May 1, 2012 Will Mark the 30th Anniversary of Richard Serra’s ‘Twain’
Richard Serra’s controversial metal sculpture “Twain” was installed on March 15-17, 1982 and dedicated on Saturday May 1, 1982.
According to a August 25, 1985 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, by the late George McCue, “the formal name arrived late; at the 1982 dedication it was simply “Quadrilateral.”” I know many of you don’t like Twain, see Readers split on Richard Serra’s “Twainâ€Â from April 2010.
The following is what I’d like to see accomplished by the 30th anniversary of “Twain’s” dedication:
1)Â Extend the wide “hallway” that runs next to Market St in Citygarden. Narrow 10th & 11th streets where the hallway crosses both as was done at 9th.
2) Replace the narrow broken sidewalks on the other three sides of the block with new wider sidewalks.
3) Place landscaping grids around the sculpture so grass can grow without having foot traffic create holes that get muddy and collect water.
What makes the 30th anniversary special for this relatively-minor piece? We don’t mark the anniversaries of any of the other elements along the Gateway Mall. Bigger picture (given our limited resources), wouldn’t the city be better served spending money on needed curb ramps throughout the city instead of creating wider sidewalks on just this block? And if you really want to increase pedestrian activity on this block, step one should be the removal of this intimidating, unwelcoming, unremarkable piece of “art”.
What makes the 30th anniversary special for this relatively-minor piece? We don’t mark the anniversaries of any of the other elements along the Gateway Mall. Bigger picture (given our limited resources), wouldn’t the city be better served spending money on needed curb ramps throughout the city instead of creating wider sidewalks on just this block? And if you really want to increase pedestrian activity on this block, step one should be the removal of this intimidating, unwelcoming, unremarkable piece of “art”.
What makes the 30th anniversary special for this relatively-minor piece? We don’t mark the anniversaries of any of the other elements along the Gateway Mall. Bigger picture (given our limited resources), wouldn’t the city be better served spending money on needed curb ramps throughout the city instead of creating wider sidewalks on just this block? And if you really want to increase pedestrian activity on this block, step one should be the removal of this intimidating, unwelcoming, unremarkable piece of “art”.
What makes the 30th anniversary special for this relatively-minor piece? We don’t mark the anniversaries of any of the other elements along the Gateway Mall. Bigger picture (given our limited resources), wouldn’t the city be better served spending money on needed curb ramps throughout the city instead of creating wider sidewalks on just this block? And if you really want to increase pedestrian activity on this block, step one should be the removal of this intimidating, unwelcoming, unremarkable piece of “art”.
Do we have other works of art by a well known artist that have been in place for 30 years? No. It’s an excuse to get private donors to pay for the improvements to the block and to add another block to the hallway.
Even famous artists create mediocre pieces. Surviving 30 years is more likely a sign of inertia and requiring absolutely no maintenance.
Good luck on the private donor part, however, given this economy and no real love for this piece . . .
Twain is hardly mediocre, it has just been fashionable to bash the piece since day one. Spend some time around it looking at how it frames views from within, how light & shadows change throughout the day. Quite a remarkable piece!
But regardless of the art, the perimeter of the block and the hallway need to be done. Once done, more visitors to Citygarden will explore that block as well.
“Spend some time around it looking at how it frames views from within, how light & shadows change throughout the day.” Can’t the same thing be said of the adjacent parking garages, as well?!
Do we have other works of art by a well known artist that have been in place for 30 years? No. It’s an excuse to get private donors to pay for the improvements to the block and to add another block to the hallway.
Need to dig it up, but my dad has VHS video of the dedication taken walking around downtown with a “portable” video camera. Interesting snapshot of what downtown looked like 30 years ago, as well as the VIPs out for the event.
Need to dig it up, but my dad has VHS video of the dedication taken walking around downtown with a “portable” video camera. Interesting snapshot of what downtown looked like 30 years ago, as well as the VIPs out for the event.
You should get that digitized and up on YouTube. I’d really like to see that. in fact, I’d be willing to bet there’s a bunch of old analog home video footage around that could be gathered up.
As for Twain — Steve, if it’s “fashionable” to bash something from Day One and still is thirty years after that day, then I think it’s time to admit that the bashers might be on to something. It is a dead space — ugly, foreboding and unwelcoming — and even more so when compared to the airy interactivity of the neighboring Citygarden and daily hustle around the courthouse steps. If you and the Gateway Mall Advisory Board want to create a consistently interesting and equally visitable (and visible) Mall block…Twain’s got to go.
