[Skeezix]

The 1% public art is a public benefit often (but not always) typically imposed on private developments as part of the Section 37 contribution. The City has a mixed record on achieving 1% on public projects/buildings. I don't know if the TTC art budget is anywhere close to 1% for new lines/stations. Good question, though.

 

[rbt]

You're only speaking for yourself, not 90%.

I'm speaking for the thousands of people who use those escalators and don't look up.

 

[Skeezix]

I'm speaking for the thousands of people who use those escalators and don't look up.

Yes, all the ones that you claim to know their thoughts about the public art. It's perfectly valid to express your own views; it's ridiculous to assign your views to 90% of the people who use the station.

And if no one looks up, then it shouldn't be a big deal to remove what must be an ineffective and wasted ad.

 

[rbt]

Yes, all the ones that you claim to know their thoughts about the public art.

We have a giant banner overtop of the piece of artwork and there is no mention in the press, no protests at the station, no protests at city hall, no apology speech from George Brown, barely a mention anywhere except a couple comments on this forum.

The near complete silence is proof that nobody cares.

Put an advertising banner around Henry Moore's sculpture outside the AGO and see how long it lasts without mention.

 

[Skeezix]

Honestly, you think that the only way that people can appreciate public art is if they show at city hall to protest?

And nobody said this was an iconic piece of public art like the Henry Moore. We don't go around demolishing heritage buildings willy nilly because they're not all Old City Hall, and we don't mistreat public art simply because it isn't in front of the AGO. What has been said here us that we shouldn't be covering up publicly funded art with ads that could easily go elsewhere.

 

[rbt]

Honestly, you think that the only way that people can appreciate public art is if they show at city hall to protest?

People who care do more than just shrug their shoulders, if they notice at all, and continue on. Random chunks of uncut grass, broken fencing, and uneven sidewalk get more press than this issue has.

At absolute most they're completely indifferent as to whether they look at an advertisement or that particular piece of artwork.

 

[Skeezix]

People who care do more than just shrug their shoulders, if they notice at all, and continue on. Random chunks of uncut grass, broken fencing, and uneven sidewalk get more press than this issue has.

At absolute most they're completely indifferent as to whether they look at an advertisement or that particular piece of artwork.

Not actually true. Most people shrug their shoulders at issues like this they do care about - what is one going to do, write to the TTC? Add it to the list of things that get us down about our commute. Most public realm issues don't seem a like a big deal, until they are.

You're completely indifferent. But you don't speak for anyone other than yourself, as do we all.

 

[rbt]

What is one going to do, write to the TTC?

The same things they do when they think the TTC should repair a broken fence board or fill a pot hole. Complain to twitter/facebook, write or call the TTC or their councillor, and some will even escalate to the press which have columns specifically for this kind of thing (The Fixer).

Most people shrug their shoulders at issues like this they do care about

I suppose that's where we differ. I take the unwillingness to put 30 seconds effort into getting an issue fixed as indifference toward whether it gets fixed or not. You seem to be saying they do care, possibly passionately, but are just too depressed or incapable to express it.

 

[Skeezix]

Which frankly people may have done. Have you made a FOI inquiry with the TTC to find out?

Honestly, as we all said at the beginning of this discussion, people might not even know this is public art. It's pleasing colourful tiling, and the subject of many Instagram and Flickr shots online, and people might not be pleased to see an ad there, but are hardly going to write the Toronto Star. People don't have to have picket lines at the station for this ad to be inappropriate.

 

[DSCToronto]

Which frankly people may have done. Have you made a FOI inquiry with the TTC to find out?

Honestly, as we all said at the beginning of this discussion, people might not even know this is public art. It's pleasing colourful tiling, and the subject of many Instagram and Flickr shots online, and people might not be pleased to see an ad there, but are hardly going to write the Toronto Star. People don't have to have picket lines at the station for this ad to be inappropriate.

As noted above, I DID email TTC (Chris Upfold) and was told that 'that's the way it is". I am still somewhat doubtful if those who sold the ad space actually realised that this IS art so I hope that my question and any other complaints TTC gets may make this the last time that THIS particular art piece is defaced.

 

[cplchanb]

As noted above, I DID email TTC (Chris Upfold) and was told that 'that's the way it is". I am still somewhat doubtful if those who sold the ad space actually realised that this IS art so I hope that my question and any other complaints TTC gets may make this the last time that THIS particular art piece is defaced.

im curious in knowing apart from us "fans" who how many day to day riders who pass by this actually care either way. I think as soon as mr upfold got the email a standardised response has already be pre written for his response. not really high on the priority list atm im afraid

 

[DSCToronto]

im curious in knowing apart from us "fans" who how many day to day riders who pass by this actually care either way. I think as soon as mr upfold got the email a standardised response has already be pre written for his response. not really high on the priority list atm im afraid

Of course, you are right that many people do not notice things and some who do simply do not care. I think Chris' response was his response and agree that he has other (probably more important) things to do BUT it is (in my opinion) wrong to destroy or deface art and he is the Deputy CEO. My initial thought was that whoever sold that space did not know it WAS art and I still think that likely. My complaint may not get this ad removed but it may stop others going up in that area - we shall see.
People in general (and at UT in particular) are often too quick to 'whine' to those around them but not to bother to actually tell someone who may be able to fix the problem. Chris U could fix this problem, he chose not to which is too bad.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Of course, you are right that many people do not notice things and some who do simply do not care. I think Chris' response was his response and agree that he has other (probably more important) things to do BUT it is (in my opinion) wrong to destroy or deface art and he is the Deputy CEO. My initial thought was that whoever sold that space did not know it WAS art and I still think that likely. My complaint may not get this ad removed but it may stop others going up in that area - we shall see.
People in general (and at UT in particular) are often too quick to 'whine' to those around them but not to bother to actually tell someone who may be able to fix the problem. Chris U could fix this problem, he chose not to which is too bad.

Unfortunately it's the TTC - which have a demonstrated history of not being overly concerned about anything visually-oriented. Talking enough times to a brick wall with no consequent action makes you just stop talking to it, period.

AoD

 

[smallspy]

We don't know that, but assuming it's true, that's hardly the point.

It's entirely the point. You can sell ad space on a big wall, art or not. How do you sell a light installation?

With the exception of the two being art installed in TTC structures, there is absolutely no parallel between them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Skeezix]

I wasn't referring to Arc in Ciel in the post you just quoted (I was referring to your suggestion about damage to this art). Whether the ad creates damage is what is hardly the point. And the ability to sell ads had nothing to do with the similarities between the two situations that I pointed out in earlier posts. Being a bad steward of public art/public assets does not require ad sales.