more articles like this

Chromatic Gate $$
updated: Jul 21, 2012, 9:46 PM

By Mesa Jim

According to the latest news report, the City of Santa Barbara has set a goal of $80,000.00 for the restoration of the piece of artwork at East Beach known as the "Chromatic Gate". Does anyone else see a disconnect here?! I would be MORE than happy to do it for $8K.

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

ROGER DODGER	2012-07-21 09:57 PM
Don't worry they will pay one of their friends from out of town to do it..
COMMENT 300153P	2012-07-21 10:01 PM
It is a jarring piece of art, and should be removed. It does not fit the surroundings.
SHAGGY	2012-07-21 10:24 PM
I just donated today to the arts fund to restore this piece of art. No it not spanish tiled,or bouganvilla covered, but its colorful and rainbows mean allot to many people from Young Kids to Adults.
COMMENT 300162	2012-07-21 11:26 PM
For complete and accurate information about plans to restore Santa Barbara's "Chromatic Gate," please do a Google search on "Just Between Us! Santa Barbara," click on the "Directory of TV Interviews" page, then click on "Sinser, Gene." Mr. Sinser is Co-Chair of the Committee to Restore our Rainbow Gate.
COMMENT 300165P	2012-07-22 05:30 AM
$80,000??? If ever there were proof that P.T. Barnum was right... EIGHTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS??? For THAT hideous thing???? Gawd!
COMMENT 300166	2012-07-22 06:05 AM
Give 12 vagrants 12 cases of beer, buy them 12 brushes, ladders, and cans of Rustoleum, and offer a bottle of their choice to the first one done. They will kick that out in three hours for under $500.
COMMENT 300168	2012-07-22 06:47 AM
love that gate. Can't wait for the work on it to start.
COMMENT 300172	2012-07-22 07:12 AM
Another scam to pocket $$$ while appearing to 'do good work'...not unique to Stabarbaca.
COMMENT 300176	2012-07-22 07:29 AM
If the money is privet, who cares, privet money spent on enything is good, If it is Tax money bring spent ,then I say scap it by the pound.
COMMENT 300181P	2012-07-22 08:01 AM
Who is the City employee that allowed a liability like that to be installed
COMMENT 300182P	2012-07-22 08:06 AM
173 How do you know that? You have proof? Re the gate, I think it's a bit out of place. Re the money, seems like an awful lot. Wonder who came up with that figure.... Surely some reputable local company who wants the work and the recognition could do it for less?
ARTEMISIA	2012-07-22 08:12 AM
176 - privet money? would that be a hedge fund?
COMMENT 300186P	2012-07-22 08:17 AM
It, the gate, is probably a recognized and appraised valuable work of art, despite the opinions of those for and against. That does not mean that the city has any $$ to restore it. In fact, the city /county of SB is deep in debt, and unless willing to sell holdings or clawback pension $$ from former public servants, this is a non-starter issue, much like the now infamous "blue line" art project a few years back. I say, as long as the school system here is hurting for money, there can be no funds spent on frivolity like this gate. Voters should think about things like this every time they prove of some new spending project or art install.
COMMENT 300189	2012-07-22 08:22 AM
After a quick google search, I discovered that this ridiculous amount of money isn't just for repairs. Although the money will be going to repainting, repairing rust, and rust-proofing the rainbow, it also will be used to set up a fund for future repair work. From what I have seen, over $20,000 has already been donated.
COMMENT 300193	2012-07-22 08:31 AM
I donated and hope you all do to. It is lovely and now an affectionate part of Santa Barbara. Thank you to all who made this happen. It is a joy to follow this project of community involvment. City regulations demanded the paint have very low environmental impact which is hard to find since it needs to hold up against salt air too.
COMMENT 300194	2012-07-22 08:33 AM
Way cool 173, are you giving classes in ESP? I sure would like to know how to do that stuff!
COMMENT 300196	2012-07-22 08:35 AM
Oh 176...nice to see the folks from Alabama contributing to the forum.
COMMENT 300201	2012-07-22 08:46 AM
Artemisia for the win! (Although it's not nice to make fun of other posters' inability to spell, that is funny!)
MTNDRIVER	2012-07-22 08:52 AM
Good one, Artemisia. 186P--City not paying, private (privet) funding for it. Those who like it can support it.
COMMENT 300204	2012-07-22 08:56 AM
I wish those who are so thrilled with this piece could find a place for it where others like me don't have to ever see it or think about it again. How about putting this controversial issue on a ballot.
COMMENT 300207	2012-07-22 09:02 AM
most locals don't appreciate the gate because we were here when it went up and everyone thought it sucked from day one. In the medium of visual art, if you think it's ugly and out of place then that is how it affects you and that is as valid a critique as anything. Me, I'm a trained professional artist, and I think this thing is lame. Go ahead and hate it, you don't have to kneel down before Art. Some of it is actually quite bad, perhaps it's useful to have such a clear example of that right here.
COMMENT 300208P	2012-07-22 09:14 AM
