The Solar Web

More Bruria ha ha about the Solar Webb

Dear Sirs:

April, 13 -- In her email, Ms. Finkel says, "NES park from the beginning has stirred the imagination of people and the ire of some - new ideas don't come easy."

In case you are not aware of it , NES stands for Natural Elements Sculpture Park, the "artistic (?) vision" Bruria Finkel and the Arts Commission is forcing on us at the beach. They plan this stuff over the entire beach, north to south. It is not at all natural, it detracts
from nature, simply look at the "sculptures" they have already made: this is natural? This is enhancing the beach?

I haven't heard much about stirring imaginations, but I certainly have heard a lot of ire. By the way, it is no longer a "New Idea" - we've seen what it is and we don't need anymore.

Peter Davison

Our Beach

Dear Sirs:

April 13 -- I have been reading about the Solar Web to be built on the beach. This is a BIG mistake, we should leave the beach as a place where we can enjoy nature. Everywhere you go in Santa Monica, it is crowded with buildings, cars, etc., etc. The beach is our ONE PLACE where we can go and feel the open space of nature.

I don't want to have someone's artsy idea of what I am supposed to see and feel forced on me when I go to get my exercise and refreshment at the beach.

Thank you for your time in reading my letter. I hope it causes you to rethink this.

Sincerely,

Lisa R. Chester

Art Sculpture "Solar Web"

To Whom It May Concern:

April 13 -- I understand that the Art Commission is going to build a giant sculpture called "Solar Web" on the beach. I love the beach, and enjoying the natural serene setting of the beach, and feel the sculpture will detract the natural beauty of the beach. It's enjoyable to see the beach in it's natural setting. I couldn't imagine going to the beach to see
art, that isn't the reason I go to the beach. It would only deter me from going. If I chose to see art, I would go to a gallery or a museum setting, not to the beach.

Sincerely,
Rochelle Hislar

They want to keep their money flowing

Dear Sirs:

In regard to SOLAR SHOWDOWN NEVER FLARES, I didn't know I was
attending a SOLAR SHOWDOWN. While there was a question period at the
end, I didn't feel at the time that raising a lot of opposition was appropriate, it didn't seem like a forum for a debate and I didn't want those of us opposed to this to seem like rabble rousers. Now, with perfect hindsight, I wish I had voiced my concerns. I will attempt to do so now.

Before I talk about my reactions to Nancy Holt and the artwork she wants to "impose" on our beach, I have a few thoughts on our Public Arts Program. Basically what I see is this: we have an Arts Commission, the purpose of which is to install Public Art. There are full time paid staff, this is their job.

They receive something called Percent for the Arts money, which apparently is tax money allotted to public art, as well as grants (in which I assume they also pay themselves). In order to keep getting this money (and their jobs), they have to keep making more public art. The Solar Web, the current piece they want to build, is a very large sculpture to be built on the beach. It is not at all natural looking, is totally out of keeping with the look of the beach and is a building evelopment that will greatly detract from the beach.

But in order to keep their money flowing, the Arts Commission has to build ever more of these, Solar Web is just the next one - this is not the end. We have no more open space in Santa Monica, the beach is the last place, the last western frontier. So this is the only place they can build these things. Where else? Can you imagine a large public arts sculpture on a hill in Santa Monica Canyon?

The outcry? So, they have to decorate the beach. The public art we already have is abysmal. First is was the arch over Wilshire Bl, welcoming the downtrodden into
Santa Monica. How about the orange slices, or whatever that is, on Pico and Ocean. Or the rolling pin thing that can't be moved.

Then they started a new kind of claim for public art: we of the public are not aware enough to realize that the sea, sky, sun, beach, etc., is beautiful, so we need artworks to enhance and interpret for us, to make us realize that there is beauty in nature. And we got the orange boats under the pier and the singing chairs.

The only way these enhance the beach for me is to not look at them. And now it is Solar Web. How this 72footX52footX16foot pile of black aluminum poles can possibly enhance the beach is beyond me. And again, the Arts Commission needs to put
these all over the beach in order to stay in business.

