Take the A(rt) Train

Re “The Underground Gallery” (June 6):

Writer Suzanne Muchnic correctly indicates that public art is more, thank God, than mere freeway murals and sculptures of dead starlets. The question left open, however, is what is actually public art? Nicolai Ouroussoff’s review of the five new Metro Rail stations seems to be sure that whatever it is, this ain’t it.

Still, we remain in people’s square one: What constitutes public art if not the vision of an individual artist or collaborative team, executed in an accessible place, using the media of the day and representing an aesthetic of the day? If these are the criteria, then the local artists and architects have succeeded with flying colors.

As a lifelong Angeleno, and a self-styled art maven, I welcome the inevitable debate as to what best represents the city artistically. Ultimately I think we will come to the same conclusion as the MTA. No single style of expression can completely define Los Angeles, but the true beauty is in the search for the universal.

KEZIA M. JAURON

Sherman Oaks

*

Why did Calendar feel compelled to describe the Metro Rail system as “a mess” in its cover blurb? The only thing that’s really messy about it is the cronyistic choice of a contractor notorious for cost overruns to build it. Otherwise, the thing works beautifully--the Blue Line, for example, carries more than 52,000 passengers per day and is having to expand service. Financial fiascoes and all, the Red Line is still a bargain and the Wilshire branch should be extended to the beach.

And why is Ouroussoff so worried that the MTA hasn’t already hired street musicians and pushcart vendors for the above-ground portions of the stations? Maybe the MTA is willing to let communities nurture their own sort of street life in the new plazas, as the Koreatown area has begun doing at the Wilshire/Western station.

Not everything needs to be controlled from above, though architects--and I suppose architecture critics--are famous for wanting to do so.

RICHARD RISEMBERG

Los Angeles

*

Judging from the mess shown of the various subway artifacts and designs, once again the bureaucrats allowed anyone and everyone to get into the act: a hodgepodge of jumbled and bizarre effects by artists who should never be called that.

Beauty should have been paramount, not twisted thinking. Boulders? Steel canopies? A wall of questions? Yuck. Why not ocean motifs, the mountains, the deserts, the palms, the islands, the beaches, and glorious cheerful colors. Run paintings and artworks down every staircase, as is done abroad, and use the thousands of excellent painters right here, for free, to exhibit their work.

ROSALYN MORAN

Torrance

*

The idea that art is supposed to unify L.A. is a ridiculous requirement for judging its effectiveness at five new subway stops. The subway itself is supposed to do that.

That it doesn’t is not the fault of the art or the artists. In fact, we’re lucky to have any art at all. That it’s as good as it is makes for a small miracle.

Let’s celebrate the miracles of the urban landscape.

THE REV. JAMES CONN

Santa Monica

*

Ouroussoff repeats the old urban legend about a General Motors conspiracy being responsible for the demise of the Pacific Electric and L.A. Railway streetcars. While this is a colorful story, it is not true.

The passage of the Major Street Plan in 1924 was the beginning of the end for the streetcars, when the voters decided to improve the streets for better auto access. The streetcars and interurbans in L.A. were done-in by the decisions of thousands of individuals who chose to use their cars.

A good account of this story can be found in Scott Bottles’ book “Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern City” (University of California Press, 1991).

STAN SCHWARZ

Pasadena