|
Bridges are very important to Philadelphia
both geographically and functionally. Obviously, the purpose that a bridge
serves is to connect to things to each other - to create a mutual connection
and flow between things. The bridges that one can find in Philadelphia offer
many different types of connections and functions, from state-to-state,
river bank to river bank, etc. The many different bridges of Philadelphia add
to the variety and character that the city already has, and one can see from
the Market Street Bridge, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, and the Walnut Lane
Bridge how different the looks and lives of different bridges in the same
city can be. Aside from the more obvious functional differences of each of
the three bridges, a prospective filmmaker also has the advantage of each of
the three bridges having totally different aesthetic qualities.
Congress authorized the Benjamin Franklin
Bridge in 1921, with work starting in 1922 and ending in 1926. It is a steel
suspension bridge that spans in total nearly 2 miles. At the time of
completion, the then named Delaware River Bridge acted as the longest
suspension bridge in the world (Moss, Historic Landmarks of
Philadelphia, p. 249). Head engineer for the bridge was Polish
born Ralph Modjeski, and the bridge’s architect was Paul Philippe Cret. The bridge accesses
1-676 and US-30, connecting Camden to Philadelphia over the Delaware River.
However, Pennsylvania and New Jersey argued originally about funding for the
bridge - “New Jersey wanted toll booths on the bridge while Pennsylvania
wanted the bridge for free, using tax money to pay for the construction” (cited here). Contrary to
its name, Benjamin Franklin did not have anything to do with the bridge until
a few decades after its construction. The bridge’s name was changed from the
Delaware River Bridge to the Benjamin Franklin bridge in 1955 as a tribute to
Franklin and to make the bridge more Philadelphian. In the late 1980s the
bridge was decorated with lights so that it could be visible at night, and to
increase the aesthetic value for bridge-goers and passersby.
A far more simple Philadelphian bridge than
the Ben Franklin is the Market Street bridge, which spans over the Schuylkill
River on Market street near 30th street station. The bridge was designed by
Timothy Palmer in a simple arch fashion and was built in a series of bridges
on Market street, the first being built and re-built multiple times inbetween
1805-1888. The current Market Street bridge near 30th street station was
built in 1932. As of 2009 was reported to have nearly eleven thousand
vehicular travelers per day (cited here). After seeing and being on the
Market Street bridge I could not help but to immediately think of Gattaca,
and how it could be taken right from there. Although the Market Street bridge
does not really fit into art deco style architecture, it fits so well the the
surrounding buildings are really gives that area of the city (Drexel verging
on Center city) a specific look - one that feels professional, functional,
simple and beautiful. The bridge’s design is not really that special but what
I am getting at is that it is totally fitting and serves the function it
needs to. The linear qualities of the bridge matching surrounding buildings, the dull color that matches 30th
street station, its general simplicity - I find all of these qualities
telling of the bridge and area, and I can see a mutual relationship between
the bridge and the area. They seem to go well with each other. One could
argue that the bridge does not aesthetic value, but I think it is very
appropriate. For three days in October of 2010 the bridge was used as the
centerpiece for interactive art via the wonderful Mural Arts Program.
Beautiful, color-changing lights were placed under and around the bridge and
interacted with people who sat on them and audiences who gathered around
them. More information on the installation can be found here.
Although it is not as impressive of an
architectural feat of the Ben Franklin Bridge, The Walnut Lane Bridge is
probably my favorite bridge in the city. A simple concrete arch designed the
early 20th century and completed in 1908, one would not think that there is
much special about the Walnut Lane Bridge. The bridge connects two
neighborhoods - Roxborough to East Falls. What makes the Walnut Lane bridge
so special is that it was pretty much built into the woods, and looks like it
could be on a postcard. It reminds me of a place that you could re-film the famous bridge/train scene in the film Stand
by Me. The Walnut Lane bridge was added to the National
Register of historic places in 1988.
