“Place in Art” Appears on Rt. 250

fdr writes: Driving along on Rt. 250 this morning, near the fire station between Meadowbrook and Hydraulic, I saw the sun glinting off a scupture. It wasn’t the Art in Place lions, a quarter mile further down the road — it was a piece, apparently built as commentary on the “Art in Place” art, made from (as best I could tell at 50 mph) shiny pieces of trash. Anyone else see it? Bets on how long it will remain up, if it hasn’t already been removed?

17 thoughts on ““Place in Art” Appears on Rt. 250”

  1. I have not seen this, but based on this desription consider it fantastic. While I have yet to see any "Art in Place" that’s terribly inspiring, it’s good to hear that someone has.

  2. am i the only one who thinks this "art in place" BS is a stupid, stupid idea? "hey, let’s put big, distracting pieces of art in the middle of major high-traffic thoroughfares!" helllloooo!!! didn’t the state outlaw those DUI memorials on the sides of highways b/c they were a distraction that could cause more accidents? WTF??? the first time i get rear ended on the bypass b/c some nitwit was admiring that big, ugly fish thing, some city council members are gonna be wearin’ their asses for hats!!!

  3. Not only that, but some of the "art" weighs more than your car, and is considerably less volumous. Meaning if you hit it in an accident it will SLICE YOUR CAR IN TWO.

    Eyes on the road people. Isn’t the cellphone, sandwich, and screaming kids in the back seat enough of a distraction? I really dont want you to turn your head to look at some "art" and then have your hulking SUV go in the direction you’re looking, namely into my lane.

  4. When I drove by last night (6:30PM or so), I didn’t see the illicit sculpture. Admittedly, it was dark and I was trying to pay attention to driving, but apparently it was removed sometime yesterday.

    Wish I’d had a chance to get a picture; it was a fairly tall piece (6 feet plus), looked like it was made from cans of various sizes and other pieces of junk. There were three metal-tone spray-painted signs nearby that proclaimed "Place" "In" "Art". I was going too fast to get a sense of whether its shape was meant to represent anything.

    My interpretation was that this was a mockery made by someone who opines that the AIP sculptures are nothing more than junk made of junk. (Given the recent particularly heated discussions on this topic here, I even wondered if a participant or two in that debate had been responsible….)

    I thought the placement near the lions sculpture was particularly hilarious b/c the first time I saw the lions, I thought some large pieces of cardboard had been blown accidentally onto the median.

  5. Lyle, I comment on "Art in Place" frequently on here and also to friends. Yes, C’ville is an "artsy" place, but not everyone enjoys art. I don’t, but I respect others right to enjoy. What I don’t respect is the fact that they place this crap right in the middle of the highways. I almost wrecked my car on McIntire Rd. right after they installed the "typical charlottesville bicyclist disregarding traffic signs" thing that looks like it coming into traffic. I am against public art placed in our roadways. Leave art in the museums and the parks. And guess, what? Charlottesville actually contributes money to this program!!

  6. what gave someone a right to take it down? If we touched the AIP stuff we would be charged with larceny or vandalism. Someone could argue that they were just expressing their "artistic side"! HAHA

  7. Expressing one’s artistic side on city property without the city’s permission gives the city the right to remove it — just as you would have that right if someone built a sculpture in your front yard.

  8. I realize that this is a stretch, but could the article published about the original ‘vandalism’ be seen as the implicit granting of permission to vandalize or otherwise artistically "comment upon" the AIP pieces? Given that the artists are acting through the city?

    I realize that there are all sorts of problems and answers to this, but it just struck me as one possible reading of that original article.

  9. <i>I realize that this is a stretch, but could the article published about the original ‘vandalism’ be seen as the implicit granting of permission to vandalize or otherwise artistically "comment upon" the AIP pieces? Given that the artists are acting through the city? </i>


    My take on this is that it would apply only if the comment were actually <i>attached</i> to the work in some way (not in a separate space, like this piece was) and only for works by the particular artist who made the comment (he was speaking for his own work only, not the program in general). But it’s certainly an interesting idea.

  10. Yeah! I agree 1000%!! I was in Paris one time, and they have this great big Ark of Triumph right in the middle of a busy street, and it’s really stupid because you might crash into someone wearing a beret while looking at it! Art should be done in private, like sex!

  11. this should have appeared under this post. hopefully this will work…

    "uh, yeah. that’s exactly what i said in my post. when’s my royalty check gettin’ here? "

  12. Yeeeesssssssss! I bet you could fit a bunch of parking lots and convenience stores at the place of that old Arc. Sheeesh, those French!

Comments are closed.