Come Together, Right Now, Over Me

So thanks to Mike Davis I was supremely depressed by the state of things in this world and why can't things be better than they are. (see blog February 9th, 2009 "We Built This City, We Built This City on Rock (and Greed)" to find out why.

Luckily, my favorite magazine ever (!) Juxtapoz Art & Culture magazine just put out their February 09 issue. juxtapoz.com For those of you not in the know, or who have not been subjected to my incessant ranting about the awesome-ness of Jux, Juxtapoz is a magazine that shines the spotlight on supremely talented contemporary artists who fall under the low-brow/ Pop Surrealism/uncategorizable umbrella. This is not to say that they're not talented in the more technical aspects of art. Some are more on the "graphic/illustration" side like Shag, but others like Ron English and Sas do work that borders on photorealism, with a surreal twist. And one of their most prolific artists is Shepard Fairey, the man behind the Obama "Hope" screenprint that generating lots of love and controversy. (for more see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/arts/design/10fair.html?_r=1)

The reason I bring up Jux is because Marco Berrebi did a great article on this artist named JR, "Art 2.0 and the Apostle of Participative Art." (Juxtapoz, February 2009, pages 60-73) JR takes pictures of every day people, blows up the images, and then literally integrates them into the urban fabric, landscapes, etc., His execution reminds me of the multi-storied "live picture" fountain/"sculptures" by Jaume Plensa in Millennium Park in Chicago, right off South Michigan Avenue and across the street from the Art Institute of Chicago. (see my photos)

If you've never been to Millennium Park, go during the summer so that you can really enjoy these "fountains." They are videos of real people, not celebrities, projected on at least a three-story high scale. As you can tell from my pictures, the people's faces are closely cropped and are passive. They blink, yawn, and stare. Then, every once in a while, they pucker up their mouths as if to whistle or spit, and a fount of water shoots down, often on the delighted children that splash in the water below. (see photo on right) Everyone I've observed that goes near the fountains, there are two of them that, er, face each other, is always delighted by the spectacle. This is how art should be- funny, accessible, and integrated into the landscape.

JR, however, has a more political bent to his work. The work I was most moved by was his piece "Face2Face" www.face2faceproject.com (see photo below left) Together with a writer named Marco, they launched the biggest street art exhibition ever and took photographs of Israelis and Palestinians. But they asked the people to make silly faces.

Now, when you think of the Israelis and the Palestinian people you see in the news, you rarely, if ever, see them making funny faces. However, for this work, people pulled out their slapstick grins, their crossed-eyes, their stuck-out tongues. And I was deeply touched by this respectful but also joyful expression of humanity. Regardless of what you believe, regardless of where you are from, we are all human and we all love laughter. It was a simple feat, but a significant one. And literally integrating it into the urban landscape made it physically impossible for people to ignore our shared similarities. The people displayed on giant images had vastly different creeds, but for a moment they were able to see deep down how similar they really are. For more information on JR, check out his site, Jr-art.net

I would love for every city every where to host an exhibit like this, to have us literally come face to face with our humanity and the humanity of others. Perhaps by blowing up our similarities so big that they cannot be ignored we might be able to really see "the other." Ah, the restorative power of art!

Parks Are Good, Right?

By now everyone has come to accept that green is good. Unfortunately, green can also be expensive. I am speaking specifically of parks.

For some urban planners, one can never have enough parks. New urbanists like to design nieghborhoods around a park or community center that is centrally located. We have all seen the success of great parks such as Chicago's Millennium Park and Savannah's Forsyth Park and the most famous park, Central Park in New York City.

I say that there is nothing wrong with parks. I loved eating my lunch at Millennium Park in Chicago when I worked at the Art Institute, which is right across the street in the heart of the Loop. Exeter, CA has the most adorable recreational park across the street from a school and it is also flocked on all sides by pre-war homes that would make a new urbanist swoon. And I can recall many a picnic spent at the local park in my former hometown in central Wisconsin.

Parks provide greenery, vegetation, a change of scenery and a place for people to gather and relax. Parks often are the only source of nature in some sections of cities. Although I love New York City with a passion, there is very limited green space in the Big Apple. When I think of New York I think of a vibrant city, but one that is composed of miles and miles of cement and very little greenery with the exception of the trees that line the sidewalks.

Other cities, like Savannah, GA have lots of greenery. Savannah is known for their "Jewel Plan" and in the heart of the city every square has a small park at its center. Each is unique, but you can often find centuries-old oak trees strewn with the ever-present Spanish moss, myrtle, azalea bushes, etc.,

But when it comes to parks, a few problems arise. For the sake of objective arguments, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. For one, who pays for a park's upkeep? Sure, most everyone likes them, but does everyone want to pay to make sure that the park remains pristine? Park maintenance costs can sneakily be written into city budgets, but if people really knew how much it costs to keep their parks nice they would probably balk.

For those penny pushers I point out that park maintenance provides employment to people and beautifies our cities.

Another question is who has the right to the park? The obvious answer would be everyone, but at the same time does this blanket term of everyone come with restrictions? Just about everybody likes a picnic, but what about the homeless person who is slumped under the nearby tree? You and your significant other are enjoying a quiet romantic picnic in a secluded area and suddenly a slew of kids sets up shop and shows no signs of leaving. Whose park is it now?

Just like any other part of the city, parks belong to everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc., The police and other law enforcement may say that the parks shouldn't serve as an outdoor sleeping quarters for the homeless and other destitute members of society, and for the safety of all parties involved I do agree. Being homeless puts a person at much higher risk for being attacked and no one should have to sleep under the stars unless they're deliberately camping.

But this points to a bigger issue, how to help the homeless?