I have been following this off-topic sub-thread.

I have considered the various posts.

I offer:

Art from any period or style can be quite appealing, to both the critical eye; and the masses.

But likewise.............most art, in any style, from any period; even that made by by so-called 'masters' can be pedestrian..........or....errr......regrettable.

Lets look at some crap from the renaissance period here:


Even the good stuff; which is to stay that which demonstrates a high degree of skill........may not always represent good (public) art, is so far as the public doesn't care for it.

Modern art, on the other hand, can inspire a special kind of hate. As seen here:


*****

To bring the above back to Toronto..............

I'm a big supporter of artful design; be that in buildings, or water features, or interiors or in the form of art pieces such as windows, paintings, or sometimes, sculpture.

That said, I can't deny that Toronto has its share of public art that I feel adds to little to the public realm.

There is, I think, a bit more investment in quantity than quality; a bit too much (public) art that lacks some thing special about it, as would be perceived by a significant plurality of the public.

That doesn't mean everything needs to be done to mass taste; or at ridiculous scale.............just that........its contribution to public space should be noted by many, as opposed to few.

*****

I now end my part in this digression; and return this thread to its normally scheduled mix of Ewwwws (at most things Pinnacle) and ahhhs at the....pictures of an every rising structure.
 
A05AD29D-6181-4865-81EE-FCD75C8F0936.jpeg
125527AC-3FF7-4B59-A1FF-FAB785229EB5.jpeg
 
It does stand out in that shot - a flash of brightness. Unfortunately it doesn't help relieve the dull, monochromatic look of Toronto on winter.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top