I find it interesting. It really stands out as you approach from the south. I like the Venet piece but it was kinda hidden where it was sitting. I think St. Louis could benefit from more public art installations. Kansas City set up a system which encourages public art paid for by corporations and has some incredible displays. Other cities, even smaller cities than St. Louis, have great public art. I know there are those who feel the money can be used for better things and I agree. But the right pieces-paid for by private groups/people can really have an great impact. This art needs to be all around the area and not just downtown. I would love to see something unique in Carondelet Park near the new Community Center being built (Off I-55 and Loughborough)

I see a piece like this and wonder how much of my tax money was spent on an enlarged replica of a pile of pick up stix. How can you call what amounts to a bunch of 2 by 4s heaped in a pile sculpture? The statue of David is sculture. The monoliths on Easter Island are sculpture. I have seen exact replicas of this hunk of junk in dumpsters at new home builds.

LOL @ b’s comments…

While I often do not understand the “message” behind a lot of these things, it is better to see one than nothing at all on an empty lot. And as long as tax dollars aren’t paying for sculptures of David or Pick-Up Sticks I don’t mind the attempt at expression.

If I have any problem with them at all it is the placement of them near busy intersections where people are tempted to look at it rather than the road…

nothing livens the place more than weird shaped things around the city. I like the red color. The other weird shaped thing was cool too. That is my official art review.

Dear God we already have some one telling us what is or is not art, and he mentions the David as a comparison. Sorry but the David is a masterpiece which there are not that many of. Hey Mr. B- are you an art critic? or are you one of those that slams the use of your “PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS” (add as many exclamation points as you feel is necessary) and really want to complain about that instead? Not all pieces of art are masterpieces by far, and to say that all art has to be like your 2 examples is so short sided it is sick. The Gateway Arch would not have been thought of or built if we follow Mr. B’s example. Art comes in many, many forms. It is not up to the individual to give the rest of us rules on what art should be, it is up to the artists to present them and see how they are accepted. This piece was accepted, and it sits on what would be an empty grass lot. Can anyone out there that is familiar with this interchange and neighborhood really picture a copy of the David or an easter island statue on that plot and having it not look like a theme park???

John Henry is a joke in terms of message and meaning.

He’s more of a, “here’s some eye candy,” type artist.

Compared to more concrete, pointed art, it’s a type that certainly can be less interesting, and it certainly doesn’t age as well. But it’s something nobody can call offensive. And that’s why it’s used as public art, paid for by the government. It’s accessible to anyone, even kids and conservatives. I don’t like it. I don’t admire it. But it is art, and it fills a need. You have to remember, a lot of great art is too controversial when it’s created to be put on public display. The John Henry’s of the world keep a mainstream audience aware enough of art that better art can have a chance to pop it’s head up every now and then. Like I said. I don’t like it, but it fills a need.

Who moved the Serra sculpture and put it on streoids?

Having people translate a different language and NOT knowing it surely isn’t viable. One must know the language, i.e. the language of art in order to comment on it’s purpose in our culture.

Comparing a modern sculpture to Michaelangelo’s David certainly is the apples and oranges comparison.

What we have here in this new sculpture is amazingly spectacular in its placement in the environment. It separates us from the commonplace.

I have not seen the new sculpture in person yet, but even when looking at the Venet piece that previously occupied the spot, I was always glad that St. Louis was spicing up the city’s vista with works of art. I liked the Venet piece, but I thought it was difficult to see at that location. As for the new piece, I love the bright color and the scale, and I think it will prove to be challenging and cheerful visual exclamation point in that beautiful neighborhood. I also find the name of the sculpture very appealing and appropriate for St. Louis. “Treemonisha” was the first “Black Opera”, and it was composed by our own beloved Scott Joplin. It told the story of education and knowledge triumphing over ignorance and superstition. In case anyone is interested in the story of “Treemnisha,” here is a summary from Wikipedia:
“Treemonisha takes place in September 1884 on a plantation between Texarkana and the red River in Arkansas. Treemonisha is a young, educated black woman who refuses to accept the superstitions of the community. When the local conjurers try to sell Treemonisha’s adoptive mother a “bag of luck”, she denounces the conjurers, who retaliate by kidnapping her, and attempt to throw her into a wasp nest. Her beau, Remus, rescues her at the last moment and they return to the community. Accepted by her peers, she leads a campaign to educate the people around her.”

