arts.
12
CRA/LA requires that the cultural endeavors developed under its aegis must exist as an
artwork as well as a testimony to redevelopment. The Agency produces a clear
distinction between artworks use as a physically transformative force contributing to the
economy and community and artwork produced for public spaces such as museums,
which are more invested in the integrity of the artist and the pursuit of collection building.
CRA/LA Cultural Arts Program
As previously mentioned, CRA/LA has a percent for art policy that is enforced on
almost all new developments within their redevelopment areas where they have
provided financial partnership. City percent for art programs, like CRA/LA’s program,
have grown considerably across the nation. The first program was developed in
15
Philadelphia in 1958
I
, and federal programs using a similar policies date back to the New
Deal and the Treasury Department’s Section of Painting and Sculpture
II
established in
1934.
13
Percent for art programs in Los Angeles were not formed until about 25 years
after Philadelphia’s founding regional program and were first enacted through CRA/LA in
1985 when an arts policy was written to require developers in their redevelopment areas
to give one percent of their development costs to “pay for on-site public art projects,
cultural facility and other artistic enhancements throughout the project area.”
14
Prior to
this date, CRA/LA would require an on-site art acquisition, depending on the project
profile and budget. The main goals of CRA/LA’s current art policy are to
Serve CRA/LA's mission through revitalization of neighborhoods; promote
projects with permanence with which CRA/LA can be identified; provide public art
that is of the highest quality, well integrated into the fabric of the City; involve
artists in planning efforts and utilize their talents to make spaces relevant to the
people who use them; ensure that artists are hired concurrent with other
members of the design team and foster collaboration amongst artists and
designers; and provide opportunities for communities to participate in cultural
planning through Art Advisory Panels.
15
I
This policy existed in the 1950s as articulated by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. It was taken
from a clause in contracts for rehabilitation projects requiring one percent of construction budgets given for
art and allows a broad interpretation of fine arts. Thus, the works were not only sculpture and murals, but
also such elements as foundations, mosaics, pools, and tiled columns. It was seen as a public interest
program to bring attention to downtown Philadelphia as a distinctive area and to develop local arts. In 1973
Seattle became one of the first cities in the United States, after Philadelphia, to adopt a percent for art
ordinance, with other major cities not very far behind.
II
The percent for art concept from the Treasury Department at this time set side approximately one percent
for artistic decoration from federal building’s costs. Anonymous competition was used to choose artists, but
some provisions existed so that accomplished artists could receive commissions. This policy was different
from other New Deal art programs because it did not deal with “welfare relief or ‘make-work’ strategies” but
decorated the nation’s public buildings with work done by artists not selected by committees of experts to
develop American art and fuel a local democratic practice in the arts. In 1953, administrators from the
General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency responsible for buildings and supplies,
developed a rule that set aside one-and-a-half percent for artistic decoration of their buildings. They
considered art to be “functional decoration that did not interfere with the general architectural scheme and
subordinate to architecture,” which left little room for creativity. The program was suspended 1966 because
of budgetary pressures due to war, but was reinstated in 1973 through its Art in Architecture program. It
went through several restructuring processes of its selection panels and commitment to the policy and thus
became a stronger, fairer program. The National Endowment for the Art (NEA), an independent federal
agency that supports the arts, started its Art in Public Places program around this time as well.
16
The program works with the Agency, developers, community members, and artists to
create artworks that fit into the framework of different redevelopment areas. The goals
and reasoning behind its placement of art into the public realm is clear, as it sees art as
a catalyst to bringing about revitalization and attracting interest to underdeveloped
areas. The program and the Agency work to include the surrounding citizens, cultural
tourism, and other forms of economic interest and investment where a work will be sited
so that the piece can become significant to the community that will inherit the work as a
permanent part of its living environment.
Further Considerations of Success
Even when all CRA/LA standards are met, success cannot be assured. Because
it is impossible to include the entire community that exists around a work, making
something relevant to and valued by all members of the public remains challenging. The
policy also places emphasis on permanence, which is problematic within the context of
an ever-changing urban landscape. Such difficulties are especially pertinent to Los
Angeles, where immigration is a major factor and residents frequently move about the
City itself. So the original community considered for the project might not be the
community that is there in ten years, yet an artwork still exists for that citizenry.
French scholar Michael deCerteau, whose work combines anthropology,
psychology, and philosophy, speaks extensively in his text The Practice of Everyday Life
about how city space is formed by the people who inhabit it, not only by the people who
design it. He speaks of the efforts of planners to form an urban area, stating that
Space of urbanists and architects seem to have the status of the ‘proper
meaning’ constructed by grammarians and linguists in order to have a normal
and normative level… In reality, this faceless ‘proper’ meaning cannot be found
in current use, whether verbal or pedestrian; it is merely the fiction
16
The spaces and places of our cites are intrinsically formed by the people who
exist there and are rarely completely shaped by what is thought by a small number of
17
contributors to be appropriate or necessary for an area. The goals for a space may be
achieved over a limited time, but as previously expressed, the City of Los Angeles goes
through urban alterations rather quickly, with its citizens changing locations and thus
constantly transforming the character of each neighborhood.
DeCerteau believes that the people’s “stories thus carry out a labor that
constantly transforms places into space or spaces into places. They also organize the
play of changing relationships between places and spaces,”
17
leaving the importance of
an area in the hands of the people. But the importance of this statement is based on how
he describes the difference between the two words:
A place is the order (of whatever kind) in accord with which elements are
distributed in relationships of coexistence. It thus excludes the possibility of two
things being in the same location (place). The law of the ‘proper’ rules in the
place… A space exists when one takes into considerations vectors of direction,
velocities, and time variables. Thus space is composed of intersections of
mobile elements. It is in a sense actuated by the ensemble of movements,
deployed within it. Space occurs as the effect produced by the operations that
orient it, situate it, temporalized it, and make it function in a polyvalent unity of
conflictual programs or contractual proximities.
18
In this regard, the “spaces” he refers to have great meaning and value to the built
environment constructed by the movement and by the interactions that happen with and
around them. Places only determine the physical existence in a location.
The spaces in a neighborhood created by siting a percent for artwork need to
remain relevant to the residents long after the work is sited. Public art sited by CRA/LA
and other percent for art programs use the art as a vehicle to help transform places into
spaces. To keep the percent for artworks initiated by CRA/LA in Downtown Los Angeles
continually meaningful spaces in society, spaces in which people move about and
maneuver with some sort of purpose and interest, the site has to work outside the efforts
of CRA/LA and the Cultural Arts Program to define it. A connection needs to form
between the audience and the work itself so the viewers are aware that there is a
18
persistent value to housing the work in their neighborhood; thus the piece must create a
distinctive space and contribute to community unity and well-being.
As in any neighborhood, buildings and spaces in the public realm that do not
provide interest or value for their residents are ignored and become rundown. Then they
can be reconsidered or removed for something better to take its place. When a part of
the built environment loses its intended relevance, it leaves no benefit for its community.
It is irresponsible and unrealistic to think this does not apply for public works of art as
well, and it especially important for organizations like CRA/LA that strive to bring more
interest and worth to a district. Through this thesis I will discuss the great consideration
that should be given to the work after it is sited to see how it reacts and merges with its
environment to create a consequential space worthy to be deemed a beacon of
redevelopment.
Case Studies and a Modified ‘Remodeling Theory’
With the goals of CRA/LA defined above, along with the complications of
genuinely meeting those objectives in a constantly changing environment such as Los
Angeles, I have selected three permanently sited pieces of CRA/LA Cultural Arts
Program in Downtown Los Angeles in order to investigate the possibility of applying a
modified version of Harris’s Remodeling Theory to percent for artworks. I will reconsider
each public artwork in a constructive way, using the main four questions to examine
whether or not the pieces are meeting the goals of CRA/LA and are creating an
important space for the community surrounding it. I will consult the work of public art
administrators, conservationists, preservationists, artists, and art theorists who speak to
the ideas of permanence, authorship, and community to back Harris’s fundamental ideas
about how public artworks can be reconsidered in the public realm.
19
Harris’s question “What already exists that is of great value and quality that
should not be damaged” can be applied specifically to the following questions about
public artworks of CRA/LA: What about this artwork effectively brings revitalization and
life to the area? What aspects of care for the work should be continued? Further, his
question “What already exists that is valuable and may be able to be further enhanced?’”
leads to such questions as: Are there aspects of this piece or the site, physically or
administratively, that can be changed to work better for the space, the care of the work,
the piece itself and the audience? “What exists that is detrimental, that requires
significant transformation, or is beyond repair and should be fully replaced, rejected,
demolished” can be used to inquire: What about the artwork and its surrounding
elements are not relating to itself, its audience, or its site, physical or administratively?
While the question “What can be added to the space/artwork, physical or
administratively, that can make the work more accessible or interesting to its public?”
can help answer the question “What is missing?” Working with these queries about what
should be retained, modified, removed, or added to investigate the three works can help
gauge if and how the piece is or is not working within its current site or community, or
within itself.
Notably, the administrative role in caring for the piece plays a large part in the
reconsideration of the work. Art historian, writer, and professor Miwon Kwon, in her book
One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Locational Identity, identifies a
“triangulation of power” that exists between the artist, the sponsoring institution, and the
community group when community driven art is produced, asserting that the relationship
is always a challenge to balance.
19
In this context, the word “power” references the
control over the project as well as the amount of effort put into it and takes into
consideration who ultimately puts the most guardianship into the work. Usually one
20
group becomes the apex of the triangle and the other two groups are directed and
mediated by the leading faction. Different members, depending on the dedication of
each affiliate, hold the power. This dynamic usually varies from project to project. Power
is finally placed in the hands of the property owner, who takes on the role of the
sponsoring agency and mediates the relationship to the community and the artist if any
issues arise. The relationships need to be investigated to see what aspects should be
changed in order to benefit the artwork.
Each piece I explore reflects a different phase of the reconsideration of public
artworks through the lens of Harris’s Remodeling Theory. Through the first piece
discussed, Blue McRight’s Garden of Conversion, I will explore how a devaluation in the
quality of the artwork has occurred as a result of a change in context, and thus may
require a radical transformation to the artwork. Noguchi Plaza by Isamu Noguchi is a
case study that explores how change is being suggested as a result of perceived
increase in value and quality. The last case study investigates Mark Lere’s Untitled
Four, where changes have already been made in the vein of remodeling.
21
Chapter 1 Endnotes
1
Edward W. Soja, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory,
(New York: Verso, 1989), 194.
2
City of Los Angeles, Office of the Mayor “Demographics,” LA’S Business Team,
http://www.lacity.org/mayor/labt/labt_demographics.htm (accessed 14 February 2004).
3
Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, (Berkley: University of
California Press, 2001), 23.
4
Ibid.
5
Tom Marble, After the City, This is How We Live, (Santa Monica: RAM Publications, 2008), 7.
6
Mike Davis, City of Quartz, (New York: Verso, 1990), 7.
7
Marble, After the City, 24 – 25.
8
Soja, Postmodern Geographies, 194.
9
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Art Policy, (Los Angeles, CA:
2005), 1.
10
California Redevelopment Association, What is Redevelopement?, 2008.
11
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Downtown Regional Area,
http://www.crala.net/internet-site/Projects/Regional_Areas/downtown_region.cfm (accessed 29 March 2009).
12
Carl Grodach, “Cultural Development and the Entrepreneurial City,” (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, 2006),195.
13
John Wetenhall, “A Brief History of Percent-For-Art in America,” Public Art Review 9 (1993), 4.
14
CRA/LA, Art Policy, 6.
15
CRA/LA, Art Policy, 1.
16
deCerteau, The Practice of Everyday Life, (Berkley: University of California Press, 1984), 101.
17
deCerteau, The Practice, 118.
18
deCerteau, The Practice, 117.
19
Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Locational Identity, (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2002), 136.
22
Chapter 2: Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion
Introduction
The Garden of Conversion is located in the South Park neighborhood of
Downtown, a less developed area of the City’s center, and one ripe for growth. The
work was sited to bring life and revitalization to a quiet, but neglected street terminus,
giving the space an opportunity to attract new residents and businesses. Community
support was rallied for the project and the artists chosen to produce the public art were
very passionate about the opportunity to transform the place. Every possible hazard was
identified— and then protected against— and the maintenance of the piece was placed
in the hands of a willing neighborhood stakeholder. The undertaking demonstrated all
the right ingredients— a funder, an ardent artist, a supportive community, and a blank
canvas.
Even with all necessary components to a successful realization, interest and
investment in the artwork dwindled after it was commissioned and the piece is currently
in a state of ruin. Every element of the work is unattractive and damaged, and the site is
filthy. It is hard to imagine anyone visiting the site, not only because it has regained its
seedy reputation, with vagrants loitering day and night, but also because the work
provides no interest or worth to its audience. Nonetheless, the piece was permanently
sited and thus remains where it is with no plans for removal. Counter to CRA/LA’s
guiding mission, the work serves no purpose for its current location or surrounding
neighborhood, a poor testimony to its purpose of revitalization. The artist is saddened by
the condition of the work, and blames those left in charge of the maintenance for its
present state, placing full responsibility on the commissioning agency for letting the work
fall to pieces.
23
Retracing the steps of its induction can help to identify how the work arrived at its
present condition, and how Remodeling Theory may be applied to bring the artwork in
line with the artist’s original design intent.
The terminus was first found blighted by the neighborhood and CRA/LA, a dark,
cramped, empty lot that attracted only the homeless and collected litter, and thus was
deemed an ideal location to showcase a public artwork that could bring permanent visual
improvement to the end of Hope Street. The site is pictured in Figure 1. A few apartment
buildings are near and the California Hospital is located a block away, while smaller
industrial buildings neighbor the site. The 10 Freeway runs overhead, with an exit ramp
just to the left of the work, which created the terminal at the end of the street. The site
tended to attract transients because the freeway above provided shelter from the
elements and lead to the construction of encampments on a nightly basis.
Less than a half block away from the piece sits a well-maintained art park,
financed through CRA/LA’s Cultural Trust Fund,
1
which holds a portion of the monetary
art obligations of developers. The reserve is held as interest bearing accounts to support
public art projects “resulting in visual enhancements to the redevelopment project area,
or support Cultural Facilities that attract visitors to the project area or serve the local
community.”
2
The Garden was also funded through this source; both it and the park were
meant to revitalize the neighborhood.
24
Figure 1. Garden of Conversion site. Photographed by Lauren Davis, January 2009.
Hope Street terminus from 17th Street.
After the site was located, an artist was needed to visualize how the space could
be re-imagined as an area of interest, rather than one of disdain. To select an artist for
the project, a panel of public art professionals and community representatives organized
by CRA/LA executed a juried competition. Artist Blue McRight’s proposal was selected;
her plan for the project contained site-specific concepts as well as environmentally
conscious considerations. The Garden was created in the spirit of “integration,” a term
Miwon Kwon employs in reference to a public artwork that uses the site to inspire the
production of the piece.
3
The Garden was not only meant to be placed on the site, but
also to become part of the site.
As an artist, McRight has created public works throughout Southern California as
well as nationally and also produces studio work that exhibits nationwide. Trained at the
Rhode Island School of Design, she has since participated in community design
workshops and research and planning to develop her public works, placing priority on
working with the public to develop her art commissions.
4
Another work by the artist,
25
Garland, is located at the Staples Center in Downtown Los Angeles. It was also
produced through CRA/LA and is maintained in good condition at the site. For The
Garden, she teamed with Warren Wagner, an environmental architect whose practice
focuses on resource-conserving architecture and public works and energy management
consulting. After this project, they have continued working as a team on several other
public artworks.
5
The artists’ first step after receiving the commission was to introduce the project
to the surrounding businesses of the site in an effort to rally local support. They received
many letters of encouragement for their undertaking from organizations such as the Los
Angeles Community Design Center, California Hospital Medical Center Foundation,
South Park Stakeholders Group, and California Sample Service, Inc.
6
Everyone who
was approached encouraged the project and felt as though it would embellish the
appearance of the neighborhood. The artists also received financial support from the
Gunk Foundation, which funds public art projects lacking adequate support to be fully
realized.
