5/27/2002: Public art in Santa Barbara
 

http://cellar.org/2002/artcritic.jpg

Here a Santa Barbara resident is taking a critical view of one of the city's new downtown sculptures by British artist William Tucker. She seems to not like it.

From a writeup on the artist:

--
William Tucker's works are profoundly original--of his own form. Upon seeing one of his 'typical' sculptures, the viewer may be reminded of some primordial ooze that has seeped onto dry land and congealed--an interpretation that, in fact, would not be too far off the mark. William Tucker himself has stated, "A sense of gravity is the factor which mediates our visual perception of sculpture with our conceptual knowledge of its 'real' form." A typical review of his works might read something like this: "There is a struggle evident in William Tucker's sculpture. This struggle is between compression, expansion, and eruption, with an overwhelming sense of weight."
--

I don't think the viewer is getting all that, nor am I certain I get it, but perhaps we're seeing it from the wrong perspective in this shot.

Probably not
 

Based on the onlooker's expression, I'd say probably not. ;)

Will someone please explain to me, using very small words, what this is supposed to mean? :confused:

Shut up, pay yer taxes, and thank God you have betters who understand what art is.

I live in Santa Barbara, and there's a bunch of those, and they all look pretty much like that. (There's one exception, which is straight with right angles, looking sort of like a sofa on its side.) (If people are really curious I could probably be convinced to snap a few quick pics of each one.)

I'm not really impressed with the art either, but I do like the fact that they put it up. It's nice to have something sitting there that's not a tree/plant. It just breaks up the blandness of the street. (It's sort of like hanging things on a wall. Doesn't matter what it is, it'll make the room look better.) I'd probably be apalled if I were to find out how much they paid the artist though.

Hmmm, translation?

If it looks heavy...you will think it may or may not really be heavy for its size, shape, and stuff its made out of.

Then you may or may not wonder about trying to move it. Think about how to get leverage, who's truck to borrow, how it might roll...maybe how to launch it.

The artist's description is the kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense that gives "modern art" a bad name, as is the unimaginative quality of the piece itself.
The description is as incomprehensible as the piece is tasteless, and yet the reader is left with a feeling of inferiority for not "getting it".

Would I be out of line to assume that this is precisely what the "artist" intended?

Not a bad assumption at all, IMO.

In the end, art is what we perceive it to be. If you perceive the piece as "tasteless," it's all good.

I like many forms of art, but I would call this "Bad Day on the Can."

This looks like something that comes out of our anus.
 

http://sheldon.unl.edu/HTML/ARTIST/T...U_004250_H.jpg

Ouranos

pure genius

Oh.

Why art man not say so first?

Ogg feel better now.

Ogg go make lunch now.

Cow meat on bread.

Good. Good.

Later, bang rocks together.

You wake up in the morning,
get something for the pot,
wonder why the sun makes the rocks feel hot,
draw on the walls,
get laid,
Back in the good old days.

Then some dammed fool invents the wheel,
Listen to the whitewalls squeel,
Nothing for the pot, nothing for the heart.

(Roger Waters - can't remember WHICH cut off the Radio KAOS album - done from memory)

http://www.smallcandles.com/waters/lyrics/index.html

Me or Him
You wake up in the morning
Get something for the pot
Wonder why the sun makes the rocks feel hot
Draw on the walls
Eat
Get laid
Back in the good old days
Then some damn fool invents the wheel
Listen to the whitewalls squeal
You spend all day looking for a parking spot
Nothing for the heart
Nothing for the pot


very cool

I would guess that the day before would have been even worse.

Yeah, that's the one - but I was working from memory :cool: