Latest Chapter in Broken Angel Saga

Honestly- so much vitriol for an artist and the guy who wanted to help him. Arthur's building, while unconventional and certainly not up to code somehow managed to stand for 30 years until the DOB decided it had to fall. Frank Gehry gets paid millions to create buildings that look just as unconventional, and suffer big problems because of poorly designed structures, and poor choices in terms of environment and usability.

Arthur is a 70+ year old artist- if you aren't an artist maybe you cna't understand the relationship between an artist and his work. I'm not going to condemn him for desperately trying tp preserve what's left.

There are amazing artist created structures all over the world, that aren't up to code, and they are revered as folk art and preserved. Not in NYC though. The city that makes millions of of its arts is not about to let artists get in the way of money.

And Shahn- let this be a lesson. No good deed goes unpunished. You certainly don't deserve the the things that are being said.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 11:10 AM

What- wasn't going after you, just voicing my viewpoint which seems to be at odds with everyone else's here. For years i went past Broken Angel and fell in love with it. I imagine Arthur didn't want to give it up because he put so much of himself into it- not as an investment or a piece of real estate, but as his life's work.

fsrq- for all the years that building stood, and i do think Arthur was very cognizant of his structure and its dangers, you're writing a scenario of what might happen. Yes- it was a possibility, but then again,so was the possibility that pieces of cornice would fall from old buildings all over Manhattan and in fact did fall on Court St. twice in my life I have been under elevated trains when they dropped bolts a few feet from me. The fact that broken Angel wasn't droping debris should say something.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 12:16 PM

What- wasn't going after you, just voicing my viewpoint which seems to be at odds with everyone else's here. For years i went past Broken Angel and fell in love with it. I imagine Arthur didn't want to give it up because he put so much of himself into it- not as an investment or a piece of real estate, but as his life's work.

fsrq- for all the years that building stood, and i do think Arthur was very cognizant of his structure and its dangers, you're writing a scenario of what might happen. Yes- it was a possibility, but then again,so was the possibility that pieces of cornice would fall from old buildings all over Manhattan and in fact did fall on Court St. twice in my life I have been under elevated trains when they dropped bolts a few feet from me. The fact that broken Angel wasn't droping debris should say something.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 12:17 PM

Some are being lived in, some aren't. My point was that these structures were looked at as art pieces, rather than architecture. A different approach. Agreed, art is very much subjective, and more often comes down to whether or not someone likes it, rather than its particular merits (just don't ask me what I think of Warhol :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 12:43 PM

What- wasn't going after you, just voicing my viewpoint which seems to be at odds with everyone else's here. For years i went past Broken Angel and fell in love with it. I imagine Arthur didn't want to give it up because he put so much of himself into it- not as an investment or a piece of real estate, but as his life's work.

fsrq- for all the years that building stood, and i do think Arthur was very cognizant of his structure and its dangers, you're writing a scenario of what might happen. Yes- it was a possibility, but then again,so was the possibility that pieces of cornice would fall from old buildings all over Manhattan and in fact did fall on Court St. twice in my life I have been under elevated trains when they dropped bolts a few feet from me. The fact that broken Angel wasn't droping debris should say something.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 12:56 PM

wow- apologies for the triple post- my computer went a little nuts there!

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 12:57 PM

cmu- you really need to duck. All those incoming missiles heading your way now :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 2:02 PM

Well, considering how long the building was there, and nothing happened, considering the DOB was not interested in preserving Broken Angel, considering A Frank Gehry is considered to be an architectural genius but insists on crumpled paper for inspiration, yes, I guess you could say it was subjective. Arthur is no dummy- what makes you think he didn't reinforce his work or think about safety? He and his wife lived in it- I don't think they had a death wish.

Note re the Coliseum- Really?? Gosh! Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 7:05 PM

Well, our opinion is that Broken Angel was a unique artistic statement and seeing as it stood for at least 35 years without falling debris or collapsing, we imagine Arthur did know something about his craft.

We are not arguing whether or not it was up to code- but the real argument here seems to be a matter of taste. Yes, we did read the first and all the articles. Since we have seen the building for years but have never been inside- (as you have not)we are not predisposed to condemn it without knowing all the facts. We find the hysteria over Broken Angel rather surprising actually.

Yes, we do bring up Gehry and yes we are sure his buildings are engineered even those that look like they are falling down, and those that are suffering from structural or design problems. Bilbao, and many others, are brilliant.

Again, you missed our point. And having dealt with the DOB in regards to a Frank Gehry designed project, I can tell you from personal experience that money and politics have quite a bit to do with how they operate. Their lack of oversight and the blowing off of community concerns were some of the reasons why a building was collapsed by the developer and myself and my neighbors endangered. So let's not presume the DOB is infallible or motivated strictly by safety to the public.

Note: The Leaning Tower of Pisa was saved and reinforced for safety reasons, but not torn down.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 3, 2009 8:04 PM

Sam- thanks-and Horrors!! I certainly was not comparing the tower to Broken angel. i was making a sarcastic reference to pierre's rather facetious comment about the coliseum. BY the way, benson's bringing fresh Italian pastry to the get together is dependent on you showing up. No pressure but we LOVE Italian pastry :-)

Pierre- again since none of us really know all the details, I refuse to condemn Arthur for constructing his artistic vision. Ou may not have liked it either as a structure or as an artwork, but I still think it was unique and eccentric and rather wonderful. And yes- it could have been saved- something which you refused to even consider because it seems to have offended your sensibilities. Well, I'm no fan of Jackson Pollack but his work commands millions. Paint drips considered fine art. Go figure. However, I understand what drove him artistically and I respect that.

Note: I did not say it was a miracle it didn't collapse- I said that the fact that it didn't meant that Arthur must have had some idea of what he was doing. Nor did I say the DOB targeted him I simply pointed out to you that the DOB doesn't always act in the best interests of public safety and that some of its decisions are based on politics and money.

There are other Gehry buildings that have complaints- and while it so happens I love a lot of his work, others, like the Ratner designs were horrible. So because he's Frank Gehry he gets a free pass? I don't get the vitriol against Broken Angel- the guy is in his 70's, and now over 35 years of his lifes work is being ripped apart, he's hurt no one, and a whole lot of people think its all a hoot. Sorry- not me.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 4, 2009 12:01 AM