I propose that instead of having Percent for the Arts to make public art, we should have Percent for Arts Education in the Schools. As far as I know at least $145,000 of tax money is going to Solar Web. We could actually have an arts program in our schools with this amount of money. I serve on the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District
District Advisory Committee on the Fine Arts, trying to get funding for arts education in our schools. I know our schools here have this reputation for being great in the arts, but it is simply not true.

There is no specific arts education in elementary or middle school with an actual arts teacher, unless there are volunteers or the PTA sets something up. I won't go on about the state of arts programs in our schools, but our children are not getting much in the way of visual arts, music, theater, dance, etc. For $145,000 we could start to have a
wonderful program, but we have to spend it on Ms. Holt and this environmentally destructive work instead. What a waste.

Basically, I see the Solar Web as a development project out on the beach. Those of us against this would be just as opposed to a 72footX52footX16foot Pizza Stand, Apartment or any other development built out on our beach. I need to say something about development. Where I might see a beautiful hill, say in Topanga, a developer sees
$cash$ and condos. And where I see a beautiful beach here in Santa Monica, Ms. Holt and the Arts Commission see $cash$ and public art pieces. They are just a business, a way to make money and, so far, the aesthetic value of the public artworks that have already been built is pretty low. I think we should leave the beach, our last bit of open
space, alone.

Now about Ms. Holt and her talk the other night. Again, I thought her Freudian slip saying the piece was "imposed" on the beach rather than "superimposed" as she corrected it was fascinating, as well as true. As she said, "Santa Monica is not a wilderness." I completely agree. The area they want to build this on is unique in our beach, it is the only place left that does not have a parking lot behind it, the beach goes
all the way up to the street. There are no buildings on or around it, no hamburger stands, no bathrooms, nothing - just one lifeguard tower.

Just open space, where one can see the ocean, the mountains and the beauty of nature without anything in the way. When she talks about the Solar Web "framing the sun and the sky" it fills me with nausea. Everywhere in Santa Monica, the sun and the sky is framed by buildings, phone poles and everything else. Here, one can go and be unframed; see the sun, sky, beach, etc., without any obstructions.

But Ms. Holt's sculpture has to frame the sky so we have to see it through her aesthetic, again telling us we do not actually appreciate nature without an artwork to enhance it for us. Ms. Holt actually said, "My artwork is better than nature." If Solar Web is any indication, I must humbly disagree. Again, any sort of development on this space would ruin it, not just sculpture. We claim to be this "Green City", how in heaven's name can we build on our beach, the last little bit of open space and be "Green"?

One person, Zina Josephs, herself an Arts Commissioner, asked about the safety of a 16 foot high jungle gym, as the Arts Commission describes Solar Web. And once again we were told by Ms. Holt and the Arts Commission that it was not a problem for a child to fall 16 feet onto a cement slab covered with rubber. This seems to be ridiculous to me, and I would never let my child play on it. I wonder how they determined this safety, did they drop 50 children from 16 feet high onto a cement slab covered with rubber and if only 10 broke various limbs, that was an acceptable accident ratio? 16 feet is almost 2 stories high. If it is so safe, does Ms. Holt include a guarantee: if there is a liability
lawsuit, she will pay for it rather than the taxpayers?

In their description of the Solar Web, the Arts Commission says that there are all sorts of things that is does, like a spot of sunlight lands on the rubber at certain times of year, that at solstices certain things all line up, etc., all determined by an astronomer, who
supposedly located a precise spot on which it has to be built - a sort of designer Stonehenge. With all this supposedly precise location, I have been trying for years to get someone at the Arts Commission to tell me precisely where it will be built. No one seems to know, other than that it is on the South Beach.

