Correct there is a sidewalk a couple of meters from the curb. I like the separation from the busy street. There are not many spots like this in the city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Back to the Toronto sign - as if no one could foresee this:

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/04/09/toronto-sign-showing-its-age.html

Can we not cheap out and put some real money into creating a durable version of the sign?

AoD
Click to expand...
Yes, creating a more durable sign would seem to be a no-brainer but the City are planning to fix it, soon. "But a cold snap foiled plans to install it before New Year’s and staff are now waiting until May, and a warm, dry spell, so the vinyl can adhere properly."
 
DSC said:
Yes, creating a more durable sign would seem to be a no-brainer but the City are planning to fix it, soon. "But a cold snap foiled plans to install it before New Year’s and staff are now waiting until May, and a warm, dry spell, so the vinyl can adhere properly."
Click to expand...

I am thinking of it beyond just vinyl wrapping - which looks kind of disposable to start. Stainless steel, bendable LED for the outer "rim" - eg: https://www.barco.com/en/Products/L...h-5000-nits-outdoor-digital-media-canvas.aspx

Interesting article re: construction - https://www.signmedia.ca/illumination-lighting-up-the-toronto-sign/

AoD
 
Last edited:
New/upgraded fountain? Or did I just forget what it looked like hah.

IMG_4207.JPG
IMG_4209.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4207.JPG
    IMG_4207.JPG
    2.7 MB · Views: 303
  • IMG_4209.JPG
    IMG_4209.JPG
    2.4 MB · Views: 379
Stupid and selfish.
All that seems lost on backers of the turtle. The Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre prepared a backgrounder on the Restoration of Identity monument. A spokeswoman for the group, board designate Andrea Chrisjohn, told me she has nothing against The Archer, but “What does that archer represent? How does it represent me or my family.”

On the other hand, she said, the turtle is a significant Indigenous symbol.

“The land that we live on, in our teachings, is the turtle, this Turtle Island. We are all residing here on the back of the turtle.”
Click to expand...

We can turn that statement on its head: "What does the turtle mean to me? How does it represent me or my family?"

Just put the turtle in the place where the restaurant was supposed to go instead of trying to "reclaim" territory or do other virtue-signalling acts.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Stupid and selfish.
We can turn that statement on its head: "What does the turtle mean to me? How does it represent me or my family?"
Just put the turtle in the place where the restaurant was supposed to go instead of trying to "reclaim" territory or do other virtue-signalling acts.
Click to expand...

Virtue-signalling has got to be the most overused and meaningless term of late - everything we do signals - just like the original sculpture did as a symbol of Modernity and progressiveness (as plainly obvious that is). Also the use of this term in an accusatory manner itself - what does it signal - that one is somehow above using one's actions to send out certain messages (and by extension, more trustworthy and of fact)? That's like using the sweater Tim Horton father figure acts to press buttons and then claiming this is just "real". That's also why you see the hyper-masculinity culture in certain quarters - it's just as much about signalling (in fact, you can call it anti-virtue signalling) and "performativity".

AoD
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a gaping void at the edge of the square that needs to be filled with something significant. Perhaps the turtle could be integrated with some sort of ceremonial Aboriginal Peoples garden. (Whatever that might entail--besides lots of studies.)
 
But what if complaining about people complaining about virtue signaling is also virtue signaling? What then?

Patricia Hughes has it right:
@phughes9112 said:
Recognition of previously denied shld not necessarily remove other recognitions; Turtle Island & Moore sculptures can co-exist @marcusbgee
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/phughes9112/status/880389841028096001

Meanwhile this lady has it completely wrong:
@kazahann said:
Hi @marcusbgee installing the Indigenous Turtle is a sign of Toronto leaving its narrow-minded parochial days behind
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/kazahann/status/880213762413907969
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
But what if complaining about people complaining about virtue signaling is also virtue signaling? What then?
Click to expand...

Sure, but at least one would be honest about the fact that one is doing it (and acknowledging that one's actions in the external world always have an element of "performance") - instead of pretending that only certain people supporting certain values does it, which is the way it is being broadly used now in certain circles - with the implication that one shouldn't take the message itself seriously because it is just for show and meant to aggrandize the individual. That is problematical.

I don't have to agree (and in fact I don't) with the perspective of the individual making the demand, and I don't think the city should cede that space - but I definitely won't label the whole thing as "virtue signalling" first and foremost when there is plenty of middle ground to be explored in this case. As to the second individual in your post, I will let their twitter feed speak for itself.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I've never stated what or whose actions I consider virtue signalling or not.

I think specifically insisting that The Archer has to go because "It doesn't represent them" and then in the next sentence stating "that everyone lives on the turtle" is more or less equivalent in their moral claims as to right-wing activists stopping the performance of Shakespeare in the Park because it doesn't represent their beliefs. I have nothing against a native statue in Nathan Phillips Square. I have everything against activists specifically targeting The Archer.

I agree with you that "virtue signalling" is not something limited to a certain segments of the population, but even if we all have to put on a show, we can choose how we act. I would argue that certain acts lend themselves more towards outward displays of negatively aggrandizing virtue signalling than others- whereas other acts of virtue signalling could in fact be beneficial, like philanthropy.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Sorry, but I've never stated what or whose actions I consider virtue signalling or not.

I think specifically insisting that The Archer has to go because "It doesn't represent them" is more or less equivalent in their moral claims as to right-wing activists stopping the performance of Shakespeare in the Park because it doesn't represent their beliefs. I have nothing against a native statue in Nathan Phillips Square. I have everything against activists specifically targeting The Archer.

I agree with you that virtue signalling is not something limited to a certain segment of the population, but I would argue that certain acts lend themselves more towards outward displays of negatively aggrandizing virtue signalling than others whereas other acts of virtue signalling could in fact be beneficial, like philanthropy.
Click to expand...

One can be against something without resorting to labelling it as "virtue signalling" - which itself is so loaded with baggage as used now. The activists are free to demand - it is their right, but they don't necessary have the right to a certain outcome. I am also hesitate to link this instance to the protest interrupting the Shakespeare in the Park - is it about representation of a fundamental belief (which given the lack of the same action and attention in previous instances, questionable) vs. the need to make hay? Besides, the term would be better applied in the instance if the city acceded to their demand in order to look good (i.e. the intent) instead of a fundamental belief that it is the right thing to do - rather than the individual who is demanding that action be taken.

I wouldn't draw the line on the nature of the acts - but the intent behind the acts, which is far more important.

AoD
 
Last edited:
There are many spots which could accommodate a native statue, of which Marcus Gee and Mike Layton suggest a few, but the activists have specifically focused on The Archer and not even a spot beside it.

The statue represents the belief- the location is intended to interrupt.

I think we'll all have to wait and see how this pans out.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top