As it often happens with public art, many will undoubtedly have a strong “reaction” to this piece initially, but I suspect that over time, we will all come to love it and will have a hard time imagining our city without it. As for me, I think the sculpture is a beautiful tribute to our rich African American heritage, and I’m glad they are spending a bit of my tax money on something that is thought-provoking and aspires to more than mere utilitarianism.

“John Henry Was A Steel Driving Man”…or was it a “Steel Piling Man?” One thing he is for sure is a man laughing all the way to the bank. We sometimes untangled a pile of structural steel that fell off a broken trailer that looked like that but we straightened it up and reloaded it on a new trailer. We sure as hell didn’t weld it together and call it art.

I’m not a good person to critique this work because I flat out hate modern abstract art. To me, if you are doing a sculpture or a painting of a cow, it should in some way resemble a cow. The artist could do a simplistic hard-line version, a photographic detail, or a dreamy vision of said cow–as long as I can look at it and realize it’s a cow. I have a problem with any work (and this includes poetry written by Wallace Stevens) where you have to have “footnotes” to even begin to understand where the artist was going with the concept.

However, if we are talking about the purpose of public art, I suppose this piece does get people talking. Dialogue is always a good thing. But again, on a personal level, I feel art should inspire…whether it’s just an emotional gut reaction like we have with a beautiful sunset, or whether it’s a call to research the subject matter of the piece–call it intellectual appeal. It shouldn’t leave people scratching their heads and going, “Whatever….”

I know how tall it is, what color it is, what it is supposed to be, but what did this thing cost?

Hey Shahrdad, I think you should be nominated to take some kids from one of the older public school buildings in St Louis and explain to them how your tax dollars were better spent on this as opposed to new books or air conditioning…

Reminds me of the Big Bent Pipe ART that was on Kingshyway & Lindell.
Yeap! someone was “HUSTLED”

in another sound example of a bunch of flapping jaws who love to complain generating misplaced outrage over nothing because they’re not inclined to read a thirteen sentence news article before they get all frothy mouthed with taxpayer outrage.

I direct your attention to the second freaking sentence of the article which states this was installed by the gateway foundation, which is a private entity…as opposed to the childrens books and air conditioning fund for the SLPS, or any other block of public funding.

Well……it has been said that “art” requires courage, but that if it sends light into the darkness of the beholder’s heart, then maybe it represents “truth.” But it has also been said that “creativity” is allowing yourself to make mistakes, but that “art” is knowing which ones to keep. I assume this one is a keeper.

My reaction: I like the bright color.

Thanks Matt for opening the eyes of others on reading the article before giving an opinion (bold blue type should catch the eye). I can’t wait to drive by and see the new sculpture on a bright sunny day!

I live in the area and I dislike this statue a lot. It is an eye sore. What is the point of having a piece of modern art that clashes with the surrounding “revitalized and classically decorated - I say historic” area? Not only that, but this “thing” is located in an inaccessible area cut off from all public access by the roads and highway ramps. So, is the purpose to distract drivers? Since those are the only ones who basically will enjoy any art at that location. I would have prefered trees….maybe a nice garden area. Afterall…we should GO GREEN and pleasant…not UGLY!

whether you consider this good art, simple eye candy, whatever, the City desperately needs more of it.

More! Encore! I love it!

