Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, which is it: end it because of the emissions, or move it out of your backyard?
I thought I was clear in stating that (1) in the context of moving forward as a city with aspirations of an SXSW type of mega-cultural event yearly, we need to create an environment that messages this city is agile, aware, progressive, ever-changing and dynamic, and that (2) if we are to use "Creative Capital" as a meaningful logo, we must embrace a truism: art = change. Art and culture, well, they do not stand still, art does not cling with a death-grip to ways of the past. Now, take away the emo aspect, take away the nostalgia, take away "But People Like It." Based on the need to brand ourselves as a dynamic city that is agile, progressive, adapting over time and an incubator of new culture and new art, WF stands out as retro. It has been the poster child of the expression of "Creative Capital" since last century. Beyond whatever popularity it enjoys, irrespective of its reminding everyone to pick up a bag of charcoal on their way home, if we are to be true to the notion of creativity and change, WF fails to align with that branding going forward.
As to the messaging sent by choking the city in a smoky haze, which does indeed affect many people, is the message of "we like to pollute the air." Now, you may not feel that way, but others do see the burning of carbon as abusive to the environment.
Quote:
The fact is, people like fire. Many large, environmentally conscientious cities have bans on private outdoor fires, wih exceptions for cooking food. As an aside, have you noticed the wild popularity of backyard barbecue, each little grill emitting but nobody blinks an eye?
Yes, people, some people, do like fire -- it probably appeals to the good old days when we huddled in caves around a fire, warding off the cold and creating great art on the cave's walls.
If people like fire as much as you claim, then please, dear God, please let the next (and last) WF be a beautiful, tear-invoking torching of City Hall. We can use "The G" as kindling. But after that, after we've had our fun, after the AIA sends us bouquets thanking us for our new approach to controlling urban blight, let's knock off with the polluting of our air, m'kay?
Quote:
....
Bonfires are a traditional celebratory act.
To some people, but not to everyone.
Quote:
And if this PVDFest takes off, they'll likely hold WaterFire every night of the event.
Your opinion -- what is it based on? That the locals like it? That Aunt Bea from Paducah loved it? I've had three friends visit PVD from Manhattan and one from BCN and dutifully showed them WF. None liked it, all thought it was kitschy. So, as with all things related to personal tastes, people will have differing opinions, but in summary, and I keep drilling on this but it seems not to be penetrating, art changes, new options become available, and technology is driving new modalities of artistic expression. Let's take chances, let's embrace what true centers of art are doing. Here's a hint: it's called light.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,799 posts, read 2,698,580 times
Reputation: 1609
Actually, I don't particularly enjoy WaterFire, though it is beautiful.
I reject your "truism" that art = change. Works of art do not cease to be works of art once created unless deliberately destroyed, whether as a deliberate part of the creative process or not. Art advances through change, and art brings about change, but the two are not equivalent. It's more like art <--> change. It's a feedback loop.
How is it "taking a chance" by replicating what "true" centers of art are doing? How is that change? That's just imitation.
Actually, I don't particularly enjoy WaterFire, though it is beautiful.
I reject your "truism" that art = change. Works of art do not cease to be works of art once created...
And I did not suggest otherwise, but the existence of a still-popular of-a-kind art (WF, circa 1994) doesn't mean new art and new art forms haven't developed evolved and grown since that time. Rembrandt was great - upon his death, do you think every artist should paint nothing but Rembrandts? New great ideas are everywhere and they should be explored or created for this place. Keep WF, fine, keep holding on to the known. Fact is, WF as a practical matter it has little impact on my life, but as a person keenlky interested in culture, I would like new things.
Quote:
How is it "taking a chance" by replicating what "true" centers of art are doing? How is that change? Replication à la Warhol?
I know of no artist named Warhole, or Warhola.
Uh, never said replicate. I wrote "embrace," as in:
Quote:
"Let's take chances, let's embrace what true centers of art are doing. Here's a hint: it's called light."
Embrace, of course, can be defined as "[to] accept or support (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically. "besides traditional methods, artists are embracing new technology"
I realize change is difficult for some people but we must keep moving, and to keep moving we must get our emo in check, stow our tendencies towards getting stuck in a rut, and accept, indeed, invite the challenges of working towards being a "creative capital." Can't keep making Providence great again if some of us are clinging to 1990's thinking, can't keep schlepping with that Teutonic relic tied like a millstone around our necks, can we?
