No, he doesn't deserve hate mail. He didn't do anything sneaky, they knew his art, he submitted it, and they accepted his as the voted winner. The guy didn't con the committee, the City of Calgary, or the people of Calgary. There is no shortage of people responding negatively to Calgary, but it's also no shock Calgary is the one that got up in arms the most about it, forcing another public comment. Has the Peace Bridge guy showed up since? Cancelling his appearance at the opening was an embarrassment. I'm always amazed at those who all of a sudden become proponents of local art during debates like this, as if there isn't endless ways they can support one the other 364 days a year.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JFK For This Useful Post:
Not surprisingly the artist has been forced to speak out saying it's the most hate mail he's ever received in his life over an art piece.
And in this case basically harassing a known, well respected New York artist with hate mail to the point where he has to publicly comment on it. We're progressive in some ways, but just so Calgary in too many ways. It's embarrassing.
He's not being forced to speak out. He's more than welcome to not call us idiots and send us back for another look. And the last thing I'd ever be worried about is offending an artist from NYC. My goodness. They may think we're a small town or something. But this piece is actually getting more and more offensive as I look at it.
Del Geist is not a great artist. You've been sold basically a production piece from his line of expensive Home Sense sculptures Our Bowfort Tower is no more about...
Quote:
connecting with the extensive history of the earth in the region, elevating the stones to convey the importance (iconism) and conveying a sense of timelessness,"
...than is this piece...
or this piece...
Or any other piece he's ever done. It seems like every where he goes, rocks on a stick have some deep connection to the land and the first people and, of course, timelessness.
Ours is more of a Blackfoot burial site than anything the artist actually intended to convey. But whatever. We're a small town in the country and we bought his line of bullsh't.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Arguing that someone who left literal garbage on the side of the highway doesn't deserve criticism because the committee and the city were complicit in this stupidity is rather silly. They all deserve hate mail for this fiasco.
The most interesting thing is that this and the blue ring have almost done what they are suppose to do; spark conversation. Still today I will be in a car with someone heading out of the City and the blue ring is brought up when seen.
Not surprisingly the artist has been forced to speak out saying it's the most hate mail he's ever received in his life over an art piece.
Disagreeing with art is one thing, but man that's just so Calgary. Growing up I've always wanted to see our city as better than it is I think. If there was one city in Canada where an art piece could bring out the dummy conservativism to that level, buoyed by a hack, conservative local paper that does nothing but fan the old white guy flames, unfortunately myself and likely most people would pick Calgary, and yet again they'd be right.
And before local conservatives jump in and start defending anything - No, I'm not talking about disliking the art or the money or being fiscally responsible. I'm talking about the complete and utter craziness of the ability of art pieces and fancy bridges to take over every waking moment of local media/citizens for weeks, sometimes months at a time.
And in this case basically harassing a known, well respected New York artist with hate mail to the point where he has to publicly comment on it. We're progressive in some ways, but just so Calgary in too many ways. It's embarrassing.
It's a very intelligent distraction away from the hundreds of millions that will be going to an events centre and the billion to the Olympics.
I think this is particularly apparent when you see the decorative elements (such as the jumping fish along Glenmore Trail) along our major thoroughfares. Details like these go a long way to making for a more "beautiful" city, and is money well spent in my opinion.
Now is every piece a winner? No absolutely not, but it seems we have 2 bad pieces up against a dozen more good pieces that do enrich the public space.
I fully agree. Having just recently traveled to some beautiful cities all over Europe, it's the little details like this that add up over time to give a city a really nice look.
I find myself trying to look at Calgary through the eyes of a visitor more often and asking what would they see. A plain boring city? Or do they make an effort to beautify it and want it to look nice everywhere you go?
Stuff like this adds up and contributes to the overall look of the city. Maybe this piece doesn't please most people. But most times the city gets it right.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 08-06-2017 at 09:58 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
What I find most amusing about this whole 'we can't waste $500k crowd' is that it will now cost the city way more than $500k in additional expenses to address the outrage over this (media, reports, committees etc.).
One thing i'd be curious to know is what was/is the usual commission to the artist on something like this... 20% or so? Relatedly, would say 50% of the cost of a piece like this actual be spent on local labour and contractors to build and install?
