Images of Tuggeranong

Antagonist said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If your biggest problem is driving past this awesome art then you have it pretty well.

That one has to be in the running for 2012 cliche of the year, along with “first world problem”.

The use of cliches should be avoided like the plague…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

I imagine its powdercoat rather than paint. Clearly not been cleaned properly before coating.

I thought powder coating was done inside a booth. Must have been a big booth to fit a bridge in…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If your biggest problem is driving past this awesome art then you have it pretty well.

That one has to be in the running for 2012 cliche of the year, along with “first world problem”.

So any babies in this town.

I think it’s great.

If your biggest problem is driving past this awesome art then you have it pretty well.

This crayfish with the glued on goggle eyes is the most tasteless unaesthetic embarrassing piece of public art I have ever seen!!! I feel for those who have to drive past it every day (I would have to take a different route if I were them). It’s completely uninspiring. I cringe when I think of visitors to our city seeing this tasteless installation which reflects soooo badly on the nation’s capital. The politicians responsible for its selection should have it moved to the front of their offices for them to view it each day.

The graffiti is an improvement.

aha – something more interesting than a meaningless pathetic giant goldfish/crownfish

TheDancingDjinn said :

Battlecat said :

I like the butterflys that are apparently moths.

What? – I thought they were fish? – blame Pixar for that one i guess

Me too. Nemo being smashed by a car. Presumably a white Commodore.

poetix said :

birder said :

That public art (?) is just atrocious. It looks like a radioactive ant that is ready to start marauding neighborhoods. I cringe every time I see it. Who in the world was responsible for purchasing it? Can we give feedback on these types of things? I’m not against public art, but it should actually be art….

Please, share your definition of art…

I think this is a vibrant, whimsical object that rejects easy classification. As such, It was always going to have a hard time. What’s wrong with your idea of enormous (if somewhat fluttery) orange ants attacking Tuggeranong? I see it as more as a fairy sky pile-up fallen to earth, and not as ant-like, but there you go; it is deliberately ambiguous.

I also don’t mind graffiti, but this is just the work of a bogan scrawling on the bogong.

Whimsical? Really? It’s a huge, loud, heavy piece of metal that looks half-machine and half-insectoid.

I hate driving past it – it’s an eyesore that belongs in the dump. My daughter actually covers her eyes when we drive past it because she says it’s ugly and scary.

Again, is there a place we can voice opinions on public art? Is there any consultation with the public when purchasing it? If not, why not? I would really like to know the answers to these questions.

Going by the edges looks like it was damaged on install

shirty_bear said :

miz said :

I don’t think median strips and roadsides are safe or appropriate for all these sculptures. Those spaces are meant to be safety buffers.
Every time I pass, I wonder how long it will be before someone accidentally crashes into one of these lumps of metal during a car accident. It would not be pretty, and I imagine they could sue the govt big time.

Sue the govt because they can’t drive? Wish I could say I’ve heard everything now, but I suspect there’s more where that came from.

Yes, unless they were in the middle of the actual road or something, I don’t think suing the government for driving into them would go very far (not that I’m a lawyer who is an expert in the field of colliding with public art).

Cars run off the road into trees all the time. Has anyone tried suing for that? (Probably, I guess.) Though they still plant trees around roads.

miz said :

I don’t think median strips and roadsides are safe or appropriate for all these sculptures. Those spaces are meant to be safety buffers.
Every time I pass, I wonder how long it will be before someone accidentally crashes into one of these lumps of metal during a car accident. It would not be pretty, and I imagine they could sue the govt big time.

Sue the govt because they can’t drive? Wish I could say I’ve heard everything now, but I suspect there’s more where that came from.

Sue the govt because licencing standards are lax? Crap … there just may be something in that.

I don’t think median strips and roadsides are safe or appropriate for all these sculptures. Those spaces are meant to be safety buffers.
Every time I pass, I wonder how long it will be before someone accidentally crashes into one of these lumps of metal during a car accident. It would not be pretty, and I imagine they could sue the govt big time.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

I imagine its powdercoat rather than paint. Clearly not been cleaned properly before coating.

Yes, I imagine the steel is galvanized and would have needed etch priming prior to colour. This is definitely a case of poor preparation.

The bridge began peeling before it was completed. Be interested to know if it was accepted without a remediation clause.

Battlecat said :

I like the butterflys that are apparently moths.

What? – I thought they were fish? – blame Pixar for that one i guess

Methinks the “bogong” tag should be “bogan”?

Unless of course there were some bloody big moths responsible for that graffiti.

I imagine its powdercoat rather than paint. Clearly not been cleaned properly before coating.

Personally, I think the bridge looks very apealling!

birder said :

That public art (?) is just atrocious. It looks like a radioactive ant that is ready to start marauding neighborhoods. I cringe every time I see it. Who in the world was responsible for purchasing it? Can we give feedback on these types of things? I’m not against public art, but it should actually be art….

Please, share your definition of art…

I think this is a vibrant, whimsical object that rejects easy classification. As such, It was always going to have a hard time. What’s wrong with your idea of enormous (if somewhat fluttery) orange ants attacking Tuggeranong? I see it as more as a fairy sky pile-up fallen to earth, and not as ant-like, but there you go; it is deliberately ambiguous.

I also don’t mind graffiti, but this is just the work of a bogan scrawling on the bogong.

Graffiti happens unfortunately, I’m surprised it took this long. I like the butterflys that are apparently moths, and I like the new bridge. Better than half doing it and having to do it again in a couple of years. But the paint peeling is very bad, it’s only been there for a couple of months. Surely a free re-do.

Did the bridge tender specifically call for weatherproof paint?

That public art (?) is just atrocious. It looks like a radioactive ant that is ready to start marauding neighborhoods. I cringe every time I see it. Who in the world was responsible for purchasing it? Can we give feedback on these types of things? I’m not against public art, but it should actually be art….

Now they’ll have to ship the bridge back to Sydney for 4 months for re-painting.
On the upside, they might throw in a cock-and-balls so it matches that weird butterfly-fish-thing just up the road.

The peeling paint is pretty poor considering the overpass is virtually brand new. Let’s hope the construction is of better quality…

I wonder if there is warranty on the bridge?

It is just a disgrace to let the city remain this way with filthy porn, awful graffiti and peeling paint from our buildings! I wouldn’t bring my child there, if I was paid! Shameful =P