It worked! I spent just a little bit of time on Friday evening and Saturday during the day, but by any measure, PVD Fest was a big win. People seemed happy, relaxed, friendly (a signature of this city, I think, but I also think BOS is a very friendly city), and genuinely pleased to be a part of it.
A few thoughts:
o One goal of the redesign of the RIPTA terminal at KP was to create a comfortable, safe public space. The festival was a good test to see how successful that effort was. In my view, the redesign worked. I was looking through the newly planted trees and the backdrop of the tall buildings was breathtaking. Indeed, it worked so well that I wonder, maybe it would be a good thing to relocate the terminal away from KP permanently.
o People want to come downtown but they need a reason to be there. PVD Fest delivered. We certainly love to eat and drink and the relaxed regulations on open containers has a salubrious quality that should not be underestimated. And it is worth noting that there were no arrests during the weekend. The PVD police know how to handle crowds and, unlike the police on a certain island in the Hudson, they are certainly respected, but they not feared, probably because they don't sweat the small stuff. And their horses are a huge recruiting tool and offer a channel to talk to the cops, which builds trust.
o Washington Street is the next Westminster Street. It's sufficiently wide to allow the sun to cast glorious light on people and buildings; narrow streets create shadows and are less inviting.
o The armada of food trucks was reason enough to go. This grouping of trucks should be a regular occurrence, as in every weekend.
o The city, RIPTA and the organizers really executed well. Trash cans were emptied before they spilled contents onto the streets, and downtown sparkled. The flowers in the overhead pots throughout downtown really earn their keep. Elorza, with his hipster hat and his lovely family, filled the role that a prior mayor did so well. He really deserves credit for pulling this off.
o It was free! So families could spend time together and with other people without worrying about entrance fees, etc.
Were I asked, and I haven't been, I would suggest a couple of small things:
o The city has got to offer free Wifi throughout downtown.
o The strings of naked lights on Westminster should be extended in both directions, and additional festive lighting on side streets like Union and Mathewson would be worth the cost.
o I didn't see ¡Gina¡, Was she there? If not, why not?
I look forward to v3 next year and I hope the success will inspire and motivate us to bring people downtown by making it a destination of choice.
o Washington Street is the next Westminster Street. It's sufficiently wide to allow the sun to cast glorious light on people and buildings; narrow streets create shadows and are less inviting.
o
Well... yes and no. Narrow, dark streets like dark alleyways tucked behind buildings are hardly inviting. But ultra-wide boulevards are equally uninviting (in my opinion, they're more uninviting, even if there are good sidewalks). There's a balance, and narrower is typically better. Westminster is fairly narrow and it's one of the best streets to walk in Providence. Thames Street in Newport(South of America's Cup/Memorial) is narrow and also excellent. Salem Street in Boston's North End is very narrow and still quite inviting. Same goes for Marshall Street in Boston's Blackstone Block. Wharf Street in Portland, Maine may be one of the best pedestrian experiences in New England and it's a narrow back alley. The keys are street-level activation and, to a slightly lesser degree, aesthetics (where natural light comes in). If you have active storefronts, attractive signage and an aesthetically pleasing appearance (cobblestones or pavers, good architecture, vibrant window displays, etc) on a narrow street, you've got a recipe for success. That's what's so appealing about exploring so many European cities and towns (and gorgeous Quebec City to our north).
^ Agree with everything you wrote, though I've yet to make it to Newport. Washington St. isn't too wide -- it's not like Memorial Blvd at Francis, which is a true experiment in terror trying to cross, as is Fountain, to a much lesser degree.
Westminster is a special street and I suspect it cost a lot of money to brick the sidewalks and the fancy cobblestone designs in the street. I think it is my favorite street in the city, apart from Prospect. I understand it used to be a bus route back in "the day."
What I'm curious to know is why the hell was the Cathedral built in so forlorn an area? It's not easily approachable by foot...
What I'm curious to know is why the hell was the Cathedral built in so forlorn an area?
It wasn't; the forlorn area was built later. Before I-95 and before urban renewal, the Cathedral was actually on Weybosset Street, which used to extend past Empire/Broad Streets and ended at Westminster and Jackson Streets (Cathedral Square).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can use "The G" as kindling. But after that, after we've had our fun, after the AIA sends us bouquets thanking us for our new approach to controlling urban blight, let's knock off with the polluting of our air, m'kay?