My first instinct is to donate it to the street department — they can use the individual pieces to cover sections of the street they’re working under — but in lieu of that maybe it can find a new home somewhere…maybe the Trailhead or in Chouteau’s Landing.
I disagree, the problem with the block is not the art.
Also, turns out that video from 1982 has been digitized so after it’s on YouTube I will post it.
Even famous artists create mediocre pieces. Surviving 30 years is more likely a sign of inertia and requiring absolutely no maintenance.
Good luck on the private donor part, however, given this economy and no real love for this piece . . .
Twain is hardly mediocre, it has just been fashionable to bash the piece since day one. Spend some time around it looking at how it frames views from within, how light & shadows change throughout the day. Quite a remarkable piece!
But regardless of the art, the perimeter of the block and the hallway need to be done. Once done, more visitors to Citygarden will explore that block as well.
“Spend some time around it looking at how it frames views from within, how light & shadows change throughout the day.” Can’t the same thing be said of the adjacent parking garages, as well?!
Sure I’m not an artist or an art critic – but as a St Louis resident, and taxpayer I’ll voice my opinion about this piece of “public art” and I think it works. On different levels it’s controversial – folks like it, hate it, folks can lean on it, rest in its shade, use it as a windblock on a blustery day or just ignore it. I wonder how its managed to survive the scrappers! I say let it stand until it becomes structurally unsound.
Sure I’m not an artist or an art critic – but as a St Louis resident, and taxpayer I’ll voice my opinion about this piece of “public art” and I think it works. On different levels it’s controversial – folks like it, hate it, folks can lean on it, rest in its shade, use it as a windblock on a blustery day or just ignore it. I wonder how its managed to survive the scrappers! I say let it stand until it becomes structurally unsound.
Agreed, it does work. But the block looks like a dog compared to Citygarden. Extend the hallway, replace the other sidewalks, and make it so the entrance points aren’t mud holes and people will see ‘Twain’ in a new way. We just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements.
To delve deeper into artistic BS, wouldn’t extending the Hallway further compromise the precious context this piece / artist claims is critical to its understanding and appreciation? Or, do you envision just more concrete and no trees, unlike the granite pavers and layers of landscaping that define and enhance the Citygarden blocks? You can’t have it both ways – concrete ain’t grass.
Bigger picture, I have a problem with the assumption that “we just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements”. Doing so creates the assumption that art is both elitist and a discretionary element in the city budget. This is public property and if we want to maintain public acess, we all need to pay for its maintenance and improvements. Once we privatize investments in public infrastructure, we open the door to limited access – donations rarely come with no strings attached.
Clearly you don’t know the block, perhaps you should actually visit. Trees already exist to the south of the piece. The hallway and tress would not change the relationship with Twain. What shouldn’t be done is to suggest routes from the hallway to Twain.
The city set up the Gateway Mall Conservancy, consisting of monied individuals, to raise funds to implement the master plan.
Agreed, it does work. But the block looks like a dog compared to Citygarden. Extend the hallway, replace the other sidewalks, and make it so the entrance points aren’t mud holes and people will see ‘Twain’ in a new way. We just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements.
You should get that digitized and up on YouTube. I’d really like to see that. in fact, I’d be willing to bet there’s a bunch of old analog home video footage around that could be gathered up.
As for Twain — Steve, if it’s “fashionable” to bash something from Day One and still is thirty years after that day, then I think it’s time to admit that the bashers might be on to something. It is a dead space — ugly, foreboding and unwelcoming — and even more so when compared to the airy interactivity of the neighboring Citygarden and daily hustle around the courthouse steps. If you and the Gateway Mall Advisory Board want to create a consistently interesting and equally visitable (and visible) Mall block…Twain’s got to go.
My first instinct is to donate it to the street department — they can use the individual pieces to cover sections of the street they’re working under — but in lieu of that maybe it can find a new home somewhere…maybe the Trailhead or in Chouteau’s Landing.
To delve deeper into artistic BS, wouldn’t extending the Hallway further compromise the precious context this piece / artist claims is critical to its understanding and appreciation? Or, do you envision just more concrete and no trees, unlike the granite pavers and layers of landscaping that define and enhance the Citygarden blocks? You can’t have it both ways – concrete ain’t grass.
