Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
I want to say the same thing. however, there's something about LA that makes it like the perennial black sheep of the family, the ugly sister to that sibling up north, the one with cable cars & a big bridge. that place, in comparison, has always inspired praise, whether deserved or not.
the comments made to the reporter for a newspaper in london sounded exactly like what ppl in places like nocal or maybe down in san diego have said about LA for a long time.....or what others have said for a longer time than imagined.....
|
Black sheep?
SF is picturesque with its cable cars and red bridge. But LA is an art capital with its gallery scene, its art schools, its architects, the intellectual and financial capital of the Getty, and all the internationally-recognized artists who live and make work here.
For all of its wealth, SF simply does not have the cultural assets that LA has been able to amass. Just look around. For every strip mall that you think shows how inferior LA is, there is a significant Gehry or Mayne building. Indeed, I will dare say there is more noteworthy architecture in LA than there is in SF.
Which is why I find it hard to believe that culturally literate people are saying the things you claim they are saying. I took an architecture class taught by Vin Scully (the professor, not the announcer for the Dodgers). He covered the Johnson and Neutra buildings in Garden Grove and numerous buildings in LA proper; he didn't even mention the Transamerica tower in SF. Indeed, in the late 80's, Yale held a conference on the LA School in Architecture, which featured Gehry and Mayne in person. Gehry had yet to design WD Hall and Bilbao, but the architectural community was already interested in what was happening in LA. In 2006, there was even an exhibition at the Pompidou Center in Paris titled LA 1955-1985: Birth of an Art Capital.
I won't go into what has happened since 2006. I think the rest should be obvious.
Prev
Linear Mode
