NJT Mandated to Spend Money on "Art"

Defiant wrote:I think this is a good idea. Public ART is good for everyone as it often improves people's mood and makes spaces more attractive. It is worse spending very limited amounts of money on it.

Maybe someone should ask the employees who'll be using this bus garage what the best expenditure of $240K could be. I'd bet "better break rooms" would be a better mood-improver than "a big sculpture out front". If only government bureaucrats knew about the saying "the customer is always right".

The art issue is very difficult as it is a matter of aesthetics and very very subjective. It does not perform a "Required" function but is the part of life that adds comfort to life overall.

When I went to school at Rutgers College of Engineering in the first half of the '80's in Piscataway, the University chose to display certain pieces of art made by the Mason Gross School of Art spread across all the various campuses. We had no idea of what criteria was used for selecting what piece went where but someone chose to place a Sculpture of an Atom Bomb destroying civilization on the Engineering campus grounds. Clearly a protest piece which most of the engineering students viewed as Anti-Technology. Not a good choice to place on the "Ground Zero" of technological studies at the University. One night, an entrepreneurial group of students chose to "express their view" and dragged the art piece to the Lynch Bridge (now Rt 18) and throw it over the rail into the
Raritan River.

Once the sculpture was found (took about a week til low river levels made it appear in the muck), there was a massive literary war in the Student Paper Editorial section as scathing retorts were blasted back and forth from Mason Gross Students and engineering students. In the end, a different sculpture was used as a replacement (if I recall, it was red, had I-Beams, and evoked a feeling of positive construction).

With Budget shortfalls and cuts everywhere, it is hard to choose to spend money on aesthetics when actual functional things need to be built or bought. On the other hand, would we prefer to see a sterile landscape of glass and concrete cube skyscrapers or Various buildings with different architectural styles. Art is subjective to the beholder. I, myself, prefer still life and landscapes over cubist. But obviously someone likes it. They pay boatloads of money for it in the Private market.

Mod Note- I will give this thread a day or two for you guys to get it back to an NJT related area. If not, it gets a lock. Personally I fail to see how anything but the first couple of posts have anything to do with this being an NJT rather than art discussion forum, but I will give it a chance anyway.

ACeInTheHole wrote:Mod Note- I will give this thread a day or two for you guys to get it back to an NJT related area. If not, it gets a lock. Personally I fail to see how anything but the first couple of posts have anything to do with this being an NJT rather than art discussion forum, but I will give it a chance anyway.

It's quite simple actually. When people gripe about design and aesthetics, they often include the homogenized and bland design of the stations. Some people are interested in a functional though efficient design. Others lament the loss of grandeur. The question before the house: Where is the line drawn between functional and finance? People are still crying like Nancy Kerrigan over the demolition of the the original Penn Station. Yet, people cringe at the opulence of the new Path station.

Where is the line and how does it work with NJT stations? I think NWK is in need of beautification. Metropark has a few murals and for some reason, disco lights in the tunnel which I really can't see the point in. However, at least it is something. Hamilton has those weird statues along the route.

While the "art" may not enhance the the actual experience, at least it is something to think about. A distraction, if you will. Otherwise, we might as well paint everything black.

talltim wrote:I like it (although not the base)
I suspect you would approve of this at my local station more

George Stephenson Profile by Non Paratus, on Flickr
Although the base is very similar

It looks as though he's flipping the bird at someone :p

From the NJT website, "art is essential to the transportation experience," makes it "more enjoyable and efficient," "creates inspirational places, improves the riding experience, enhances the beauty of public spaces." None of this is true, at least in many cases, and is an excuse for increasing costs, eventually to be born by the riders and tax payers.
If you click on "Artwork," you can see most if not all the so called "art work at our stations.
http://www.njtransit.com/var/var_servle ... nsitArtsTo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank You for the link.

I have to admit, I enjoyed the vast majority of the pieces of sculpture selected. The explanations of the pieces truly helped to explain the piece and it's tie to the station, area, history or transportation. I would hope that each place the sculpture's are displayed, a similar plaque is provided to help in the enjoyment.

Although I can only half agree with NJT's statement "art is essential to the transportation experience,"makes it "more enjoyable and efficient," as I can not perceive how it makes anything more efficient or is essential (maybe I am too pragmatic for that portion of the statement), I can wholly agree, as per my perspective, that it "creates inspirational places, improves the riding experience, enhances the beauty of public spaces."

Money and budgeting will always be an argument in developing and maintaining the transportation infrastructure, but for me, I can honestly say this project looks very successful. It is a nice addition to railway and light rail stations and a good number actually pay homage to the history of rail.

The artwork at my station, Middletown, NJ, is innocuous, animal silhouettes on the fencing. The thing is, it increased the original cost, with no benefit to anyone; and riders are presently clobbered by ticket prices. iI sell the tickets, and feel sorry for them.

I am really amazed at all the art experts and art critics commenting here. Everyone seems to have a very firm criteria for judging art. It seems that if they don't like it, no one would like it and thus it must be bad art and a waste of money. I guess this is how Chinese authorities are judging art in their country as well...

I am happy that NJT devotes 1% of the budget for art work. It does break monotony if the purely utlitarian structure and has a potential to improve once mood. I don't expect to like every piece of art I find in NJT facilities. And 1% of the budget is not going to make a huge dofferences in ticket prices...

Defiant wrote:I am happy that NJT devotes 1% of the budget for art work. It does break monotony if the purely utlitarian structure and has a potential to improve once mood. I don't expect to like every piece of art I find in NJT facilities. And 1% of the budget is not going to make a huge dofferences in ticket prices...

But that $240K for art in the bus garage, and millions for art elsewhere in the system, could have been better used elsewhere... like building heated shelters at train stations whose waiting rooms aren't open afternoons and evenings or keeping the escalators at Secaucus working.

Merriam-Webster has 7 definitions for the word "art".

But at the same time, what is considered to be "art" when it comes to transportation? What is the legal meaning? Is it a painting on a wall? A statue or sculpture inside or outside a station? A mural of tile in a subway station? It is open to interpretation.

In my opinion, all three of these things are a waste of money when it comes to station art. Most new stations now are just inflated-budget cookie-cutter utilitarian structures designed to provide the minimal amenities necessary or required for passenger service. I think that this "art" money would be better suited to adding unique architecture to the station exterior or interior. Why not a station that resembles a church? Or maybe a station that mimics a library? Or maybe fit it into the architecture or history of the nearby community? I am not suggesting a behemoth like Grand Central Terminal, 30th Street Station, or the former glory of Pennsylvania Station. I am suggesting giving these little stations character of their own with this "art" money.

Character is not a painting or a sculpture.

[/rant]

In 1916 the Lackawanna built this magnificent station in Madison, NJ, in gratitude for something that the town had done for it. I forget the details. About ten years ago NJT renovated this station, money well spent.

Here's an interior shot of the eastbound track level waiting room at Madison station. The street level ticket office is less impressive.

philipmartin wrote:The street level ticket office is less impressive.

But with ornate Guastavino tiling, much like Grand Central Terminal lower level.

meanwhile up in Toronto: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05 ... ssing.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spending 1pc or so on public art doesn't break the bank. In fact that part of the project is likely to be the most heavily scrutinised and the least likely to overrun...