Bigger picture, I have a problem with the assumption that “we just need the wealthy to open their purses and pay for a few simple improvements”. Doing so creates the assumption that art is both elitist and a discretionary element in the city budget. This is public property and if we want to maintain public acess, we all need to pay for its maintenance and improvements. Once we privatize investments in public infrastructure, we open the door to limited access – donations rarely come with no strings attached.
I’ve always found it interesting that the negative attacks and controversy don’t even seem to touch Serra’s “Joe” at the Pulitzer. Must be the private funding, private site maintenance (the gravel prevents drainage problems from foot traffic…and someone actually picks up any trash that might accumulate), and the different expectations and tastes of Pulitzer Foundation patrons. I love the spatial effects and scale of his work, and I hope something can be done, perhaps with Serra’s consultation, to engage “Twain’s” site.
Also, he should’ve stuck with “Quadrilateral.”
I’ve always found it interesting that the negative attacks and controversy don’t even seem to touch Serra’s “Joe” at the Pulitzer. Must be the private funding, private site maintenance (the gravel prevents drainage problems from foot traffic…and someone actually picks up any trash that might accumulate), and the different expectations and tastes of Pulitzer Foundation patrons. I love the spatial effects and scale of his work, and I hope something can be done, perhaps with Serra’s consultation, to engage “Twain’s” site.
Also, he should’ve stuck with “Quadrilateral.”
Clearly you don’t know the block, perhaps you should actually visit. Trees already exist to the south of the piece. The hallway and tress would not change the relationship with Twain. What shouldn’t be done is to suggest routes from the hallway to Twain.
The city set up the Gateway Mall Conservancy, consisting of monied individuals, to raise funds to implement the master plan.
I disagree, the problem with the block is not the art.
I think the hallway theme to link the entire Gateway Mall is a good idea, should be pursued and happen if donors are willing to make it happen. I actually think that civic donors who have embraced City Garden, Post Office Plaza, Forest Park, etc will pick up on Mall improvements in time.  Which is good because it frees up taxpayer dollars for nuts and bolts of keeping city infrastructure from collapsing as JZ alludes too.
More importantly, I think the Twain piece and city garden are out of sync. Especially with the three blocks booked end. In other words, I didn’t think they went far enough with the original City Garden. So why not emphasize all three blocks as the city garden if the original donors want to expand upon it and relocate the piece to another part of the mall? What would be unreasonable about that?
Already can picture some of the landscapes of Missouri Botanical Garden being worked into the third block with a second BofA tower to complete the urban canyon feeling.
I think the hallway theme to link the entire Gateway Mall is a good idea, should be pursued and happen if donors are willing to make it happen. I actually think that civic donors who have embraced City Garden, Post Office Plaza, Forest Park, etc will pick up on Mall improvements in time. Which is good because it frees up taxpayer dollars for nuts and bolts of keeping city infrastructure from collapsing as JZ alludes too.
More importantly, I think the Twain piece and city garden are out of sync. Especially with the three blocks booked end. In other words, I didn’t think they went far enough with the original City Garden. So why not emphasize all three blocks as the city garden if the original donors want to expand upon it and relocate the piece to another part of the mall? What would be unreasonable about that?
Already can picture some of the landscapes of Missouri Botanical Garden being worked into the third block with a second BofA tower to complete the urban canyon feeling.
I agree the Twain block & Citygarden are out of sync, but Richard Serra designed the piece for that site, for the size and slope. Moving it anywhere would destroy it. Giving that block the hallway and other improved sidewalks, seating and lighting, would bring it up to par without destroying the piece.
B.S. Both the site and the context have changed significantly over thirty years. The highrise AT&T center was constructed to the northeast, the parking and old brick buildings to the east were replaced by Citygarden and this block went from treeless to forested. Adding the current Gateway Mall design vocabulary would further degrade the original context. Moving this piece (instead of destroying it, as other Serra pieces have been) to someplace like Laumeier Sculpture Park or the SLU campus WOULD change its current context, but it wouldn’t “destroy” it anymore than all the other interventions that have occured over the past three decades.
