David Best in San Rafael--every1's a critic

[Patience]

No, I get the point. I just think it's a stupid fucking point, is all.

[cowboyangel]

you've been a nice person in other places.....

[Bob]

Expanding on the social responsibility business, it's bizarre to me that a "community" that expends so much effort in ridiculing established religion would let slide an art piece intended as a Christian place of worship, without even examining the inherent irony and dishonesty. On top of that it's represented as a "gift" when it actually represented a legal burden and political shitstorm to the owner of the site, not to mention the city employees dragged into the situation.

If it were conceived more transparently as guerilla art, and placed on a slumlord's or the city's property as a political statement, it might have made more consistent sense. San Rafael, like many California towns, has had a strongly redneck and pro-commercial streak all the way back to the time of the Missions, while marginalizing people like the day workers who were the intended subjects/beneficiaries of the art piece.

Or if a Christian shrine for San Rafael day laborers had occurred to the permanent citizen carpenters involved as such a good idea, why not go through the site acquisition and permit process to build something permanent and legal?

Just my opinion -- no art is above criticism.

[cowboyangel]

at the time David Best's piece went up there was and still is a public outdoor art show throughout the city in unusual places. David's was in keeping with this. The guys had taken the time to query the city's art director and the lessee of the site, and everything looked good at that point, according to my understanding. You would have to ask the owner of the site, why she nixed the idea. I believe it was her move to call in the city. I still maintain that the idea, even the Christian theme of it were solid, positive examples of Burning Man's outreach to the community. That the work was torn down is not a measure of it's failure. I think that in general, the swarm of press generated around this was either neutral or favorable to the spirit of intention for the art piece. The area is predominately Christian (Catholic) anyway, so why create a shit disturb art piece there? David was doing a good thing.

[Ranger Genius]

The lease-holder thought she had the authority to permit the piece. Perhaps Best's people made a mistake in assuming that she did, however. And while Burning Man's participants often mock organized religion and engage in regular sacrilege, I have never known them in general to begrudge anyone else the spiritual beliefs that make them happy.

The piece was meant to be temporary, and they thought all necessary permissions were acquired. It was simply a miscommunication between the curators and the lessee, who should have checked her contract before giving the green light.

[joel the ornery]

The piece was meant to be temporary, and they thought all necessary permissions were acquired.

one should note, the "temporary" condition of the art did actually occur.

[Patience]

you've been a nice person in other places.....

Sorry, I've been in a bad mood lately.

[DaMan]

When it comes down to it very few people know all of the facts

This non profit art group wanted to have various artists place their art on city owned property None of the artwork was ever supposed to be placed on private property

David's work was originally designed to be placed in Pickleweed park for all to enjoy

Davids work (along with a few other pieces presented to the city council) was not approved to be built on city property (the park or anywhere else) from the get go due to various city, building and fire codes

Also, the fact that it was to be burned down when the community tired of it did not thrill the city

The pieces that were approved were placed on city property as the curator of the non profit art group originally intended

The art group scrambled to find a different location for this piece and that is how it ended up in this mess The true blame lies with the curator of the art group that commissioned this piece

Im sure after seeing the other pieces throughout the city, the property owners would have been more than happy to have any of the pieces on their property The other pieces were of a much smaller scale (not thirty feet tall) and didnt involve open flame or burning anything down

Also, this chapel was originally titled simply Chapel

The name Chapel of the Laborer was simply a publicity stunt after the fact

The request was also put out for anyone to volunteer their property for this sculpture to be moved onto There were no takers Enough said

[ZaphodBurner]

[quote="geekster"]

> - "Chapel," by David Best of Petaluma. Known for his decorated cars >and temples at Burning Man, Best and his crew are building a
>30-foot-high chapel featuring a Madonna and an altar. Designed as a
>place of solace, the chapel will enable passersby to light a candle and
>say a prayer. The chapel at Bellam Produce at 151 Bellam Blvd. in the >Canal Area, will eventually be burned when the community tires of it, >exhibition officials said.

LOL! Assume for a minute you actually own this property, you're some post-middle-age conservative woman and you've never even HEARD of Burning Man. You're sipping your coffee, reading the morning paper...

"What the...151 Bellam Blvd!... THAT'S MY LOT! They're building a temple on my property? They're gonna BURN IT? Just what is this Burning Man business anyway?..."

*sound of modem dialing, logging into AOL...*
*sound of frantic mouse clicking into the image gallery*
*sound of dentures hitting the floor*

-zb

[DaMan]

Actually, I work for the city of San Rafael and I have been to three Burns

I simply know the facts from the inside and the people involved

Your self righteous assumptions are just that assumptions and they show what an ass you are

[cowboyangel]

The underclass of Hispanic workers in San Rafael are a defacto "unseen " population. To erect a temple to aknowledge their spiritual beliefs and their existence in the community was a noble act and worthy of the egalitarianism and creativity of Burningman. The rest was petty drama in comparrison, in my view. I live in San Rafael and appreciate the Hispanic contribution to our community here.

[actiongrl]

The piece was never intended to burn, dude.