I'm going back to the money. $80,000! Someone slipped a digit. $8,000 should more than cover it. I'd find 'environmentally responsible paint' and do it myself for that much. If someone doubled the money to $16,000, we could do it again in 8-10 years, when it's needed again. $80,000 should pay for 'maintenance' (repainting) for the next 100 years if it's put in trust. On most public projects, there's no one watching the piggy bank, or negotiating for a reasonable price. $80,000? $80,000!!!
COMMENT 300211	2012-07-22 09:23 AM
@181 agreed. Who approved this installation in the first place? Did they consider the long term responsibility? Knock it over. It will make for some rainbow outfield seating for the softball fans and sleeping benches for the wandering homeless at night. Take it down. I was here when it was put up. I don't bond with it. Where is the "artist"...laughing all the way to the bank. $80,000 is a heck of a lot of money.
RESIDENT	2012-07-22 09:23 AM
Shaggy pointed out that it isn't bouganvilla covered. Actually that might be a good idea. It would cost a lot less than $80,000 to plant a few bouganvilla plants and, after a few years, the "gate" will be completely covered. So - ugly "gate" no longer visible, no need to worry again about paint and fixing the rust and it now looks appropriate for Santa Barbara. Problem solved
COMMENT 300215	2012-07-22 09:27 AM
ummm, is it a gay pride thing? well, no matter what the thing is, why on earth is it 80,000 to paint the thing???? i know a few painting contractors that could go spruce the thing up for a whole lot less....even at prevailing union wage! seriously. that is a rediculous amount
COMMENT 300217	2012-07-22 09:37 AM
80K to repaint the arch, amazing! Can you imagine what the schools or community centers could do with 80K for kid's art program? We need to look forward the future. This arch is like a cougar that's stayed to long at the party--- her lipstick is smeared, her foundation is cracking and she desperately need someone to pour her into a cab.
KDEF	2012-07-22 09:52 AM
Could Mesa Jim provide the source of his $80,000 figure ? As I understand the fund raising project. it is under the umbrella of the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission which is collecting private funds for both the restoration. of the arch and its maintanace.. No county or city funds are to be used. The Commission,s goal, I thought, was $30,000 for restoration with an additional $20,000 set aside for maintaince. The gate needs to be washed and waxed.
COMMENT 300223	2012-07-22 09:52 AM
The discussion and disagreement in this thread prove the Chromatic Gate is doing exactly what art should do - be provocative, emotive and inspire discussion regardless of whether or not you love or hate it. I personally don't like it from a "pleasing aesthetic" perspective, but completely love that it's something that's not Spanish themed with a red-tiled roof. To me, it represents at least the possibility this community will allow some deviation to that formula in the future. And since it's being funded with private money, it's all good!
COMMENT 300224	2012-07-22 09:55 AM
I wiil take it down and haul it away for free. I like it that much.
COMMENT 300225	2012-07-22 09:56 AM
215 - Honestly, when I first saw it, that's exactly what I thought, that it was a gay pride thing. Let's face it, it's a total eye sore. We aren't a city of modernism, and something as large as this piece just doesn't fit at all. Very few people like it, especially the locals. Sell it for scrap and move on.
COMMENT 300228P	2012-07-22 10:09 AM
$80,000?! Insane, City of S.B. If this doesn't get the citizens screaming at the next City Council meeting, then everybody continue "bending over." When's the ridiculous, free-for-all spending on pet projects going to end? Any bets?
COMMENT 300233	2012-07-22 10:37 AM
Perhaps it could be installed in front of our new airport.
COMMENT 300234	2012-07-22 10:43 AM
Some pretty narrow minds here, but diversity is one or social aspirations, right?The maligned sculpture certainly has a stunning perceived effect on people's quality of life. How do you let yourselves get so bent out of shape over an essentially meaningless piece of steel? The costs may seem excessive, but remember the city has to pay prevailing wage, high end custom formulated paint is required, there is a significant amount of rust removal and steel repair. Lack of an endowment is what got us here in the first place so cough up five bucks and stop complaining. The solution is restoration, removal is not an option. S'Auntie Barbara
D8VANILLA	2012-07-22 10:44 AM
Why wasn't it rust-proofed the day it was installed????
REXOFSB	2012-07-22 10:44 AM
I was against the stupid arch from its initial concept and was appalled when the ugly, gaudy, out-of-proportional monstrosity was built. But over the years as the vivid colors faded and the monstr...excuse me, "artwork," got a weathered look, it actually looked far better than it did when it was new. It no longer looks like a giganticized version of some schlocky trinket bought in Tijuana. I say leave it alone and don't do anything with it. Why call attention to it? It's far less offensive now.
COMMENT 300237P	2012-07-22 10:49 AM