7
The budget for the project thus doubled with this contribution.
Support also had to come from the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), who owned the land under the Freeway. CRA/LA operates as a temporary
investment mechanism that eventually leaves an area after its term of “redevelopment.”
Artworks are almost always left in the hands of the property owners, so, in this case,
Caltrans needed to assume possession of the piece. However, Caltrans does not have
an art program and its policy is to make any artwork on their grounds a “gift to the people
of California” and the citizens of California as its owners,
8
requiring the maintenance to
be the responsibility of the donor. Caltrans became the default owner of the work by
signing a three party letter of agreement with CRA/LA and McRight with a conditional
clause that if any changes were made to the work the artist would be contacted
26
beforehand. The upkeep of the site and the artwork, however, would not be the
responsibility of Caltrans and would be taken on by the nearby California Hospital, which
was not involved in the project monetarily.
9
After garnering a considerable amount of support and funding, McRight and
Wagner completed the piece in 1996. The artists’ effort to integrate the piece into its site
was shown through the materials and forms that they used, which are specific to its site,
along with the artists’ interaction with the community to deem the work appropriate for its
location. The Garden, at its completion consisted of several parts, with a large steel
lantern, pictured in Figure 2, serving as the main sculptural feature. This lantern used
photovoltaic solar panels to power itself, projecting patterns throughout the terminus at
night. A mosaic surface of recycled asphalt, found at the site before construction,
creates the base of the sculptural light. “Hope” is inscribed on the edge of the foundation
in 48 different languages, as illustrated in Figure 3, and a plaque recognizing the
supporters of the project was placed before the work to recognize all the backing the
project received.
The terminus also includes a natural storm drain, which was used by McRight
and Wagner to assist in watering the plants of The Garden positioned just right of the
lantern. They selected drought-resistant plants, including pampas, fountain grasses,
creeping figs, fichus, and bougainvillea, which were planted by community volunteers
and the Los Angeles Conservation Corps along with the artists.
10
The holes in Figure 4
represent where the plants once grew, and the back wall in the image illustrates where
the vines developed. Bollards were also placed around the exterior of the site to protect
the work from being struck by passing cars exiting from the freeway above. At its
inception, the work’s varying, unique and creative structures and materials created a
27
space that finally provided value and interest to the street terminus and amply met
CRA/LA’s goals of revitalization.
Figure 2. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by Lauren
Davis, September 2008. Steel lantern.
28
Figure 3. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by Lauren
Davis, September 2008. Base.
Figure 4. Blue McRight, The Garden of Conversion, 1996. Photographed by Lauren
Davis, September 2008. Empty holes of past plantings.
29
The artists were fully aware of the challenges the site had previously faced with
the homeless and the difficulties that would arise in keeping the plants healthy. They
knew that it would take effort to keep the work at its full potential. The artists themselves
returned to the site for a year to water.
11
This commitment is not realistic, however, and
they eventually recruited community volunteers to water the plants with hoses they
personally purchased. Water was obtained from the nearby Young Apartments, which
agreed to let the group use it free of charge. A security guard from the medical center
also consented to add the site to her rounds to watch for homeless and to notify the
maintenance department of the hospital about any debris at the site. Another
neighborhood stakeholder in the project, the Hope Street Family Medical Foundation,
pledged to fund any maintenance that was needed at the site.
12
The support gave the
artists the impression that the work could continue to grow physically as well as in
importance to the people of the area.
Due to inadvertent damage to the greenery, a replanting was necessary a year
after the work was finished, and CRA/LA funded the repair. The artists gathered support
once more to restore all the harmed foliage.
13
Judith Baca, a public art organizer and
muralist, has written on the need for public participants in the conservation of civic
artworks, explaining, “The most critical element in the maintenance and preservation of a
mural is its relationship to its community.”
14
Such a bond can be deemed necessary for
other public works as well, not just murals, and the effort by McRight and Wagner to
form a connection with the surrounding citizens and businesses is apparent, thus the
care of the work, in theory, should never present an insurmountable problem.
Unfortunately, such necessary care did not occur with this project, and
restoration was short lived. Currently, as can be seen in Figures 2 through 4, the work is
in a sad state of disrepair and has been so for the past seven years, leaving the site
30
once again blighted. Almost all of the plants are dead, due to lack of water and light
needed to facilitate growth, and small circular holes provide only a memory of the green
aspect of The Garden. The solar powered lantern is missing parts rendering it
nonfunctional. It now serves only as a sculptural work instead of an active light feature to
provide protection at night. Paint and grime have dirtied the base, which cover the
inscriptions; in some cases the word hope has been worn away. Construction on the
building adjacent to the work, as well as on the freeway, has generated more debris and
visual distraction. Refuse collects throughout the site, bringing attention to the reality
that the maintenance staff of the hospital has lost interest in caring for the terminus.
Homeless people can still be found loitering, as illustrated in Figure 2, in which a man
rests with his shopping cart of possessions in tow. It is hard to believe this attrition has
been realized, considering all the efforts of the artists and the initial support received
when The Garden first took form. Great conservation efforts are needed to revive this
piece, but no restoration is planned in the near future because of the effort and cost it
would entail. In its current condition, the piece holds no worth to the community originally
identified during the establishment of the work. Using the adapted questions of the
Remodeling Theory, I will work through what went wrong, and examine whether there
are ways to make the permanently sited piece more significant to its surroundings.
Considering the Remodeling Questions
Contemplating what it is about the artwork that effectively brings revitalization and life to
an area and what aspects of care for the work should be continued quickly becomes an
onerous task. When looking at The Garden one can only see its inoperative lantern, the
gaping cement where plants once grew, and the word “hope” as a pitifully sardonic
inscription. The only noticeable strength of the work may be seen in its site, which is not
saying much since the terminus has always itself been an issue. As envisioned, the
31
location indeed has the potential to bring interest to the end of the street, creating one of
the few reasons to visit the terminal, which was not created for a specific reason, but
rather arose out of an abrupt street closure as a result of freeway construction. As
deCerteau argues, urbanists or architects who build space deem it ”proper,” but the
authority is not always theirs to wield.
15
The space has the opportunity to turn itself into
a place for its community. It provides a space that could be brought to life and provide
value by a less complicated artwork. It is also possible that the terminus could be re-
imagined in terms of its architectural features, leaving less pressure for the space to be
defined by a civic artwork that has to answer to other purposes than just prettying up a
vacant lot.
What Already Exists that is Valuable and May be Able to be Further Enhanced?
There are some components of the work that may be modifiable in order to
restore the piece’s value to the citizenry. The lighting aspect of The Garden was
designed to bring attention to the work as well as to provide safety to visitors at night.
Finding a way to maintain that particular aspect is difficult, according to McRight, the
vagrants “kept breaking the light bulbs so it would be dark. Warren and I would
frequently go down there and replace them. Finally, it got to be too much for us.”
16
Securing the light in a more adequate way would require expensive modifications to the
lantern, but it would be the first step toward continuing the beneficial lighting to the area,
as well as to help keep vagrants out of the site during the evening.
The steel structure that holds the illuminating feature is the centerpiece of the
work, and is the most traditional “art” aspect, making it an object that has more
justification for being left intact. In Temporality and Preservation: A Panel Discussion a
group of artists, conservators and art administrators discussed issues of temporality and
preservation of public art in 2002 and a member of the panel inquires, “How can public
32
art remain open to change without willing itself out of existence?”
17
The statement
represents the fine line that exists when dealing with a work of art placed in the public
sphere, making compromise between both realms necessary— such as altering an
element to further its existence. As such, in the case of The Garden, attention to why the
work was created needs to precede original intent if the desired outcome is to continue
its survival as a viable piece of percent for artwork.
What Exists that is Detrimental, that Requires Significant Transformation, or is Beyond
Repair and Should be Fully Replaced, Rejected or Demolished?
Some of the elements of the work would improve the piece if they were fully
removed rather than simply altered. The plantings of The Garden are a questionable
feature in that they bring much needed interest to the space but require so much care. It
is interesting to note that art in general has changed in the last century to include many
different objects and practices now considered art, plant life among them. Martha
Buskirk, an art historian and critic, states in her book The Contingent Object of
Contemporary Art, that, “the activity of making art has increasingly come to incorporate
materials or methods drawn from other disciplines.”
18
The freedom to include
nontraditional elements in artworks supports the notion that the plantings are as
important to the work as the main sculptural form— but the upkeep of such materials is
much harder. When consulted about what should be left at the site, McRight said she
strongly believes that all parts of the work, if conserved, should remain elements of the
work.
19
The artist’s position does not include a realistic assessment of the site condition
and the capability and interest of Caltrans. Buskirk, when writing about the discourse
says it “is the question of what power an artist continues to have over a work of art after
it has left the artist’s possession.”
20
The artists obviously bore a huge commitment to the
creation of the project but it is unrealistic to believe that a piece with so much needed
33
service can survive without the artists maintaining an active role in the care and
conservation. Such misconception is exemplified by the fact that it was too much for the
hospital to take on as well.
The “hope” imprinting on the base of the work is inconsequential to the meaning
of the work, especially when considering the current state of the piece. Unless reasoning
was developed to support how The Garden symbolizes or creates hope, it does not
prove to be a necessary element. A plaque listing the supporters of the project serves no
purpose now— other then to place blame on the groups that did not continue supporting
the piece— and should also be removed.
What is Missing?
One of the most challenging questions, even more than what should be removed,
concerns what can be added to make the work more accessible or interesting to its
public. The artists put considerable thought into what would work best for the site and
the artwork itself when the piece was first created. With some hindsight, it is now
possible to address the problems that weren’t foreseen and remove elements that didn’t
work. First and foremost, true ownership or responsibility is drastically needed.
Examining how the project was managed after its completion can guide us to an
understanding of how the piece was abandoned and left orphaned by all involved.
Returning to Kwon’s “triangulation of power,” we can clearly see that the artists held the
most authority until they were exhausted by the responsibility. McRight and Wagner
played an extensive role in the piece throughout its construction and much later than is
usually expected of the artist after a percent for artwork is finished. McRight describes
the project as
A true labor of love by Warren Wagner and myself. It involved a tremendous
amount of backbreaking work and many hours of organizing people, attending
meetings, working at the fabricator, etc. for very little money. We each made
$2,000 total for months and months of work. But that didn’t matter! We were so
34
excited to have a positive impact on such a blighted place and to reclaim it for the
neighborhood; it was well worth the effort. When we finished it the response
from the community, stakeholders, and the CRA was totally positive. We were
thrilled at how HOPE had come back to such a bleak site.
21
But the other members of the equation did not put forth the physical effort or share the
enthusiasm for the work after the artists left the site, and the lack of control taken on by
the other groups is what led to its downfall.
CRA/LA would be seen as the sponsoring institution in The Garden’s triangle of
power. But unlike the type of public art projects Kwon references in her book, where
there is one benefactor that carries out the roles of the sponsorship, the Agency
conveniently passed its responsibilities onto Caltrans and California Hospital after the
project was finished. Caltrans was not a completely willing participant in the project
since it was not required of them to place art on the site, as seen in many percent for
artworks, but was still approached to take on the responsibility, as they owned the
location. California Hospital agreed to provide the maintenance; they also took on a
leading position that was not an area of expertise. It is apparent that all the agreements
to maintain the piece in essence boiled down to personal relationships as opposed to
legal binding covenants. The artist states
Everything possible was done … to try to ensure the integrity of the project for its
future. The CH (California Hospital) originally made a commitment to maintain
the piece and site when the project was proposed. For a few weeks after
completion, it did so - with prodding from the artists and CRA staff. After that,
nothing…the worst blow to the project came… (when) Caltrans decided to tear
up the entire site, killing many of the plants and damaging the lantern’s concrete
base with their heavy equipment. No repairs were ever made by Caltrans.
22
Percent for art artists are never accountable for maintaining their work after it is
completed and, by leaving, the guiding force of the undertaking created a severe
weakening of Kwon’s triangle. When CRA/LA passed its power to Caltrans and the
California Hospital, the triangle was further exhausted because of their lack of interest
35
and commitment. Only one other responsible party was left to protect the work—the
community.
Not only were the artists interested in working with the community, but CRA/LA’s
art policy and the Agency’s mission also clearly states that community involvement is
integral to its process. McRight and Wagner interacted with almost everyone considered
by the artists and CRA/LA as a part of the area’s community. As mentioned previously,
the artists received written letters of support encouraging the work from many
surrounding businesses. Problems arise in resident-driven projects when there is an
assumed idea of who the community is. Kwon believes there is an “ambiguity of the
term ‘community,’” and believes that it is dangerous to presume a relationship that may
or may not be present based on locality.
23
She is also wary of the “ongoing invented
community,” that is created and meant to continue within the goals of the project and
stay united after the artist and sponsoring agency leaves.
24
Both issues that Kwon identifies are apparent in this case study. Much of the
community support given to the project was from businesses located in close proximity
to each other, but that in all likelihood do not have much interaction with each other. It is
also important to note that even if the businesses did interact at some point, companies
change hands or locations with some frequency, especially in Los Angeles, and the
business owners that the artists approached are probably not the same ones in the area
a little over ten years later. The apartments located around the work could form some
type of community, but as McRight said, “The local people could never be counted on,
as they are renters.”
25
This reality created another adaptation that the location
undergoes frequently, inhibiting the formation of a truly committed community. Kwon’s
triangle has now collapsed in on itself, as the community support of the project becomes
another missing element of the work and the site.
36
Conclusion
After thinking through the basic aspects of what could be salvaged of the site and
its work, one still finds a very difficult task in identifying the next steps. One challenge is
in really identifying who the audience is for the piece. If the immediate community is
constantly changing, and to some degree transient, its relation to the piece cannot be
depended upon, as the people who find the site most appealing are the homeless
population. McRight states, “For weeks and months after it was first finished, Lesley
Elwood (the art consultant on the project) and I would call the LAPD to try and deal with
the constant homeless encampments.”
26
Without major changes to the neighborhood,
such problems would persist, thus presenting an ethical question of whether to
manipulate the piece and the site to lessen the attraction, or to find a way to work with
the element of homelessness. Either option would employ the artist and possibly
another outside source to work through the issues, which would require more effort,
money, and commitment by all parties involved.
Since Caltrans and the California Hospital are obviously uninterested in keeping
their relationship with the piece, it would be in CRA/LA’s best interest to regain its role as
the sponsoring agency. Being an organization committed to the revitalization of an area,
it needs to make sure the piece is working to accomplish the goals of the Agency.
However, as CRA/LA eventually leaves the project area, a suitable owner ready to
undertake the maintenance needs to be found. CRA/LA might investigate if the piece
could be relocated to a different site in South Park, or to one of its other redevelopment
areas. This answer is not an simple course for the Agency, as will be seen in the
Untitled Four case study, requiring monetary adjustments and full approval by all
stakeholders in the new and old locations of the neighborhood and by the CRA/LA. It is
37
apparent though that a site with adequate watering capacities and a less threatening
audience would lead to a more successful incarnation of The Garden.
It also necessary for CRA/LA to prepare for the total removal of the work, if the
suggested changes are not feasible and no new setting is found. Removal is never an
easy option for any members of a project, including the sponsoring agency, the artist,
and the community. In the case of The Garden, such a move would be most upsetting
for the artists, who put so much time and effort into the work and who still care for the
piece. But developing a piece of public art— as stated in the introduction— is not
comparable to creating a work for a private realm. The work had to leave their hands
with a realistic view of the commitment made by maintaining entities as well as the
realistic idea of the longevity of the components of the piece. Because a large
responsibility was placed on the members of the community, the artists were not truly
surprised that the work devalued. McRight believes that
The commissioning agency needs to own the piece. It was a flawed approach on
the part of the CRA, and since it was our first public project, we did not have the
experience to know that. All of my public art projects – and there are many – that
have been completed since then are owned and maintained by the
commissioning agencies, be they cities, the state, or whomever, and there have
been no problems.
