Sculpture By The Sea #4

Here are some more of what depressed me so much at this exhibition.

For $20,000 some deluded CEO can purchase this representation of, I think, the inside workings of an internal combustion engine.

sbts2.jpg

 

Or, should he be in a mood to disturb his customers, he could choose to spend $39,000 of the shareholder’s dosh on this strangely arachnipodal aluminium piece.

sbts1.jpg

Tomorrow I will have something positive from this art show. There were good parts, just like the curate’s egg. Unfortunately the bad bits left a nasty taste in the mouth!

 

12 Responses

  1. MM great Odd shot but expensive.

    come and see the light of mine

    Thanks, Imac.

    Like

  2. am I the only one who enjoys this kind of thing?

    Perhaps I was in a grumpy mood but this sort of stuff is so not me! I’ll post one I liked tomorrow :)

    Like

  3. No Dorid you are not alone

    Art is in the eye of the beholder – maybe Archie was just being curmudgeonly when he viewed the pieces – I actually quite like the spidery thingy (maybe thats coz Buff hates them so much!!) and the facial profile on the groyne

    I liked the cheshire-cat face and I will post something I liked tomorrow – promise.

    Like

  4. Those are some really interesting sculptures

    Thanks Lilli. Interesting but is that sufficient to make them “Good”?

    Like

  5. That comment shows a very depraved core, Bullfrog … sons are not supposed to mock their mother!

    It would serve him right if the tadpoles were to mock him – – -

    Like

  6. Interesting sculptures but a bit too pricey for my taste.

    I once went to the Melbourne art gallery & saw a massive plain white canvas with a diagonal red line that looked like it had been done with a 4″ paintbrush that you’d paint your house with. That was all & it was worth a fortune because the artist was famous. Unbelievable!!!

    A lot of these artist people translate their Arts Degree (which have a compulsory “Barnumology 101″ unit) to mean a “License to Rip-Off the Suckers!”

    Like

  7. Usually when I see some weirdo contraption set up in a square or a park I am immediately convinced it must be *ART*. Why is most of it so damn crappy?

    Though I did like the boat skeleton one a few posts back.

    Give me a good representation of a human body any day – or at least a good representation of something recognisable. Henry Moore has a lot to answer for!

    Like

  8. Hey!! Moore was a genius … I can remember being told, many years ago when I still did sculpture, that Moore embodied the idea of retaining the “essence” of the stone in his pieces, especially the “Reclining Woman”, etc. If you work in stone your piece should reflect the “heaviness” of stone, if you work in steel, it should reflect the fluidity and strength of steel, if you work with glass or another fragile medium then you use the material to reflect the lightness and fragility of the glass, no matter what your subject.

    By that definition, the most perfect stone sculpture would be a rock which is picked up, mounted and displayed, with no input from the sculptor. The most perfect steel sculpture would be a random splash of metal on the foundry floor. I do actually agree with this concept as I have had rocks with character speak to me, begging to be taken home.

    Of course, this means that Henry Moore was desecrating the spirit of the stone by altering it.

    Like

  9. I agree with you Buff and found ‘time frame’ just after sunrise a good example as its shadow was perfect on undisturbed sand. ‘Dance’ also is a beautifully balanced work as is ‘shuttle’. Lack of knowledge prevents some viewers from enjoying works of art. As always it is ‘in the eye of the beholder’.

    Welcome to the archive, Mildred. I also found “Time Frame” to be interesting and I wrote about it in my first in the series. As for the unlearned appreciating art of any type, surely an instinctive reaction is as valid as a “knowledgeable” reaction. I have instinctive reactions to literature, poetry, theatre, music, wine, even to Buff’s paintings. These reactions are as valid to me as educated reactions are to University graduates. My reaction to a number of the installations on Cottesloe Beach was similar to my reaction to Dan Brown’s novels (or even to Charles Dickens works – the greatest frauds ever foisted on the English-reading public). There were some some works which attracted me and I am trying to give equal space to them. But I would be untrue to myself if I were to blindly accept that something has to be good because it is on display.

    Like

  10. I quite like Moore, but yes, he does have a lot to answer for in terms of all those copycat Moore wannabes out there.

    I think this could well be the biggest part of the problem. Copycats! I wonder just how many of the artists represented here will be even noted as footnotes in the textbooks of 2100.

    Like

  11. One cannot reason with a philistine! Go ye from the art scene, you crass creature and leave it to those who do appreciate form, space, movement, integrity of materials, and the eye of the artist! Grrrrrrr! Facetious comments are unnecessary from those who cannot “see” … nobody says it is “good” or “bad” just because it is on display. One appreciates the creation or does not … one does not necessarily have to “know” it!

    Form I appreciate. Space – I think I appreciate – take a lump of marble and cut away all the bits that don’t look like David. Movement, I think the movement often comes from my eyes rolling. Integrity of materials seems like insider-speak to keep the great unwashed out! The eye of the artist, this is an interesting one. Sometimes it seems that an artist’s eye needs to be corrected by any half decent optometrist!

    By choosing to display one item over another, an exhibition committee makes a pre-emptive decision as to which is good and which is bad – from an “officially approved” point of view. Unfortunately the majority of attendees are not in on the joke.

    Like

  12. Who doesn’t luv spiders!?!?!?!?!

    Actually, I agree with you that these are not very good. If they encouraged play, they would be; did you happen to see any kids climbing on them?

    We have a similar exhibition every year in Vancouver and the ones that become beloved become permanent; the distinction is made, at least partially, on the way they are blogged about. So keep on blogging!

    Oh, don’t we all love spiders?

    There were signs around most (not all) installations saying “KEEP OFF” or words to that effect. That was what impressed me about the “sticks” – kids everywhere :)

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a “Blogger’s award” for an event like this. Hmmm – going away and thinking about things – – -

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,153 other followers

%d bloggers like this: