Field Theory: A post about art (sort of)
503 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
I did the trig and here's an estimate of the width http://www.flickr.com/photos/hadyn/4435920907/
-
Hard to tell if you were being facetious about the sculpture at the front of the Ring of Fire. It is Mount Taranaki, and symbolises the link between Te Ati Awa Wellington Maori and their ancestral homeland in the Taranaki (and I wouldn't mind betting that, at the time this awful stadium was opened in 1999, they figured it might make the point that the Hurricanes represented the whole region).
-
I did the trig and here's an estimate of the width
I did some trigonometry the other day. It was pretty weird finding a use for it =)
-
I did some trigonometry the other day. It was pretty weird finding a use for it =)
I use it occasionally, even though it's (ahem) tangential to my job.
I won't comment about the sculpture ... at least not under my real name.
-
Whence comes this strange notion that works of art can be made by a special effects company? And do the people involved not realise that we are going to be mocked for this? It is five metres high and it is horrible. This is the sort of thing that should be a lot smaller and available for purchase in an easy plan of 24 monthly payments.
-
Jesse Ryder?
this statue would be in Courtenay Place, surely?
-
Imagine if Weta Workshops ever turn their hand to making a film about rugby.
-
Jesse Ryder?
this statue would be in Courtenay Place, surely?
In a horizontal position?
-
I think the difficulty with a special-effects company making monumental sculpture is that it's such a different medium. An idea that might work in film is unlikely to work the same in bronze. This should be a no-brainer.
-
As Danielle said on another thread:
Am I the only person who thinks it looks like a sea of rugby-supporting undead?
-
It is five metres high and it is horrible.
Oh, sweet Jesus. I've just realised how high five metres is! Arrgh! Keep it away from the waterfront!
-
I think the difficulty with a special-effects company making monumental sculpture is that it's such a different medium. An idea that might work in film is unlikely to work the same in bronze. This should be a no-brainer.
But Weta also made the tripod on Courtenay and the trees at Te Papa
-
But Weta also made the tripod on Courtenay and the trees at Te Papa
The tripod is:
- relevant to Weta's industry;
- site-specific;
- self-mocking;
- playful.None of which applies to the rugby sculpture.
Which trees at Te Papa are you talking about? The wire trees on the plinth? They were by Regan Gentry. Or the trees in the natural history section of Te Papa? In which case they're a piece of exhibition design, not art.
-
This should be a no-brainer.
That it should, but art and architecture are the two creative activities that everyone thinks they can do. People recognise that playwriting and choreography are distinct skills which require talent and practice, as do model-making and special effects; but making a five metre sculpture is something that a bunch of people can do in their spare time.
It shows how little we value public art as well. Further clues to this state of affairs can be found in our towns and cities, which are littered with badly-made tat, which is conservative, quirky, mawkish, kitsch and gauche, in about equal measures. Take, for example, the Canterbury Heroes, Sir Miles with the giant head in particular. Haydn's passage "filled with statues of the great players from Wellington's sporting past" could look something like this. I am just warning you, that is all.
-
That it should, but art and architecture are the two creative activities that everyone thinks they can do.
I'm the opposite. By definition, if I could do it, it's not art.
-
Haydn's [sic] passage "filled with statues of the great players from Wellington's sporting past" could look something like this. I am just warning you, that is all.
Ew, busts! No I was thinking more like the sculptures outside baseball parks in the States. And I was really only thinking of one or two.
As for Weta, I would be loathe not to describe them as artists. Max Patte for example has created some very nice things for the waterfront. It's just that in this particular case they have designed something awful. Very very awful
-
Sue,
Bernie Fraser !
maybe an artistic recreation of bernies corner at athletic park? -
maybe an artistic recreation of bernies corner at athletic park?
Athletic Park is now a retirement village but apparently there is a Bernie's Corner in it.
-
The tripod is:
- relevant to Weta's industry;
- site-specific;
- self-mocking;
- playful.I thought they were just channelling Louise Bourgeois.
-
An idea that might work in film is unlikely to work the same in bronze. This should be a no-brainer.
Weta aren't just about digital special effects. They have skilled and talented model-makers, whose work has extended from film sets to the public.
They have the technical ability to make stuff, but not necessarily the artistic vision.
Hamilton's extremely cool Riff Raff statue is a Weta work, but it's pretty much a literal representation of Richard O'Brian as Riff Raff.
Weta's strength in original work seems to be the sort of cheeky sci-fi and fantasy model work, like the tripod in Courtenay Place and the sort of stuff you see for sale in the Weta Cave.
When it comes to actually creating sculptural art, Weta just doesn't seem to have an impressive body of work.
-
Zardoz in Chch...
Take, for example, the Canterbury Heroes...
please do take them...
...and what's worse, I believe the corporate-minded goons who now run the Arts Centre actually think that these "disembodied notables" fulfil their brief to provide "public art" to the community... -
Christchurch art critic Andrew Paul Wood on the Weta statue:
Would someone please explain to me why the fuck Weta is doing this and not an artist? Why is Weta taking bread out of the mouths of New Zealand’s sculptors with this unimaginative pseudo-Fascist tat? Sadly it appears that art in this country is getting assimilated into entertainment, which means New Zealand audiences and patrons are going to have some very strange expectations of our artists. I would rather see the most hackneyed Neil Dawson (a giant lacework rugby ball probably) than this uninspired piece of Hitleresque nonsense.
-
Christ, if you set `rugby statute on the waterfront' as part of the first year course at Canterbury or Auckland you'd probably get something better than this.
-
Take, for example, the Canterbury Heroes, Sir Miles with the giant head in particular. Haydn's passage "filled with statues of the great players from Wellington's sporting past" could look something like this. I am just warning you, that is all.
AT least it wouldn't look like this......grrrrrrrrr.
-
That sculpture looks like something you'd buy. from one of those "gifts for men" shops at the mall for your rugby-loving uncle, the afternoon of his 60th birthday.
It is art for people who don't like art.
It's art designed by an advertising executive. In fact I'm pretty sure I saw that same concept in a TV ad somewhere. Was it for the promotion of the six nations in the northern emisphere? Something like that.
It is five metres high and it is horrible.
What the man said. And I agree that if we really, really must have it (that's 300k the Wellington ratepayers are never getting back) it should be on the stadium concourse.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.