27
Another way to look at the possible removal of the piece is through a concept
known as ”cultural lag,” which exists when it takes some time for a work to be accepted
into its location, with no definite frame for how long such an acceptance would take.
28
With all the difficulties the piece has faced, has the work’s thirteen years of existence
been an adequate time frame, especially in a city that presents such a challenge to
keeping anything permanent? It might not be an easy call for The Garden, but another
work of public art in Los Angeles may help present a stronger case for how removal can
be considered an option.
38
Triforium by artist Joseph Young sits in the Los Angeles Mall, surrounded by the
many governmental buildings located in Downtown Los Angeles. It was completed in
1975, before the percent for art program of the City’s Cultural Affairs department was
established. Much like CRA/LA, the department works to culturally enliven the city, but
specifically to vitalize governmentally funded structures in order “to contribute enduring,
contemporary art experiences to public facilities in the City.”
29
Triforium was built around
the same principles and was funded by city money. The sculpture, pictured in Figure 5,
consists of three arrow-shaped legs with multiple steel columns decorated with Italian
hand-blown prisms encircling the center of the legs, known by some as “Three
Wishbones in Search of a Turkey.” An unusual aspect of the work is a set of bells
controlled electronically to sound tones from the structure and activate a lighting feature,
illuminated in sequence to the music. The spotted red oval hanging from the sculpture,
resembling an oversized ladybug, in Figure 5, house loudspeakers to project the sound
throughout the plaza. The piece was meant to incorporate other more elaborate
elements but because of budgetary reasons, was kept to its current form.
After its installation, the work received harsh criticism from City officials, art
professionals of the City, and the general public. The work quickly became visually dated
and had no form of community input in its planning stages. The condemnation was
caused not exclusively because of its design, but also because it didn’t bring the
attention to the mall that its benefactors had hoped.
30
If this work were to be considered
through Harris’s Remodeling Theory, the investigator would be hard pressed to find any
beneficial factors of the work to itself and its surroundings. The work was slated for
removal recently, but was said to be more expensive to take down than to fix. It now
continues to sit, barely operative.
39
Figure 5. Joseph Young, Triforium, 1975. Photographed by Lauren Davis, September
2008. Sculpture at Los Angeles Mall in Downtown.
The work does not hold any chance for relocation, seeming more appropriate for
the likes of Disneyland than any other neighborhood of the City. No interest is given to
repairing the work since City officials do not want it in its current location, and the piece
is expensive to repair since the technology has now become outdated. Adding another
layer to the challenges, the artist died in 2008, and there is no one of power to represent
the artist. But in the vein of cultural lag, can the current deformity of the City Mall ever be
accepted, possibly just out of the longevity of its existence? Would there be uproar from
the community, who didn’t voice its opinions because it actually enjoyed the piece? Will
Downtown change enough in coming years to actually become the right site for
40
Triforium? The questions remain almost impossible to answer, leaving the disposal of a
public work always a risky decision. All the same thoughts would need to be given to
The Garden. Although it may seem that removal would solve the problem, the backlash
that might occur needs to be seriously considered.
The issues that arise with removal, or even changing, a public artwork not only
stem from the way a public accepts or views an artwork but also from traditional views
on how to preserve a work of art. When pieces like The Garden and Triforium present
such obvious issues concerning the piece’s failure to work on any level, artistically or
publicly, it is hard to hang onto established views about how to treat artworks that exist
in the public realm. Public works encounter difficulties and responsibilities that extend
beyond what a traditional artwork placed in a private realm would ever meet. Much like
redesigning a building when its form is not meeting its function, a public artwork must be
reconsidered when its purpose has become lost or was never achieved in the first place.
In the Design and Review Guidelines recently set in place by the Los Angeles
Cultural Affairs Commission for the City’s public art, architecture, landscape and urban
design, the commission states that public art should establish
Visual and social identity that can be shared by residents and visitors alike,
bringing unique and revealing qualities to particular locations and at the same
time create a sense of connectivity through the regular placement of art
throughout the city.
31
To continually reach the goals put in place by the commission, public art cannot be left
stagnant and both these pieces would need to be seriously reconsidered to reach these
objectives— or removed so as to not be opposing physical representations of public art
in Los Angeles.
41
Chapter 2 Endnotes
1
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Memorandum from Lesley A.
Elwood to Samuel Hall Kaplan, (Los Angeles, CA: May 14
th
, 1996), 1.
2
CRA/LA, Art Policy, 9.
3
Miwon Kwon, One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Locational Identity, (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 2002), 65.
4
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Fact Sheet - The Garden of
Conversion, (Los Angeles, CA, May 13
th
: 1996), 1.
5
Ibid.
6
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Letters of Support. (Los
Angeles, CA: March 31
– April 10,1995).
7
The Gunk Foundation, http://www.gunk.org/ (accessed 29 March 2009).
8
California Department of Transportation, Project Development Procedures Manual, (Los Angeles,
CA: September 9
th
, 2008), 58.
9
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Memorandum from Lesley A.
Elwood to Hope Street Terminus – Garden of Conversion/Interested Parties, (Los Angeles, CA: December
1, 1997), 1.
10
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Purchase Order, (Los
Angeles, CA: June 27
th
, 1995), 1.
11
CRA/LA, Memo from Elwood to Interested Parties, 1.
12
Ibid.
13
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Fax transmission for Blue
McRight to Lesley Elwood per Repairs, (Los Angeles, CA: September 4, 1997).
14
Judith Baca, 2002, “Public Participations in Conservation 1: The Great Wall of Los Angeles,” in
Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason (Cambridge, MA:
Archetype, 2002), 29.
15
DeCerteau, The Practice, 100.
16
Blue McRight, Interview by Lauren Davis, December 2009.
17
Ann Wilson Lloyd, 2002. “Temporality and Preservation: A Panel Discussion,” in Conservation
and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason (Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002), 39.
18
Martha Buskirk, The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003),
187.
19
Blue McRight, Interview.
20
Martha Buskirk, The Contingent Object, 2.
21
Blue McRight, Interview.
22
Ibid.
42
23
Kwon, One Place After Another, 93-94.
24
Kwon, One Place After Another, 130.
25
Blue McRight, Interview.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Lloyd, “A Panel Discussion,” 43.
29
Department of Cultural Affairs, Public Art Division,
http://www.culturela.org/publicart/publicpercent.html (accessed 29 March 2009).
30
“Postscript: It did what it was supposed to, but never very well,” Los Angeles Times, January 21,
1988.
31
Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Commission, Public Art, Architecture, Landscape and Urban Design,
(Los Angeles, 2008), 11.
43
Chapter 3: Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza
Introduction
Downtown Los Angeles is home to many cultures, with some neighborhoods
dedicated to specific ethnic groups. Little Tokyo is one such example, and it has gone
through many unique changes since its inception in the early 1900s. Shortly thereafter
many residents found themselves forcibly removed and placed in internment camps
during World War II, but then returned to reclaim the space and its history after their
release. Today’s Little Tokyo is very protective of its heritage, and it houses many
important cultural facilities that serve as educational and social places for residents,
including the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center (JACCC), located on
the outer edge of the district on San Pedro Street between 2
nd
and 3
rd
streets. The
JACCC was created by “Issei and Nisei (first and second-generation) Japanese
American pioneers to create a permanent center for the community where arts and
culture come alive and can flourish for future generations.”
1
The center continues to be
an important place for its community.
When the JACCC was in its planning stages in 1978, the Friends of Little Tokyo
Arts (FOLTA), an organization that works to encourage and support artists of the Little
Tokyo’s community, approached the famed Japanese American artist Isamu Noguchi to
design a sculpture for an open passageway, which was planned to sit between an office
and classroom buildings of the center. A gymnasium and theater would complete the
CRA/LA funded project. A year later, Noguchi was looking at a model of the site and
“suggested enlarging the space for his work by completely removing the gym from the
plans and relocating the theater to the gym's former location to create a unified
composition of architecture, open space and sculpture.”
2
44
Noguchi still completed the commissioned sculpture, but his design contributions
evolved into a major collaboration with the project architect to design the plaza for the
facility. An architectural firm prepared the engineering and construction drawings to
develop the artist’s idea for the space.
3
Noguchi’s design created a large open plaza to
house major events for Little Tokyo community as well as to provide a quiet reflective
area for residents to visit. The overall feel of the space varies from celebratory to
solemn, all depending on which day it is visited and which event is taking place. Varying
from a traditional architecturally planned plaza, the space holds unique touches made by
the artist, such as hidden spaces for children to discover, a center ring defining a stage
for different happenings and a central sculpture that provides visual connections in its
form to the current and past generations of Little Tokyo and the original Tokyo. Thanks
to Noguchi, the space holds much more importance than a typical building plaza. It has
become an important space, in deCerteau’s terms, to its community. The plaza is a
space that its residents navigate and interact with purposefully.
The site has remained unaltered and well maintained since its creation, but
recently the JACCC became interested in modifying Noguchi’s design to make the plaza
more open and accessible to its residents. This idea has lead to some hesitation on
behalf of JACCC, not only because it would alter the notable artist’s work, but also
because Noguchi died only a few years after he finished the project, making him unable
to provide input to the change. The suggested change in the plaza construction
presents a unique chance to employ Harris’s Remodeling Theory to work through the
issues of the alteration and to consider what would be most valuable for the community
and honor the artist’s original design intent as well as to meet the goals of CRA/LA.
Isamu Noguchi was born in the United States as a second generation Japanese
American in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Much like other areas of
45
the City, Boyle Heights currently contains a different community than when Noguchi
resided there and mainly houses Hispanic citizens. His stay in the area was short,
though, as at age two his family moved back to Japan. He returned to America to attend
school, later receiving a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1927 and continuing his studies by
working with noted sculptor Constantin Brancusi in Paris.
4
Throughout his lifetime,
Noguchi became as celebrated as his mentor. His sculpture is in the collections of the
world's most prominent public museums. He also designed gardens and public spaces,
including children’s parks, near the end of his multi-faceted career. One of his other
public project entitled California Scenario exists in Southern California in the City of
Costa Mesa.
In 1983 Noguchi completed the plaza and his sculpture To the Issei, dedicated to
the first generation of Japanese American citizens. The carving became the centerpiece
of the brick square, consisting of two large basalt rocks set on a raised platform pictured
in Figure 6, with one stone vertically placed and the other horizontally placed. The
sculpture has a variety of textures carved in it, representing a Japanese tradition of
altering natural materials slightly to show the human presence, while the organization of
the stones forms the Japanese character for “mankind”.
5
The sculpture was
commissioned with funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, Atlantic Richfield
Corporation, Lloyd E. Rigler, Lawrence E. Deutsch and the Friends of Little Tokyo Art
(FOLTA) while the plaza was commissioned and fully funded by CRA/LA Cultural Arts
Program.
6
46
Figure 6. Isamu Noguchi, To the Issei, 1983. Photographed by Lauren Davis, January
2009. Sculpture and seating.
The plaza was created by Noguchi to do more than just open up the design of
the complex. He wanted
The space to be a ‘piazza,’ serving a variety of community purposes and
functioning ‘like a town square in Italy.’ Reflecting different moods, the plaza
cannot be fully experienced in one visit. On quiet days, it appears stark and
empty, a space to pass through and an enclave to rest in. But during the annual
cycle of festival days, the plaza is a crowded outdoor urban theater hosting public
events and activities that bind the community together.
7
The plaza design incorporates a variety of elements to create such responses. The base
of Noguchi’s sculpture seen in Figure 6, forms oversized steps to serve as seats for an
outdoor amphitheater that is created at the center of the plaza by a seventy-five foot
diameter concrete ring outlining a section of the space for a stage. Shallow steps and
benches were placed at the north and west side of the plaza to serve as additional
seating for such events and is illustrated in Figure 7. Black granite pavers shape a
47
fountain near the JACCC’s main building, creating the peaceful sound of water running
over the stones. Both Japanese raked sand gardens and Italian piazzas influenced the
patterns of brick invoking the feeling of being far away from the everyday places of Los
Angeles; and hidden ramps and a sand box were installed to surprise children
investigating the space.
8
Figure 7. Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza, 1983. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
January 2009. Plaza seating.
One of the most interesting and debated elements of the plaza is a twelve-foot
wall bordering the north and west sides as shown in Figure 8. Many mistake the
structure as simple construction barrier, but Noguchi added the element to define and
protect the area, to give it scale and to prevent other buildings from intruding on the
environment he had created. But local business people were opposed to enclosing the
plaza, looking for the space to connect with the surrounding community.
9
A little over
twenty-five years later, the wall is still an issue with the community and the JACCC. The
center hired Community Arts Resources (CARS), who work “In the spirit of community
48
building and galvanizing the arts in Los Angeles”
10
to do a study on whether and how the
space could be better programmed if the barrier were removed. Aaron Paley, the
president of CARS, believes there are real opportunities to create a more lively space
that would better benefit not only the JACCC, but also the community itself if the wall
were taken down.
11
Investigating the plaza with the Harris’s Remodeling Theory helps
bring a different perspective for evaluating if the change would truly be in the best
interest of the work, its site, and its community.
Figure 8. Isamu Noguchi, Noguchi Plaza, 1983. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
January 2009. Plaza walls.
49
Considering the Remodeling Questions
What Already Exists that Is of Great Value and Quality that Should Not be Damaged?
When considering what existing elements effectively bring revitalization and life
to the area, one can see that the plaza, with or without the wall, creates a great space
for its residents. Community gatherings and events are linked to the plaza, and the
community uses the square regardless of its secluded feeling. For his part, Noguchi saw
seclusion as a goal for the plaza, and he strived to create a Zen garden feel, with the
area possessing a life of its own, physically separate from surrounding elements.
12
The
practice of Zen is rooted in both traditional Japanese culture as well as in the continuing
generation of Japanese Americans. Whether one agrees with the idea that the plaza
should be opened up or not, the artist did achieve the objective that he presented as his
idea to CRA/LA and the JACCC by creating a quiet and reflective area that, when
needed for more social functions, possesses the ability to provide for those requirements
as well. Noguchi effectively made the plaza a “space,” using deCerteau’s definition of
the word discussed previously, as an area “actuated by the ensemble of movements,
deployed within it.”
13
The sculpture in the center of the plaza is also beneficial to the
space, as the well-designed piece is very site specific and creates a valuable symbol to
the Japanese American culture that still has strong roots in its heritage, but also adapts
to modern styles and ideas.
What Already Exists that is Valuable and May be Able to be Further Enhanced?
The JACCC and CARS believe that the aspect of the piece that is most
problematic is the surrounding wall, but it is necessary to investigate if the element could
be changed to work better for the space, the piece and the audience. Removing
sections of the wall could be an option that would serve as a compromise between
Noguchi’s ideas and the concerns regarding the wall as a separating mechanism,
50
severing the space from the community. Removing large sections of the wall, such as
the west wall that faces a well-kept brick alley and local businesses could open the
space up to the neighborhood of Little Tokyo, which lies behind. The other part of the
wall faces a busy street, and would be more beneficial in remaining closed off because
of noise and safety.
Cutouts could be employed throughout the wall to let the passersby peer into the
space and could create interest as well as a closer connection with the district without
completely taking away Zen feeling that Noguchi sought. The landscaping that is
currently in the plaza could also be manipulated and supplemented in an effort to
replace the sequestering feeling of the solid wall while staying true to the artist’s intent.
Definite options exist that would provide a middle ground between the two different ways
to experience the plaza— as a serene environment and a publicly interactive space.
What Exists that is Detrimental, that Requires Significant Transformation, or is Beyond
Repair and Should be Fully Replaced, Rejected or Demolished?
Paley has provided some insight into why the wall is considered a part of the
artwork that should be demolished. Through the study CARS is creating, he believes
designed public space is meant to engage the public as well as connect to the
surrounding elements. Noguchi Plaza does the opposite, in CARS’s opinion, cutting itself
off from its community and leaving the edges of the space inactivated, preventing
interaction between nearby businesses and residents and the plaza.
14
In Paley’s opinion,
the area is not only harmful to itself, but also to the spaces that surround it. But
consideration still needs to be given as to exactly what the plaza will be opening itself up
to if the wall was removed.
