Month: November 2009

How – whether? – to improve the South

I’m spending the day at a conference at Davidson College, “Setting an Agenda for a Better South” – more info to come. There’s a conference blog at thinksouth.org. Conference organizer is the Center for a Better South, based in Charleston, a ” pragmatic, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to developing progressive ideas, policies and information for thinking leaders who want to make a difference in the American South.” (Follow on Twitter at #bettersouth.)

For now, if you didn’t see it, note my regular Saturday op-ed column, “The big national story that wasn’t.”

From ‘can-do city’ to ‘city that learns’

Mark Peres of Charlotte Viewpoint online magazine calls it “A call to redefine the city.” It’s a paper, available here, looking at whether Charlotte can change its self-image from “a can-do city that gets things done through
public-private partnerships” to “a smart city that learns.” It’s a call to invert the city’s top-down model into a bottom-up one that engages a broad base of citizens in the city’s success.

The paper is an outgrowth of an event Peres and Civic By Design’s Tom Low put together in October to explore how Charlotte might “create greater capacity in the region to address existing and future systemic issues.” Peres took the conversations that night and distilled them into some key findings (the following is his words, not mine):

• The narrative that Charlotte is “a can-do city that gets things done through public-private partnerships” is code for many for top-down-driven initiatives. The topdown nature of the city has led to great civic successes, but an unintended consequence is passivity in the general populace and distrust among many.

• The city rewards social conformity. There is a perceived divide between corporate executives and non-conformist creative citizens.

• We are consumers of received culture – not producers of original work. Our investments – theaters, museums, arenas – reinforce consumption. We have not similarly invested in assets that lead to innovation: e.g., medical and law schools, interdisciplinary education, an MFA program in fine art or design, artist incubators.

• There is not a shared vision of the region. Citizens in different neighborhoods and municipalities are not well-connected to each other – let alone to the world. There is not a regional identity or a cosmopolitan character. Racial, ethnic, and immigrant populations tends to self-segregate.

• Charlotte is often described as a young city, but it was settled in the late 1700s. It is only young in that it has just recently become nationally recognized as a banking center, and its skyline and suburbs have recently been built. It is immature in its development of economic diversification, social capital, urban design, transit, and ecological sensitivity.

The paper ends on an optimistic note, logging in some of the many community conversations and cross-boundary initiatives going on. “In a fundamental way, community creation is the work of the 21st century,” Peres concludes.

Firebird: Will she survive skateboarders?

At the unveiling Tuesday afternoon of the late Niki de Saint Phalle’s sculpture, “Le Grand Oiseau de Feu sur L’Arche” (“The Large Bird of Fire on the Arch”), amid the cheers and greetings and oohing and aahing, a small worry emerged among the spectators: “How are they going to control the vandalism? How will they keep the skateboarders from damaging it?”

I heard this from a high-ranking city staffer, and from the head of one of the city’s major cultural organizations, and from other cultural arts types plus some regular folks.

So, taking the opportunity to horn in on colleague Larry Toppman’s interview with John Boyer, president of the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art, I asked him The Skateboard Question. Boyer was unflappable. “Speaking as a skateboarder … ” he began. Turns out, as a California boy, he was a skateboarder. “The best of them know better,” he said, “and so I’m just trusting they understand a good thing when they see it.”

The “Firebird” sits (squats?) in a plaza in front of the Bechtler on South Tryon Street. It’s a sparkling mosaic of glass bits, depicting a bird standing on a large parabolic arch. People were having photos taken standing between its legs. (In the photo above Andreas Bechtler, whose collection forms the museum, is second from left.) A small girl of about 3 was putting her face right up to it to see how the mirrors changed her view. As I stood admiring it, I noticed how the mirrors showed random spots in the scene behind me: Two or three images of City Council member Warren Cooksey looking cheerful, one of Charlotte Symphony President Jonathan Martin looking pensive, and multiple other shards of the scene.

Boyer wasn’t at all disturbed by the hands on the glassy sculpture. “When I see those fingerprints on the mirror, that is a beautiful thing,” he said.

I asked artist Linda Luise Brown if she knew why Saint Phalle used the arch form. Brown noted Saint Phalle’s work had a strong feminist core.
I did more research. I believe it is safe to conclude the Firebird is a “she.” One of Saint Phalle’s most famous works was the 1966 Hon-En-Katedral (“She-A-Cathedral) in Sweden, where you entered the exhibit by walking between the legs of (i.e. through the vagina of) a reclining woman. Her early works of female forms, were called Nanas. She once said, “For me, they were the symbol of a cheerful, liberated woman. Today, after nearly twenty years, I see them differently. I see them as heralds of a new matriarchal era, which I believe is the only answer.”

Tuesday afternoon, people were drawn to the passage between the Firebird’s legs. “A new matriarchal era.” On South Tryon Street, no less!