Hey, there! Log in / Register
The importance of art on the T
By adamg on Sat, 11/21/2015 - 9:47am
News that the MBTA is canceling contracts for art on the Green Line extension - and on the Fairmount Line - got artist Elisa H. Hamilton to thinking on how art in Red Line stations helped shape her as an artist, and what the loss of the proposed art means:
Public transportation is one of the great equalizers here in the Commonwealth - the artwork created for our MBTA stations is not only meant to beautify, but also to create a sense of place for people in every walk of life. The decisions we make now in renovating and rebuilding our MBTA stations will impact our communities for a very long time. Art in MBTA stations gives an otherwise utilitarian space a sense of soul, a sense of color, culture, and life, a sense of the communities that these stations represent and serve. It fosters a tremendous sense of community ownership - every time T riders see this art, it says to them, "you are home."
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Disagree.
I just want to get from one place to another. Find something that shapes you as an artist and doesn't cost the taxpayer money.
I'm sorry for your lack of
I'm sorry for your lack of ignorance. ART is a very important tool for the community and the city.
Why be sorry for someone's
Why be sorry for someone's lack of ignorance?
Craft on the T
The T should pay the artists to make better designed permanent fixtures.
The tiled walls are dismal and sad and then they plastered these aluminum photo-printed things on them. They should have just paid artists to make beautifully tiled walls.
It would have been better for the artists to learn to make beautiful things and I bet taxpayers would be more willing to pay for it.
Somebody always want public art that assaults the middle class, but then that edge gets ground off, and you're left with something that doesn't bother people because it has no answers. I don't think it's worth it.
Then you pay for it.
Then you pay for it.
Deal
When you pay the full cost of your use of the roadways, sure.
I use the T. I use it to get
I use the T. I use it to get somewhere, not look at the walls.
With all the T breakdowns, the more U get to look at art
but, somehow I don't think that angle will be pitched.
You're comparing the
You're comparing the government subsidizing with tax dollars something that at least serves a functional purpose, to the government using entirely tax dollars for something that's not functional but purely aesthetic.
I ride the MBTA to get me
I ride the MBTA to get me from A to B, not look at art. If the MBTA is bankrupt and falling apart I want it to be fixed or expanded to places I need to be. Not going even more bankrupt or decrepit so some artist can get a paycheck.
Getting you from point A to
Getting you from point A to point B is obviously the most important goal, while the art is a nice extra.
However, accoring to the article, $1.9 million in total were budgeted for art, for a project that was budgeted to cost $1.9 billion, and is expected to overrun by another billion. That's 0.1% of the original budged they can save by cutting all art; and actually, less, since they already paid some of the artists the initial installments.
Now, if the project is over-budget and they just don't have the money, they don't have the money. But it really seems like cutting fractions of pennies to the dollar isn't smart budgeting, it's just political theater to do high-profile cuts that don't actually save much money without actually solving the problem of the seriously large budget and huge overruns. Where is the rest of that $3 billion actually going? Isn't there somewhere that some real money, maybe a couple of tens or hundreds of millions, could be saved, instead of something that's such a small fraction of the budget?
Art is very important for the soul of the subway
I wonder if the MBTA spends more money on removing graffiti from the subways than investing in public art that all can enjoy.
The one practical benefit of
The one practical benefit of permanent art displays on random objects is preventing graffiti.
Graffiti generally comes from bored teenagers who see a clean, blank wall and think "this is boring". Kids find a lot of things boring which adults find perfectly nice. So, the kids mark up the blank slate. If there's some artsy-looking there, kids are much less likely to touch it.
Promoting public art for art's sake is a lot of fluff, but for practical reasons, more art on the T is the best way to go if it saves you from doing graffiti removal.
Rattlecan Rembrandts fill the void for free
Could even designate official spaces for them and let them do their thing.
Though, some haters claim its NOT ART...
Art is such a small portion
Art is such a small portion of the budget that cancelling it in the name of saving money is pointless.
For example, of the current projected cost of the GLX, cutting art from it saves 0.056% of the budget.
Money is
Money and every penny counts. I buy a monthly pass as a means of traveling through the city, not to look at art.
Now that I think about it, I
Now that I think about it, I guess artists are probably designing the Charlie Card and the new livery.