As the JACCC is located at the edge of Little Tokyo, some of the built
environment that has grown around the district has little importance compared to the
51
more culturally aware structures of the neighborhood. Directly across the street there
exist two housing structures illustrated in Figure 9, one that is still being built and both
having little stylistic considerations of their location. Continuing half a block down San
Pedro Street away from Little Tokyo is the Toy District of Downtown, shown in Figure 10.
This district has no cultural relation to Little Tokyo and also displays lesser quality
structures that may be redeveloped later. Martha Buskirk, weighing in on the issue of an
environment’s importance to the context of an artwork, writes, “The degree to which the
surrounding environment frames the work establishes a form of contingency that can
have a profound impact on how the work is understood.”
15
Exposing Noguchi’s work to
different structural surrounding elements might, as Buskirk suggests, frame the work in a
different way.
New developments like the housing complexes across from the plaza also make
the residents wary as to whether or not the district will be able to maintain its community
identity. It leads them to question what the new face of Little Tokyo will be as new
residents move into the area through the large housing projects built nearby.
Threatening feelings are evoked by the thought of other cultures living in the
neighborhood. The community also fears a lessening cultural importance of their way of
life and their history. Taking down the wall could open the space up to a population with
whom the Little Tokyo community may not wish to share the plaza, especially when the
space is used for cultural events and ceremonies. On the other hand, with the combined
space of the City of Los Angeles highly segregated by ethnicity already, removing the
wall could have a positive effect on the City as a whole, demonstrating the effort to learn
from and accept the many cultures that reside there. Banham cites Los Angeles as
having a cartography of diverse, fragmented memory, and suggests that removing the
wall could be a step towards connecting the disintegrated histories of the City.
52
Figure 9. Teramachi Condominiums (left) and San Pedro Apartments (right, under
construction). Photographed by Lauren Davis, January 2009. Housing Adjacent to the
JACCC.
Figure 10. Intersection of San Pedro and 3rd Street. Photographed by Lauren Davis,
January 2009. Start of Toy District and housing complex across for the JACCC.
53
Another benefit of an unaltered plaza can be seen through its historical and
cultural meaning to its community. Urban historian Dolores Hayden writes extensively
about this recognition in her book The Power of Place. She believes that “urban
preservation” and “architectural preservation” are usually at odds,
16
with the former trying
to preserve structures that do not always possess good aesthetic qualities but help
protect the memory of important events, versus the latter, approaching preservation
based solely on important buildings built by important architects.
But the plaza has to work with both sides of conservation as it exists as an
important meeting place for people in the community and as a sophisticated space
designed by a well-known Japanese American artist. Alterations to objects of great
historical and cultural importance are not usually seen as appropriate, especially for a
community that is so culturally oriented. But in the panel discussion mentioned earlier on
temporality and preservation of public art, a conservator relayed that the “conservation of
public pieces is as much of a collaboration as the induction of a public art piece.”
17
Because the plaza is considered a piece of art on top of its cultural and architectural
significance, collaboration would have to be engaged to come up with the right course of
action to conserve the space.
Hayden also introduces the idea of “place memory” and uses a quotation by
philosopher Edward S. Casey to explain the concept as “…the stabilizing persistence of
place as a container of experiences that contributes so powerfully to its intrinsic
memorability” as well as describing the concept as “the key to the power of historic
places to help citizens define their public pasts: places trigger memories for insiders,
who have shared a common past.”
18
The Noguchi Plaza holds many cultural events for
the community such as the annual Nisei Week Japanese Festival, the Hanamatsuri
celebration of Buddha's birth and memorial services for the dead of Hiroshima and
54
Nagasaki,
19
which are all very culturally specific events that create certain feelings and
identities for the community, or “place memory” for those involved.
Although it is not likely that removing the wall would totally alter the residents‘
view and memories of the events that take place here, physically opening the space to
other members of the surrounding communities might lessen the significance and
sentiment of the events to the citizens who partake in them. Hayden also graciously
addresses this idea, believing that when residents share spaces that hold such “place
memory” with outside members of a community “…places often can represent shared
past to outsiders who might be interested in knowing about them in the present.”
20
The
importance of the space and its events could be shared thus continuing into the future
with new importance and meaning to more than just its residents.
What is Missing?
Finally, when considering what is absent, the voice of the artist is the largest
missing factor. Noguchi’s authority to alter the building plans to include a larger plaza
reveals that he had an influential effect on how the site would be formed. If the artist
were alive, his opinion, as well as his legal rights, would be held in high regard. It would
be beneficial to know what he thought of exposing the plaza to the current
neighborhood.
The redevelopment of Little Tokyo started around the same time that Noguchi
designed the space, so many changes have taken place in the area since. After the
previously mentioned interment of many of its citizens, the space became home to
African Americans from the South who were looking for wartime jobs and the
neighborhood was renamed “Bronzeville.”
21
It wasn’t until the 1970s that many began
reviving history of the lost Little Tokyo. At the time of commissioning Noguchi Plaza,
Little Tokyo was still very transitional and positioned on the edge of Skid Row. The
55
surrounding environment of the plaza, as it stands, has grown to embrace its heritage
and might be more suitable in Noguchi’s eyes. Little Tokyo has grown over the last few
decades to become a much safer and important area thanks to committed citizens and
CRA/LA, who has helped the neighborhood with housing and streetscape improvements
along with more culturally specific developments.
An important step for Little Tokyo has been made recently with the acceptance of
Korean citizens who have moved into these new residences. Japan and Korea have
had a long and troubled history of colonization and territorial disputes that has caused
tension between the groups.
22
With this new effort by the residents of Little Tokyo to put
aside the past controversies, the neighborhood has shown it is willing to make
productive changes to create a more unified space of the City and is open to making
compromises to do so.
Since it is not possible to know how Noguchi feels about these economic and
cultural shifts, the next thought would be to preserve the artist’s original intention out of
respect for his work. The Noguchi Foundation exists to protect the artist’s legacy and is
currently unaware of this change being sought by the JACCC. In all assumptions, it
would be believed that they would like to keep the work to in its current form to continue
the original intent of the artist. Buskirk states, “The idea that the work of art should not be
altered or destroyed derives from a belief that it should remain true to the vision of the
artists.”
23
But the idea is harder for some to grasp when it comes to a work like the plaza,
which is not seen as a traditional artwork, but more of an architectural design. As
discussed previously in regard to The Garden of Conversion, in the 21
st
century it is very
difficult to clearly define what constitutes an artwork, especially in cases where “although
the artist’s touch maybe less evident in the physical process for making, the artist’s
ongoing presence and decision making have become more important,”
24
as Buskirk
56
references the greater attention given to the intellectual property of an artist in the last
few decades. But it is still hard for the public to accept unconventional materials and
structures as art.
III
Noguchi Plaza is a creation that in itself provokes questions about
what really defines the plaza as an artwork, let alone the wall being an integral part to
that status as artwork.
Conclusion
It is apparent that CRA/LA has not played a large role in my interrogation of the
piece, mainly because the owner and community of the work are both creating a solid
base for Kwon’s triangulation of power and are playing a large role in the existence of
the work. The plaza and sculpture certainly has brought and continues to bring vitality to
the area and serves as an important aspect of the community, which justifies the
permanence and value of the work. Per CRA/LA policy, the Agency would, however,
need to approve any changes to the artist design plaza.
The architectural elements of this work illustrate even more vividly how the plaza
holds more in common with its surrounding structures than with a traditional artwork.
Removing the wall would take away only a small portion of the work and it could be
returned if the changes did not prove successful. If the barriers were removed, it would
be important to track the success of the plaza to see if it could continue to fulfill the goals
of the Agency. It is still difficult to resolve whether preserving or removing the wall is the
best option. The Remodeling Theory is not a permanent solution, but a continuous effort
to improve the spaces that exist around us, so one cannot assume the effort to
reconsider the work would be a cure-all and provide success throughout the life of the
III
Artist Andrew Leicester created a piece for downtown Los Angeles in 1992 entitled Zanja Madre, a work
representing Los Angeles’s relationship with water. The piece was overall very architectural, but was funded
through the CRA/LA’s percent for art policy, which would qualify it as an acceptable piece of public art in the
Agency’s terms. But when the outside columns of the piece were duplicated and used in a movie, Leicester
sued for rights infringement and lost because the forms were considered more architectural than artistic,
even with the VARA and CAPA laws applied.
57
plaza. CRA/LA also is projected to halt investment in Little Tokyo in 2013, after which
time they would have limited capability to monitor the effectiveness of the wall’s removal.
The agency’s legal agreements are still binding, so would still have some authority but,
trust must be placed in the community to make the right decisions for itself after the
Agency leaves, which can be seen either as a benefit or a detriment of CRA/LA’s work.
58
Chapter 3 Endnotes
1
Japanese American Cultural and Community Center, http://www.jaccc.org/index.htm (accessed
29 March 2009).
2
Michael Several, Little Tokyo: The Public Art of Los Angeles Part 2, (Los Angeles: CRA and the
Cultural Affairs Department, 1994), 13.
3
Several, Little Tokyo, 13.
4
Isamu Noguchi, The Noguchi Museum, http://www.noguchi.org/ (accessed 29 March 2009).
5
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, 14.
6
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, 13.
.
7
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, 15.
8
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, 14.
9
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, Noguchi Plaza, 14.
10
Community Arts Resources, About Us. http://www.communityartsla.com/home.html (accessed 29
March 2009).
11
Aaron Paley, Interview by Lauren Davis, January 27, 2008.
12
Michael Several, Little Tokyo, 15.
13
deCerteau, The Practice, 117.
14
Aaron Paley, Interview.
15
Buskirk, The Contingent Object, 22.
16
Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place, (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997), 5.
17
Lloyd, “A Panel Discussion,” 43.
18
Hayden, The Power, 46.
19
Japanese American Cultural and Community Center, JACCC Plaza,
http://www.jaccc.org/outdoor.htm (accessed 29 March 2009).
20
Hayden, The Power, 46.
21
Hayden, The Power, 215.
22
Teresa Watanbe, “Japanes and Koreans learn to Live Together in Harmony in LA’s Little Tokyo,”
Los Angeles Times, Febuary 23, 2009, 1.
23
Buskirk, The Contingent Object, 49.
24
Buskirk, The Contingent Object, 16.
59
Chapter 4: Mark Lere, Untitled Four
Introduction
The Remodeling Theory was used when deciding that resiting Untitled Four
would provide it a better future, and more suitably fulfill the goals of CRA/LA.
Reinvestigating the steps of the relocation, along with exploring the new site through the
Remodeling Theory, allows for an assessment of whether percent for art works can
benefit from reconsideration.
The Staples Center developers fulfilled their CRA/LA art obligation by
commissioning five artists to create site-specific pieces for the sprawling sports and
entertainment campus, which is owned and operated by Anschutz Entertainment Group
(AEG). The selection process differed from that of The Garden, with a more elite group
of project stakeholders selecting the artists to complete the work. The artists chosen had
very little experience designing work for this type of venue, but were all accomplished
and well-respected public artists in Southern California, including Mark Lere who was
trained at the University of California, Irvine in Fine Arts and is a nationally recognized
artist both for studio and public artwork. His sculptures are held in the collection of the
Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, and his public art commissions include work
for the L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority and pieces for cities across Southern
California including Santa Monica, Irvine, Los Angeles, Pasadena and Ventura.
1
Lere’s work for the Staples Center took the form of an ambitious, if not esoteric,
four-part installation that interacts with the viewer’s senses, inspired by the many visitors
that pass through the Staples Center to attend events at the structure or simply explore
Downtown. The original installation of the piece can be seen in Figure 11, as sited near
the main entrance of the facility. Each sculpture was realized to bring about an
60
instinctual reaction from its viewer; the pieces act as individual units that create
relationships between each other and their observers.
Figure 11. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lesley Elwood, November
2006. Location at Staples Center.
The elements of the piece consist of a cone shaped steel fountain made to
resemble a pool of water as seen in Figure 12. The water feature also offers an auditory
element of the running water to draw in the viewer’s ear. A stainless steel sphere,
pictured in Figure 13, was created as a highly reflective surface to its audience, who can
use the orb to view itself in a different, abstract form. Lere also produced a “sound rock”
bench, seen in Figure 14, which was cut from local granite and emanated sounds from a
hidden speaker to surprise those who sat near or passed by. Finally, he fabricated a
biomorphic human shape, seen in Figure 15, from bronze casting. The form housed an
61
interior light box, which shone through holes on the sculpture’s surface
2
enticing multiple
senses such as sight and touch.
Figure 12. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis, November
2007. Fountain.
Figure 13. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis, November
2007. Sphere.
62
Figure 14. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis, November
2007. Bench.
Figure 15. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis, November
2007. Form.
63
After development, the Staples Center quickly evolved from its original intent —
to serve Los Angeles as a multipurpose performance venue — into a sports and
mainstream music venue. AEG soon started placing more importance on furthering its
connection to athletics, and issues arose when Mark Lere discovered that the spherical
component of Untitled Four was missing and a statue honoring Wayne Gretzky,
legendary Los Angeles Kings hockey player, took its place.
3
The remaining elements of
the piece were also harmed, revealing various states of disrepair and leaving the piece
incomplete and damaged.
As mentioned in The Garden of Conversion case study, significant pressures
emerge when seeking the appropriate response after a work of public art is found in poor
condition or vandalized. In the case of Untitled Four, clearly AEG was in violation of
CAPA, as well as the Developer Disposition Agreement with CRA/LA that required it to
care for and maintain their artworks. No consent from the artist was obtained for the
alteration, even though the specifications of VARA were outlined in its contract.
4
CRA/LA
decided that the owners needed either to reinstate the piece to its original form or to
come up with another solution to complete their art requirement and protect the work of
art and the artist. When consulted by CRA/LA, AEG displayed flagrant disregard for the
work, and explained that it planned to place more heroic athletic statuaries around the
entrance, under the auspices of the “Los Angeles Sports Arch of Fame” program, which
recognizes famous Los Angeles sport figures.
5
With no interest in keeping the work at
their site, the owners requested that the piece be moved to a different location and
agreed to cover all costs associated with the move.
64
Figure 16. Mark Lere, Untitled Four, 1999. Photographed by Lauren Davis, November
2007. Artwork now at USC.
CRA/LA hoped to keep the Untitled Four in the Downtown Region, numerous
locations in the redevelopment area were scouted, but none of the sites was feasible
due to a lack of affordable open space. The University of Southern California (USC)
displayed interest in housing the work and identified a quiet, protected green space that
existed behind the School of Fine Art’s building on southwest side of campus.
6
CRA/LA’s
Art Advisory Panel and Board of Commissioners eventually approved USC as the next
home for the work and the final layout of the work at USC is pictured in Figure 16. It was
not an arbitrary move though, as the University is located in another redevelopment
region managed by CRA/LA. Resiting the piece involved a “Finding of Benefit
Resolution,” which is a legal procedure allowing the Agency to move resources from one
Region to another in both communities’ mutual best interests.
The agreement negotiated requires USC to be responsible for the continued
maintenance after the move, but AEG had to pay for all fees relating to the relocation as
65
well as any changes or repairs that needed to be made to the artwork to fit into its new
space properly. The move was a great testament to the ability of an artist and his
artwork to receive the type of retribution mandated through VARA and CAPA, and
serves as an example to other property owners of the consequences that can be waged
if they are caught not respecting or caring for their percent for artworks.
Outlining the issues that CRA/LA and its Cultural Arts Program discovered at the
Staples Center can illustrate how they used a version of the Remodeling Theory to
reconsider the work. Looking at the piece’s relationship with its current site in the same
manner can also help one to recognize if the goals of CRA/LA have been accomplished
by relocating the work.
Considering the Remodeling Questions
What Already Exists that is of Great Value and Quality that Should Not Be Damaged?
