Matters such as quality and connoisseurship are not "entirely subjective" at all. And to be precise, I'm being elitist...not pretentious. As in I think some people are better at things than other people.

What you do is at least partly informed by your audience, so the level of connoisseurship of the audience affects the output of the creator. Sensibilities are important, and if you lack the context of a certain sensibility, then you end up with people thinking the Toronto sign is cool and The Archer is meh.

No, you're being a condescending blowhard. An elitist would revel in the opportunity presented by the TORONTO sign crowds to gather interested people to the statue, explain about Henry Moore, point those with continuing interest in the direction of the AGO, which is but an interesting hike away.

An elitist would realize that the TORONTO sign is exactly what this city needed to re-brand itself cool. Introduced during a successful games, ever changing, and as NBGtect says, sending a signal around the world that Toronto is an exciting place to visit.
 
The Archer, at least was an original idea. The Toronto sign is nice and fun and all, but hardly cool and in fact, derivative of an idea that has been used in other cities, . Amsterdam, most notably.
 
images
images


These are the relevant images, yes? (First Amsterdam sign that came up in a Google Images search for Amsterdam.)

Both are nice and fun and all, but wouldn't you say the Toronto sign and Star Trek city hall behind makes Toronto seem cooler than another shot of the CN Tower and SkyDome from the islands? Derivative doesn't necessarily mean bad.
 
The Archer, at least was an original idea. The Toronto sign is nice and fun and all, but hardly cool and in fact, derivative of an idea that has been used in other cities, . Amsterdam, most notably.
Your complaint is derivative of other posts complaining about things being derivative.

There's next to nothing produced in this world that isn't derivative of something else. Truly original thought is next to impossible to achieve, so why not celebrate the well executed ideas when we come across them. I don't think anyone is claiming this is the first city sign ever, they're just saying it's a good one.
 
I'd really love to see all the other city signs that are lit up at night in various colours if anyone can post them here that would be greatly appreciated.

The new version of our city sign looks even better with the neighbourhoods listed. The Amsterdam sign never changes.

I can't be bothered doing a Google search, but I'm sure someone has already and can post all of these signs located in 'far better' cities all over the world. Thanks in advance for the list.
 
NGB: You can't be bothered yourself but "thanks in advance?" Man, that's funny.

Put me down as liking both the Archer and the Toronto sign, for different reasons.
 
People only list the Amsterdam sign as being vaguely familiar to ours, but claim that many other cities have them too. I'm relying on worldly people who travel to far off places to list all the other big, colourfully lit up city signs that people take selfies with...

Does Cleveland already have one?
 
I was creeping through the Toronto Star Archives a few days ago. I was going through either 1970 or 1971, and there was a big story of The Archer's unveiling, complete with Henry Moore at it's side. Although commissioned by Revell, it wasn't installed when City Hall opened in 1965, and so not truly original to the site - though Revell approved of the piece before he died.
 
An elitist would realize that the TORONTO sign is exactly what this city needed to re-brand itself cool.

sending a signal around the world that Toronto is an exciting place to visit.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. As a "branding" tool, the Toronto sign doesn't even rank with "Moose in the City", which was another cringingly stupid idea copied from another city, and the idea of another buffoon Toronto mayor.

And please explain how plopping down one of these "CITY" signs signifies we are an exciting city? It says the opposite to me, which is why the "hoodie" reference earlier.
 
I was creeping through the Toronto Star Archives a few days ago. I was going through either 1970 or 1971, and there was a big story of The Archer's unveiling, complete with Henry Moore at it's side. Although commissioned by Revell, it wasn't installed when City Hall opened in 1965, and so not truly original to the site - though Revell approved of the piece before he died.

You should get your story straight. Revell always intended there to be a Henry Moore to adorn his design. He then commissioned The Archer in 1961. The delay in installing it was do to controversy over the cost, that saw an outpouring of private donations to pay for it. This gesture so impressed Moore, that he donated his massive collection to the AGO, which is why Toronto now boasts the world's largest public collection of Henry Moore works. Now that's a feather in our cap.

That sign???? whatever. That's a problem that will solve itself. It's not like it's made of bronze...it will just fall apart soon anyway.
 
Hahaha... seriously, FCG, get over yourself. If you don't want to be considered a condescending blowhard, try not writing like one:

Actually, Revell always intended there to be a Henry Moore to adorn his design. He commissioned The Archer in 1961, but there was a delay in installing it due to controversy over the cost. There was an outpouring of private donations to pay for it, and the gesture so impressed Moore, he donated his massive collection to the AGO, which is why Toronto now boasts the world's largest public collection of Henry Moore works. Now that's a feather in our cap!

See? Same information, same elitist educating of the hoi polloi (which, as an ex-AGO member and fan of the Moore collection, I actually appreciated), zero sneering at things other people like and enjoy.
 

Back
Top