The GLX art is $1.9M
The GLX art is $1.9M according to an article I saw yesterday.
The late-night service, which they're also talking about cutting, costs $14M. It wouldn't take too many other $1.9M chunks of spending - perhaps more frivolous work like planned art installs on other lines? - to find $14M.
Personally I'd rather be able to use the T than stand around T stations staring at pieces of twisted metal hanging from the ceiling or whatever. But that's just me.
I'd rather see them actually
I'd rather see them actually use their advertising space effectively before making major cuts anywhere. How many times have you seen outdated ads? That's lost revenue.
Given the number of art students
In Boston, this could easily be contracted out to a class for a public art installation assignment or design contest or whatever.
I know people deserve to be paid for their work and all, but public art tends to be weird, confusing, and of questionable quality anyway. No one riding the T will be able to tell the difference.
For "Exposure"?
The idea that artists want to work for free is a huge misconception. They don't want 'exposure.' They want a paycheck like the rest of you.
I like art, I have framed
I like art, I have framed prints in my house. Monet , van Gogh , Childe Hassam , and others. Not originals, look the same to me though. I dont expect anyone else to like them, I do , and I invested in myself to enrich my environment at my own expense. Now , public art is another thing. Everyone has different tastes, so you cant please everyone. Although not art , but take the Boston City Hall. Some people dig it, I think it looks like the spillings from the remnants of Boston S&G loads.
But the shit has hit the fan with the T , and the last thing it needs is a syphoning of funds, or even the attitude that its not that much more money, to divert nut and bolt money away from the crumbling infrastructure, for such extravagances. ( not to mention the clusterfluxing of the add to's of the Green Line extension or the wished for Taj Mahal like stations on the proposed Southcoast rail fiasco). So just stop it, and that means you too, Rose Kennedy Greenway . We have a civilization here to run, people and goods to be moved , the peace to be kept. we are running out of Other Peoples Money. Carry on!!
The Art helps...
... because it calms people down, and gives kids something to do while waiting for the train. The cows at Alewife and the gloves at Porter still make me smile, 28 years after I first saw them.
The cancellation is disappointing, but I'm sure it has more to do with "we don't know when we're going to actually build this thing, so stop waiting for us" than not wanting art on the T.
And for all the sad sacks who "just want to get from point A to point B"; fine. Please don't deny the rest of the passengers boarding your train. We have to wait, too.
Toaster , I hear you, but you
Toaster , I hear you, but you arent recognizing the fiscal seriousness of the condition of the T. It is just a disbursement of funds that are better spent, necessarily so, on infrastructure. What good is ambiance if no trains show up, or they are run unsafely. The youths have the iGadgetry to keep themselves occupied , and with respect to Alewife, cow pictures might be nice, but what I remember is all the businesses in that nook are no longer there, jobs and people gone. I like Jasper , dont get me wrong, but this T stuff is a crisis, And I wont even mention the arrogance and the abuses of the Greenway, there are no more leaves on the money tree! ride on, ! And the toaster is our friend , just got some cinnamon raisin bread for just that!
So basically cutting things
So basically cutting things like late night service, and arts is what's gonna fix the T, huh?
Glad I left town...
Exactly ! Fiscal
Exactly ! Fiscal responsibility..........
Tackling the real source of
Tackling the real source of the debt would be fiscal responsibility. All of these chicken shit cuts that aren't a drop in the bucket is why the problem will never be fixed.
I suppose with your logic, if someones house was on fire, your solution would be to spit on it.
'' Glad I left town..''
'' Glad I left town..'' amen,
Ha - good one!
Ha - good one!
Glad you got a chuckle, and
Glad you got a chuckle, and my brother , who is a jake . would never approve of spitting on a fire.
Well, when you're standing
Well, when you're standing around waiting for that late-night train that isn't gonna come, at least you have something to look at it.
Are there any private
Are there any private foundations, or government agencies that give art grants, that could replace this funding?
Art
I'm on the fence about this. I see both sides.