Hurray for St. Louis and the Gateway Foundation. I love it, something to upset all the conservative, backward thinking art haters. Have you cynics never heard of the Museum of Modern Art (www.moma.org)? Take a visit and see that the world of art has many ways to express individualism. And to think that Van Gogh and Picasso were thought to be crazy with their interpretations of art, would you haters like to have one of their originals!

I think art is a matter of education. To observe a piece of art and not react to it, one would have to be void of a pulse. But in addition to its visual impact, a piece of art must also take the artist’s intent into consideration. What was the artist trying to achieve, and did they in fact achieve it? The simplest thing in the world to do is to look at something and offer a snap judgment. I often hear, “Oh… well… I could have done THAT…” My response is “Yeah… But you DIDN’T…” I think the new piece offers more in the form of a landmark; a vital, organizational piece of the urban fabric. Bravo to us for stepping out of the comfort zone!

I do enjoy public displays of art. I’ve seen them in other cities and appreciate how they add to the flavor and depth of a community.

That said, the only thing I like about this one is the color.

But, I’m just not into abstract.

I like to know what I’m looking at, to be able to tell what it is supposed to be… this obviously just isn’t my thing.

I work for a large company which has art all about our facility… some of it I appreciate, some of it I don’t. The large abstract sculpture in one of our garden areas is one that I just ‘don’t’. ~shrug~

Each to their own, though… when my sister and I head to the art museum, we go through the classic stuff together, then she splits off to modern art and I go to see the historical pieces. While we may not share one anothers’ appreciation, we do acknowledge it.

It’s butt-ugly but as long as I don’t have to pay for or look at it, I don’t care. Where does the Gateway Foundation get its grant money?

A lot of what’s called “public” art is a scam. The aesthetic and monetary value of any work of art is determined by what patrons are willing to pay for it. Since most artists couldn’t sell their work on a bet they foist it off on taxpayer funded arts councils instead. I love all sorts of art and appreciate seeing it in different venues, but to me it seems terribly arrogant to demand that others pay for it.

I understand the art, but in these times, I would like to see something more practical, like a playground, or just a field, with flowers, I don’t kmow… this piece is just off and out there.

Considering some of the other “art” that the Gateway Foundation has inflicted on us, it’s not bad. Please tell me they melted down the naked, fat dwarf on a pony at Hanley and Wydown to make it.

Crap

I have to admit that the first thought I had upon seeing this “art” was “What the…? Eww.”

I did see the Venet piece and didn’t mind it being there, I guess. I actually thought that it was left there from some underground work near the highway; you know, what was left of old, rusted pipe.

As for the Arch… there are things around it and in it to make that particular piece of art seem, well, like art. It is not just this huge chunk of metal sitting in the middle of a barren, unused, hard to get to field of nothing.

I am not a huge fan of this type of art, however I will not knock what I cannot do. There are things that I have seen that interest me and others that make me say “Geez, what were they thinking?”, but either way I have a choice to look at it or not. I would rather not see that giant red thing everyday on my way to work, but it’s there now isn’t it (for now anyway).

Indeed, The Gateway Foundation is a private entity and thus put this thing up on their own dime. However, I imagine the foundation had to first seek approval from the City of St. Louis to use the property for an 81-foot…um…sculpture. Three questions:

1) Did The Gateway Foundation purchase this property?

2) Does the foundation pay taxes on it?

3) Why didn’t the City insist that the property be zoned for something useful and revenue generating, such as a scrap metal recycling facility? (Of course, this piece of…um…art will some day be torn down. If it is then incorporated into the hull of a new guided missile cruiser, the USS St. Louis, then all will be foregiven.)

What a terrible title for an article regarding art. Shame on the author, being a member of the creative community as a journalist, for using this title. A similar title for your publication would be “Is this a Newspaper, or a Tabloid?”

Shame.