While we are talking aesthetics, who approved the buildings on the corner of Garden and Gutierrez? These ugly buildings not really the first things people should see when getting off of the freeway and entering the city.
COMMENT 300238P	2012-07-22 10:51 AM
@233 has exactly the right idea--put it at the Airport. That would be a MUCH better venue for it. That way we wouldn't have to look at it all the time. Maybe while they're at it, they could also take the mural walls from the old Vons to the Airport?
EDHAT ONLINE	2012-07-22 10:52 AM
Here is link to an old article on Edhat about the gate. link There is no mention of gay pride or Chumash legend, as is frequently stated.
COMMENT 300248P	2012-07-22 11:32 AM
300223 - about the community "allowing" it. I wish this had been put to a vote before installation - otherwise it is just one group of people's decision to inflict something on others who do not like it. It is NOT about community. It would be nice if real community opinion would be taken into account before "renovation".
COMMENT 300250P	2012-07-22 11:49 AM
Rainbows have curves, but the Rainbow Arch is all corners. That's why I don't like it.
COMMENT 300251P	2012-07-22 11:49 AM
Yes, it may not be taxpayers' money, but we taxpayers have to look at it. The nicest thing I can say is that I find the gate unoriginal. Part of the money raised should go to moving the gate to a less conspicuous spot.....how about the botanic garden or some other hidden park or place.....
MESARATS	2012-07-22 11:57 AM
According to yesterday's article in the News Press $48,000 has already been donated and the are looking for $15,000 more for maintainence. I am not sure where the 80K figure or that the city is footing the bill is coming from. Pubic art is always going to be controversial (except maybe Bud Bottoms dolfins because everyone loves sea mammals) and it is a piece from a important artist of the Bauhas School and worth restoring. If people never saw the piece in the original colors it may be difficult to visualize the full impact. It is possible that after the restoration some people may hate it less.
COMMENT 300259	2012-07-22 12:19 PM
The Gate is amazing. I'm glad many people have joined me in donating for its restoration.
COMMENT 300266	2012-07-22 12:58 PM
$80,000 for a simple paint job??? OUTRAGEOUS! I'd expect that 5 gallons of paint, brushes, rollers, dropcloths, and civic volunteer labor could do it all for under $500.
COMMENT 300268	2012-07-22 01:00 PM
The last estimate for restoration was $35,000 ... who has their fingers in the pie THIS time ?
COMMENT 300274	2012-07-22 01:19 PM
The original posting, and 90% of the comments, are in error as is usually the case in these forums. The Chromatic Gate - a design of Bauhaus artist/sculptor/photographer Herbert Bayer, who spent his last years in Santa Barbara - is being repaired with private funds donated to the Restore Our Rainbow Committee. Permanent rust-proofing is not possible; but the next-best "rust-proof" paint costs $500/gallon. This does not come out of your pocket unless you contribute. I am not particularly a sculpture fan, and in various cities I"ve seen public sculpture that doesn't especiallly appeal to me. But I would as soon submit selections of public art to a popular vote as I would submit the selection of the Nobel Prize to a popular vote.
COMMENT 300281	2012-07-22 01:52 PM
With all due respect to Herbert Bayer (the artist) and his legacy, the "Chromatic Gate," has never fit in with its surroundings. The geometry, composition and coloration of the piece is at odds with the locale. At best, it seems a misbegotten concept that went too far. Expend funds only for removal, and do not seek to replace it with another politically-charged eyesore. Isn't there enough beauty and spectacle to be found in the backdrops of the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Pacific Ocean and the Channel Islands?
COMMENT 300285	2012-07-22 02:14 PM
A nod to 281. And the idea of moving it along with those non-historic murals from the former VONS on Victoria Street is very, very good.
COMMENT 300287	2012-07-22 02:19 PM
Even Mrs. Bayer thought it was an odd selection from his works and questioned the site. (Paul Mills led the project.) It should go somewhere where it fits in and will be loved. The Pueblo Viejo now (since the late eighties) has an ordinance re procedures for placing public art in that part of town. Marge Dunlap's "It's Raining" fountain at Las Aves by the bird refuge was the first to go through that procedure.
COMMENT 300301	2012-07-22 02:58 PM
"225" proudly asserts, "We aren't a city of modernism". Is that a GOOD thing?
COMMENT 300312	2012-07-22 03:27 PM
What "latest news report"? Why does everyone accept the claim without question?
COMMENT 300320P	2012-07-22 04:37 PM
Comparing Nobel Prize qualifications to what a community wants to see in their home town is false equivalency so egregious and blatantly absurd, that I am stunned.
COMMENT 300327	2012-07-22 05:23 PM
It's too bad the City of Santa Barbara is so broke... They have Public Works employees HAND PICKING weeds because you can't use Round-up, and they are willing to PAY $80,000 to paint a politically correct "rainbow" statue to let all know we are a liberal and gay friendly town! LOL It costs A LOT OF MONEY TO REMAIN "STYLISH..."
COMMENT 300331P	2012-07-22 05:45 PM
