Plenary Plensa coverage: Jaume's got a photocopier, and the Council debate

As we noted here earlier today, the Jaume Plensa-DPAC art thing finally hit the N&O and WRAL in the last 24 hours, though no coverage in the Herald-Sun as of yet.

It's been an interesting debate here in the comments on the "greenness" of the whole thing, particularly given the presence of a 7,000 watt light that would shine into the night a few hours a day. Folks: I'm not sure I see the big deal on that.

I can't get exact numbers for the Durham Bulls Athletic Park, but some Google searching suggests that an artificially-lit ballpark like the DBAP has 1,000 to 2,000-watt lights per lamp. Think how many lights are up there on top of Diamond View looking down into the ballpark; that's well beyond what the DPAC would use for this one art installation. (Put another way, the total annual electric bill is equivalent to the power use of a couple of households, which I think tends to validate the alignment of what it actually costs to run.)

There's been some discussion too about the nature of the design, particularly whether Macbeth is a bad omen for a public work of art. Personally, I find it to be an interesting phrase with a double meaning -- it's hard to sleep when a bright light's a-shining, and downtown Durham is waking up from a long sleep -- but hey, it's a matter of individual taste there.

Here's one thing we've just discovered, though (hat tip to a regular reader) -- I wouldn't exactly say Plensa's design here is, shall we say, unprecedented.

Yep, Jaume's got a photocopier, it seems, and has done this installation before -- in Gateshead, near Newcastle in northern England.

This image does a better job showing what the effect might look like from a distance. Pretty cool, methinks:

Bright light + inspiring quote + metal disc + little safety rail doo-dad = Plensa?

It will be interesting to see what turns the debate takes today in City Hall. On the surface, this still seems a relative no-brainer, given the very low cost of the maintenance and power. On the other hand, amidst the sagging economy and the debate over the food tax -- which has seen some opponents wag fingers about spending money on cultural amenities instead of basic governmental needs -- will pols be concerned about how something like this looks?

From a rational perspective, hard to see, given that we're talking about plunking down a tiny bit o' change plum next to a $45 million performing arts center. But, hey, who said politics were ever rational?

Comments

[Phil]

Cool art. But next to a bunch of auto dealers, I wonder if people will confuse it with a klieg light and no money down, no interest for the first 12 months sale at University Ford.

Regarding energy use at the DBAP (or anywhere), I think there's a big difference between energy burned for some purpose, and energy burned uselessly because someone got lazy or stupid. Last summer I had occasion to drive by the DBAP at three in the morning, two nights running. On both nights, the lights were fully ablaze. Now I know that there might have been some legitimate reason for this. But I wondered, figured it was for no good reason, and got kind of pissy. But not pissy enough to remember to write a letter asking the Bulls "what's up". (I was pretty tired, too.)

[GreenLantern]

How disappointing this concept was done before. I thought the whole point of having someone like Plensa was to come up with something distinctive and unique. It's still a good idea to support this, given the failed attempt in Raleigh, but I would have rather seen a waterfall or fountain with some LEDs. The costs seem very reasonable for the maintenance. Goodmon is trying to be generous with a community that supported his ATC development. The artsy-fartsy community obviously think Plensa's a big to-do, and there are benefits to having a famous name design something for your town, so let's not scare him off too quickly.

[Phil]

Re: GreenLantern's comment -- Yeah, no kidding. I think it's generally fine that good art ideas are reused, recycled, or adapted. But I hate it when the "downmarket" recipients believe they're getting premium service from a big name. Why can't people say, "we're getting a nice piece of art that shares a legacy with other pieces done by an internationally recognized artist" and stop at that? Because too many people are constitutionally incapable of saying the simple facts when they feel pressure to be grand.

Now it's one thing for this to happen with a relatively small project like the Plensa shaft (of light). But it's much worse when you get a big name architect lending his (almost always "his") name to a multimillion dollar building that he's giving little good attention to. Universities are the biggest suckers for this, and then they perpetuate the mistake by talking for decades about how their (ugly, stupidly designed) building was designed by the famed so-and-so.

Bleah. Sometimes the emperor is wearing much less than people like to believe.

[Tar Heelz]

So we have confirmed that a $150,000 art installation isn't as likely to be groundbreaking as a $2,500,000 one.

[Jamie Gruener]

While I'm typically pro-art, I'm concerned about the light polution. Light polution is frustrating enough when done unintentionally, but when done nearly purposely, that's just crazy.

http://projectdarkskies.org/