(I think that's the same company that moved the huge electromagnet to Fermilab last year. I was out in the middle of the night watching that.)

Now, that was a spectacle, not art :-)

Yes, and if I'd been in L.A. to see the rock move, that would have been a spectacle too. Still not art. In my opinion.

It was also a spectacle when Union Pacific moved the Big Boy out of L.A. Nobody called that art.

---

David
Sitting on my butt while others boldly go,
Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

He he he he he he :) So much heat I am at no risk of feeling chilly! :)

To be honest, a blue rooster in Trafalgar square is about the only way you can get Londoners to risk an eyeful of pigeon poo to look up at anything perched on the plinths. I'm afraid we can be a jaded lot at times :) But I do understand the sentiments expressed so I will immediately apologise for being flippant... I am very sorry for being flippant :(

There! Told you so :)

@Julie - love the painting! Sums up my day beautifully :)

I was going to mention my theory on the grandmasters, and how so much of their work was about the ego of those commissioning the work (in the absence of the invention of photography) but I won't... :)

Thanx Annie, sums up a big part of my life (past) beautifully. Thanx Chris:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

(I think that's the same company that moved the huge electromagnet to Fermilab last year. I was out in the middle of the night watching that.)

Now, that was a spectacle, not art :-)

Monet's paintings are very easy to copy for me. The only other artist I succeed in copying is Edvard Munch. This is my version of 'The Scream' by him:

That is quite good, and real art. Well done Julie.

Basically, anything can be art if someone calls it art or if it moves someone.

Very little that other people call art moves me.

I think the story of moving the rock is interesting, but I don't think it's art. (I think that's the same company that moved the huge electromagnet to Fermilab last year. I was out in the middle of the night watching that.)

---

David
Sitting on my butt while others boldly go,
Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

He he he he he he :) So much heat I am at no risk of feeling chilly! :)

To be honest, a blue rooster in Trafalgar square is about the only way you can get Londoners to risk an eyeful of pigeon poo to look up at anything perched on the plinths. I'm afraid we can be a jaded lot at times :) But I do understand the sentiments expressed so I will immediately apologise for being flippant... I am very sorry for being flippant :(

There! Told you so :)

@Julie - love the painting! Sums up my day beautifully :)

I was going to mention my theory on the grandmasters, and how so much of their work was about the ego of those commissioning the work (in the absence of the invention of photography) but I won't... :)

I am a bit ambivalent:)

Munchs 'Skriet' is really an icon.

Monet's paintings are very easy to copy for me. The only other artist I succeed in copying is Edvard Munch. This is my version of 'The Scream' by him:

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

'Le déjeuner sur l'herbe' is done by Monet not Manet.

No they haven't! Did Rembrandt, Constable, Rodin, Monet, Van Gogh, Michelangelo etc do that? No they didn't they didn't need to, because they were truly talented artists, they didn't need to shock to get attention like this modern lot have to.

Monet or Manet? I Always mix them up. Looks like Wikipedia does it too.
Same period though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism#mediaviewer/File:Edouard_Manet_-_Luncheon_on_the_Grass_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

During the 1860s, the Salon jury routinely rejected about half of the works submitted by Monet and his friends in favour of works by artists faithful to the approved style. In 1863, the Salon jury rejected Manet's The Luncheon on the Grass (Le déjeuner sur l'herbe) primarily because it depicted a nude woman with two clothed men at a picnic. While the Salon jury routinely accepted nudes in historical and allegorical paintings, they condemned Manet for placing a realistic nude in a contemporary setting. The jury's severely worded rejection of Manet's painting appalled his admirers, and the unusually large number of rejected works that year perturbed many French artists.

I have to agree that 1960's tower blocks built by the GLC are a monstrosity, and have no architectural merit whatsoever. They were built as a means to an end, to solve the housing problem of the time, but engendered sink housing estates. They are quite rightly gradually being knocked down.

Oh yes there damn well is!!! Stuff like that should be exhibited in the Tate Modern or somewhere like that. We don't want it strewn around London, our capital city, just because our Mayor who is an attention seeker thinks it is a good idea.

Well it is much better than a lot of Beautiful or Monstrosity sites throughout London.

We can relax:) It will be removed in 5 months!

Thank god for that, won't be a moment to soon!