I’ll repeat, even great artists create mediocre pieces. If this were a significant piece, wouldn’t it be listed on Richard Serra’s wikipedia entry? Wouldn’t it pop up in Google searches? Denver went through a similar struggle with their Skyline Park, designed by noted landscape architect Lawrence Halpern, and completed at about the same time as this Serra piece. Times changed, context changed, people’s expectations changed, and the park changed. And while no artist is going to say their work is no longer relevent, sometimes change needs to happen. To argue that this piece is untouchable is to buy into an artist’s inflated ego. It may not be perfect, but it is better than a vacant lot or surface parking lot. I just wouldn’t let this one piece be an impediment to a larger, better vision.
Wrong once again! Three of four directions have changed very little in 30 years and the fourth side is Citygarden, a much more interesting view. But it wasn’t just about seeing buildings, it was about glimpses of a passing bus, pedestrians, etc. The block itself is unchanged — the grade, sidewalks, etc.
Steve, I have to agree with JZ comments that the area has changed significantly as well as the context in which the piece was presented. Whether you like the art or not, think its good or not, even whether its the artists best piece or not. At the end of the day I still think the best thing is relocate Twain piece
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose relocation will happen. The hallway and other sidewalks need to be done. Why not do those now just to see if it changes people’s perception of the block and of the piece?
I don’t disagree that the new design elements should be extended – I like the feel they give the Citygarden blocks and they would be a great way to unify, and hopefully energize, the multiple blocks that make up the Gateway Mall. My two points of disagreement are the assertion that the context of the Serra block has remained constant for 30 years – it hasn’t – and that we should expect private donors to pay for the improvements.
The Serra piece is a brutal piece that was placed on a barren block, likely with the expectation that some type of monchromatic ground covering would be added, be it grass, gravel or concrete. I doubt that the artist anticipated or would have approved of adding the traditional, park-like grove of trees that now soften and partially obscure his piece and the views out of it. The challenge with extending the new design elements to this block are that they would both introduce a regular grid to a piece that is asymmetrical and would again change how the piece is perceived by the public, bringing them closer to the piece. You can’t have it both ways, arguing that the piece can’t be moved because it’s site specific, then messing with the site!
My second point is that if we want to be considered to be a world class city we need to spend more money, more tax dollars, investing in our parks and public art. The problem with private donors is simply the golden rule – they’re writing the checks, so they get to decide what gets built, acquired or placed and where. While it’s great to have a concentration of modern art downtown, why should it be limited to the CBD? Why not in Fairgrounds Park or O’Fallon Park? Public funding “spreads the wealth” . . . .
I agree the Twain block & Citygarden are out of sync, but Richard Serra designed the piece for that site, for the size and slope. Moving it anywhere would destroy it. Giving that block the hallway and other improved sidewalks, seating and lighting, would bring it up to par without destroying the piece.
B.S. Both the site and the context have changed significantly over thirty years. The highrise AT&T center was constructed to the northeast, the parking and old brick buildings to the east were replaced by Citygarden and this block went from treeless to forested. Adding the current Gateway Mall design vocabulary would further degrade the original context. Moving this piece (instead of destroying it, as other Serra pieces have been) to someplace like Laumeier Sculpture Park or the SLU campus WOULD change its current context, but it wouldn’t “destroy” it anymore than all the other interventions that have occured over the past three decades.
I’ll repeat, even great artists create mediocre pieces. If this were a significant piece, wouldn’t it be listed on Richard Serra’s wikipedia entry? Wouldn’t it pop up in Google searches? Denver went through a similar struggle with their Skyline Park, designed by noted landscape architect Lawrence Halpern, and completed at about the same time as this Serra piece. Times changed, context changed, people’s expectations changed, and the park changed. And while no artist is going to say their work is no longer relevent, sometimes change needs to happen. To argue that this piece is untouchable is to buy into an artist’s inflated ego. It may not be perfect, but it is better than a vacant lot or surface parking lot. I just wouldn’t let this one piece be an impediment to a larger, better vision.
Wrong once again! Three of four directions have changed very little in 30 years and the fourth side is Citygarden, a much more interesting view. But it wasn’t just about seeing buildings, it was about glimpses of a passing bus, pedestrians, etc. The block itself is unchanged — the grade, sidewalks, etc.
