Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
Re: Disposable Art
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]R. Moore
Fri, 14 May 1999 17:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
These are great and timely questions! I very much approve of the
use of old, abandoned buildings, theatres, etc. to create new, vital
spaces. Look at what has been done with the old post office building in
Washington DC, train stations in France, and so on. The trick is to avoid
so perverting the original building sense or purpose that something
jarring or mawkish results. I have gone to old, closed-down school
buildings that have been converted into chi-chi minimalls. Somehow the
stairways polished by all those generations of little feet seem desecrated
when they are subjected to the tap-tap-tapping of yuppie shoppers' shoes.
The old-new Reichstag building in Berlin is controversial precisely
because of its checkered past and obvious effort to say "hey, everything
has changed, and this place is brand new now!"
There's an important difference between throwing things away and
letting things be. Some things need to die natural deaths; others can be
usefully recycled. Maybe one of the hardest and most important lessons of
civilization is learning which is which!
On Sun, 9 May 1999 DRLanders wrote:
> What about people who take old abandoned office building's and remodel and
> redesign the interior to make new living spaces from old business spaces.
> Would this be reusing "trash" to recreate art?
> In the use of old office spaces for other uses, what about the use of
> retro-art to decorate office buildings, would this be using "trash" as art?
> I guess my question is could abandoned buildings still be used as art later?
> Just a thought,
> Dave Landers