Good so we are agreed to some it will infact be seen as art and there is no longer any reason for a public fight back?

Oh yes there damn well is!!! Stuff like that should be exhibited in the Tate Modern or somewhere like that. We don't want it strewn around London, our capital city, just because our Mayor who is an attention seeker thinks it is a good idea.

Surely there is nothing wrong with an artist trying to shock or be controversial, artists have been doing that for a long time.

No they haven't! Did Rembrandt, Constable, Rodin, Monet, Van Gogh, Michelangelo etc do that? No they didn't they didn't need to, because they were truly talented artists, they didn't need to shock to get attention like this modern lot have to.

I wonder what will be next?

You can guarantee another load of old rubbish where people go Oooo, Ahh, fantastic, very avante garde, makes a statement, etc etc before traipsing off to a glass or warm chardonnay somewhere I wouldn't be seen dead in.



Enough of all that tosh. Now, are Tesseracts art? I would submit that it is a kind of technical artform, and rather more interesting than blue cockerels or roosters!

There is nothing wrong with a blue chicken per se. Some will see it as art some will not.

Good so we are agreed to some it will infact be seen as art and there is no longer any reason for a public fight back?

There are far too many avant garde artists in this world whose only aim is to shock and be controversial. They haven't got a shred of real art in their little toes. Yet they make a living from it. It's high time the public fought back. Yes of course the world would be a bleaker place without art, but let's have real art not all this pseudo namby pamby luvvie stuff!

At first found it a bit strange, however the more I thought about it and seeing the reaction here leads me to believe it is things like that maker London more interesting and unpredictable. Surely there is nothing wrong with an artist trying to shock or be controversial, artists have been doing that for a long time.

It was never intended to be permanent, nothing on the 4th plinth is.

I wonder what will be next?

---

Its a pretty good representation of a chicken. I'd like to see your attempt. I know I would struggle creating something that looked like a chicken.

Will you post a picture of your chicken sculpture so I can compare your skills with those of the person with no shred of real art in their toes. You being the expert and all.

There is nothing wrong with a blue chicken per se. Some will see it as art some will not. It is just seen by many as being in the wrong place, and lowers the tone of a famous London landmark. Of course I couldn't produce a blue chicken like that, nor could you, any more than anyone else here could do.

Before we head off into the area of discussions upon the merits or otherwise of statues of military people, we should recognise that in terms of sculptures, they are art. Whether whom they represent should be lauded in that way is debatable and another matter and should be left to the politics thread where it would be more suitable.

We can relax:) It will be removed in 5 months!
From Wikipedia.

Figurengruppe / Group of Figures (2006-2008), an installation of nine elements; and Hahn/Cock (2010), a 14 ft (4.3m) cockerel in ultramarine blue to be shown on London's Trafalgar Square for 18 months from 25 July 2013.[

Its a pretty good representation of a chicken. I'd like to see your attempt. I know I would struggle creating something that looked like a chicken.

Will you post a picture of your chicken sculpture so I can compare your skills with those of the person with no shred of real art in their toes. You being the expert and all.

There is nothing wrong with a blue chicken per se. Some will see it as art some will not. It is just seen by many as being in the wrong place, and lowers the tone of a famous London landmark. Of course I couldn't produce a blue chicken like that, nor could you, any more than anyone else here could do.

Before we head off into the area of discussions upon the merits or otherwise of statues of military people, we should recognise that in terms of sculptures, they are art. Whether whom they represent should be lauded in that way is debatable and another matter and should be left to the politics thread where it would be more suitable.

I'd rather have a blue chicken on a plinth then the plethora of statues of dead warmongering white men on horseback (or not) that litter London.

Dont blame the men who fought those battles. Blame the idiots who sent then to fight.
I see it as a desicration to place a blue freaking chicken at Trafalgar Square.
That would be like placing that blue piece of crap at The Wall in Washington DC.

---

[/quote]

Old James

That object is just a shadow of it's real self......

Groan. Very punny.

---

BOINC WIKI

I agree with Chris wrong place to put it now maybe if they move it to say the front gates awww i don't know say the House of Commons then i would call it Art but not where it is a bit disrespectful to Nelson i think

---

I like the rock better than the blue chicken, at least it is natural.

---

I'd rather have a blue chicken on a plinth then the plethora of statues of dead warmongering white men on horseback (or not) that litter London.