Well the value of art is certainly subjective; should we hold referendums on taste? And perhaps the sculpture was donated by a patron. That happens a lot. Either way, I don’t think it’s bad.
You are a useless twit. Please stop clogging this thread and others with your irrelevant observations (yes, you are now a threadshitter, you ignorant slut). You are also requested to not be a boring retard on a quest to demonstrate your banality at every turn, though I understand that your mental deficiencies might make that a futile request. The only possible motive you can have for posting that yak turd of a one-liner is to show off for your clique of shut-in slackjawed buddies, because even you can’t be moronic enough to believe your little jibe is going to hurt me.
Someone has to step up and point out that these troglodytes whining about their girl fucking around on them, etc, belong somewhere else. And I’ve noticed far fewer of them recently, so I guess I’m making a difference.
Now run back to MPSIMS and talk about how much you like beagles; at least there I won’t have to be offended by your smarmy prattle. Or at the very least, take it to a thread where it’s relevant.
Without the marigold and the supports it looks like a cross between a pile of shaving cream (as seen in shaving cream ads, which always use a ton) and a gymnast’s tape being twirled on the ground. Could be better, could be worse. But I don’t like the marigold, the supports and the placement.
The shiny jellybean is neat in a Futurama kind of way. It looks like it would go well near The Doghouse (Bilbao Guggenheim, so-called because its first permanent sculpture is a very popular giant doggie/garden).
Oh, no! The Boss of the Pit has disapproved of my post, and has taken the opportunity to pound his limp dick on the table in hopes that I would be impressed by it.
Well, guess what? Your diatribes about what is and is not pitworthy do not impress me. Nor do your attempts to insult those of us like me who don’t really give a fuck what you think. Nor, for that matter, was my post intended to “hurt you” because not only do I not care what you think, but I couldn’t be bothered to try to hurt you. If you were on fire I wouldn’t piss on you to put out the flames (to paraphrase Prince John in The Lion in Winter.
So unclench your spincter, untwist your little-girl panties, and get over yourself. Your efforts to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable Pit material are a joke. Take your head out of your ass long enough to stop enjoying the taste of your own shit.
And as for the OP, I think that the sculpture (and I use the term in its loosest possible meaning) in question is one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen. I agree with eleanorigby that it looks like the artist mashed together two different pieces.
Honestly, I think universities, cities, etc. should stop commissioning art. A work of art doesn’t have to be a massive edifice in order to be good. If you want a huge piece of art, it makes more sense to choose existing work that (the majority of) those paying the bill already like. Yes, it will be more expensive that way, but if the initial cost of creation has already been paid, at least the art is more likely to be inspired.
IMHO, there is no bad art - including those “bad” pieces featured in this thread - although there is certainly art that I don’t care for and would prefer not to look at everyday (and that sun/downward spiral thing is in that category). Nevertheless, it seems to me that your average homeless person has better aesthetic taste than any bureaucracy.
Personally, these feathers in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (second is on its side on the second island) irk me. They aren’t poorly fabricated, nor are they bad art; it just doesn’t look like art inspired by anything other than a seagull feather I might find on a beach.
For an example of damn good, modern public sculpture, I submit Roger Berry’s “Perspectives” on the corner of DeAnza Blvd. and Stevens Creek in Cupertino, CA. It’s elegantly simple, and changesshape as you drive by. (or walk around it up close, if you have that sort of free time).
It sounds a lot cooler than it is, I’m afraid. I may be able to get a camera pic of it. The actual thing is just weird: it avoids being good or bad by virtue of utter incomprehensibility.
I, of course, never accepted the bullshit relativism of denying there is bad or good art. If there is art, then it can be bad; to deny value is deny art itself, and render the entire concept meaningless. Do that, and there would be no reason to create art (and doing so would be impossible).
however i also understand what she was trying to do, but unfortunately i think it could have worked on a tabletop scale where the weight issues are not as much of an issue.
Of course you didn’t accept that bullshit. Instead you heard about some idea that is vaguely similar to postmodernism, and then invented a whole little strawphilosophy of aesthetics that you can use to put forward your (poorly thought out and frankly laughable) little treatise on the meaning of art. You even managed to make yourself sound like a dismissive prick by throwing in an “of course”, as if it is simply impossible that anyone hold those sorts of ideas. Why, next you will be telling me that a negro can be trusted to vote!
Your premises don’t connect up in any meaningful way, and each one of them is completely wrong. I especially love the idea that art has to be valued to be art; Marcel Duchamp would hop right on that bus.
Of course, you also presume that everyone must agree with your assessment that this sculpture is an awful, hideous mess which should be destroyed. However, I have yet to be convinced of your expertise in art criticism, given your disdain for “modern” art, your poorly sketched-out theory of aesthetics, and your assumption that if someone doesn’t agree that this work is hideous, they must subscribe to your snobby but ill-informed layman’s “everything is relevant” interpretation of postmodernism or dadaism or whatever it is you are poorly aping.
You should have used google images. I really didn’t think the thing was that bad till I found this image where it’s lit up in all it’s night time glory. Great googly moogly.
I don’t like the bright colors or the splattered-chicken-on-propeller motif either, but I think the main swirly-ribbon-on-four-stick-frame part looks kind of cool.
It does strike me as kind of weird that the OP seems to think that it’s the art department’s job to be aware of and “understand” all public artworks on campus, and that if nobody in the art department is familiar with or interested in some particular installation, it must therefore be crap art.
I mean, I wouldn’t expect the school’s engineering department to be aware of or interested in every engineering accomplishment in the design and construction of campus buildings, even if some of them are innovative and interesting. Nor would I necessarily assume that a particular work of English literature in the campus library must be crap just because none of the university’s English professors happen to know or care about it.
