Art + Architecture at At&T Stadium
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Underserved Communities
National Endowment for the Arts FY 2016 Spring Grant Announcement Artistic Discipline/Field Listings Project details are accurate as of April 26, 2016. For the most up to date project information, please use the NEA's online grant search system. Click the grant area or artistic field below to jump to that area of the document. 1. Art Works grants Arts Education Dance Design Folk & Traditional Arts Literature Local Arts Agencies Media Arts Museums Music Opera Presenting & Multidisciplinary Works Theater & Musical Theater Visual Arts 2. State & Regional Partnership Agreements 3. Research: Art Works 4. Our Town 5. Other Some details of the projects listed are subject to change, contingent upon prior Arts Endowment approval. Information is current as of April 26, 2016. Arts Education Number of Grants: 115 Total Dollar Amount: $3,585,000 826 Boston, Inc. (aka 826 Boston) $10,000 Roxbury, MA To support Young Authors Book Program, an in-school literary arts program. High school students from underserved communities will receive one-on-one instruction from trained writers who will help them write, edit, and polish their work, which will be published in a professionally designed book and provided free to students. Visiting authors, illustrators, and graphic designers will support the student writers and book design and 826 Boston staff will collaborate with teachers to develop a standards-based curriculum that meets students' needs. Abada-Capoeira San Francisco $10,000 San Francisco, CA To support a capoeira residency and performance program for students in San Francisco area schools. Students will learn capoeira, a traditional Afro-Brazilian art form that combines ritual, self-defense, acrobatics, and music in a rhythmic dialogue of the body, mind, and spirit. -
The Arts & Letters of Rocky Neck in the 1950S
GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TheArts & Letters of Rocky Neck in the 1950s by Martha Oaks have received the attention they deserve. Four Winds: The Arts & Letters of Rocky With this exhibition, Four Winds, the Cape Neck in the 1950s is on view through Sep- ocky Neck holds the distinction as Ann Museum casts the spotlight on one of tember 29, 2013, at the Cape Ann Mu- R one of the most important places in those interludes: the decade and a half fol- seum, 27 Pleasant Street, Gloucester, American art history. Since the mid-nine- lowing the Second World War. Not so far Massachusetts, 01930, 978-283-0455, teeth century, its name has been associated in the past that it cannot be recollected by www.capeannmuseum.org. A 52-page soft with many of this country’s best known many, yet just far enough that it is apt to cover catalogue accompanies the exhibition. artists: Winslow Homer, Frank Duveneck, be lost, the late 1940s and 1950s found a All illustrated works are from the Cape Theresa Bernstein, Jane Peterson and Ed- young and vibrant group of artists working Ann Museum unless otherwise noted. ward Hopper. From the mid-1800s on the Neck. through the first quarter of the twentieth Although it is one of Cape Ann’s painter William Morris Hunt and his pro- century, the heyday of the art colony on longest-lived and best known art colonies, tégé, Helen Mary Knowlton. Hunt was Rocky Neck, the neighborhood was awash Rocky Neck was not the first. One of the one of the first art teachers to welcome with artists. -
National Gallery of Art
National Gallery of Art FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Deborah Ziska, Information Officer March 19, 1999 PRESS CONTACT: Patricia O'Connell, Publicist (202) 842-6353 NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART SCULPTURE GARDEN TO OPEN MAY 23 New Acquisitions in Dynamic Space Will Offer Year-Round Enjoyment on the National Mall Washington, D.C. -- On May 23, the National Gallery of Art will open a dynamic outdoor sculpture garden designed to offer year-round enjoyment to the public in one of the preeminent locations on the National Mall. The National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden is given to the nation by The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation. The landscaping of the 6.1-acre space provides a distinctive setting for nearly twenty major works, including important new acquisitions of post-World War II sculpture by such internationally renowned artists as Louise Bourgeois, Mark di Suvero, Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, and Tony Smith. The Sculpture Garden is located at Seventh Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., in the block adjacent to the West Building. "We are proud to bring to the nation these significant works of sculpture in one of the few outdoor settings of this magnitude in the country," said Earl A. Powell III, director, National Gallery of Art. "The opening of the Sculpture Garden brings to fruition part of a master plan to revitalize the National Mall that has been in development for more than thirty years. The National Gallery is extremely grateful to the Cafritz Foundation for making this historic event possible." - more - Fourth Street at Constitution Avenue. -
NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)
Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St. -
View Annual Report
