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

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
Order
Pommy bastard 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 jakez 7:42 pm 23 Dec 08

sepi said :

Free public art = grafitti.

Is that what you’d prefer?

Absolutely.

Pommy bastard 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.

jakez jakez 5:56 pm 23 Dec 08

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.

jakez jakez 5:28 pm 23 Dec 08

ricketyclik said :

Posted by jakez:

jakez said :

Mate nobody is saying let’s have an artless society, art exists outside of Government mate and always has. My objection is using taxpayers funds to pay for art. That’s not the role of Government. You call us philistines but who the hell are you? What right do you have? If you want art, do the hard yards to raise the money without using the government’s monopoly on force.

As for 1%, there are a lot of families in Canberra that could use that 1% for something a bit more important than a sculpture. If you are in such a great position that you can afford the luxury of art, THAT’S GREAT! Just don’t take poor peoples money to fund your habit.

As far as I’m aware almost all art in public spaces in all cities is publicly funded. If there’s no funding for it, it doesn’t exist.

It’s been well demonstrated that the built environment has a profound influence on people’s pshyches. If there were more public art, maybe those poor families would have gotten quals and decent jobs instead of ending in whatever dead-end quagmire that they have.

General revenue is the community’s money. As a member of the community, I voted for public art (and got it).

So we have our money taken by bandits and we all get to vote on what its spent on? OH JOY! OH RAPTURE! What a fantastic system, where instead of me deciding for myself, I get 1/300,000th of a vote. I feel very represented.

Government has a legitimate purpose in protecting life liberty and property. I will also say that it should provide a safetynet. Anything after that is just public choice theory in action. If you feel happy that something you wanted could not have happened without the Government forcing people to pay for it, well mate I can’t change your black heart.

Pommy bastard Pommy bastard 4:42 pm 23 Dec 08

ricketyclik said :

Posted by jakez:

It’s been well demonstrated that the built environment has a profound influence on people’s pshyches. If there were more public art, maybe those poor families would have gotten quals and decent jobs instead of ending in whatever dead-end quagmire that they have.

You cannot be serious?

sepi sepi 3:14 pm 23 Dec 08

Free public art = grafitti.

Is that what you’d prefer?

ricketyclik ricketyclik 2:53 pm 23 Dec 08

Posted by jakez:

jakez said :

Mate nobody is saying let’s have an artless society, art exists outside of Government mate and always has. My objection is using taxpayers funds to pay for art. That’s not the role of Government. You call us philistines but who the hell are you? What right do you have? If you want art, do the hard yards to raise the money without using the government’s monopoly on force.

As for 1%, there are a lot of families in Canberra that could use that 1% for something a bit more important than a sculpture. If you are in such a great position that you can afford the luxury of art, THAT’S GREAT! Just don’t take poor peoples money to fund your habit.

As far as I’m aware almost all art in public spaces in all cities is publicly funded. If there’s no funding for it, it doesn’t exist.

It’s been well demonstrated that the built environment has a profound influence on people’s pshyches. If there were more public art, maybe those poor families would have gotten quals and decent jobs instead of ending in whatever dead-end quagmire that they have.

General revenue is the community’s money. As a member of the community, I voted for public art (and got it).

G-Fresh G-Fresh 6:46 pm 20 Dec 08

Sculptures are good for my part!

A nice cultural bent for our capital city.

I-filed I-filed 4:33 pm 20 Dec 08

Thank your lucky stars folks that it is down in Booner-dom and no in the Parliamentary Triangle – remember the ‘kinetic’ scarlet feminist bad-art sculpture that Betty Churcher wanted to put smack bang in the vista between the War Memorial and Parliament House?

I happen to think it’s OK – except for the green & gold. That’s stupid.

Pommy bastard Pommy bastard 2:07 pm 20 Dec 08

sepi said :

It is so weird how people on this site love music and hate art – how does that work?

If a “musician” sold the ACT govt his CD’s of his music, and they were distributed to households, but when you played it, it was an hour of water buffalo farting underwater, accompanied by the sound of fridges being pushed downstairs, and frogs being fed into a blender, would you think the money well spent?

Why then, when our money is spent by the govt on broken clocks, egg cup holders with rocks in them, and scrap metal by the roadside, are we supposed to be happy about it?

sepi sepi 1:17 pm 20 Dec 08

I’m happy for taxpayer funded sport (ovals and pools anyway), AND I want plenty of taxpayer funded art.

It is so weird how people on this site love music and hate art – how does that work?

As far as an artist doing similar sculptures – that is how a series of art is made. The artist doesn’t presume to have made the perfect masterpiece the first time, they make a series of works on a theme, exploring the same theme and working on interesting variations. Kinda like how all early beatles songs sound similar – they shoulda just stopped after one song hey?

Art, like sport, needs taxpayer funds, as otherwise artists could not afford to live and make art, and there would be very little art made – particularly large durable sculpture. And society would be the poorer for it.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site