First, when considering what about Untitled Four in terms of perceived value to
the Staples Center effectively brought revitalization, one can see that all four elements of
the piece were created together to bring life and interest to the space. CRA/LA upheld
this idea, believing that the four elements of the work must be moved together and work
as a unit to bring interest and worth. However, the characteristics that AEG wanted to
use to represent itself ran in contradiction to Lere’s artwork. The grouping still works
together, and now in its new location provides visual interest and provokes interaction
with both the audience and the open space. USC placed value on the piece as a
thought provoking artwork that could connect with the visitors of its campus and be
relevant to the goals of CRA/LA.
It is useful, though, to reflect upon the relocation of the work in the terms of site
specificity. One of the goals of CRA/LA is to “make spaces relevant to the people who
use them” and for “communities to participate in cultural planning.” The Agency makes
66
site-specific work— with consideration of its location and audience— an objective for the
artworks they initiate. That the piece was then moved into a new setting raises
questions about the ease with which a new site was accepted. Buskirk speaks of site
specificity, commenting on the potential damage to the work when it is relocated into a
different place: “For site specific installations, where and when maybe inseparable, since
removal of the work … at a particular site may equal the destruction rather than the
transfer of the work.”
7
Kwon speaks of site specificity “being imagined beyond the
physical attributes,”
8
acknowledging that its audience is just as important as its suitability
in an actual site, to work beyond what one would physically imagine to fit. Both are valid
points when site specificity is one of the factors of a percent for artwork.
In the case of Lere’s work, the audience at the Staples Center and at USC is
somewhat similar. Each site’s visitors reflect permanent and transitory communities,
with the only continual population working in the space. The physical properties of the
site are the only aspects that vary, with the work moved from a cement courtyard in front
of a loud stadium to a quiet green recess behind the school’s Fine Art Department
building and museum. CRA/LA places more value on artworks that have an active
relationship with their community rather than their built environment, so it was possible to
transfer the work without harming its connection to a community.
In her essay entitled Conserving in a Changing Environment, conservator Julie
Boivin discusses site specificity, stating that, “The original freshness of a public work of
art is constantly challenged … subjected to the very forces that true site specificity
exploits in an urban landscape and towards the public.”
9
The passage expresses the
difficulties that a piece has in staying site specific in a changing landscape, an issue in
Los Angeles to be sure. Arguably, the more serene environment of USC is currently a
more appropriate space for Untitled Four. USC also has an extensive public art
67
collection with more conceptual work into which Lere’s work is more appropriately
incorporated. The area around the Staples Center has grown into a bustling
entertainment district, with more importance placed on culturally accessible works
directly relate to themes of sports and music. Blue McRight’s piece Garland at the
Staple Center, though not a direct representation of sports-related subject matter as is
the Wayne Gretzky statuary, proves more in tune with the site for its attempt to evoke a
sense of Olympic pride and recognition through its title and olive leaf shaped figures; it
also provides a striking lighting feature that brings the arena to life after dark.
Owing to a reconsideration of the work, Untitled Four was moved to a more
suitable location not only for the advantage of the piece itself, but also to better
accomplish the goals of the Agency, albeit in a different redevelopment region. This case
suggests the possibility of reconsidering accepted notions of site specificity, as sculptor
Richard Serra famously declared when asked about his thoughts on the subject, “To
move the work is to destroy the work”.
10
On the contrary, our constantly changing world
may actually mean that not to move the work could lead to destruction of its value and
relevance.
What Already Exists that is Valuable and May be Able to be Further Enhanced?
In regard to the work’s original location, CRA/LA, the artist, and AEG believed
there wasn’t any element that could be enhanced or changed enough to make it a better
fit at its site. The owner did not believe the piece was a good fit for them or the site, and
that it held no value for them. The consensus by all involved was that the best resolution
was to move the piece into a completely different location. Consequentially, the
relocation of the piece gave the artist a chance to alter the sculptural elements by
observing the faults of the sculptures at the Staples Center.
68
Reconsideration of this kind is not an option for most percent for art pieces
initiated through CRA/LA. Upon the Agency’s departure, art is left in the hands of the
owner, whose only responsibility is simple maintenance. Alterations, as proven through
the creation of CAPA and VARA, are not legal and any lawful adjustment would require
consultation with the artist and CRA/LA. Funding would also need to come from the
owner, who is not required to provide money for anything but simple conservation, not
reconsideration.
The maintenance and protection of the original audio equipment in the bench
presented technical issues and Lere made a downloadable audio Podcast available from
the USC website to accompany the piece, instead of having sounds coming directly from
the bench. A member of the relocation team relayed that the sound element did not
work prior to the move and had not worked for years, estimating that it may have
stopped working just a year or two after the pieces had been installed.
11
Public works that involve technology usually require more care. Along these
lines, one art conservator, in an essay about technical implements used in public art
urges, “The greater problem of the conservation of electronic media remains to be
resolved. It is quite likely that the technologies that we take for granted will simply not be
available in the future.”
12
This reality means that works that involve such aspects are
often in need of frequent updates.
The outer shell of human form sculpture was also treated differently; the painted
bronze surface was removed to allow a natural oxidization of the finish and the lighting
system at the base of the piece was updated to LED technology to be more sustainable
in the future. Because of different natural lighting of the new location,
13
the fountain’s top
color was altered slightly, but it was a change that presented itself because of the move.
The revisions provided an excellent example of why it is necessary to reconsider percent
69
for art public works. Certain features do not always fare well against outdoor elements
and technology gets upgraded. To sustain relevance to viewers, a piece must undergo
changes, remaining in its best condition and proving beneficial to its community and
worthy of its location.
What Exists that is Detrimental, that Requires Significant Transformation, or is Beyond
Repair and Should be Fully Replaced, Rejected or Demolished?
As seen in the case study of The Garden, the most harmful element of the work
was the site that it was placed in and the ownership under which it was placed. Even if
Untitled Four were never moved, it would have eventually been surrounded by
sculptures of athletes, making the work misplaced and inappropriate. The grounds
surrounding the work were also devoid of visual elements holding any cultural worth or
interest, so the piece stuck out like a sore thumb amongst its pedestrian surroundings.
Visitors to the arena proved uninterested in experiencing the work to its full potential,
more concerned as they were with the interior events of the Staples Center.
The owners recognized that they were depreciating the work, and that issue was
resolved when it was moved to its new location and a new party was made responsible
for the care of the artwork. At USC, nothing by the standards of the artist and CRA/LA
was seen to be detrimental enough to be completely removed from work, other than that
which has been previously identified— the owner and the site, which have now been
replaced by a willing caretaker and more appropriate location.
What is Missing?
What could have been added to the site or artwork that would have made the
piece more accessible or appealing to its public in its original location? A supportive
administrative group to maintain the work at the Staples Center would have given the
piece an opportunity to benefit the space in which it was originally placed and to live up
70
to the goals of CRA/LA. If left fully functional and maintained, without being encroached
upon by the athletic statues, the work may have provided useful interaction with the
many visitors of the arena. At USC, inattention is no longer an issue, and the university
has pledged to take better care of the work, “adding” the missing element of proper care
back to the work.
One has to consider also how the new location has “added”’ to the goals of
CRA/LA. Many involved in the project believe USC will take care of Untitled Four and
give the work a new life. But in terms of public art reviving a blighted area, the university
is a private college, with many private donations leading to the growth and development
of the campus. USC itself is not in need of redevelopment, whereas many houses and
businesses in the surrounding project area are in poor condition. The decision to move
the work to the location was not unanimously agreed upon by the deciding members of
CRA/LA Board of Commissioners because of the University’s pedigree. The piece is
accessible to anyone in the neighborhood, but is located behind one of the university’s
tall fences, so that one has to enter the campus proper to experience the installation
fully. Across the street sits Exposition Park, a more community-friendly space that could
have served as a location, but as a city-owned space, much like other open spaces in
the redevelopment area, it would have been much harder to find funding to maintain the
piece.
Conclusion
Notably, a year after hosting its relocation, the university itself has had a difficult
time maintaining the fountain element of the work, which now sits inactive. One can also
question the utilization of the Podcasts as an accurate replacement for the speaker,
especially when someone sits on the bench for the first time, only to find he or she must
come with the proper audio equipment in order to experience the bench fully. Once
71
again, accurate maintenance of the piece is an issue even after it has been relocated.
To bring the piece to its full potential and meaning, should the work be reconsidered
once more in order to come to terms with its inherently problematic design rather than
continuing to account for its problems through negligence by its guardians? Much like
the case study of The Garden, at some point an artist needs to come to terms with the
realities of what will not work in the public sphere and what happens when too much
required maintenance is required of the caretakers. Along these lines, art professionals
in an essay about conserving a particularly demanding public piece ask
Should we not commission works … because the material is considered “difficult”
and could lead to possible future conservation treatments? In order to help
artists work with materials that appropriately represent and reflect their ideas, art
administrators and conservators need to be advocates for the artists and their
work, both before and after commissions.
14
It is a promising thought, but in reality a hard standard to uphold when working in
the public sphere, which inevitably involves people whom are not artists, conservators,
or art administrators. In a recent panel discussion I attended lead by the International
Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art, a curator, artist, and conservator
agreed that even contemporary artworks placed in a museum’s collection may prove
difficult to maintain if its material are transitory, delicate, or dated. In such cases,
preserving the artist’ original intent also becomes a challenge.
Artists need to become more aware that the materials they use must be
appropriate for withstanding the risks that present themselves in the public realm as well
as the work not being placed in the hands of an art professional but a property owner.
Consideration should be given to appropriate building materials used in other elements
of the built environment, which are meant to endure and lend themselves to better
integration, maintenance, and appropriate permanence into its surroundings.
72
Chapter 4 Endnotes
1
Mark Lere, Resume, (California, 2008).
2
Elwood & Associates, Art and Landscape Maintenance Manual Prepared for the University of
Southern California Roski School of Fine Arts ‘Untitled Four’ Mark Lere, Artist, (Marina de Rey, CA: October
2007), 3-9.
3
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Memorandum from Julie
Silliman, Art Program to Tim Chung, City Attorney’s Office per Removal of Artwork by Mark Lere at Staples,
(Los Angeles, CA: November 13, 2003), 1.
4
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Artwork Agreement between
L.A. Arena Compnay, LLC and Mark Lere, (Los Angeles, CA: 1999), 16-17.
5
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Memorandum from Cecilia C.
Estolano, CEO to Agency Commissioners per Amend the Art Plan for the Staples Center, (Los Angeles, CA:
2006), 1.
6
CRA/LA, Memo from Cecilia Estolano, 2.
7
Buskirk, The Contingent Object, 48.
8
Kwon, One Place After Another, 81.
9
Julie Boivin, “Conserving in a Changing Environment: Some Critical Issues and New
Perspectives,” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason
(Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002), 50.
10
Alison Bracker, “From Pillar to Post with Amibit,” in Conservation and Maintenance of
Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason (Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002), 71.
11
Claire Haasl, Interviewed by Lauren Davis, January 2009.
12
Bradford Gonyer, “Authenticity and Appearance: The Restoration of Nam June Paik’s Requiem
for the Twentieth Century,” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor
Yngvason (Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002), 73.
13
University of Southern California, USC Roski School of Fine Arts Artist Agreement and Scope of
Services, (Los Angeles, CA: February 15, 2007), 2.
14
Laura S. Griffith and John Carr, 2002, “Maintaining Integrity: The Conservation of Pavilion in the
Trees by Martin Puryear ,” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor
Yngvason (Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002), 65.
73
Conclusion
Though percent for art is still a fairly young program, its development over the
last few decades has been significant enough that commissioning agencies can assess
if their public pieces are truly accomplishing their goals. Growth of percent for art
programs also provides an opportunity to evaluate if its methodologies are in need of
revision. By investigating its artworks and its commissioning, collecting, and
conservation policies, percent for art programs can become more effective and worthy of
siting permanent works.
Commissioning Percent for Artworks
The similarities evident between percent for art and its surrounding built
environment suggest that Harris’s Remodeling Theory is a helpful instrument with which
to make evaluations. The general ideas of his theory can be applied not only to learn
how to conserve artworks already existing in the public realm, but also can be influential
when deciding how works should be commissioned and produced. Percent for art
programs need gain a broader perspective of how their work will endure in a constantly
changing public sphere, taking into consideration more than just their immediate goals
when commissioning a public work. As recognized by conservators in the previously
mentioned panel on conservation and temporality
Public art inhabits boundaries. It is perennially in a condition of suspension. This
is its most perplexing internal conflict, the source of its greatest creative potential
and a daunting challenge for public art criticism … when the piece no longer
relates to the pubic, its most in danger of dying. Art has to relate.
1
When a work of public art has lost that relation, it has lost its value and, thus, its
reason to exist in the public sphere. Under such circumstances, the piece becomes
counterproductive to the goal of percent for art programs to create a real space, not just
a place, as articulated by deCerteau. The piece also becomes incapable of fostering
community unity and respect. The possibility of such a disconnection necessitates
74
deeper consideration of future uncertainties for the community or site, the very entities
the commissioned artwork is hoping to uplift. In turn, there must be a greater acceptance
and anticipation that alterations to the piece may be necessary in the time ahead.
Most art professionals, artists, and commissioning agencies are coming to terms
with the realization that a piece of public art is not immutable. Julie Boivin, co-curator for
the public art of Montreal, writes about conserving in a changing public environment,
asserting, “Most artists agree that once constructed, a public work of art must live its
own life and evolve in a changing environment – the public space in all its dimensions.”
2
Acceptance of this notion by artists and public art programs during the commissioning
and producing phase of the work would help reinforce the idea that percent for artworks
should not be treated like traditional works of art meant to remain stagnant
representations of a certain time period and style.
Percent for art pieces are testaments to how art can be responsive to and
effective for its audience, not brought into existence solely to serve as an individual’s
creative expression. Much like architecture and urban planning, when elements of the
built environment prove unsuccessful, percent for art pieces must be altered to better fit
the needs of its users. To obtain their goals in a genuinely gratifying way, percent for
artworks have to be open to change from the beginning— which is not to say that a work
brought about through the program could not exist in its original form and evolve into a
landmark of its city with only simple maintenance, still preserving the artist’s original
intent. But with the sheer number of pieces placed into the public realm by these
programs, such an arrangement can only be occasionally achieved.
Conserving Percent for Artworks
Harris’s theory may be usefully applied to the conservation of pieces already
placed in the public sphere. Again, public artworks brought about by percent for art
75
programs cannot be exclusively treated with traditional art preservation techniques.
Although materials maybe similar, environment and audience play a much larger role
than for a work of art created for a more private realm. Boivin, when considering the
conservation states,
It is in the ever-changing urban, social and political dynamics of public space that
some of the most pressing issues are revealed. It seems that the conservation
challenge lies first and foremost in the recognition and articulation of those
issues. To explore the ethical framework of conservation, itself in a constant
state of flux, we must revisit our accepted notions of perenniality, integrity and
authenticity.
3
As demonstrated in the case studies, Harris’s Remodeling Theory can serve as a tool for
conservators, artists, and commissioning agencies dealing with specific concerns that
percent for art pieces present. Because it is not feasible to keep the public artworks
unchanged while the city around it transforms, his theory can help investigate what
aspects of their care and site can be reconsidered and/or changed to better suit them for
their evolving environment. Harris’s theory provides a structured way to assess public
artworks and to determine the best course of action for the piece to remain effective and
valuable well into the future.
As seen in the case study of The Garden of Conversion, even when all potential
harms from the public realm are taken into consideration during and after the fabrication
of the piece, other problems might arise, thus making changes to the existing
maintenance procedures necessary. These adaptations may be realized and predicted
through application of the Remodeling Theory, which goes beyond consideration of the
work itself, compelling awareness that care of the work proves a concern more specific
to public art than other elements of the built environment. The theory also highlights that
some elements of the piece, such as plants, which demand continual upkeep, had been
deemed appropriate for the public realm at the commissioning stage but had not been
assessed for how they would exist in the future. Also, the problems with the homeless
76
were not an issue could be fully dealt with by placing art at the site. Traditional
conservation methods could not have helped this work reach the goals of the program or
the Agency.