Herbert Bayer was an esteemed artist and though for years I found the arch seemingly out of place, I now like it for its unexpectedness. The arch makes one think about it, for better or worse. Nothing is as simple as it seems; there are probably important components that make this repainting costly - insurance, special paints, expertise to make certain that the painting isn't just slapped on. Thanks to donors for refinishing this work. For certain there are other worse architectural uglies that have been permitted.
COMMENT 300333	2012-07-22 05:50 PM
We ARE in SB, right? Comments sound like they emanate from some backward, time-warped hick town. Let the moths out of your mind.
REXOFSB	2012-07-22 06:06 PM
@327: The ugly rainbow arch has nothing to do with gay pride. Read the above-posted link by EDHAT ONLINE. I think any self-respecting gay person would dismiss the arch as the zenith of tackiness.
COMMENT 300359	2012-07-22 07:18 PM
Look, it brightens the day of our transient guests. Both the well-heeled transient guests staying at the hotel across the street and the downtrodden who enjoy the free ocean breezes as they sit in the park and enjoy the warm comraderie of their fellow travelers. It returns so much joy, it is worth a million dollars.
COMMENT 300361P	2012-07-22 07:30 PM
Save the $80K & bulldoze the Gate. Sell the scrap off for some big bucks, plant some killer pansies in the spot, & move on with enjoying the beach area.
JOHNSANROQUE	2012-07-23 06:41 AM
I'm not a fan of the sculpture either, but I agree completely with the post that says public art can't be put to a public vote. Voters can express their unhappiness to the Commission or Board that approved this-- or to the City Council which has the power to do something if there are enough complaints. Have any of you opponents done anything other than rant on Edhat? My idea of horrible public art are the multi-colored windmill-type cones at Goleta beach. I believe they are called kinetic sculptures. What could be worse than trying to improve the view of a beach and an ocean with whirling mechanical devices? However, I really can accept the fact that some people, maybe a majority, like them.
COMMENT 300458	2012-07-23 11:19 AM
Lots of opinions offered in respose to an apparently erroneous story. The Indy in May said they were going for $30K to restore and $20K for future working funding. $50K total. News-Press story is not available to the unwashed, but if they already have $48K then they are doing pretty well according to their goals. If they found people willing to plunk down almost $50k then they have a lot of supporters. Score one for the pro-rainbow crowd!
COMMENT 300465	2012-07-23 11:42 AM
It is not a rainbow. Give that a rest. Learn the colors of the rainbow - ROY G BIV: red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet
COMMENT 300517	2012-07-23 02:11 PM
@248P - This is 233. We live in a representative democracy, so not everything can be put to a full public vote. And besides, look how low our turnout is for elections as it is. My comment about the community "allowing" something other than Spanish architecture is based on how droll and uninspiring the architecture here has become. Any project with controversial or abstract architectural themes has been prohibited in the downtown area. To me, this represents the side of SB that plays right into the "newly wed or nearly dead" thing people say about SB. I would much rather have a thriving, progressive community with interesting, less formulaic architecture and public art.
MTNDRIVER	2012-07-23 02:31 PM
Some people keep commenting as if public funds were being used for this project. Get it straight--nothing to do with public funds. Completely privately funded. Arts patrons paying big money to fix it up. Fans invited to donate to the effort. Getting rid of the thing is another topic altogether. I've always thought it was tacky, too. Bauhaus was daring and radical in 1925, but not in 1991. The arch might look okay in a sculpture garden at a modern art museum, but I don't think the style is appropriate for public art between a Spanish-style former-railroad-roundhouse hotel wing and a baseball diamond right across from the beach in this city. It just looks silly, out of place in that spot, in my opinion. Why by the ocean? There isn't really even a "public space" there, practically speaking--I mean a place where people hang out and eat their lunches, etc--except for the homeless people who congregated at the ball field until it was fenced to keep them out. It looks more like a monument of some kind than public art in that location.
COMMENT 300534	2012-07-23 02:43 PM
I've lived here my entire life, and haven't met one person with anything good to say about this arch. Not sure where these commenters are from who say they like it. Maybe it's one person who keeps posting in favor of this "beautiful" art? lol
COMMENT 300666	2012-07-23 06:52 PM
The Chromatic Gate suggests an entrance to an amusement park at Muscle Beach....
COMMENT 300667	2012-07-23 06:55 PM
Don't Like It - We now have a ball field full of drunken Sots and a square metal colored deal ..... Lets remove all of the above and start over .........

42% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

*** One comment was removed from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see it.