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
~P^2
The Following User Says Thank You to firebug For This Useful Post:
But despite Calgary Public Art’s attempts at reaching out to local artists (both through Calls for Submissions and educations programs like Public Art 101), in relation to the large number of practicing artists in our city, there are very few local artists interested in, or able to, make the leap from making small-scale works to large-scale public art commissions without many steps in between. Perhaps they’re turned off by the bureaucracy. Perhaps they value their freedom. Perhaps they don’t want to be slayed by the press (cough, Rick Bell, cough). Perhaps their chosen medium doesn’t translate into public art. But more likely, the leap is just so big it’s intimidating.
It's a good read regardless, has been making the rounds.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
The most interesting thing is that this and the blue ring have almost done what they are suppose to do; spark conversation. Still today I will be in a car with someone heading out of the City and the blue ring is brought up when seen.
Why do people keep saying this? If the only conversation is negative and revolves around the absurd cost and how hideous the piece is, then that's not really the conversation that they are looking for. Not unless you think the point of art is to be regularly ridiculed.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I happen to live in a part of Helsinki where it's mandatory to spend 1% of building budget on public art, so there's a ton of that stuff around. Literally dozens, there's three pieces just outside my window. (Makes for great Pokemón hunting grounds, because most them are Pokestops.)
Having so much public art around, you really notice how those abstract pieces of metal and/or stone are basically the Big Macs of public art.
All the best stuff is something like a mural on the side of the wall, a balcony that looks like a huge birds nest, a fairy-tale hidden so you'll only notice it if you sit on a certain bench... Something made for that place or at least made to fit that place. Not something someone drawn up in a studio and someone else bought in an attempt to pretty up tons of concrete.
I would say the art that's a part of the something that would be there anyway does a lot more to make things look nice around here.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
i think Calgary has the same 1% budget, they're just hiring the wrong kinds of artists.
Meh, it's been overblown. Bunk's post shows a good contrast of a lot of great art projects around the city. It took him posting them for most people to even really notice the good ones.
We hear about the misses, and oh boy do we ever hear about them. But there aren't a lot.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Why do people keep saying this? If the only conversation is negative and revolves around the absurd cost and how hideous the piece is, then that's not really the conversation that they are looking for. Not unless you think the point of art is to be regularly ridiculed.
Because contrary to belief some people out there like the blue ring, or at least don't hate it to the same level.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CPK80 For This Useful Post:
The Peace Bridge reaction was embarrassing. For sure.
If this sculpture is a rip-off of Blackfoot burial structures, that's bad. That looks bad on the artist and the selection committee and the City (Indigenous consultation has a time and this sounds like it was one of those times).
Otherwise, meh. I don't love the piece but I don't usually love the roadside works art pieces. The public art policy is 1% of these projects, right? In my mind maybe the issue is that it's actually pretty tricky to install meaningful, thoughtful art that people can stop to enjoy, when they are integrated into or located beside giant overpasses and road projects. And the 1% art budgets on those projects are naturally going to seem huge because the budgets for these infrastructure projects are pretty huge. Maybe they need to reconsider some of the specifics of the art policy with regards to roadworks.
All the best works in the city (imo) are the smaller pieces that people can access and enjoy, like what Bunk posted.
I would rather them spend tens of millions on huge art pieces that are good/large enough to be tourist attractions. A large piece once every ten years, rather than annual piles of rubble. Tourism + Art is better than just Art. And make them as large as possible for the amount of money spent. Like the Peace Bridge, but much larger and more cost efficient.
Seems obvious, but what this and the blue ring have in common are they're done for highways. Maybe we need a different approach to highway beautification - perhaps landscaping? Or maybe we should simply divert the funds into public art for pedestrian spaces and parks?
I would love to see good examples of highway beautification anywhere that we could emulate (other than the Glenmore fish, and stuff like the Arche de Triomphe). Otherwise, maybe we should accept that a highway will look about as a good as it can merely through billboard restrictions.
Why do people keep saying this? If the only conversation is negative and revolves around the absurd cost and how hideous the piece is, then that's not really the conversation that they are looking for. Not unless you think the point of art is to be regularly ridiculed.
Pretty much this.
As a general comment on post-modern art discussion: anything can be called art now. Literally anything. If you say you think something it's art, then it's art. Generally speaking I agree with that.
However, the logical conclusion from everything being art is that "being art" can not give something value. Thus, any argument along the lines of "it's doing what art is supposed to do" is inherently pointless. If you can't defend something without referring to it being 'art', then you can't defend it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I think the ring as some cool aspects. It frames the area within the ring at that framing changes. On one of the ramps I think you get downtown enclosed by the ring.
The light poles on top should go as they ruin it
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