Noguchi Plaza presented a case where conventional art conservation methods
were not seen as necessary because the piece was viewed as more architectural in
nature. The alteration of the piece would be made for the community, even though it did
not hold true to the artist’s intent. If approached from a traditional art conservation
standpoint, the work would remain as it was with no consideration given to adjusting the
artist’s original intent. Conversely, if the work were considered just a designed plaza, it
would be altered with little consideration to Noguchi’s ideas for the space. Using Harris’s
Remodeling Theory helps open up the discussion to consider the work both an
architectural construction and an artistic creation, and one produced to bring unity and
meaning to its community.
Untitled Four presented a precedent for how percent for artworks can be seen in
a completely different way if conservation is approached from the standpoint that
elements outside of the work itself must be taken into consideration in order to provide
adequate preservation and meaning. The original commissioning process and neglect
and disinterest by the owners of the work were the most deleterious elements of this
scenario. These components cannot be changed through conservation, and CRA/LA
had to look outside of these traditional constraints to fulfill its goal of siting public works.
After consideration through a method similar to Harris’s Remodeling Theory, the piece
has a better chance of reaching the goals set by its commissioning agency having been
removed from the unrealistic environment in which it was first placed.
Unlike customary conservation methods, Harris’s theory does not use the past as
a precise guide or template, but as a reflection of what has fostered success. His theory
77
provides an opportunity to apply issues that effect percent for artworks in tandem with
those of established conservation procedures. Learning from both scenarios can help
address the specific concerns that present themselves when dealing with artwork
produced not only for art’s sake, but also meant to serve the larger purpose of vivifying
the public realm.
The main challenge facing efforts to combine conservation and Harris’s theory for
reconsidering a work is how efforts can be realistically performed and supported.
Funding for percent for art works, let alone funding for the upkeep, from their owners or
city presents a significant prohibition on reconsidering, removing, or even maintaining
the pieces. Money does not exist to hire professionals to visit every work placed into
the public realm in order to determine, through research of the area and the work,
whether it is successfully reaching its goals. Even after such an investigation has been
undertaken, money would also be needed to support execution of the findings. The one
link that binds all the cases studies together is that problems arise when the people who
are integral to the work’s success, the owners or commissioning agency, do not want to
spend the money to reexamine or revise something that already cost a considerable
amount of money to site.
Various percent for art programs are working to find ways to more proactively
consider the future of their pieces both monetarily and intellectually. At times, trust funds
have been set up from money originally allocated to the project to provide costly
updating or repair of public artworks that contain technological elements. Also, more
direct covenants and maintenance manuals are being developed with the owner of
works so as to obtain a greater legal commitment and larger understanding and of what
is required of them. Although these trusts and agreements do not include funding and
acknowledgment of the necessary reconsideration of a public artwork, they do lay the
78
groundwork for making owners more aware that a piece cannot be sited and then left to
its own devices, but that it is a “living” entity beholden to their care. In the future, if more
consideration were given to reinvestigating percent for artworks, funds could also be set
aside for this purpose, making reassessment a less cumbersome task.
Collection of Percent for Artworks
Harris’s Remodeling Theory can also be used when considering the entire body
of work commissioned by a percent for art program. Though I have stressed that
prominent differences exist between artworks in the public realm and art works placed in
venues like museums, programs can still consider basic institutional methods such as
collection building. Collection stewardship practiced by museums strives to collect art
appropriate to its mission, maintaining the artworks to be used for study and research by
the public and accumulating works that strengthen and support an existing collection.
4
This objective seeks to create a full and effective catalog of work that provides a sense
of meaning for the museum.
Harris stresses the importance of wholeness when dealing with the overall feel
of a city or space as well. And, in the case of percent for art programs, his idea of totality
can be seen not only in the work, its site, and its city, but also in the program’s work,
much like the guiding philosophy of museums. Cohesion can be achieved by siting
overall valuable pieces as representations of the goals of the commissioning agency.
Completeness of a collection of percent for artworks can be demonstrated by making
sure all pieces are living up to its program’s standards; this aim can be more easily
secured by reconsidering work previously sited as well as by identifying wholeness as an
objective when initially commissioning the work.
79
Closing Remarks
Percent for artworks need to be viewed more in a spirit that embraces change
and growth. People migrate; architecture is introduced and modified to fulfill new goals
and to accommodate expansion and new citizenry. Reconsidering the viability of
publicly sited artworks in the public realm will become an obligation for furthering the
success of percent for art programs and to keep them in touch with their public. Just as
Harris strives to obtain wholeness with any built element he reconsiders, so too should
the neighborhood, the city that surrounds it and the commissioning agency seek to
achieve synergy with the artwork that provides the very reason for and gratification of
percent for artwork’s mission.
80
Conclusion Endnotes
1
Lloyd, “A Panel Discussion,” 47.
2
Boivin, “Conserving in a Changing Environment,” 50.
3
Ibid, 51.
4
Association of Museums, Accreditation Program Standards: Characteristics of an Accreditable
Museum, (January 1, 2005), 3.
81
Bibliography
Association of Museums, Accreditation Program Standards: Characteristics of an
Accreditable Museum. January 1, 2005.
Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkley: University
of California Press, 2001.
Baca, Judith. 2002. “Public Participations in Conservation 1: The Great Wall of Los
Angeles” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art. ed.
Hafthor Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002.
Bielstein, Susan M. Permissions, A Survival Guide. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2006.
Boivin, Julie. 2002. “Conserving in a Changing Environment: Some Critical Issues and
New Perspectives” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public
Art. ed. Hafthor Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002.
Bracker, Alison. 2002. “From Pillar to Post with Amibit” in Conservation and Maintenance
of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype,
2002.
Buskirk, Martha. The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. Cambridge: MIT Press,
2003.
California Department of Transportation, Project Development Procedures Manual. Los
Angeles, CA: September 9th, 2008.
California Redevelopment Association, What is Redevelopment?, 2008.
Carr, John and Laura S. Griffith. 2002. “Maintaining Integrity: The Conservation of
Pavilion in the Trees” in Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public
Art. ed. Hafthor Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002.
City of Los Angeles, Office of the Mayor “Demographics,” LA’S Business Team,
http://www.lacity.org/mayor/labt/labt_demographics.htm. (Accessed 14 February
2004).
Community Arts Resources, About Us. http://www.communityartsla.com/home.html.
(Accessed March 29, 2009).
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Art Policy. Los
Angeles, CA: 2005.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Artwork Agreement
between L.A. Arena Company, LLC and Mark Lere. Los Angeles, CA: 1999.
82
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Downtown Regional
Area. http://www.crala.net/internet-site/Projects/Regional_Areas/downtown_region.cfm.
(Accessed 29 March 2009).
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Fact Sheet - The
Garden of Conversion. Los Angeles, CA, May 13th: 1996.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Fax transmission for
Blue McRight to Lesley Elwood per Repairs. Los Angeles, CA: September 4,
1997.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Letters of Support.
Los Angeles, CA: March 31 – April 10,1995.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Memorandum from
Cecilia C. Estolano, CEO to Agency Commissioners per Amend the Art Plan for
the Staples Center. Los Angeles, CA: 2006.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Memorandum from
Julie Silliman, Art Program to Tim Chung, City Attorney’s Office per Removal of
Artwork by Mark Lere at Staples. Los Angeles, CA: November 13, 2003.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Memorandum from
Lesley A. Elwood to Hope Street Terminus – Garden of Conversion/Interested
Parties. Los Angeles, CA: December 1, 1997.
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Memorandum from
Lesley A. Elwood to Samuel Hall Kaplan. (Los Angeles, CA: May 14th, 1996).
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. Purchase Order.
Los Angeles, CA: June 27th, 1995.
deCerteau, Michael. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkley: University of California
Press, 1984.
Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. New York: Verso, 1990.
Department of Cultural Affairs. Public Art Division.
http://www.culturela.org/publicart/publicpercent.html. (Accessed March 29, 2009).
Elwood & Associates. Art and Landscape Maintenance Manual Prepared for the
University of Southern California Roski School of Fine Arts ‘Untitled Four’ Mark
Lere, Artist. Marina de Rey, CA: October 2007.
Gonyer, Bradford. 2002. “Authenticity and Appearance: The Restoration of Nam June
Paik’s Requiem for the Twentieth Century” in Conservation and Maintenance of
Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype,
2002.
83
Grodach, Carl. “Cultural Development and the Entrepreneurial City.” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles, 2006.
The Gunk Foundation, http://www.gunk.org/. (Accessed March 29, 2009).
Haasl, Claire interviewed by Lauren Davis, January 2009.
Harris, Robert. “Remodeling Theory.” University of Southern California, 1983.
Harris, Robert. “Notes Toward a Remodeling Theory.” University of Southern California,
2004.
Hayden, Dolores. The Power of Place. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997.
Isamu Noguchi. The Noguchi Museum. http://www.noguchi.org/. (Accessed March 29,
2009).
Kwon, Miwon. One Place After Another: Site Specific Art and Locational Identity.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
Japanese American Cultural and Community Center. http://www.jaccc.org/index.htm.
(Accessed March 29, 2009).
Japanese American Cultural and Community Center. JACCC Plaza.
http://www.jaccc.org/outdoor.htm (Accessed March 29, 2009).
Lloyd, Ann Wilson. 2002. “Temporality and Preservation: A Panel Discussion” in
Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art, ed. Hafthor
Yngvason. Cambridge, MA: Archetype, 2002.
Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Commission. Public Art, Architecture, Landscape and Urban
Design. Los Angeles, 2008.
Marble, Tom. After the City, This is How We Live. Santa Monica: RAM Publications,
2008.
Mark Lere, Resume, California, 2008.
McRight, Blue Interview by Lauren Davis, December 2008.
Paley, Aaron Interview by Lauren Davis, January 27, 2008.
“Postscript: It did what it was supposed to, but never very well.” Los Angeles Times,
January 21, 1988.
Public Art Network, “Public Art Network Best Practice Goals and Guidelines.” Americans
for the Arts, February 27, 2009.
84
San Francisco Arts Commission. “PA05.3: California Art Preservation Act.”
http://www.sfartscommission.org/pubartcollection/documents/pa05-mural-
guidelines/pa05-3-california-art-preservation-act/. (Accessed March 29, 2009).
Several, Michael. Little Tokyo: The Public Art of Los Angeles Part 2. Los Angeles: CRA
and the Cultural Affairs Department, 1994.
Soja, Edward W. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social
Theory. New York: Verso, 1989.
University of Southern California, USC Roski School of Fine Arts Artist Agreement and
Scope of Services. Los Angeles, CA: February 15, 2007.
Watanbe, Teresa. “Japanese and Koreans learn to Live Together in Harmony in LA’s
Little Tokyo.” Los Angeles Times, February 23, 2009.
Wetenhall, John, “A Brief History of Percent-For-Art in America,” Public Art Review 9,
1993.
85
Appendix A
Remodeling Theory
Robert S. Harris, 1983
Every new action or policy remodels its existing context. There are no vacant sites, and
there are no conditions without current behaviors.
The four “remodeling” questions that must be answered are:
ONE
What already exists that is of great value and quality that should not be damaged?
TWO
What already exists that is valuable and may be able to be further enhanced?
THREE
What exists that is detrimental, that requires significant transformation, or is beyond
repair and should be fully replaced, rejected, demolished?
FOUR
What is missing?
86
Notes Towards a “Remodeling Theory”
Robert S. Harris
Professor of Architecture
University of Southern California
August 2004
Every Project is a Remodeling
We always enter “mid-stream.” That is to say, when we think we are starting
something, we are not. The world is in the process of being, and we are in the motion of
that process as we inherit the context of our own being, and contribute to the
continuation of motion and change.
Every action is an intervention in the existing order. A new policy is indeed “new”
as it is formed and implemented, but it is also a remodeling of the policy framework that
pre-existed. This must be true even if there were no prior policy on the subject at hand.
Similarly, every act of building construction is a remodeling, even if the immediate site
for that building appeared empty before. Not only has the pre-existing emptiness been
changed, but the larger context of the site now includes a building where there was no
building before. Every project is a remodeling.
If “context” is a useful word to suggest the complex conditions that surround and
influence human decisions, everything from what to wear each morning to how to
manage global affairs, then “place” is a word to connote the complex conditions of
neighborhood/district actions, and of all architectural construction. Place is the term that
suggests not only the physical domain in which we act, but also the cultural and historic
setting in which we exist. Context and Place influence actions, but are also transformed
to lesser or greater degrees by those actions. Remodeling is our opportunity, not starting
from scratch, and not enslaved by existing conditions.
Four Essential Questions that Guide Remodeling
There are four questions that naturally arise as any intervention, that is,
remodeling, is proposed:
First, what already exists that is of great value and quality that should not be
damaged by the new action or policy?
Second, what already exists that has value, but is not yet fully developed, and
thus, may be able to be further enhanced?
Third, what exists that is detrimental, beyond repair that should be rejected or
demolished, and fully replaced?
and Fourth, what is missing that should be provided?
Wholeness
Typically as new action is contemplated, we focus on the third and fourth
questions as the origins of efforts for change are in the modification of something that is
not satisfactory, or the addition of something not already present. The familiar adage that
demands “not throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” is the time-tested advice to
consider questions one and two. That advice encourages us to give good attention not
only to what isn’t quite right, but also to the wholeness of our circumstances in which we
may find existing elements of value. Considering these four questions together helps us
develop a more complete understanding of the complexity of every action. When we are
urged to “keep things simple,” that exhortation assists us to focus on central purpose.
But such a focus need not exclude the layers of meaning and opportunity that are
always present and also deserve consideration. “Simple” and “Complex” are corollary
87
possibilities, not in opposition, but also not so easy to achieve unless there is a
willingness to work to do so.
Recognition of the inevitability that our actions are always remodeling should not
be disappointing. The range of remodeling outcomes extends from elegant refinement to
radical transformation. Both of these include the opportunity to feel a sense of great
accomplishment. Subtle refinement carries the spirit of a deft hand, of a wise but simple
and direct adjustment, of the “tweak” that makes the difference between “almost” and
“just right.” Radical transformation accepts the possibilities and risks of setting a new
direction. Wise judgment is required to know what degree of remodeling is the
appropriate action in each instance.
The Medical Diagnosis as a Model
The judgment required to properly intervene can be rooted in a diagnosis of the
existing conditions. The medical diagnosis provides an interesting model. Any patient
knows that a description of what is out of order leads the physician to an inquiry of what
also is in order, what else is out of order, and an effort to generate a comprehensive
image of the total well-being of the patient. This is necessary in order to make a
confidant conclusion about the source of any problem, and about the risks of treatment
options. Treatment must include concern for impacts on the whole body system as well
as on the target. And concern must be present not only for the immediate moment of
distress and relief, but also for long-term effects. All medications and all surgeries, and
all devices are remodelings, and they are successful if they both do some good and do
no harm. Such is the standard for a new law or regulation, or for architectural
construction, for teaching, for agriculture and industry, and indeed then, for all the acts of
human will. Complexity arises in the determination of what is good and what is not, and
what is worth doing, and what is trivial. Yet all of this cannot be estimated without the
care of an original and responsive diagnosis, and without concern for wholeness.
Converting Ourselves to Insider Status
Entering mid-stream carries with it a dismissal of any possibility of working with a
“blank slate.” Remodeling begins with understanding an existing and inevitably complex
setting of prior actions and meanings and successes and failures and great moments
and near misses. We cannot really begin anew, although we can take a fresh view. We
are initially “outsiders” to the local culture. Our diagnosis may help us begin to convert
ourselves into “insiders.” That is clearly the important hurdle for professionals to clear.
Without that transformation, we have little chance to understand the likely full impact of
the remodelings we may propose. And without an accurate assessment of outcomes,
our actions are as likely to do harm as good.
The introduction in recent decades of environmental impact regulations
symbolizes a larger societal understanding of the importance of insider sensitivity. Such
reports require the identification of impacts that are as much about natural systems
necessary for health and well-being as for cultural values that are at the heart of
community and history. The model of the environmental impact report, an ecological
model in reality, is instructive. Its intention for comprehensiveness encourages us to
consider “all” of the types of impacts that might occur. And so with any remodeling,
whether a public policy or a construction project, insider status requires us to ask about
the range of issues and values that are at stake, and thus a background for assessing
impact.