Full Year 2013 Results - Record Performance • Concert Attendance Up 19% - Total Ticketmaster 400 Million Fans Delivering Over $17 Billion GTV • 900 Million Fans Visit Ticketmaster, Creating User Database of 250 Million Fan Preferences • Revenue Up 11% to $6.5 Billion • AOI Increased 10% to $505 Million • Moved to Profitability in Operating Income off $140 Million • Reported Net Income Improved by $120 Million TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS: 2013 Results We had a record year in 2013 and are well positioned for continued growth in 2014 and beyond. During 2013, we further grew our unmatched concerts global fan base by 10 million fans, attracting almost 60 million fans to our concerts. This tremendous growth fueled our sponsorship and ticketing businesses with Ticketmaster managing nearly 4400 million total tickets in 2013. Combined, we delivered a record year for revenue, AOI and free cash flow. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of our business model, establishing Live Nation as what we believe to be the number one player in each of our businesses, with concerts driving our flywheel, which is then monetized across our high margin on-site, sponsorship and ticketing businesses. Strong Fan Demand for Live Events We continue to see the tremendous power of live events, with strong global consumer demand. Research shows that live events are a high priority for discretionary spending, and over 80% of our fans surveyed indicate that they plan on attending the same or more events in 2014 as in 2013. Another sign of the strength of our business is that 85% of Live Nation’s fan growth came organically, from our promoting more shows in amphitheaters, arenas and stadiums; from launching new festivals; and from establishing operatioons in new markets. -
The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. In the Matter of: (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 | 05000286 ENT000169 Exhibit #: ENT000169-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Submitted: March 28, 2012 Rejected: Stricken: Other: THE IMPACT OF STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH CAROLYN A. DEHRING, CRAIG A. DEPKEN and MICHAEL R. WARD* We investigate the impact of a potential new sports venue on residential property values, focusing on the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys’ search for a new host city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We find that residential property values in the city of Dallas increased following the announcement of a possible new stadium in the city. At the same time, property values fell throughout the rest of Dallas County, which would have paid for the proposed stadium. These patterns reversed when the Dallas stadium proposal was abandoned. Subsequently, a series of announcements regarding a new publicly subsidized stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas, reduced res- idential property values in Arlington. In aggregate, average property values declined approximately 1.5% relative to the surrounding area before stadium construction commenced. This decline was almost equal to the anticipated household sales tax burden, suggesting that the average expected amenity effect of hosting the Cowboys in Arlington was not significantly different from zero. (JEL L83, R53, H73) I. INTRODUCTION projects raise house prices in aggregate, while negative net benefit projects lower house prices Public expenditures on a project, and the in aggregate. -
Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia
Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features. -
“Print by Print: Series from Dürer to Lichtenstein” Exhibition at the Baltimore Museum of Art
A behind the scenes look: the making of the “Print by Print: Series from Dürer to Lichtenstein” exhibition at The Baltimore Museum of Art One of our recent projects was to make frames for The Baltimore Museum of Art’s “Print by Print: Series from Dürer to Lichtenstein” exhibition. In doing research on the exhibition I noticed the funding came because of the collaboration the museum did with the students from The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). Since funding has become much more of an issue in these days of reduced budgets, this caught my attention and I wanted to find out more about the collaboration. I was also interested in sharing with our readers a behind the scenes view of the making of an exhibition. On Friday November 18, 2011 I met with Rena Hoisington, BMA Curator & Department Head of the Department of Prints, Drawings, & Photographs, Alexandra Good, an art history major at JHU, and Micah Cash, BMA Conservation Technician for Paper. Karen Desnick, Metropolitan Picture Framing I was especially intrigued about the funding of this exhibition and the collaborative aspects with the students of The Johns Hopkins University and the Maryland Institute College of Art. Can you elaborate on the funding source and how the collaboration worked? Rena Hoisington, BMA I submitted a proposal for organizing an exhibition of prints in series a couple of years ago. Dr. Elizabeth Rodini, Senior Lecturer in the History of Art Department at The Johns Hopkins University and the Associate Director of the interdisciplinary, undergraduate Program for Museums in Society, then approached the Museum about working on a collaborative project that would result in an exhibition. -
Project Windows 2018 John Singer Sargent and Chicago's Gilded
February 14, 2018 Project Windows 2018 John Singer Sargent and Chicago’s Gilded Age The Art Institute of Chicago “Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” Edgar Degas Magritte transformed Marc Jacobs ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO AWARD, 2014 Magritte, The Human Condition Lichtenstein reimagined Roy Lichtenstein, Brushstroke with Spatter Macy’s BEST OVER-ALL DESIGN 2015 Vincent brought to life Vincent van Gogh, Self-Portrait AT&T PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARDS, 2016 2017 Gauguin: Artist as Alchemist Neiman Marcus Paul Gauguin, Mahana no atua (Day of the God), 1894 ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO AWARD, 2017 Sargent Inspiration - Experiential Sargent Inspiration - Visual Sargent Inspiration - Tactile Benefits Part of a citywide cultural Public Voting Drives traffic and builds celebration awareness Judges Showcase your designers Awards Celebration talent Resources michiganavemag.com/Project-Windows Images + developed merchandise PR + Social Media Advertising Annelise K. Madsen, Ph.D. Gilda and Henry Buchbinder Assistant Curator of American Art John Singer Sargent (American, 1856–1925) John Singer Sargent and Chicago’s Gilded Age The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, Italy (detail), 1907 Oil on canvas 71.4 x 56.5 cm (28 1/8 x 22 1/4 in.) July 1–September 30, 2018 | Regenstein Hall East Friends of American Art Collection, 1914.57 The Art Institute of Chicago Gilded Age Painter of International Renown John Singer Sargent (1856–1925) The Art Institute of Chicago Inspiration Sargent’s art is both old and new, traditional and avant-garde.6 John Singer -
Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992
Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992 2.9 linear ft. Accession Number: 0910-23 Collection Number: 87 Prepared by Christopher Strange April 2016 Citation: The John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, Collection 87, Box number, Folder number, Irving Archives, Irving Public Library. Historical Sketch Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas was the home of the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys from 1971-2008. The Cowboys moved there from the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, where they had played their home games since the team’s first season in 1960. The team’s owner, Clint Murchison Jr., contacted City of Irving officials as early as 1966 to propose the idea of building a state-of-the-art stadium with assistance from the city. After some negotiation, the two sides agreed that the city would build and own the stadium, and the Cowboys would enter into an agreement to lease the stadium for their home games for at least 35 years. A Cowboys’ subsidiary, the Texas Stadium Corporation, would manage the stadium. The city would finance the construction by requiring all season ticket purchasers to also buy construction bonds. The city would repay the bonds with money from tickets sold over the duration of the Cowboys’ lease, and Irving taxpayers would not have to pay any share of the construction costs. The bonds went on sale in December 1967, and the first $3.5 million was raised in three weeks. Supporters of the stadium said it would cost Irving taxpayers nothing, but the plan still caused some controversy in the city. -
Mahogany Rush, Seattle Center Coliseum
CONCERTS 1) KISS w/ Cheap Trick, Seattle Center Coliseum, 8/12/77, $8.00 2) Aerosmith w/ Mahogany Rush, Seattle Center Coliseum,, 4/19/78, $8.50 3) Angel w/ The Godz, Paramount NW, 5/14/78, $5.00 4) Blue Oyster Cult w/ UFO & British Lions, Hec Edmondson Pavilion, 8/22/78, $8.00 5) Black Sabbath w/ Van Halen, Seattle Center Arena, 9/23/78, $7.50 6) 10CC w/ Reggie Knighton, Paramount NW, 10/22/78, $3.50 7) Rush w/ Pat Travers, Seattle Center Coliseum, 11/7/78, $8.00 8) Queen, Seattle Center Coliseum, 12/12/78, $8.00 9) Heart w/ Head East & Rail, Seattle Center Coliseum, 12/31/78, $10.50 10) Alice Cooper w/ The Babys, Seattle Center Coliseum, 4/3/79, $9.00 11) Jethro Tull w/ UK, Seattle Center Coliseum, 4/10/79, $9.50 12) Supertramp, Seattle Center Coliseum, 4/18/79, $9.00 13) Yes, Seattle Center Coliseum, 5/8/79, $10.50 14) Bad Company w/ Carillo, Seattle Center Coliseum, 5/30/79, $9.00 15) Triumph w/ Ronnie Lee Band (local), Paramount NW, 6/2/79, $6.50 16) New England w/ Bighorn (local), Paramount NW, 6/9/79, $3.00 17) Kansas w/ La Roux, Seattle Center Coliseum, 6/12/79, $9.00 18) Cheap Trick w/ Prism, Hec Edmondson Pavilion, 8/2/79, $8.50 19) The Kinks w/ The Heaters (local), Paramount NW, 8/29/79, $8.50 20) The Cars w/ Nick Gilder, Hec Edmondson Pavilion, 9/21/79, $9.00 21) Judas Priest w/ Point Blank, Seattle Center Coliseum, 10/17/79, Free – KZOK giveaway 22) The Dishrags w/ The Look & The Macs Band (local), Masonic Temple, 11/15/79, $4.00 23) KISS w/ The Rockets, Seattle Center Coliseum, 11/21/79, $10.25 24) Styx w/ The Babys, Seattle -
Andy Warhol Who Later Became the Most
Jill Crotty FSEM Warhol: The Businessman and the Artist At the start of the 1960s Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg and Robert Rauschenberg were the kings of the emerging Pop Art era. These artists transformed ordinary items of American culture into famous pieces of art. Despite their significant contributions to this time period, it was Andy Warhol who later became the most recognizable icon of the Pop Art Era. By the mid sixties Lichtenstein, Oldenburg and Rauschenberg each had their own niche in the Pop Art market, unlike Warhol who was still struggling to make sales. At one point it was up to Ivan Karp, his dealer, to “keep moving things moving forward until the artist found representation whether with Castelli or another gallery.” 1Meanwhile Lichtenstein became known for his painted comics, Oldenburg made sculptures of mass produced food and Rauschenberg did combines (mixtures of everyday three dimensional objects) and gestural paintings. 2 These pieces were marketable because of consumer desire, public recognition and aesthetic value. In later years Warhol’s most well known works such as Turquoise Marilyn (1964) contained all of these aspects. Some marketable factors were his silk screening technique, his choice of known subjects, his willingness to adapt his work, his self promotion, and his connection to art dealers. However, which factor of Warhol’s was the most marketable is heavily debated. I believe Warhol’s use of silk screening, well known subjects, and self 1 Polsky, R. (2011). The Art Prophets. (p. 15). New York: Other Press New York. 2 Schwendener, Martha. (2012) "Reinventing Venus And a Lying Puppet." New York Times, April 15.