This piece is 81 feet high, approximately 35 feet wide. It weighs 40,000 pounds. WHY? I am underwhelmed. What a waste of tax dollars and manpower if John Henry was compensated for this. John Henry could better serve all by using his talent for something constructive such as designing and building play grounds for children, rather than ostentatious “LOOK AT WHAT I DID”

I like it. I happen to enjoy non-referencial abstract art. It attempts to get past the “this looks like a cow” conventionalisms. It seeks a pure unclouded emotional response from the viewer.

I would say it is very successful, judging from the comments so far.

My challenge towards all the “just a green field” or “this is not art” people is to broaden your view of the world. Take a detour from your daily commute, skip work, read a book, go to a museum, or just do something different and see what happens when you step outside your boring routine. The stark Puritanistic way of life, popular in the Midwest, is so limiting it makes the heart shrivel and beat cold.

A human heart, awakened to itself and to beauty, will see beauty in this.

def. art - these are well done,and intriquing - if u cant think outside the lines, have fun walkn’ ever so straight and dont look left or right, u might fall….

I think it is great that the space was used for a sculpture. I drive by this everyday. I remember the old sculpture. But until now, I never knew it was art. I thought it was some type of construction scrap or leftover materials that were never moved. I love art and sculpture in general. But I do not like this piece at all. But I appreciate that some do. Just being honest.

The South St. Louis pigeons are going to love it - and they will help decorate it with more color!

UGLY, UGLY, REALLY UGLY. TREES ARE MUCH PRETTIER.

Waste of Earth’s natural resources

I live near the artwork, and can see it from my house. I like it. It’s different. People always complain at first, then forget about, and then complain when its dismantled 30 years later.

We need more art pieces around the City. We need people talking about different topics, not just the Cardinals. Enlighten yourself!

And, to the people who keep complaining about the money… stop being hoosiers.

That thing is worth more in scrap metal. Why are they so intent in creating mini junk yards in the middle of neighborhoods?

If someone actually paid money for this sculpture (or the previous one), is the hook still in their mouth?

I don’t know a lot about art, but it is nice to see St. Louis (finally) trying to walk with the rest of the progressing cities in the country. It is okay if people hate the sculpture (that is the point of art, to make you think). If you want to complain about tax dollars or time, start complaining at the people in charge of the public school system or Ballpark village. Thanks, and I hope this mindset continues.

It will look fantastic next to the brand new Walgreens that is being built across from the old city hospital, thanks to eminent domain abuse.

Come on! People put junk together and call it “art”. Just like those giant paper mache things that are being displayed around town, anyone can put anything together. This looks like the frame for a building which fell down and no one bothered to remove it.

b - to answer your question, from what I understand the Gateway Foundation paid for both the artwork itself and the installation. So precisely zero tax dollars were used to pay for it.

Something else for the Hoodies of the City to sprawl with graffiti, then it will be “Real Art” !!!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. And boy is that ugly! What does it all mean? I would have rather seen some of the arches from the old Busch Stadium, some train car wheels, a collection of railroad spikes, a retired jet fighter airplane or something that has more of a link to the city than some stupid sticks or circles.

I guess I would rather have them spraying graffiti on the artwork than breaking into my car.

I think Matt has the flapping jaw and Lea would make a perfect sheeple. I read the article. Of course it says the piece was installed by The Gateway Foundation. But I’ve checked Webster’s dictionary and the thesaurus. Amazingly, there is no correlation between the terms “installed by” and “paid for”.

I’ve installed plenty of pieces of software that were paid for by others on thousands of computers. So, I simply WONDERED how much tax money went to pay for the piece. I did not say it was a waste of tax money. Who paid for the land? Who’s paying the property tax for the land? If none of that money is tax money, great, so be it, but the article says no such thing.

If the City (or the County) owns the land, b, they don’t pay property taxes to themselves. Duh. So no public money spent there. COULD the City have put something else there? Sure. Was there something else to go there that didn’t cost tax dollars? Doesn’t look like it, so quit complaining - a piece of art installed by Gateway where nothing else was. Thanks, Gateway!