We can see the various connections that
bridges make in our daily lives through the three bridges examined here. The
Benjamin Franklin connects state to state, the Walnut Lane connects
neighborhood to neighborhood, and the Market Street Bridge connects people
and cars in a specific area of the city where the river blocks. Given its
location, Philadelphia has to cooperate with the rivers that surround it.
Bridges are how Philadelphians and the like cross great bodies of water and
Bridges are a great tool for that, a necessary evil for some. Gephyrophobia
is “specific fear of crossing a bridge” (cited here). This article cited
a psychotherapist who had clients have “their wives lock them in the trunks
of their vehicles and then drive them across the Bay Bridge”. It seems to me
to be a very modern fear, an invention of the times. For example, my best
friends’ mother has a crippling fear of crossing bridges and will go miles
out of her way to avoid them (she closes her eyes and demands silence in the
car when she does have to take them). It is things like this that make me
realize how alive and well modernistic views of the world still exist. Like
early pedestrians fear of being run over by a runaway trolley, it is that
same notion of distrust of machinery that lives with bridges. It made me
wonder: what do people really fear? Is it a lack of trust of the sturdiness
of material? Is it the fear of human error that could potentially cause a
bridge disaster? I think the latter suggests a more modernist approach.
Bridges are, to me, cool even just conceptually. I see bridges as a pinnacle of
architecture. The idea that we can cross huge bodies of water, being elevated
high above sea level, while in our vehicles or on our feet just prove to me
the nature of human beings to explore ways around problems that we face
against the natural world (like crossing a body of water). They prove to me
that we can collectively come up with solutions for universal problems and
give me hope that human beings are smart enough to master problems like that.
Look at the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge-Tunnel for example. It spans twenty-three miles, and
gets its travelers to the point where they wonder when the last time they
were on land does. This is definitely not a bridge for someone
who was gephyrophobia. I mentioned bridges as a human solution to
a natural problem, so they became the standard for how every motor vehicle
travels across bodies of water. Film crews that want to shoot on a bridge
have to balance inconveniencing the traffic for the crew and vice versa. The
traffic jams that a big-budget film
like The Dark Knight Rises cause show how affected a city and
intercity traffic in certain areas (in this case Queens, NY) can be by the
production of a film. Bridges are how we get places - they are loved, hated,
and necessary. Pennsylvania not only has bridges like the Benjamin Franklin,
Market Street, and Walnut Lane Bridge, but the other 76 bridges in Pittsburgh
which is thought of as one of the best
bridge cities in the world. Whether you are taking a bridge to get
to work, hiding in the trunk of your car while your wife drives you over a
bridge because you’re crippling fear of bridge travel, or if you are a big
budget filmmaker who wants to shoot on a bridge, it is hard to deny that
bridges act as wonderful ways of everyone having the opportunity to get from
one place to another - something that wasn’t possible for human beings at one
time. They are solid proof that human beings have changed the world. And I think
that’s damn cool.
|
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Great Philadelphian Bridges
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Public Art and Aesthetic Boundaries
Philadelphia has a lot of public
artwork throughout the city, including numerous bronze statues. Obviously, the
Philadelphia Museum of Art is the city’s artistic epicenter, but one can find
art beyond the museum pillars. Notably, the Rocky statue has had various
locations near the museum. A lesser known statue outside the West Entrance of
the art museum is Sir Jacob Epstein’s Social Consciousness. Social
Consciousness was created in Britain in 1954 out of bronze (statues) and
polished granite (base), was unveiled in 1955 in Philadelphia, and dedicated in
1957. A few instances of bad weather (very strong winds) slightly delayed installation
by a day or two. But the West Entrance of the art museum was not the statue’s
original destination. Funding for the statue began for Epstein in 1950 by the Fairmount
Park Art Association with the intent to be installed at the Samuel Memorial (an
art memorial/collective on 9th and Locust), but as the piece took
its peculiar shape, Epstein and the Art Association decided that the piece was better
fit at the museum. The piece is comprised of three statues on a granite base
that encompass Epstein’s vision. The leftwards statue is ‘The Great Consoler’
(representing compassion), the middle statue is ‘The Eternal Mother’
(representing destiny), and the right-most statue is Succor (representing
death). Social Consciousness
did not come without controversy, which apparently Epstein has plenty of
experience in. Opinions from the public and from the art community alike were
mixed. An article dating March 15th, 1955 from the Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin actually flat out called the work “junk”. The piece seemed to
build up a certain pallet of words to describe it including “obscene”, “dumb”,
and “vile”. The article’s author talked about his disdain for the physical abstraction
of the statues. It also featured an interview from a man simply credited as “man
on the street” who basically says that the piece is irrelevant, unimportant,
and ugly. Public opinion for the piece is clearly not good, and it is obvious that
the public did not take kindly to the abnormality of the statues’ physique. The
piece is clearly very expressionistic as it has harsh and exaggerated facial
features, exaggerated scale, etc. Another artist defends the piece against the public
in the Bulletin article, claiming that it is the public who does not appreciate
or understand modern art. A letter from Epstein himself reveals his intentions
for the piece. He says, “I don’t think the sculpture will be at all ‘puzzling’
as I didn’t set out to make a puzzle and I hope it will be understood and even
liked.” Clearly, Epstein’s anticipated reaction was slightly off.
