Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

Another whacky flailing-arm non-inflatable headless chopstick man sprouts up on the shores of Lake Tuggeranong

By fnaah 19 December 2008 71

According to the ABC, the “sister-sculpture” of the public artwork on the Yamba Drive roundabout has swung into life on the shores of Lake Tuggeranong.

People are apparently complaining that the ACT Government probably could have found a local artist instead of a Kiwi to do the work, thereby wasting a perfectly good chance to complain about the relative merit of the piece itself (especially since we have one already).

Pics anyone? One might assume that it’s not terribly different from the aformentioned sculpture in Woden.

[ED – I particularly liked the chiefly saying his art purchasing should be judged on the same standard as the national gallery]

UPDATED: Skidbladnir has sent in some photos. Slideshow below:

Tags

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to
Another whacky flailing-arm non-inflatable headless chopstick man sprouts up on the shores of Lake Tuggeranong
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Pommy bastard 8:48 am 28 Dec 08

ricketyclik said :

..

Well, my point of view is that if we don’t fund public art publicly it won’t happen,

No one will shed tears then, apart from the artists on the public teat.

I want to live in a city which has public art (as almost all cities do) and I pay a significant amount of tax and I vote.

Unfortunately public art is not a major issue when it comes to election time. If it were put to a referendum “would you like your tax dollars spent on this kind of crap”, then I think the answer would be a resounding “No!”.

Public art is “public” only as it is placed in public places, it has little meaning to or attraction for the public at large.

One could also argue that the word art in “public art” is a misnomer too, “public insult” may be a better term.

ricketyclik 7:48 am 28 Dec 08

… Now, explain to me under what circumstances someone in Australia would have trouble feeding their children, and how reducing arts funding will make any difference to that.

My real point is, as people above alluded to with the sports funding example, that we fund many more things than straight survival.

Your argument seems to be one of small government, ie, if we need it to survive, fund it, if not, don’t.

Well, my point of view is that if we don’t fund public art publicly it won’t happen, I want to live in a city which has public art (as almost all cities do) and I pay a significant amount of tax and I vote.

Thus when people call for public art to cease I ask “is your life really only about how much you can consume, or would you like to perhaps consider other questions during your short stay on this planet?”.

Although, having read around this site a bit, I gather jakez that you are a Liberal party organiser? So perhaps your opinions in this matter are more to do with populist point scoring against your political rivals than what sort of city you’d like to live in?

ricketyclik 7:31 am 28 Dec 08

jakez, first you argue that because of my opinions I might be subject to violence, then you claim I am evil.

Do you ever argue with actual logic?

jakez 9:24 pm 25 Dec 08

ricketyclik said :

Posted by Jakez:

jakez said :

Incidentally, I wouldn’t actually give your opinion on the esoteric benefits of public art to anyone who can’t afford to feed their kids. You are liable to find yourself the victim of a crime.

Anyone who can’t afford to feed their kids in this society needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

Wow, you truly are an evil evil person aren’t you. Thank god this person has the vote.

Pommy bastard 8:23 pm 25 Dec 08

sepi said :

I

If you won’t pay, the only thing you can afford is grafitti.

Utter nonsense.

ricketyclik 7:54 am 25 Dec 08

Posted by Jakez:

jakez said :

Incidentally, I wouldn’t actually give your opinion on the esoteric benefits of public art to anyone who can’t afford to feed their kids. You are liable to find yourself the victim of a crime.

Anyone who can’t afford to feed their kids in this society needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

ant 11:42 pm 23 Dec 08

sepi said :

I am happy to have interesting artworks by experienced or qualified artists, and pay them a fair price for their efforts.

If you won’t pay, the only thing you can afford is grafitti.

er, who is paying, again? Are you choosing to pay them, from your pocket?

sepi 9:02 pm 23 Dec 08

I am happy to have interesting artworks by experienced or qualified artists, and pay them a fair price for their efforts.

If you won’t pay, the only thing you can afford is grafitti.

Pommy bastard 8:08 pm 23 Dec 08

sepi said :

Free public art = grafitti.

Is that what you’d prefer?

Sepi, you cannot equate vandalism with “public art”, it’s a ludicrous analogy. You can get rid of the silly art works, without having to have vandalistic scrawls instead. One does not preclude nor beget the other of necessity.

jakez 7:42 pm 23 Dec 08

sepi said :

Free public art = grafitti.

Is that what you’d prefer?

Absolutely.

Pommy bastard 7:07 pm 23 Dec 08

Jakez, sorry I accidentally included your name on my post up there. It looks as if I’m replying to you, whereas I’m actually replying to the absurd ideas posted by ricktyclik.

My apologies.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site