I don’t like the fat dude on the pony, either, but I like this even less. I will admit - I don’t understand modern art. But at least the fat dude on the pony looks like something! Another Gateway project is the skipping bunny across the street from the Civic Center - I like that one too. But if Gateway wants to put up art I don’t understand, I consider that my failing, not theirs. Again I say, Thanks, Gateway, for trying to beautify our city and prompt conversations!

BTW, I resent the notion that only “conservatives” don’t understand modern art. But maybe you mean that in a non-political way?

I don’t see anything wrong with public art, but I don’t get that excited about it. I did take a detour on my way back to the office today to have a look at this thing. If I was knowledgable about art, I’d say that it’s placement is a representation of the chaos resulting from merging three interstate highways. But I’m just a regular guy, so I say it’s big and red.

Anything that serves no purpose other than to be looked at is useless to me. Call it art if you want, but unless you have people willing to pay you to view it, it is a total waste and produces nothing.

Although bright and large, it’s common. We see this type of thing everywhere, in every nation. To the average Joe, it doesn’t evoke appreciation. It doesn’t reflect heroism, accomplishment, technical ability or any of those things for which humans, communities or nations historically have erected as a monument. Part of the reason the Arch is so successful is that it has meaning and everyone understands it at a glance. Mr. Venet’s serene curves are more comforting.

This reminds me of the stick figures showcased in “The Blair Witch Project” only on a much larger scale. I guess it’s better than the last heap of junk that was there. I’m a big proponent of art around our city, but at least give me something interesting to look at.

Yawnnnnn….ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

More surfaces for graffiti. I’ll give it a month before the tagging starts.

I honestly thought Venet’s piece was leftover building material that the construction crews had placed there for awhile. It took about a month before I read an article indicating that it was a “sculpture”. I wasn’t very impressed at all with the piece. I drove past the other day while they were putting up the new piece and realized instantly “hey, this is art, not leftover pieces”. It reminds me of a diet or anorexic version of “The Way”, but I must say it looks much better than Venet’s piece. I can’t wait to see more of the pieces the Foundation promised to put around downtown. Hopefully, the work will really be inspiring and enjoyable.

Commenter “A” hit it! It’s totally Blair Witch Project.

Its crap, junk, an eye sore but I don’t have to look at it…so…whatever. Should have built a park. Who doesn’t like a park? I guess I’m just jealous that I don’t have the materials or a welding torch to make something like this…pile of…dung…and pawn it off as art to the ’saps’ of the world who literally & figuratively will buy it!

Amen, Anthony!!!

Not very interesting looking and a waste of public land. I agree the land could have been put to much better use.

I live a couple of blocks from the location and my tax money probably paid for it, so my opinion counts more that most. The new one is garbage. The old one was more aesthetically pleasing. I am angry the city used my tax dollars to replace something that was fine with something that is worse.

@ Jennifer:

I only meant that conservatives would likely be up in arms over any kind art in a public place that held any real meaning. Not that they wouldn’t understand it. And no, I didn’t mean, “conservatives,” politically. Politics are garbage. I only meant people that are opposed to open, uncensored expression. People who hate curse words in public and porno on the internet. People that want to burn down the forest for fear of what may be in the bushes.

@ Jennifer:

I only meant that conservatives would likely be up in arms over any kind art in a public place that held any real meaning. Not that they wouldn’t understand it. And no, I didn’t mean, ”conservatives,” politically. Politics are garbage. I only meant people that are opposed to open, uncensored expression. People who hate curse words in public and porno on the internet. People that want to burn down the forest for fear of what may be in the bushes.

What is it with St. Looser’s love of scrap iron ?

Did someone say they are going to build a “Drug Store”
in that crime ridden area !!!

Brilliant…. simply brilliant…. they’ll have robberies daily….

Those who have nothing but negative things to say about ANY art, are those without talent and the ability to appreciate anything creative, If you cannot do it yourself or have not ever been to the art museum please save your negative comments for the bathroom walls.