I think the reaction that Social
Consciousness brings up is fascinating and important to study in terms of artistry,
the communication from an artist to the world, and theories of aesthetic
practice. As a young filmmaker I know that high image quality is stressed and labeled as immediately professional. From the
glass you shoot on, film stock you use (or digital picture profile now that we
are in the world of DSLRs), subjects and location, and many more factors the
actual quality of your image on screen can vary greatly. So what does Social
Consciousness have to do with DSLRs? It’s the idea of aesthetics. The statue elicited
a certain kind of reaction from the people that most would call undesirable
(i.e. being called vile). What happened with Social Consciousness is an interesting study on form and content, or
maybe form vs. content. Epstein uses his art to communicate his message. In
this case, the ideology comes from human suffering and the human experience.
But when people see Social Consciousness they are probably not thinking about the human
experience, or even social consciousness itself for that matter. Had Epstein
done something hyper-realistic or more renaissance-like (something more obvious
or realistic) the reaction probably would have been more positive from the
public. This poses important questions: should Epstein have compromised his vision
for the sake of the public? Should public works of art have public
consultation? Where is the line drawn between aesthetics and the message?
Plenty of artists in plenty of different mediums breach aesthetic limitations.
For example, the free-jazz movement of the mid 20th century proves
this in full. John Coltrane’s later, extremely experimental work sounds at face
value brash, chaotic, discerning, and at some points not really like music as
we know it. Omar Rodriguez-Lopez’s 2009 album Cryptomnesia layers samples, deformed vocals/instrumental tracks, and truly bizarre melodies to emote and to convey his
messages – he creates a world for his piece rather than creating his piece for this world. And that is something that is genuinely inspirational to me. The drummer
for Cryptomnesia,
Zach Hill, is known for his abrasive “not-pretty”drumming, yet has collaborated with many talented musicians and communicates and awesome level of feeling in his music. Filmmakers face
problems with aesthetics all the time, especially being such a visual medium. Some
of the most emotional, powerful, successful cinematography to me are not always
the best dolly shots, or focus racks, or great lens and grain structure. Even a
filmmaker like Gaspar Noe who makes movies with extraordinarily long takes
decides to have moments where the camera will be a static long take for nearly
15 minutes (as in the gut wrenching rape scene in his 2002 film Irreversible). A movie like Black Swan was shot mostly to film with very
specific choices for cinematography. But some parts, like the subway scene
(ignore the god-awful on screen text in the link) were shot on cheaper DSLRs
without a steadicam because the scene simply does not call for bells and
whistles. It is important to think about pieces like Social Consciousness,
Cryptomnesia, Irreversible, and late Coltrane because they prove that sometimes
having all the best gear and highest quality settings pales in comparison to
your message. And is that not what art is all about?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Welcome to the Hiway
 | ||
| still taken from a film I shot about Jenkintown |
 |
| another still |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)