Baton Rouge Temperature: 91°
Sunday, July 20, 2008

OPINION

Letter: Support for ‘artwork’ draws ridicule

  • Published: May 12, 2008 - Page: 6B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.

I can hardly believe all the letters about this “beloved artwork” at the corner of Claycut and Foster.

Are you kidding me?

That “artwork” is no more than practice work for the students who took that particular class. If the students want to preserve some of their past, or some of this “artwork,” allow them to get a piece of it for whatever meaning it has to them while it’s being torn down.

Have any of the actual students who contributed to this even opposed the demolition?

I realize beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but that conglomerate is an eyesore. I would much rather have a functioning new fire station that will do much more than take up space.

If my parents kept all the “artwork” we did, they would have needed another home to hold all of that “art” in.

It is also amazing that someone actually submitted this structure as a registered piece of art to the National Smithsonian Registry of Art and it was accepted. Did the committee that approved that even see what they approved? I have a hard time believing they did.

This is not the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore, people.

One writer submits, “What message are we sending the children if we tear down the monument that they created … ?”

We would be telling them it’s time to move on; take a picture and put it in your scrapbook.

I don’t ever remember any of our artwork being worshipped by our parents as we grew up, as some of the writers are suggesting we do for this structure.

Some of you really need to get a purpose. Quit crying, quit whining, grow up, move on.

C.I. Graham
public safety
Baton Rouge


Comments (6)
Your name:

Your e-mail: (Will not be published)
Terms of Service

gmo
Monday, May 12, 2008
6:46 AM

The points missed by C.I. are primarily three: 1) Art is not objective, it is, in fact the most subjective of human endeavors. Some like the Monument, some not. Controversy is good not bad, but we should never err on the side of destruction. 2) The kids who made it, hopefully have moved on. Like all good art, the Monument reflects the time and the people who made it when it was made. 3) This isn't some piece of scrap paper to be put on the fridge door than later scrapped. It's brick and mortar and more, and was hard to make and think out.. It took a long time, hard work, planning and inspiration to construct. Instead of destroying this effort, we should pat these guys on the back. It takes a while, I admit, to understand this. In another twenty years the destructionist, hopefully, will come around.
Landrew
Monday, May 12, 2008
7:17 AM

You are the one crying and whining and are the epitome of ignorance in a community that thinks entertainment and human endeavor rise to no higher level than LSU Sports and huntin'. Stop hitting the Skoal so hard and stop trying to destroy or kill everything you don't agree with. Your hatred of the sculpture is pathological. Why? Were you tied to it and left there for days at some time in your past life?
dh
Monday, May 12, 2008
8:04 AM

Once again a controversy in B.R. has turned "mature, educated" adults into somthing that sounds more like a group of third graders name-calliing on the playground.Why can't we leave this battle to those directly affected to solve inteliegently instead of opinion-baiting,I'm sure we all have problems in our own backyard
mmc
Monday, May 12, 2008
8:32 AM

I totally agree with C.I. This "artwork" has run its course. Now tearing down the Paramount Theater for a parking lot...that was something to protest for.
Red
Monday, May 12, 2008
8:44 AM

So if folks in the community oppose what is supposed to be a piece of work that considers the community and is supposed to be for the community, then we're automatically a bunch of unappreciative gun-toting, football-brained Neanderthals. Typical dramatic art sector wingnut response to moving forward. Thanks for proving me right. The folks who don't support this pile of work aren't necessarily calling for it's destruction. However they live in this area too and although I don't have a true count for how many oppose having to be subjected to this eyesore, I would say according to what I've heard in many circles that most folks a) won't miss it when it's gone and b) didn't really know what it was in the first place. If it can be moved, than move it. Otherwise take a snapshot and move on. And besides, where is the outpouring of support for this 21 year old "communal" work? I'll tell you. There isn't any. Why is that so hard to get? Move it or scrap what's left of this dilapidated brick mess and bring on the fire station. These "destructionists" are in reality "decisionists" ready to move forward with what will serve the community best and if you like, since the art sector is so concerned about our kids, something the kids can look up to—a fire station.
ga
Monday, May 12, 2008
9:45 AM

I don't see why the artwork can't be moved to where it will not be in the way of the much needed fire station. It wouldn't be the first time such a task was undertaken. I also don't see why people can't come to a compromise.
ADVERTISEMENTS
PROMOTIONS


WBRZ CHANNEL 2


 
Envelope icon Have a question, comment, news tip or story idea? Click here to give us some feedback.