88
The Value of the “Four Questions”
The weight of any sense of obligation to be a sensitive insider is so great that
action either gets deferred for fear of error, or action gets taken abruptly because careful
attention seems to blunt initiative and opportunity. Thus comprehensiveness is more
useful as an idea than as an obligation. To imagine having all the information about
anything is to imagine the impossible. And to imagine considering all the options for
action that may be possible is staggering. Comprehensiveness is simply not fully
attainable no matter what the effort. But there are degrees of the search for wholeness
that do make sense. To begin, the four questions are comprehensive about sharp
attention to existing conditions and new opportunities, about preservation as well as
change. And if that spirit is given to social and cultural conditions, to human
development and well-being, to place and experience, then a degree of
comprehensiveness may occur that is almost sufficient. And if those who inhabit a place,
or who will be affected by a remodeled policy, are enabled to participate in developing
the proposals for intervention, then the chances are improved for giving care to what is
already good, and enthusiasm to what may be possible.
89
Appendix B
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Art Policy
Approved by the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners on 10/21/04
Approved by the Los Angeles City Council on 03/02/05 Additional Revisions Approved
by the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners on 3/03/05 and 1/18/07
I - INTRODUCTION
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) is
a public agency established to attract private investment into economically depressed
communities; eliminate slums, abandoned or unsafe properties and blight throughout
Los Angeles; revitalize older neighborhoods through historic preservation and new
development; create and retain employment opportunities; promote the development of
new housing; support the best in urban design, architecture and the arts; and ensure the
broadest possible community participation in its activities.
Beginning in the late 1960s, the CRA/LA made Los Angeles one of the first cities
in the country to require developers to incorporate art in their development projects. In
redeveloping Los Angeles, particularly its Downtown, the CRA/LA sought to recast Los
Angeles as a world-class city, one whose vitality was strengthened by its commitment to
arts and culture. Through its successful model, the CRA/LA planted the seeds for a
program and funding mechanism that has, over the past 35 years, expanded to
encompass all public and private sector development through Los Angeles and has
been adopted by many other cities throughout this country.
In 1985, the CRA/LA formalized its commitment to the arts by adopting a
“Downtown Art in Public Places Policy” for the three downtown redevelopment project
areas, Bunker Hill, Central Business District, and Little Tokyo. Ten years later, with the
adoption of the 1993 “Public Art Policy,” the CRA/LA expanded the Policy to include all
CRA/LA redevelopment project areas throughout the City. This 2005 revision seeks to
refine and clarify the organization of the Policy and modify its requirements to conform to
the City’s Arts Development Fee Ordinance and Procedures so as to make the
requirements less confusing to the development community and City staff. A separate
user-friendly Developer Guide has been created to aid developers and their
representatives, along with an Art Program Guide to address administration of Cultural
Trust Fund and Agency-Initiated projects.
The intent of the Art Policy is to make artists and the arts primary resources in
the revitalization of the City and to provide physical, social, cultural, and economic
benefits that will strengthen and sustain communities over time.
II - POLICY GOALS
Through the Art Policy, the Agency seeks to achieve the following goals:
• Serve the CRA/LA's mission through revitalization of neighborhoods.
• Promote projects with permanence with which the CRA/LA can be identified.
• Provide public art that is of the highest quality, well integrated into the fabric of
the City.
• Involve artists in planning efforts and utilize their talents to make spaces
relevant to the people who use them.
• Ensure that artists are hired concurrent with other members of the design team
and foster collaboration amongst artists and designers.
90
• Provide opportunities for communities to participate in cultural planning through
Art Advisory Panels.
By changing the name of the policy to Art Policy the intention is not to de-
emphasize Public Art, but rather to acknowledge that in addition to Public Art the policy
supports the creation of, and upgrades to, Cultural Facilities. CRA/LA Art Policy page 1
• Encourage establishment of new and rehabilitated Cultural Facilities based on
an assessment of need and feasibility.
• Assure that artists from diverse cultural, ethnic, gender, and regional
backgrounds are engaged in public art activities under this Policy.
• Work cooperatively with the City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department
and be in conformance with the City's Arts Development Fee Program and the
Public Work Improvements Arts Program.
• Actively disseminate information to the public, especially via the Internet, about
the Art Program. Specifically, communicate the Program’s mission and goals,
keep artists informed about upcoming opportunities, provide easy access to
basic information about artworks available for public viewing, and distribute user-
friendly guides to developers.
III – DEFINITIONS
Agency (CRA/LA) – The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles,
California.
Art Budget – An amount equal to one percent (1%) of project Development Cost
pursuant the Disposition and Development Agreement, Owner Participation Agreement,
or other legal agreement, minus allowable exemptions or credits. Costs must be verified
through Proformas or other financial spreadsheets used as the basis for the DDA, OPA
or other legal agreement.
Art Advisory Panel – A group appointed by the CRA/LA Chief Executive Officer or a
Regional Administrator, in consultation with the CRA/LA staff, to provide advice and
guidance, especially with regard to redevelopment project area-based Cultural Trust
Fund planning, project identification and implementation, and fund balance oversight.
Art Plan – A narrative statement with required attachments submitted by the developer
indicating how the development will meet the requirements of this CRA/LA Art Policy. Art
Plans may address on-site artwork, development or upgrades to a Cultural Facility within
the development or in the redevelopment project area. Art Plans are submitted at the
schematic and final stages of project design. The developer may choose to contribute
the full amount of the art obligation to a Cultural Trust Fund (defined below) in lieu of an
Art Plan.
Art Policy – The adopted policy of the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners and City Council
by which the CRA/LA's Art Program is directed.
Art Program – The CRA/LA's program which sets forth the oversight and management of
Developer-Initiated art projects, Cultural Trust Fund projects, CRA/LA-Initiated projects,
and other related activities.
Artist Selection Panel – A group of artists, design professionals, arts professionals,
community representatives, and others deemed necessary for a balanced point of view
91
called together by a developer or Art Program staff to evaluate artist qualifications and/or
identify artist(s) for a given project in conformance with this Art Policy and related
Procedures and Guidelines.
Arts Development Fee – A fee required of developers (other than those working under
agreements with the CRA/LA) in the City of Los Angeles guided by Municipal Code
Section 91.107.2.11 and Administrative Code Div. 22, Ch.7, Art.3, Sec.22.118.
Artwork (Art, Art Project, Art Elements) – The artist’s contribution to the project as a
result of collaboration with the other members of the design team.
Certificate of Completion (C of C) – A certificate issued by the Agency upon request of
the developer following the completion of a project and as guided by a DDA, OPA or
other legal agreement.
Community Advisory Committee (CAC) – A committee established by City Council in a
specific redevelopment project area to review CRA/LA activities and to make
recommendations to the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners through CRA/LA staff.
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA, The Agency) – The Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, California.
Cultural Affairs Department (CAD) – A department of the City of Los Angeles which
serves as a catalyst for the delivery of high quality arts and cultural experiences to every
neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles. The CAD ensures access to these experiences
through grant making, marketing, development, communication, and building
relationships with community partners.
Cultural Facility – A structure, which houses a cultural activity, that has as its primary
purpose the presenting of one or more art forms (dance, opera, live theater, visual art,
folk and community art, literature, media arts). Cultural Facilities are operated by public
entities or non-profit organizations and are dedicated to cultural activities available to a
broad public. Examples of acceptable facilities are museums, theatres, performing arts
centers, multi-purpose stages and amphitheaters. Facilities that do not meet the
definition are churches, schools, commercial movie theaters, gymnasiums or other
sports facilities, bookstores, buildings dedicated primarily to housing or administrative
activities, and for-profit facilities used for for-profit activities.
Cultural Trust Fund – A separate interest-bearing fund established and maintained by
the CRA/LA for each redevelopment project area for the deposit of the cash portion of
the public art requirement of a development within that redevelopment project area.
Design Professional – An individual professionally trained in design, such as
architecture, landscape architecture, art, graphics, urban design, and planning; also
environmental, industrial, interior, and design.
Design Team Collaboration – Projects created through the co-equal cooperative design
efforts of design professionals, such as artists, architects, and landscape architects.
Development Cost – All “hard” costs and “soft” costs which are incurred by or on behalf
of the Developer, which are directly related to the improvements to be developed
pursuant to an OPA, DDA or other legal agreement (other than costs relating to property
acquisition, development rights transfers, tenant improvements unless specifically
92
included in the OPA/DDA or other legal agreement, and the construction or installation of
off-site improvements), including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the
following: construction costs; construction, engineering and design fees; general
development cost; construction financing interest, fees and "points"; permanent
financing interest, fees, and "points"; building permits and other City fees; utility fees;
taxes; insurance; legal and accounting fees; bonds; soils tests and other tests; and all
other fees and expenses directly related to the construction of the improvements not
specifically included in any of the foregoing categories.
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) – An agreement between the CRA/LA
and a developer involving a conveyance of property by the CRA/LA to the developer for
the purpose of implementing a redevelopment activity.
Financial Participation – Categories of CRA/LA financial participation include, but are not
limited to: tax increment financing; bond financing; planning assistance which results in a
discrete monetary benefit to the project such as a fee reduction or fee waiver;
construction of off-site public improvements by the CRA/LA that would otherwise be the
responsibility of the developer; lease or license of Agency land; land assembly; land
write-downs and tax credits; and below market interest loans.
Final Design – The design once all variables, such as engineering, costs, and changes
in project design are fixed and resolved. It must include identification of all materials,
colors, and processes to be used in the creation of the art, as well as an identification of
who will fabricate or provide all components. Drawings should contain sufficient detail to
allow the art to be constructed and installed. Final design should be accompanied by a
revised artist’s statement of intent and detailed budget.
Life Span of the Artwork – Artworks created under this Policy are meant to be permanent
and should last a century or more when properly designed and maintained. Artworks
with shorter life spans are allowable if addressed in the Art Plan and approved by the
CRA/LA Board of Commissioners. Artwork reaches the end of its life cycle when the
artist, or the artist’s estate, and/or a qualified art conservator verifies that the artwork has
aged or deteriorated to a point where it cannot reasonably be conserved or repaired.
Artwork life span cannot be less than 25 years or the duration of CRA/LA land use
controls.
Nondiscrimination Policy – The CRA/LA policy dedicated to ensuring equal employment
opportunity and access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, creed, ancestry, medical
condition, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (acquired or perceived).
Notice of Program Availability (NOPA) – An advertisement by the CRA/LA that a
program is to be initiated which will require consultants to develop a plan and to
implement it.
Other Legal Agreements – Other types of legal agreements the CRA/LA enters into with
developers include, but are not limited to, Loan, Bond and Construction Agreements or
Contracts.
93
Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) – An agreement between the CRA/LA and a
developer providing for the development of property owned by the developer to
effectuate a redevelopment activity.
Permit Date – The date on which the developer has obtained permits to allow
commencement of construction work on the development project.
Project Area Committee (PAC) – A committee in certain redevelopment project areas
formed and existing pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33385.
Public Accessibility – The condition under which a public space is accessible to the
public a minimum of 12, but preferably up to 18, hours, a day.
Redevelopment Project Area – A specific geographic area of the City of Los Angeles for
which the City Council has adopted a redevelopment plan, in accordance with applicable
State law.
Regional Artist – An artist who resides in Southern California which is geographically
defined as within Santa Barbara to San Diego Counties.
Request for Proposals (RFP) – An invitation by the CRA/LA or a developer to potential
consultants, such as artists, to submit proposals for a specific project, project
component, or professional service.
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) – An invitation by the CRA/LA or a developer to
potential consultants, such as artists, to submit for consideration their qualifications for a
specific project, project component, or professional service.
Schedule of Performance – The summary schedule of actions to be taken by the
developer and the CRA/LA, and any other parties, pursuant to a DDA, OPA, or other
legal agreement to allow for completion of the development.
Schematic Design – The artist’s initial artwork design in context and in scale with
components fully identified. The design should address materials, colors, features, and
processes for which the artist is responsible. Visual illustrations should represent the
artwork in context and should be submitted along with a narrative description explaining
the artist’s intent.
IV - MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
This section sets out the roles and responsibilities of Art Program staff, Art
Advisory Panels, the CRA/LA CEO and the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners with
regard to review and approval of public art projects mandated under this Policy and
addresses project management.
A. CRA/LA Board of Commissioners
The CRA/LA Board of Commissioners ensures that developer agreements
brought before it conform to the requirements set forth in this Policy. The Board
approves changes to the Art Policy as needed to ensure it adapts to the shifting focus
94
and goals of the Agency. Developer Art Plans are reviewed and approved by the Board
after review and evaluation by Art Program staff and an Art Advisory Panel, if applicable.
B. CRA/LA CEO
The CRA/LA CEO reviews and approves updates to the Developer and Art
Program Guides, manages Art Program staff, and ensures adequate staffing.
Additionally, the CEO ensures that the Agency achieves its goals of supporting the best
in urban design, architecture, and the arts.
C. Art Advisory Panels
The Regional Administrator or CEO and CRA/LA Art Program staff establish Art
Advisory Panels in redevelopment areas when the amount and consistency of art
projects merits their formation. Panels should include artists, design professionals, arts
organization representatives, and those interested in public art that live or work in or
near the redevelopment area. Panels provide advice and guidance to Art Program staff
and their views are incorporated into reports to the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners. Art
Advisory Panels review Art Plans from developers, provide recommendations on the use
of Cultural Trust Funds, provide recommendations for artist selection panel members
and may serve on panels themselves. Most importantly, through their knowledge of their
communities, they aid in establishing priorities, in identifying project opportunities, and in
recommending locations and problem sites that might benefit from visual improvement.
Where Art Advisory Panels are not formed, the PAC or CAC shall fulfill this function or a
project-specific Advisory Panel may be established by the CEO or Regional
Administrator.
D. Art Program Staff
Art Program activities and projects are implemented by the CRA/LA Art Program
staff according to CRA/LA policies and practices and are subject to approval of the CEO,
the CRA/LA Board of Commissioners, or the City Council, as indicated and as required
by general CRA/LA procedures and practices, and applicable law. Art Program staff
members are responsible for administrative processes for reviewing and approving
developer Art Plans; updates to the Art Policy and related Guides; participation in the
development of, or revisions to, other Agency policies that impact art or cultural activities
within redevelopment project areas; oversight of all Cultural Trust Funds; management
of CRA/LA-Initiated public art projects and Cultural Trust Fund projects; program
planning and development; outreach efforts; technical support; and support of
communications/public relations efforts related to all such activities. CRA/LA funds will
be budgeted to administer, implement, and support this Art Policy. In addition, up to 15%
of Cultural Trust Fund total fund revenues can be utilized for the management of Cultural
Trust Fund projects.
V - DEVELOPER OBLIGATION
This section summarizes public art requirements placed on private
developments. It gives the history of this obligation and the relationship of the CRA/LA
Policy to the City’s Arts Development Fee Program. Exemptions and credits are listed,
as well as the three possible options for satisfying the Policy requirement.
A. City Arts Development
On March 8, 1991, City Council established the Arts Development Fee requiring
developers to pay up to one percent of their building permit valuation into the Arts
Development Fee Trust Fund or develop an arts project approved by CAD and receive a
95
dollar-for-dollar credit. The CRA/LA’s commitment to public art began more than 20
years earlier and was formalized through a Board-adopted “Downtown Art in Public
Places Policy” in 1983 and again in 1993 when the Policy was revised and expanded to
apply to all redevelopment areas. The1993 CRA/LA Policy was also adopted by the City
Council. The CRA/LA’s Art Policy is reinforced through legal agreements (DDA, OPA or
other legal agreements) and monitored by staff and the CRA/LA Board of
Commissioners.
Both the City’s Arts Development Fee and the CRA/LA’s developer obligation
require one percent of project costs to be designated for art, although the City’s is based
on building type and a square foot calculation.