Steve, I have to agree with JZ comments that the area has changed significantly as well as the context in which the piece was presented. Whether you like the art or not, think its good or not, even whether its the artists best piece or not. At the end of the day I still think the best thing is relocate Twain piece
Serra and Emily Pulitzer did not fail with the installation of Twain. The CITY failed to follow through on the original plans of what was to frame it. Why City Garden did not originally site a couple blocks west to incorporate it is still a mystery. But a City Garden expansion also provides the solution.
Serra and Emily Pulitzer did not fail with the installation of Twain. The CITY failed to follow through on the original plans of what was to frame it. Why City Garden did not originally site a couple blocks west to incorporate it is still a mystery. But a City Garden expansion also provides the solution.
For the sake of argument, let’s suppose relocation will happen. The hallway and other sidewalks need to be done. Why not do those now just to see if it changes people’s perception of the block and of the piece?
I don’t disagree that the new design elements should be extended – I like the feel they give the Citygarden blocks and they would be a great way to unify, and hopefully energize, the multiple blocks that make up the Gateway Mall. My two points of disagreement are the assertion that the context of the Serra block has remained constant for 30 years – it hasn’t – and that we should expect private donors to pay for the improvements.
The Serra piece is a brutal piece that was placed on a barren block, likely with the expectation that some type of monchromatic ground covering would be added, be it grass, gravel or concrete. I doubt that the artist anticipated or would have approved of adding the traditional, park-like grove of trees that now soften and partially obscure his piece and the views out of it. The challenge with extending the new design elements to this block are that they would both introduce a regular grid to a piece that is asymmetrical and would again change how the piece is perceived by the public, bringing them closer to the piece. You can’t have it both ways, arguing that the piece can’t be moved because it’s site specific, then messing with the site!
My second point is that if we want to be considered to be a world class city we need to spend more money, more tax dollars, investing in our parks and public art. The problem with private donors is simply the golden rule – they’re writing the checks, so they get to decide what gets built, acquired or placed and where. While it’s great to have a concentration of modern art downtown, why should it be limited to the CBD? Why not in Fairgrounds Park or O’Fallon Park? Public funding “spreads the wealth” . . . .
I don’t disagree that the new design elements should be extended – I like the feel they give the Citygarden blocks and they would be a great way to unify, and hopefully energize, the multiple blocks that make up the Gateway Mall. My two points of disagreement are the assertion that the context of the Serra block has remained constant for 30 years – it hasn’t – and that we should expect private donors to pay for the improvements.
The Serra piece is a brutal piece that was placed on a barren block, likely with the expectation that some type of monchromatic ground covering would be added, be it grass, gravel or concrete. I doubt that the artist anticipated or would have approved of adding the traditional, park-like grove of trees that now soften and partially obscure his piece and the views out of it. The challenge with extending the new design elements to this block are that they would both introduce a regular grid to a piece that is asymmetrical and would again change how the piece is perceived by the public, bringing them closer to the piece. You can’t have it both ways, arguing that the piece can’t be moved because it’s site specific, then messing with the site!
My second point is that if we want to be considered to be a world class city we need to spend more money, more tax dollars, investing in our parks and public art. The problem with private donors is simply the golden rule – they’re writing the checks, so they get to decide what gets built, acquired or placed and where. While it’s great to have a concentration of modern art downtown, why should it be limited to the CBD? Why not in Fairgrounds Park or O’Fallon Park? Public funding “spreads the wealth” . . . .
With the proper landscaping, I don’t think Twain is out of sync with City Garden’s at all. City Gardens is a sculpture part after all.  If the same curving granite benches and paths were extended to Twain’s square, the sculpture would the centerpiece of City Gardens.  I had thought it would be nice to build a path labyrinth leading around and through the center of the sculpture, which would make it more kinetic, but the imposed pattern may limit the self discovery of certain vistas. Still, it would make the idea of walking around and through the sculpture and viewing the city through the openings more accessible to people.
With the proper landscaping, I don’t think Twain is out of sync with City Garden’s at all. City Gardens is a sculpture part after all. If the same curving granite benches and paths were extended to Twain’s square, the sculpture would the centerpiece of City Gardens. I had thought it would be nice to build a path labyrinth leading around and through the center of the sculpture, which would make it more kinetic, but the imposed pattern may limit the self discovery of certain vistas. Still, it would make the idea of walking around and through the sculpture and viewing the city through the openings more accessible to people.