I like art on the T. It does break up the monotony of the stations. Some of the work is pretty interesting (i.e. Porter, Kendall, etc). And if my memory serves me correctly, the T was the first to have such a program. And the T has one of the largest public transit art collections in the entire US because of its funding of "Arts on the T" program. (~90 or so pieces)
But I also see the financial aspect of the argument against art on the T, and yes every penny counts. However, it's just such a small percentage of the budget so it makes you wonder if it is really making all that much of difference in the budget or not
This is where one of those Public-Private Partnerships that Baker is always talking about would work well. Maybe have corporations sponsor each piece and they'd get a plaque near the work stating they donated. Then it can be axed from the overall GLX budget, but still happen because it gets paid for some other way.
A combination of PPPs, public
A combination of PPPs, public and private grants, and donations from people who support the art on the T should be more than enough to pay for it.
I would be surprised
If the City of Somerville did not see the value in public art such that they would be willing to pick up the tab. Why not ask them? And I'd be floored if Tufts wouldn't pay for it at their station.
2% for (bad) Art in San Francisco criticized
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2015/11/programs-for-publicly-accessi...
So long as the art can come later.
So long as the T isn't doing something stupid like redesign the stations so public art as an add-on becomes infeasible, then it can come later. But FFS finish the damn extension and the bike path..
and the bike path..
Speaking of things that can come later as add-ons.
No. Not at all
That path has been needed for years already as it is. It is not an extra. It is a key piece of both pedestrian and cyclist safety for Somerville AND traffic reduction on roadways surrounding the stations.
Otherwise, they need to cut the roads down to one lane each way and/or get rid of all the parking to accommodate all traffic modes.
Of course, you don't live anywhere around this area or spend any time in, around, or through there, so you don't have any idea what the current set up is like. Somerville isn't Reading or Wakefield - people don't drive to the transit station and park all day.
Even if the bike path is a good thing....
... why should it be paid for by the MBTA -- rather than by the state's general budget?
Look at the design documents
It is essentially being built as part of the line - something they would have to build anyways (retaining walls and emergency access service roads) when they rebuild the sidewalls of the ravine.
If the bike path is so important
to Somerville, then why isn't Somerville footing the bill to construct it? Oh right, because why not extort the cost from the state instead under the guise of "mitigation'.
And for the record, on most days I normally walk from my house to the commuter rail station.
Pay for the paint, you mean?
Oh look, Roadman hasn't bothered to look at the actual freaking design plan. No surprise since it isn't a pweshious road for his special car!
Something gets built there anyway (you might want to look up the words "retaining wall" and "access road for emergency vehicles"). The creative and thoughtful people who actually design these things figured out that it might as well be built to be usable by ... gasp ... HUMAN BEINGS!
Oh, but hey ... we can always build those retaining wall structures and access road such that nobody but graffiti artists can use them JUST to spite those nasty organized and vocal cyclists and pedestrians as a payback for actually utilizing democratic process, and spend much more later as an add on once Gubignor Kochker gets bounced out.
Yep. Redesign the project at great expense and block a lot of the existing roads around the stations so people can use them. Because Roadman thinks anything that has to do with walking or biking is "an add on". Right. Bad design saves money!
Or we could step back a moment
and ask ourselves this: Why is it necessary to build the GLX on a totally separated right of way that requires all those retaining walls and structures? Perhaps we could re-align the service so it runs along adjacent streets, thus serving more people easier and obviating the need for expensive and pointless construction. In case you haven't noticed, this is how light rail lines in most cities are constructed, and they seem to work perfectly fine.
And a pro tip Ms. Swirls - lose the unnecessary snark in your replies. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a car lover and/or a bike hater. But making those claims only hurts your arguments.
On a related note.
1. Using that right of way limits the grades the GLX will be climbing up and down, making it a great deal more useful.
2. Those retaining walls will need rebuilding at some point soon anyway. Retaining walls don't retain forever.
3. Opening the resulting space as a bike path makes the T itself more useful, and reduces the risk of the space from being used as a repository for authentic late 20th century Americana. (i.e. graffiti.)
The bike path vastly improves the usability of the T
Red Line breaks down near Davis?
Grab a Hubway and haul over to the Green Line.
Green Line stalled by idiot driver on Comm Ave?
Go the other way.
Not in good enough health to do this? Stuck with bustitution?
No worries. All the healthy hipsters will be using the bike path, so at least your bus won't be crowded.