The Los Angeles Administrative Code requires that dollar-for-dollar credits be
granted for any development project subject to an art requirement pursuant to a written
agreement with the CRA/LA in lieu of meeting the City’s CRA/LA Art Policy Arts
Development Fee requirement.
The developer will work with CAD staff to ensure compliance paperwork is issued
prior to pulling permits with the Building and Safety Department.
B. Private Development Projects Subject to the Art Policy
All private development projects with CRA/LA financial participation must obligate
at least 1% of development cost to art and adhere to the CRA/LA’s Art Policy. Private
development projects within the City without CRA/LA financial participation may be
subject to the City’s Arts Development Fee Program.
C. Exemptions to the Art Obligation
The following are exemptions to the Policy:
• Projects with Development Cost below $500,000.
• New or rehabilitated very low-, low-, and moderate-income (as defined within
the CRA/LA Housing Policy) housing units are exempt from the art obligation.
New or rehabilitated mixed-income housing developments that include both
market-rate and affordable housing units are subject to the art obligation on that
portion of the development that is market rate, but only if that portion represents
20% or more of Development Cost.
• Historic rehabilitation projects conforming to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Credits are given dollar-for-dollar for historic rehabilitation.
• Cultural Facilities (see Definition). Credits are given dollar-for-dollar for the cost
attributed to a Cultural Facility.
D. Developer Options for Satisfying the Art Obligation
A developer has the option of proposing an Art Plan incorporating on-site art or a
Cultural Facility into the development or may elect to pay the full fee into the Cultural
Trust Fund for the redevelopment area in which the development is located. At the
outset of discussions, the CRA/LA will inform the developer of the Art Policy and of its
goals and objectives and how they relate to the CRA/LA's overall mission of
revitalization. Throughout negotiations, staff will work with the developer to fully evaluate
the options available.
Art Plan options are:
• On-Site Art: An artist or artists may be hired to participate in design and
execution of artwork for the development project. To ensure that adequate
funding is available to meaningfully impact the project, the CRA/LA will establish
96
a threshold (for example, $100,000) or fixed amount of the total Art Budget that
may be spent for on-site art. Above that fixed amount or threshold, up to 60% of
the total Art Budget (60% of 1%) can be spent for this effort. The remaining 40%
of the total Art Budget (40% of 1%) must be contributed to a Cultural Trust Fund
established for the redevelopment area. Cultural Trust Funds are guided by
redevelopment project area-based art advisory panels and support public art
initiatives and Cultural Facilities that improve the project area as a whole.
• Cultural Facility: The development may include a Cultural Facility on-site or
within the redevelopment project area, and may utilize up to the full 1% obligation
for that purpose. The Cultural Facility must be made available to a public or non-
profit cultural organization on a permanent basis or long-term basis. There must
not only be a demonstrated need for that Cultural Facility in that area of the city,
but the arts activity must be compatible with the activities, hours of operation, and
public comings and goings of the development. The cultural organization
managing and programming the Cultural Facility must demonstrate current and
future financial stability.
• Cultural Trust Fund Contribution: The full 1% art obligation may be contributed
to the appropriate Cultural Trust Fund in lieu of an Art Plan (see "Procedure for
Cultural Trust Fund Contribution").
E. Art Plan - On-Site Art Option
All developers will be informed of the Art Policy at the outset of discussions with
the CRA/LA. Any developer electing to meet the public art requirement by preparing and
carrying out an Art Plan for on-site art will be instructed that such plan should evolve as
an integral part of the project program and should be the responsibility of the project
artist working collaboratively with the full design team. The Art Plan will be reviewed at
two stages, schematic and final, and will be subject to review and approval in
accordance with a Schedule of Performance.
The Art Plan for on-site art, through the various stages, will describe:
• The artist-selection process, including the method of artist identification, and
evidence that culturally diverse, male and female artists, and artists from the
region have been considered.
• The biographical and professional experience of the artist(s), demonstrating
that the artist is qualified to participate in the project.
• The interrelationship of the Art Plan to the development project plan, including
the artist's contribution to the development of project program and design.
• The relationship and significance of the Art Plan to the site, to the neighborhood
in which it is located, and to its place in the city.
• The location of the artwork within the project and evidence that the location is
accessible to the general public at least 12, but preferably 18 hours a day.
• The relationship to the CRA/LA's mission of revitalization and its Art Policy
goals and objectives.
• The Art Budget showing only eligible costs and limiting administrative fees to a
maximum of 10% of the total.
F. Art Plan - Cultural Facility Option
To use the art obligation to develop a new Cultural Facility, upgrade an existing
facility or contribute to a future Cultural Facility (either on- or off-site) within a
redevelopment project area, the proposal must not only meet an identified need, it must
97
also be operated by a public or non-profit cultural organization with financial capacity.
The Art Plan for the Cultural Facility must address:
• The facility's location within the project, capacity, preliminary design concept,
credentials of proposed operating entity, estimated operating budget of user(s),
and programmatic goals and objectives.
• The operational and financial plan developed jointly by the developer and the
facility operator/cultural organization.
• A plan for ongoing funding of the organization and maintenance of the facility,
including a proposed long-term financing report and marketing plan.
• The Art Budget, including detailed costs associated with building, architectural
and engineering fees, tenant improvements, land value (if appropriate), projected
rent (if the building will not be owned by the non-profit entity), and other costs
used to verify expenditure of the full 1% requirement.
• Legal agreements providing adequate assurances of continuing cultural use
throughout the term of commitment. Such assurances may take the form of
secured contractual commitments, a covenant in perpetuity, an irrevocable trust
fund financing plan, conditional use or zoning restriction, ground-lease
covenants, or other binding use restriction which assures that the property and/or
improvements will be dedicated to public and/or non-profit cultural purposes.
G. Cultural Trust Fund Contribution
Cultural Trust Funds are interest-bearing accounts administered and managed
by the CRA/LA that support public art projects resulting in visual enhancements to the
redevelopment project area, or support Cultural Facilities that attract visitors to the
project area or serve the local community. A developer may commit the total art
obligation to a Cultural Trust Fund for the redevelopment project area in which the
development is located. Developers who do not submit an Art Plan within the approved
Schedule of Performance maybe required to forgo an Art Plan and instead submit the
full 1% developer art obligation to a Cultural Trust Fund. Retrofit of an Art Plan into a
completed project will be discouraged. The Cultural Trust Fund contribution shall be
made no later than the project's Permit Date for demolition, grading, and construction
work. The due date, therefore, will be referred to as the Permit Date.
H. Review and Evaluation of Art Plans
Developer Art Plans will be submitted to and reviewed by Art Program staff and
may be presented to an Art Advisory Panel at two stages of design, schematic and final.
The CRA/LA Board of Commissioners shall approve Art Plans at the schematic stage,
but not before the artist’s ideas are well developed and good visual representations of
the artwork in relation to the project are available. Art Program staff, Art Advisory Panels,
and the Board will use the following criteria for evaluating an Art Plan for On-Site Art:
• Art Plan adheres to Art Policy and the Developer Guide;
• Art Plan achieves Art Policy and Agency goals;
• Artwork design is of high quality and has artistic merit;
• Art Plan is appropriate in terms of scale, material and components relative to
the development’s architecture;
• Artwork is located within the development project in a location or locations with
adequate public accessibility;
• Artwork has long-term durability against vandalism, weather and theft; and
• Artist’s achievements, experience, education, and recognition are consistent
with the scale and complexity of the artwork design.
98
Art Program staff, Art Advisory Panels, and the Board shall use the following
additional criteria for evaluating an Art Plan for a Cultural Facility:
• A need for such a Facility has been clearly demonstrated through an
independent study;
• The Facility meets national standards and is sited appropriately within the
development project area and the redevelopment project area;
• The managing cultural organization has demonstrated financial capability to
successfully operate the Facility in the short- and long-term;
• The parties are committed to negotiating all details regarding ownership,
management, costs, rights over development, and management of the Facility;
and
• Agreements will ensure that the Facility will be reserved for public or non-profit
cultural activity throughout the term of the commitment.
No part of this review and approval process shall operate to restrict or prohibit
any ideological, political or non-commercial message, which is a part of any Art Plan
submitted by the Developer.
I. Covenant for Long-Term Artwork Maintenance
During the Certificate of Completion process for the development project, the developer
will be required to enter into a covenant agreement obligating the developer to maintain
the artwork over the life of the artwork unless otherwise negotiated and approved by the
CRA/LA Board of Commissioners. The covenant will be for the benefit of, and be
approved by, CRA/LA and the City.
VI - CRA/LA OBLIGATION
This section summarizes the CRA/LA’s commitment to public art for Agency-Initiated
projects, which parallel the basic requirements placed on private developments. It also
addresses how CRA/LA has authority over the covenant for the duration of land use
controls of the relevant redevelopment plan and therefore the City will be the responsible
party after that point in time. Artists are selected and who serves on panels that select
artists.
A. In keeping with the requirement it imposes on private developers, and to match the
commitment made by the City to set aside 1% of all public works projects for art, 6 the
CRA/LA shall obligate for public art at least 1% of project development cost on all new
Agency-Initiated projects. This obligation applies to projects where the CRA/LA is the
developer or manager as well as those projects that are jointly developed by the Agency
and a municipal department, agency, or authority. Projects with total costs less than
$500,000 or with little to no public accessibility shall be exempt. However, Agency staff
should consider artists as a valuable resource and may, with guidance from Art Program
staff, seek to engage artists in projects of all sizes and scopes. Budgets may be in
excess of the 1% requirements where appropriate (i.e., in arts districts where public art
can reinforce district identity or where a high-level of community participation in a public
project is sought).
B. Artist Selection Process
Three selection methods are available for artist selection, open, invitational, and direct
(allowable only if justified). In most cases the open method will be used, which invites all
artists to submit qualification or proposals for a project. Art Program staff will work with
99
CRA/LA redevelopment project area staff to determine any eligibility limitations. These
limitations may be imposed based on the funding source, the budget size, location within
the city, expectations for community involvement, and adherence to Policy goals.
Invitational or direct selections may be appropriate for projects with extremely
aggressive schedules, where there is community consensus around an artist or list of
artists to be considered, or where a high-level of experience or a specific type of
experience is required. Shortlists for specific project types assembled by artist selection
panels after an open selection process (i.e., streetscapes, parks, etc.) may be used for a
fixed number of years.
C. Artist Selection Panels
Artist Selection Panels will be comprised of a combination of professional artists, arts
and design professionals, community representatives or stakeholders, and city
department representatives, if appropriate, appointed by Art Program staff. If the artist is
expected to collaborate with a design professional, that design professional should
actively participate in the artist selection process and be a voting or advisory member. If
the artist is selected before the design professional, the artist should participate in
reviews of qualifications and interviews of design professionals being considered for the
project.
D. Artwork Maintenance Since redevelopment areas are established for fixed time
periods, the Agency cannot be in the business of owning artwork in the long-term.
Projects initiated by the Agency should ultimately be turned over to another entity for
ownership, such as a Business Improvement District, the City, or a private owner (See
the Art Program Guide Procedures for details and processes).
VII - CULTURAL TRUST FUNDS
A. Establishment of Cultural Trust Funds Redevelopment project areas with
development projects requiring art obligations that result in deposits to a Cultural Trust
Fund will establish an interest-bearing Cultural Trust Fund named after that area (e.g.,
Hollywood Cultural Trust Fund). The fund will contain developer contributions and any
other funds that are contributed or allocated to the fund. Cultural Trust Funds shall be
carefully monitored by Agency staff to ensure that developer receipts and project
expenditures are accurately recorded and are approved by the Art Program staff, Art
Advisory Panels (PAC/CACs where applicable), or the CRA/LA Board of
Commissioners. Management costs, staff labor, and administrative charges shall not
exceed 15% of total fund revenues.
B. Cultural Trust Fund Projects Cultural Trust Funds provide redevelopment project
areas with resources for projects involving artists and the arts that could otherwise not
be accomplished. It is not intended that these funds be used for programming and
operating grants or for objectives more reasonably funded by others, such as the
Cultural Affairs Department, or other arts funders. Art Advisory Panels shall guide
Cultural Trust Fund projects, or in redevelopment areas where panels have not been
established PACs or CACs will guide them. The Panel or PAC/CAC shall be asked to
develop priorities for projects that it, on behalf of the community, sees as important to
change, enhance, or energize the visual environment. Council Offices, the Mayor’s
Office, and Neighborhood Councils play vital roles in efforts to revitalize communities
and bring arts and cultural experiences to their constituencies. Input and guidance will
be sought from each to identify and initiate Cultural Trust Fund projects. On a case-by-
100
case basis, projects outside a redevelopment area may be supported. Projects funded
by Cultural Trust Funds will be measured first by how they serve the revitalization
mission of the CRA/LA and second how they meet the goals and objectives of the Art
Policy.
VIII - DEVELOPER AND ART PROGRAM GUIDES
A Developer Guide has been prepared to assist developers and their
representatives in understanding the Art Policy and how it applies to their development.
It outlines choices, steps, required submittals, approvals, and key milestones. The Guide
contains procedures which detail key components, for example, eligible and ineligible
costs, and should be consulted for a more thorough understanding of CRA/LA
requirements.
An Art Program Guide has been prepared to assist Agency staff in
implementation of Agency-Initiated public art projects or Cultural Trust Fund financed
projects, oversight of Cultural Trust Funds, interface with advisory panels, and
coordination with the Cultural Affairs Department. Procedures address artist selection
processes, panel membership and term limits, project approvals and forms, planning for
future maintenance, plaques, and public information.
The Developer and Art Program Guides may be changed upon approval of the
CRA/LA CEO, as necessary, so long as such changes are consistent with the intent and
practice of this Policy.
101
The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles Downtown
Region
102
The Community Redevelopment of the City of Los Angeles Central Business
Project Area (including the South Park Neighborhood)
103
The Community Redevelopment of the City of Los Angeles Little Tokyo Project
Area
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This paper argues that artworks commissioned for permanent integration into the public realm through percent for art programs have processes and considerations more in common with fields such as architecture and urban design, than with artworks commissioned for inclusion in personal collections, museums, or galleries. Architect and academic Robert Harris developed a Remodeling Theory for the reexamination of features of the built environment, which presents a relevant method for evaluating percent for art public art. The application of Harris's method systemizes the artwork's value through consideration of its relevance to the surrounding environment. It demonstrates how pieces may be reconsidered to adapt to their changing context and improve their potential to meet the goals of the commissioning agency. Case studies will be provided through the lens of Downtown Los Angeles and the artworks commissioned through the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Collaborative art practice in the public sphere: The death of the artist?
PDF
Temporary or permanent? Considering time, memory and history in public art projects
PDF
Fostering vital places: public art and the revitalization of the Los Angeles River
PDF
Artistic intervention in the Los Angeles urban geography: the art practices of Charles Long, Harry Dodge and Stanya Kahn
PDF
Exploring best practices for building a university's public art collection
PDF
Examining current U.S. public art trust fund programs for applications in Taiwan: visions for Taiwan 's new public art trust fund
PDF
Art on billboard space: Subversive intervention in the city of Los Angeles
Asset Metadata
Creator
Davis, Lauren
(author)
Core Title
Reconsideration of permanent percent for art works in the public sphere: a case study of public art commissioned by the community redevelopment agency of the city of Los Angeles
School
School of Fine Arts
Degree
Master of Public Art Studies
Degree Program
Public Art Studies
Publication Date
05/05/2009
Defense Date
04/01/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles,OAI-PMH Harvest,percent for art,public art,remodeling theory,Robert Harris
Place Name
Los Angeles
(city or populated place)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gray, Susan (
committee chair
), Decter, Joshua (
committee member
), Owen Driggs, Janet (
committee member
), Weisberg, Ruth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
lauren.irene.davis@gmail.com,laurenid@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2177
Unique identifier
UC1118705
Identifier
etd-Davis-2774 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-237122 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2177 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Davis-2774.pdf
Dmrecord
237122
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Davis, Lauren
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
percent for art
public art
remodeling theory
Robert Harris