ART OR EYESORE?

In response to Christopher Knight’s article “Not Just an Exercise in Futility” (Oct. 23), I would like to say that if “Ballerina Clown” constitutes public art, then Disneyland should be enshrined in a museum.

What kind of culture victim is this writer? “Ballerina Clown” is a grotesque mechanized plastic joke on the Venice-Santa Monica community. This is not art--this is an oversized prop from “Killer Klowns From Outer Space.” When it was first installed I could barely cross the Rose Avenue intersection without wanting to veer into oncoming traffic.

To imbue this freak show with any kind of social-political context is as absurd as the work itself. Many are the “dimwitted vandals” who fantasize about how, exactly, this monstrosity could be brought down in the event of any future urban unrest. Many of these “dimwits” are the very audience Knight would like to claim as constituents in his view of art appreciation. They are the local artists, writers and residents who see this sculpture as an eyesore, who from time to time manage with great aim and determination to bean this “artwork” with paint balloons.

I would much prefer to see the Carpeteria genie in its place. It would imply they were hawking carpet, not some stretched concept of “art.”

I may not even know a lot about art, but I can tell you where you might be able to find the missing head from the sculpture at the Citicorp Plaza. Mr. Knight, could you please bend over?

LISA BLOK

Venice

The problem with “controversial” public art in public places, such as parks, is the imposition of others’ taste on our unavoidable line of sight. Where such art is most welcome is in public and private museums and galleries. That’s where one is forewarned and has the option of deliberately going to experience such art or choosing to stay away.

A case in point: In urban areas, open space and vistas of natural or landscaped settings are at such a premium that, by popular demand, a halt has been called to adding pieces of sculpture to MacArthur Park, an already overly “art-occupied” area.

In Beverly Hills, petitions were signed to remove “Moon Dial” from Beverly Gardens Park at the heavily trafficked intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard. Letters to the editor begged for the removal of “Clouds” from another part of the same park. People said they resented having to gaze upon such works while jogging or awaiting lengthy signal changes. Both have been removed.

Works of art that are required as a percentage of the cost of a private developer’s project should be placed on the project site. That way we will not usurp the few visual oases we have remaining in our urban midst--public parks.

ELLEN STERN HARRIS

Executive Director

The Fund for the Environment

Beverly Hills

No clearer words than Christopher Knight’s have illuminated the distinctions between success and failure of public art in Los Angeles.

It is true that most art in the public realm is initiated by government mandate and more easily approved by the powers that be when there is an explainable story associated with the work. However, when successful public art does occur, and is then succinctly addressed through articles such as Knight’s, the road toward acceptance of the unfamiliar and the challenging is then paved so more magic can take place in the future.

As the art adviser to the owners of Citicorp Plaza, the patrons of “Corporate Head” and the other Poets’ Walk projects, I applaud their trust in the unknown and specifically the dedication of Rolf Kleinhans for his never-ending support of a difficult endeavor. It has been my greatest joy to conceive and give Poets’ Walk to the city of Los Angeles.

KATHY LUCOFF

Los Angeles

Lucoff is art adviser to the Prudential Realty Group and its partner, Mitsubishi, owners of Citicorp Plaza .

I have no quarrel with public art, but like all art, it should come after a civilization can demonstrate a sufficient level of mastery in the two most important creative processes: creation of our own lives with balance, depth and insight, and creation of future citizens of planet Earth who are aware, responsible and involved.

Lately, we have been woefully ineffective in the execution of these creative endeavors, which in turn deflates public art and makes it an exercise in futility.

ANDREW TILLES

Los Angeles