It was made to
look all rosy and positive. The article by Philip Follent in
ArchitetureAU Discourse, The search for an authentic
architecture and city form on the Gold Coast, presented
everything in glowing terms. One was left wondering why the critical
eye can be so blinded to ordinary realities. The Gold Coast is not as
wonderful as the piece made it appear, authentic or not. The best
example of the hyped, promotional sense of the article is the Gold
Coast sign that is located in the middle of the M1 motorway at Yatla.
The illustration
in the article shows this 2.1 million dollar artwork shining brightly
and clearly, looking truly 'Gold Coast' with its speckled, sparkle
haze. The trouble is that it seems that the two-way artwork can only
be read from two positions, (wrong*), each on the opposite sides of the M1, the main highway that connects Brisbane to the Gold Coast. Hundreds of
thousands of vehicles pass the artwork every day, but all that is
seen is a cluster of lights on poles of varying heights, with the galvanised steel tubes painted yellow at different distances above the ground. One is
left asking “What?” and “Why?” During the day, one explains
the shambles as being designed for the night; at night, one wonders
why that particular portion of the highway has been so uniquely
illuminated: might it mark a boundary between cities in the same way as the border
artworks identify the crossings between Queensland and New South
Wales at Coolangatta/Tweed Heads?
'Authentic' Gold Coast?
Border marker
The highway
lighting artwork is a most puzzling mess that is meaningless to the
many who drive past it. Even when seen as a spatial glow at night,
one cannot make anything sense of the installation. Once one has been told
what it is all about, the piece still stubbornly remains totally
unintelligible. The first time the work was seen, one was left totally
befuddled; one could make nothing coherent of the apparent meaningless cluster other than seeing what looks like a random clutter of yellow posts with
lights at their bent ends. When told it read 'Gold Coast,' the experience of passing
remained a struggle, as one tried hard to read what one knew was there.
The art was totally incomprehensible.
Border sculpture
The only time one
has seen the 'Gold Coast' message has been in this ArchitectureAU
article, in the published photograph. So it does not come as a
surprise to hear that the City of Gold Coast Council is planning to remove
the work: see -
https://www.news.com.au/sport/commonwealth-games/gold-coast-welcome-signs-sledged-by-residents/news-story/93e9b3f662680a8fd4dfb5a1bad660a8 One is left wondering how the piece and the expenditure got approved
when it seemed always destined to be totally ineffective in delivering its
message to the masses.
It has been said
that train passengers can read the words, but this is only one side
of the artwork. One has no idea who might ever be positioned to read
the message that faces the other direction, or where this location
might be: (wrong*).
The 'GC' sign: note difference with artist's concept below - was the concern vandalism?
Has it been that
the dumb enthusiasm and group excitement for the proposal has egged
it through the approval process without anyone bothering to think beyond a universally
positive outcome that was never there? Could not the selection
committee see what the dominant, primary highway experience would be?^ Was no question ever asked, or answered? Was it seriously only ever intended for rail passengers passing by at night? Has any of the committee ever been on the Gold Coast train at night? All one can see are the interior reflections in the windows.
The artist's impression of the piece above outside the airport.
There is a stark difference here between the vision and the reality.
It is an
interesting idea that has been replicated in miniature near the
Coolangatta airport as a 'GC' smaller than the artist’s impression, with letters that are skewed towards the traffic. These lights can be clearly read
by all who drive past, if they are travelling north. The full text in
the larger artwork at Yatla does not address the traffic flow; it projects its
slick message over the heads and at right angles to the perpetual
flow of vehicles.
'Gold Coast'?
Might not the
artist have been aware of the limitation of the work? Was there
supposed to be some delight in the poles themselves? One is always
happy to see the enthusiasm of an artist for an artwork, but getting over-excited
uncritically, without pondering all the possibilities of the
performance, its constraints and failures, will only ever lead to the
inherent problems surfacing as realities soon after completion.
'Gold Coast'?
It is truly sad
that the work is going to be removed, as it sets a terrible example
for the future of artworks in our towns and cities, and on our
highways. The danger is that this piece will become for art, what the
'Opera House' has turned into for architecture. The construction and
budget problems with the Sydney Opera House are always raised when it
is suggested that a project could be the subject of a public competition, or when an experimental structure might be proposed. The response is
usually, "We don't want another Opera House!" and everyone
knows that this statement is referring to Utzon’s Sydney Opera
House. The reverberations of these troubles remain even to this day:
architectural competitions are few and far between; and architects
are encouraged to be ‘safe and conservative,’ all because of the
Sydney experience that came to be seen as 'a waste of money.' It makes no difference that the Opera House has turned out to be a World Heritage icon.
The danger with
what appears to be an expensive, ill-considered artwork, is that
future artworks will come to be seen in the same way, as 'a waste of
money.' One can see the $2.1 million 'Gold Coast' dazzle, (it gets worse**), being used to
prove the point, and have projects completed without any art, or with
something cheap and mundane that will not create any ‘news-worthy’
problems, but still tick all of 'the boxes.'
'Authentic' Gold Coast?
We need art, but
it must be rigorous and effective, thoroughly thought through,
beautifully crafted and constructed, and a constant delight for the spirit. It has to be
more than a smart idea that can be interpreted only by a few passersby who
happen to be in the right spot.
