Public Art….it’s a Hoot!! (Belconnen gets an owl)

It amazes me that this thread is still trying to raise its head. Ron Jeremy style.

I thought this was a temporary installation. Obviously one of the local schools had built some kind of bird thing in art class our of paper mache and rather than let it go to waste they decided to put it on display for a while - you know as encouragement to the kids

[quote comment="340551"]does theirs look like a dong?[/quote]

No, actually manages to pull off looking like a bird.

does theirs look like a dong?

The comments on that Age story are pretty interesting, they certainly don't hate it.

Anyone want to buy another piece of Armstrong's work second hand

Arguably a shitload better than the one we do have.

it looks like a sore thumb. how does that cost 400k. labor gravy train rolls on all levels of government.

the thing was put up the day Stanhope resigned - from the angle I first saw it, it looked like it was a finger. Him giving us the finger seemed appropriate, given how he's treated the city.

Oh, the thing does have a beak, the photo isn't terribly good.

Looks like a ghost doing a dump.

[quote comment="326058"][quote comment="325988"]Do we really need to have all these phallic references?[/quote]

Yes. Yes we do. There are not enough phallic references in our public art. As a red blooded Canberra woman I strongly believe too many phalluses are never enough.[/quote]

LOL!!! +++1

[quote comment="325988"]Do we really need to have all these phallic references?[/quote]

Yes. Yes we do. There are not enough phallic references in our public art. As a red blooded Canberra woman I strongly believe too many phalluses are never enough.

[quote comment="325988"]Do we really need to have all these phallic references?[/quote]

Yes, I think so.

Do we really need to have all these phallic references?

My two year old "it's amaaaaazing, I love it!", if not for that I'd be not loving it myself ;)

Based on the photo provided here I thought that it was a piece of crap.

Went and had a look today and I actually don't mind it.

I wonder how many people deriding the owl have actually bothered going to look at it in real life instead of basing their opinion on one photograph.

[quote comment="325236"]It's obviously engaged you all, for good or ill. Therefore as a work of art it has succeeded[/quote]

+1

[quote]It’s 2D. It isn’t a sculpture, because it’s only appealing from one angle[/quote]

Go on, give us a clue, what angle is that?

I think it look like one of those ghost creatures from Miyazaki's animated creation Spirited Away.... but maybe that's the photo... I will have to check it out in person.

[quote comment="325278"][quote comment="325236"]It's obviously engaged you all, for good or ill. Therefore as a work of art it has succeeded[/quote]

My dog took a cr@p in our swimming pool the other day*, that engaged us for good or ill, anyone willing to call it art and give me $400,000 for it?

Your reply is just the sort of self serving, bland, unintelligent, mediocre, stupidity which drives the public hate of modern art.

* He's very old and ill poor soul, and accident.[/quote]

If you think you can state a decent case go for it.

Since I've pissed you off I've succeeded as art too.

[quote comment="325339"][quote comment="325333"]Saw it - its not just crap.........................................its expensive crap.[/quote]

Just say it dude! It is a $400k piece of crap in the shape of a wobbly c0ck, perfectly positioned to distract Canberra's already sh!t drivers. FFS say it and own it! Oh, hang on ...[/quote]

Not sure, but I think we got there!