[HughMungus]

"But Best doesn't want to put it in a park. He was excited about the market location because of the crowds of day laborers who gather in front of the store each day. And, as far as he knew, everything had been approved."

I'd bet this had something to do with it, also. Cities are starting to crack down on illegal day laborers (in cases where they are illegal) and I doubt a property owner wants day laborers congregating on their property.

[cowboyangel]

saw David Best driving his truck on 101 in San Rafael last week. Took out my trusty bubble machine and blew a few bubbles at him since we were stuck in traffic......

[DaMan]

"Chapel," by David Best of Petaluma. Known for his decorated cars and
temples at Burning Man, Best and his crew are building a 30-foot-high chapel featuring a Madonna and an altar. Designed as a place of solace, the chapel will enable passersby to light a candle and say a prayer. The chapel will eventually be burned when the community tires of it, exhibition officials said.

According to the people involved with the chapel and as per the above quote from them in the Marin newspaper it was intended to be burned

Multiple violations involving, height, setbacks, a lack of permission from
the fire marshal and no permit, among other things, garnered a "red tag"
stop-work order Monday from Code Enforcement Manager Lynda Ferris.

The above quote shows the city of San Rafael stopped the work

Also, it was never intended to be put on private property All the artwork was to be approved by the city of San Rafael and to be placed on city owned property

Race had nothing to do with it The property that this was built on is in the Canal area of East San Rafael The Canal area is predominately Hispanic, Central and South American community The market on the property caters predominately to that community whether they are here legally or not

Please educate yourself with the facts

[joel the ornery]

facts, CBA don't need no stinking facts.

[Kinetic IV]

I love the temples but I think David Best's work is overrated and overhyped. Case in point: This year's temple at BM that was not built primarily by David was IMHO the best of them all.
In this case since every1's a critic, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. You sit down with the powers that be and you try and comply with the zoning laws and other city codes. That's how you build good will to do future projects...but if you throw out a shitstorm over this imagine the reaction if you want to build something later...or if you go elsewhere and that city checks back to see what happened in this case. Talk about screwing yourself....

[ZaphodBurner]

I love the temples but I think David Best's work is overrated and overhyped. Case in point: This year's temple at BM that was not built primarily by David was IMHO the best of them all.

You think so?

I'm surprised. I can't say I was disappointed by this year's temple...I just kept waiting to see the rest of it go up.

What would you say made it better than last year's temple?
-c

[HughMungus]

Race had nothing to do with it The property that this was built on is in the Canal area of East San Rafael The Canal area is predominately Hispanic, Central and South American community The market on the property caters predominately to that community whether they are here legally or not

Please educate yourself with the facts

Race has nothing to do with immigration legal status.

[EvilDustBooger]

I thought this years temple was exquisite.
I liked that it was solid wood instead of ply.
I loved the sound of the exploding resins.
Not that last years wasn`t nice(a little late getting up)
But this years was special for me.

[Syntonia]

The underclass of Hispanic workers in San Rafael are a defacto "unseen " population. To erect a temple to aknowledge their spiritual beliefs and their existence in the community was a noble act and worthy of the egalitarianism and creativity of Burningman. The rest was petty drama in comparrison, in my view. I live in San Rafael and appreciate the Hispanic contribution to our community here.
_________________
Od-de-lay! Excellente, mi hijo! Yes, my brown brothers and sisters who wipe their children's asses, serve up their food, clean their toilets, ad nauseum, do deserve some recognition and acknowledgement from them there white folk. As a Latina and former resident of San Rafael, I too appreciate Best's efforts. It is unfortunate that he had to exhibit symbols of a mono-theistic religion that has contributed to their oppression...

[actiongrl]

I am well versed on "the facts", and I'm telling you, the piece wasn't going to burn, especially not at that site. Crikey, it was placed about ten feet from the other building.

[cowboyangel]

well...there's the Liberation Theology Movement, and lots of good folks in the church working for justice and human rights in Central and South America (Sister Diane Ortiz e.g) ....I wouldn't entirely trash the Catholic Church, though I can appreciate (understand) its toxic side (I was raised as a Cathoilc and went to Catholic schools up to and including Jesuit college). That Burners especially could trash this art happening in various and sundry ways astonishes me more than the unsympathetic attitude of the land owner in said controversy.
Critics always abound, "their" deeds? Show me the deeds. And that's a fact Jack, I mean Joel.

[Observer]

I am well versed on "the facts", and I'm telling you, the piece wasn't going to burn, especially not at that site. Crikey, it was placed about ten feet from the other building.

To be precise: Mr.Best had no intention of burning it. If it was, as you say, set only ten feet away from the building, this would seem likely, but regardless, let's just grant the point for the sake of discussion, for the moment.

"Not intended to burn" does not imply "not going to burn". I'm looking at the picture, and what I'm seeing is making me uneasy. Lots of what appears to be lightweight timber, spread out in a light airy structure allowing for lots and lots of air circulation. Ever put together a pile of kindling when starting a fire? How did you design it?

With a bunch of light, dry stricks stacked in such a way as to allow for a lot of air circulation, right?