Let's hope the City of Gold Coast Council will use the light poles around the city, and
leave them yellow,## to remain as reminders of the Yatla piece, not only of what
it once was, but also to emphasise that we must always work harder
and remain critical of our art, just as we should with our architecture and planning.
Delighting in some new 'authenticity' is too easy.
The Gold Coast
does not need the positive, promotional hype we see in the article;
it needs rigour, critiques, questions and testing so that we do not
end up with the mess that this artwork appears to have left us in. Planning and 'Gold Coast' style are in need of it.
See:
Philip Follent
ArchitetureAU Discourse The search for an authentic architecture
and city form on the Gold Coast
and
Gold Coast hype
P.S.
*
*
Only since
looking closer at the images has it now become clear that the artwork
has letters facing just one way, towards the railway-side of the
motorway. This revelation highlights the muddled confusion that
the artwork generates. From the highway, one is given the idea that
the lights form letters facing two ways, to be read from both directions, such are the significant
mirrored gestures of the poles. Apparently not: the layer of
lights that are on the second set of posts that face the opposite
side of the highway to that of the railway, forms another set of
letters that shadow those that face the railway. It is certainly a
most enigmatic work.
There is yet another matter to note: the concept of using light poles for letters is an idea that seems to work well for every letter without vertical lines. The artist apparently remains unconcerned that the dense distribution of lighting dots that define the letters disappears in the verticals of the 'L,' the 'D,' and the 'T.' One wonders why the system was not worked on more, or indeed altered, to light up all the letters completely, and with some degree of equivalence rather than leaving voids, blind spots, when things become too complicated or difficult in the realisation of the idea. Rigour and integrity in art should never be compromised by appearance or excuses.
**
On the perception of the artwork being a ‘waste of money’: matters are not getting any better. Already news reports are announcing that it will cost another $255,000 to remove the $2.1 million work. The Council has apparently asked the artist# if she wishes to purchase the artwork, to take it back. If not, the pieces will go into storage.## Council said it has responded to the public reaction to the work. People have been complaining not only about the cost, but also about the fact that they cannot read it. This latter point is difficult to dispute.
One wonders if an alternative site could be found to allow the sign to be seen by everyone, in all of its glorious sparkle. Just imagine the artwork standing tall and proud like the Angel of the North in Gateshead.
There is yet another matter to note: the concept of using light poles for letters is an idea that seems to work well for every letter without vertical lines. The artist apparently remains unconcerned that the dense distribution of lighting dots that define the letters disappears in the verticals of the 'L,' the 'D,' and the 'T.' One wonders why the system was not worked on more, or indeed altered, to light up all the letters completely, and with some degree of equivalence rather than leaving voids, blind spots, when things become too complicated or difficult in the realisation of the idea. Rigour and integrity in art should never be compromised by appearance or excuses.
**
On the perception of the artwork being a ‘waste of money’: matters are not getting any better. Already news reports are announcing that it will cost another $255,000 to remove the $2.1 million work. The Council has apparently asked the artist# if she wishes to purchase the artwork, to take it back. If not, the pieces will go into storage.## Council said it has responded to the public reaction to the work. People have been complaining not only about the cost, but also about the fact that they cannot read it. This latter point is difficult to dispute.
One wonders if an alternative site could be found to allow the sign to be seen by everyone, in all of its glorious sparkle. Just imagine the artwork standing tall and proud like the Angel of the North in Gateshead.
NOTES:
23 January 2019
#
The artist for the project was Ada Tolla – see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Tolla
##
More recent reports suggest that Council might recycle the artwork as city lighting. One can only hope that the yellow colour is maintained.
^
24 January 2019
The artist has said, (on Channel 9 News 23 January 2019), that everyone involved knew that the sign could not be read from the highway. One wonders who the artwork sign was supposed to be addressing. If it was only for train passengers travelling to and from the Gold Coast, as has been suggested, one has to be concerned. Not only is the night view blinded by the interior reflections in the train windows, but the reading of the sign by day is difficult without the clarity of the lighting. One needs time to decipher the intent, but it is time that is limited by the speed of the train. One is left looking backwards to see if one can see what one knows is there, but alas . . .
NOTE:
30 January 2019
The news report today now says that Council has decided not to immediately demolish the sign, but to leave it there until a suitable site for it is found: see -
^
24 January 2019
The artist has said, (on Channel 9 News 23 January 2019), that everyone involved knew that the sign could not be read from the highway. One wonders who the artwork sign was supposed to be addressing. If it was only for train passengers travelling to and from the Gold Coast, as has been suggested, one has to be concerned. Not only is the night view blinded by the interior reflections in the train windows, but the reading of the sign by day is difficult without the clarity of the lighting. One needs time to decipher the intent, but it is time that is limited by the speed of the train. One is left looking backwards to see if one can see what one knows is there, but alas . . .
NOTE:
30 January 2019
The news report today now says that Council has decided not to immediately demolish the sign, but to leave it there until a suitable site for it is found: see -
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-30/gold-coast-lights-to-stay-put-despite-rejection-by-locals/10763894 Who knows what its future might be? Apparently everybody dislikes it in its current position.
1 February 2019
1 February 2019
With this latest
news considered in the context of the original article, one has to
ask the question: is this apparently casually adaptable process
authentic City of Gold Coast planning? Good planning requires much
more commitment and rigour.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.