CLT Blog

photo: James Willamor; view this photo on Flickr

Update: I received this feedback from Catherine Cervantes, which I found interesting:

“I stumbled across this note from a mutual friend and I feel compelled to comment. While I can appreciate your opinion on this project, there is more to the story than what is seen on the surface. The goal of the project was to put public art on Central Avenue to visually improve the streetscape and give the corridor identity. Waste Management was the only entity willing to be a part of it… and not from lack of trying. For what its worth, you have to admit they do do their job, right? =)”

My reply: I agree with the need to improve the streetscape on Central. Interesting if it is true that Waste management was the only entity willing to be a part of the project. Unfortunately, having trouble finding someone to host public art isn’t unheard of in Charlotte. The Arts and Science Council had trouble finding a home for Carlos Herrera Burgos’s large mural, which I mentioned on this post for CLTblog.com (and I still haven’t found out what the eventually happened to the mural).

If you live in Charlotte, then you probably heard the debate about the decorative trash cans along Central Ave. The trash cans cost $1,290 each. The idea – public art to add beauty to Central Avenue – is good. The execution – trash cans – could have been done better.

More after the break.

I think it is wonderful that Charlotte automatically sets aside 1% of the city’s budget for most public works projects to be spent on public art.” I agree completely with local actor and artist Stephan Monteserin when he says art “transforms cities from a series of buildings and roads, to vibrant and alive spaces.”

However, the decision by the Arts and Science Council to use funds to decorate trash cans seems like a design blunder. I can’t say it any better than commenter “momness” on the Charlotte Observer article, who writes, “attention should be drawn AWAY from utilitarian items such as AC units, light poles, TRASH CAN AREAS, etc. The object of good design and presentation is not to ‘decorate’ undesirable-looking items, but to draw the eye toward the true artistic object, whether it be a beautiful garden, a sweetly architectured building, or whatever.”

The point being that the art on the trash cans draws attention TOWARDS the trash cans. Not surprisingly, trash cans generally have a negative connotation associated with them. Also, the issue of cost is more apparent with trash cans. Most people know you can run down to Target and pick up a trash can for ten bucks. In comparison, $1,290 each seems obscene. But if the art had been incorporated into bus shelters at the stops, cost may not have been as big an issue, because who knows how much a bus shelter costs off the top their head?

For a good example of art that is also functional, there are some nice, old, tiled benches in NoDa at 35th Street and North Davidson:

photo: James Willamor; view this photo on Flickr

I personally prefer public art that reflects something in the community – be it members of the community, or historical elements of the community, or certain themes that ties the community together. I like how the trash cans posted above feature the crown into the design. One example of tile art that I love is at the LYNX Scaleybark Station. The art represents themes that have historically defined our community and region. Besides the two below, there is also “The Crown” and The Cotton” at this station:

photo: James Willamor; view this photo on Flickr

photo: James Willamor; view this photo on Flickr