The first of four major art projects for the new single terminal airport at KCI have been revealed.
More than 1,000 artists from around the world submitted inquiries after Kansas City announced an international search for artists.
The city said the four works of art were chosen because they either reflected the wonder of travel or Kansas City history.
The budget for artwork at KCI’s new terminal is $5.65 million. Kansas City’s single-terminal airport is expected to open on budget and on time in early 2023.
“The fact that we’ve been through a pandemic over the last year and yet this project remains on time, on schedule, and on budget is a testament to the good work of the team,” said Justin Meyer with the KC Aviation Department.
You can see the renderings of the art projects in the gallery below.
Entitled "Molten Swing"
Entitled "The Air up There"
Entitled "Ornithology"
Entitled "Fountain of Resonance"
"Molten Swing" looks kind of like a mosaic dog or cat to me, it might look cool though but not sure what to make of it at this point.
"The Air up There" simply looks like some lights on the ceiling, again it might look better when you're actually there I hope.
"Ornithology" reminds me of those attacking creatures in the Pitch Black movie. You just knew one of the artwork they chose would have a WTF moment and this is it.
"Fountain of Resonance" I approve of this one. :-)
Originally Posted by Chieftain:
Nevertheless, his paintings are rubbish art because they don't convey any meaning. You will have some so-called art expert tell you "but you have to look deeper to truly understand". That's the typical smokescreen argument you get from a Pollock apologist. What is there to understand when looking at a sheet covered in tiny paint splashes? There is no symmetry, no continuity, no structural shapes of any kind. Just paint splashes using a select group of colors. If an average minded person can't grasp the meaning of any of his paintings, maybe it's because they are meaningless paintings??
Alternatively, what meaningfulness is the average person getting from Mona Lisa, or really any portrait artist? Why should a person have to have an art history background just to know how and why anyone cares about Rembrandt.
Art is about emotion, inspiration. Applying rules about what is and isn't art is missing the whole point and is subjectively meaningless. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vonBobo:
Airports are often engineering works of art themselves. Then they offer a large space that will be populated by thousands of people every day. The tradition and importance of architecture and artwork in mass transit goes all the way back to trains. No, almost no one go because of the art, but it is a very important element in city planning.
I believe the tile work at the "current" terminals were some of my favorite installations in the city, been gazing at it my entire life. Its an exciting visual that suggests the adventure that is just beginning, and it is there again welcoming me back home.
Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.
I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vonBobo:
Alternatively, what meaningfulness is the average person getting from Mona Lisa, or really any portrait artist? Why should a person have to have an art history background just to know how and why anyone cares about Rembrandt.
Art is about emotion, inspiration. Applying rules about what is and isn't art is missing the whole point and is subjectively meaningless.
The average person isn't smart enough to "get" something from art. [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.
I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.
The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
The whole having 3 separate buildings for the terminals made it basically impossible for it to be renovated and made modern no matter what they did.
There was a renovation plan that was pretty nice and cheaper by I think Burns and Mac. The city would have none of that they wanted new.
The 3 terminals the airlines demanded. In fact 4 were originally planned for future growth. TWA, Pan AM and Fronteir made a lot of promises they didn't keep. With Jumbo Jets and SST it was promised to become a major hub for International Travel. When the SST fell through the airport plan collapsed with it.
I believe the 2 old terminals still remain I don't know if demolition is planned or they will be utilized when new is open. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Last I saw were right on schedule if not a bit ahead.
Yes and barely in time for the 2023 NFL draft scheduled to be in Kansas city, hopefully there will be no delays so it will ready for that major event.
I like the looks of the new airport and the old one certainly need to be upgraded and its a good idea to have some art sprinkled in it as people can have something to look at instead of staring at their cell phone all the time. Walk around check out the art and eat in one of the restaurants.
The city did bungle spectacularly it finally getting started but that's for another conversation.
Originally Posted by neech:
Yes and barely in time for the 2023 NFL draft scheduled to be in Kansas city, hopefully there will be no delays so it will ready for that major event.
I like the looks of the new airport and the old one certainly need to be upgraded and its a good idea to have some art sprinkled in it as people can have something to look at instead of staring at their cell phone all the time. Walk around check out the art and eat in one of the restaurants.
The city did bungle spectacularly it finally getting started but that's for another conversation.
NPR KCUR saying 1.5 billion terminal:-) I guess the parking garage is a 1 billion dollar fee. A convenient way of saying they held up the 1.5 billion price tag the voters voted and approved. One fact though is the 1.5 figure included the garage. The extra billion is the city dicking around and not getting underway when construction costs were lower. The airport would be wrapping up construction now if not for the city. [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
NPR KCUR saying 1.5 billion terminal:-) I guess the parking garage is a 1 billion dollar fee. A convenient way of saying they held up the 1.5 billion price tag the voters voted and approved. One fact though is the 1.5 figure included the garage. The extra billion is the city dicking around and not getting underway when construction costs were lower. The airport would be wrapping up construction now if not for the city.
And now they are dicking around building a new Broadway Bridge that they told the voters years ago they would do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by srvy:
Your thinking of architecture. Architects make pretty pictures just like artists. The engineers then take that architect's dream or nightmare and make it work on paper and then in construction. I work with both and have great respect for engineers. Not so much architects.
I am not against the art placed in the terminal at all. I do know that traveling public in a rush will breeze right by it heading for gate or baggage without a glance. An airport terminal is not an art gallery it just isn't. My beef is with a perfectly fine airport that doesn't have a hub airline come and go there. The biggest users of that airport are UPS and FedEx. The biggest public airline is Southwest who has threatened and cut back flight over the years here and can bolt at a moment's notice. The city should have taken care of what they had renovated when needed. Instead, they choose to neglect routine maintenance for 20 years and left it in shambles. They will do the same with the new one and the taxpayer will be dealt the task of paying for it.
Art galleries are a very small portion of where art is located.
Either the tax payers pay for renovations or they pay for new development. Either way we are going to be on the hook somehow. Important infrastructure like this simply needs to be replaced eventually.
I hate losing the old airport because it fit my needs perfectly., But maintaining and replacing it is just a given. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chieftain:
Whenever I see the works of Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko, it makes me want to vomit. Great art should have meaning, should be understood and most importantly should be extremely hard to create by an average person. Picaso's earlier work for example was great and then he tried to reinvent himself with that cubism shit.
Pollock and Rothko are two of my favorites, I love seeing them in person. Art isn't necessarily about having a specific meaning, it's about making you feel something. If you look at a piece and it evokes an emotional reaction, I would consider that art. [Reply]