Someone asked this of Ms. Holt, who also had no idea of where it was going to be built and had to ask the Arts Commission chairperson, who also had no idea where it is going to be built. All this precise arts speak stuff about solar alignments and who knows what else and yet they have no idea where it will be built. It smells like another public artwork failure, like the rolling thing that can't be moved. By the way, if you want to see the sunset on a particular solstice, all you have to do is look on your calendar to see what day the solstice is and then go look at the sunset. Ms. Holt herself had beautiful photos of the sunset at the solstice without the intervention of any sort of sculpture.

Another Arts Speak claim of the Arts Commission is that Solar Web will "celebrate the transition form Venice Beach to Santa Monica Beach." I have done this "transition" many times and have never felt it was a cause for celebration. The Wave over Wilshire Bl was supposed to be the same sort of thing, but I really don't think people celebrate too often when seeing this. Do we have to have a large sculpture to celebrate the
transition from every town to every other town, or is entering Santa Monica the only transition which causes sudden celebrations.

At the same time, the Art Speak about Solar Web says "through Solar Alignments, will universally mark Santa Monica's place on the planet." First of all, as I mentioned, they have no idea where it will be built, so it is suspect whether these Solar Alignments will even occur. Even so, since it is celebrating the transition from Venice to Santa Monica, it must be near the border on the south beach. Why are we universally marking Santa Monica's place in the universe as the very tippy south part of our city?

Why not build it in front of City Hall, if the purpose is to universally mark Santa Monica's place (whatever that means)? That way when people on the Pliedes, if they have strong enough binoculars, look down on earth at the solstice they can say, "Oh look, a little light - that must be Santa Monica" and actually be seeing Santa Monica, instead of the celebrations going on at the border of Santa Monica and Venice ( we wouldn't want them to get confused). Because, remember, this light that universally marks Santa Monica's place in the universe is on the rubber mat on the ground and can only be seen from a few feet away - or if one is above it.

Another thing the Arts Commission claims about these sculptures on the beach is that they cause "spontaneous improvised performances." I don't know of this actually occurring, but in the Arts Commission's art speak literature describing the sculptures, they all say this will happen. And this is another important justification for building these things.

I don't make any money from trying to stop this, I'm not running for any sort of office, the only reason I want to stop the development of our beach by public art pieces is that I truly care about the beach and feel we need to preserve our open beaches for people to enjoy the natural beauty we have here. I don't know anyone who wants these sculptures on our beach.

Peter Davison

To clutter or unclutter

There is a very interesting juxtaposition, two paths, apparently both started by the City Council in about 1985. Both involve art, clutter and open space.

In one path businesses must remove signs, apparently to make less clutter. The city Planning Division calls this sort of clutter "aesthetically distracting." It is interesting to note, since the city is so eager to expose its citizens to artwork, that signage such as this has been used by many artists such as Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, Barbara Kruger and others to make hundreds of works of art and amass fortunes for the creators. In any case, such signage must be taken down to remove clutter, apparently to make more open space.

At the same time, where we have open space -- at the beach -- the city decides it is important to add clutter to that open space. As described by the Santa Monica Arts Commission, "The project will be located within a broad open sandy area, measuring about 3 acres in size, between the pedestrian promenade, surfline and the nearby landscaped areas to the north and south."

The only structure within this area is a lifeguard tower. This 3 acre completely open, uncluttered space (a rarity in Santa Monica) is the spot chosen to put Solar Web, a 72-foot by 52-foot by 16-foot structure (about the size of a 4 unit apartment building). It is made of angular, black steel pipes. Apparently the City Council feels it is important to add clutter, which is "aesthetically distracting," to this open space. And more sculptures are planned to add more clutter to the beaches, our last open space.

So where there is clutter, the city forces businesses to remove their signs to make less clutter and more open space and where there is already open space, the City decides to add clutter. Of course, if it is a city sign which falls into the removal category, such as the Santa Monica Pier sign, then it is called "historic" and, magically, it is no longer "aesthetically distracting."

The unrelenting lack of any sort of logic is mind numbing.

Peter Davison
Santa Monica

MORE LETTERS