Stick a bunch of candles inside what appears to be a fireprone structure, something reminiscent of a giant pile of kindling, and leave them burning unattended? It's an accident waiting to happen, and it can happen in so many different ways, and if one has a big, accidentally burning pile of kindling only ten feet away from a building, this is likely to be bad for the building.

I don't see any fuckwittery at all in the property owner's response, just good business sense, at least based on what I'm seeing. I hate to see a David Best structure come down before its time; I am a fan. But I'm wondering if he could have planned this better.

Was the temple built using flame retardant materials? If not, why not? We don't seem to be told the answer to that.

As for the renter thinking that s/he had the right to approve this. s/he should have known better. If the property burns down, the renter isn't the one who has lost the full market value of the property, it is the owner who has done so, and the latter party is certainly not going to be compensated for her loss by the rent paid up until the time of combustion, not financially, and certainly not in terms of any intangible qualities the property may possess which may be of value to the owner.

So, sorry, while I understand the sense of disappointment some may feel as that structure comes down, my immediate response is to side with Bob on this one, at least until somebody can provide me with a good, non-emotionalistic argument as to why I should do otherwise.

[cowboyangel]

Love is an emotion too, let's have none of that in this discussion please...give me an f-in break. None of the art structures built around the city at that time were meant to last, especially the Best piece. The legalistic argument here, again, misses the point by about a light year. see the video again especially the last interview.... http://www.brightpathvideo.com/video/Be ... _small.mov

Burningman started with a non-legal act of trying to burn the man on Baker Beach, San Francisco; adhereing to the lame legalistic argument in this case would have resulted in the obvious.....

[Observer]

Love is an emotion too, let's have none of that in this discussion please...give me an f-in break.

More or less my reaction as I read your rant, cowboyangel. In what sense does getting self-righteous at the expense of somebody who was reasonably concerned about the possible danger to her own property represent "love"? Shocking news, friend - businessmen and property owners are people, too.

Emotions are a fine source of motivation, maybe even a necessary one. Logic does, after all, have to start somewhere, in some set of beginning assumptions, even when it is the logic used in an argument about the ethics of an act. But when you pull a Rex and start trying to whip up people into such an emotional frenzy that they're not thinking clearly and they're not really listening to what anybody else has to say, there is nothing admirable, constructive or loving about that. All of the good intentions in the world on the part of our audience will get them nowhere if they have thrown away their ability to act on those motivations in a sensible way, and this applies to any intention they may have of treating other people fairly.

None of the art structures built around the city at that time were meant to last, especially the Best piece. The legalistic argument here, again, misses the point by about a light year. see the video again especially the last interview.... http://www.brightpathvideo.com/video/Be ... _small.mov

Of questionable relevance, as this structure wasn't being built at a burn.

Burningman started with a non-legal act of trying to burn the man on Baker Beach, San Francisco; adhereing to the lame legalistic argument in this case would have resulted in the obvious.....

I've been to Baker Beach, and I don't remember seeing a great many commercial or residential structures on it. Do you have a coherent point to make, or are you just having fun ranting?

[cowboyangel]

Observer, you need to observe a little closer. The point in the last quote was meant to draw an analogy to the Best event. David nor Larry, I'm sure, set out to break the law per se, but rather to start a well-intentioned creative expression. David was understandably upset with the City's decision, but he complied with the order. You mistake "ranting" for an alternative view centered around honoring a community. Your choice of words reflects combativeness. If Rosa parks decided to obey "the law"...well.......

[Observer]

Observer, you need to observe a little closer.

Once again, right back at you.

If Rosa parks decided to obey "the law"...well.......

You're seriously comparing the act of putting a flammable sculpture loaded with candles next to a building without the owner's consent, with Rosa Park's act of civil disobedience as she refused to obey the racially discriminatory Jim Crow laws of the post-Reconstruction pre-Civil Rights South? At best, you're babbling.

You're also playing the strawman game. At no point in the post of mine that you responded to did I ever raise any alleged violation of the law as an issue. Go back and read again, son, preferably after you've put down the crack pipe and have let your system detoxify for a while.

The point in the last quote was meant to draw an analogy to the Best event. David nor Larry, I'm sure, set out to break the law per se, but rather to start a well-intentioned creative expression. David was understandably upset with the City's decision, but he complied with the order.

And the connection between this and the fire hazard issue I raised would be ... what? I'm not saying this to be mean, it's a serious question - were you stoned when you wrote this?

You mistake "ranting" for an alternative view centered around honoring a community. Your choice of words reflects combativeness.

My choice of words was, if anything, too generous - just by suggesting that you had lost your mind before writing that post, I implied that you had a mind to lose. Now, I'm not so sure of that.

Go to Google and look up the definitions of "non sequitir" and "pretentious", and somewhere in the overlap between these two concepts we'll find you fighting the good fight for ... God only knows what. *Plonk*, obviously. This could not be more bizarre.

[cowboyangel]

Observer revealed! An insult prone naysayer... it is you who need to re-read the posts, and spread your abundant "joy" elsewhere...

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I didn't know about that best guy seeeeems he's a trouble maker!










AIIZ