Traynor said:
I usually don't like most modern, public sculptures... And that holds true for this one as well. In fact, you could even say that I am not Gaga over this sculpture.

gagared.jpg

(Found here: http://www.sidecarsally.com/2009/09/14/i-no-longer-want-to-bang-lady-gaga/ )
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with this sculpture and your opinion about modern sculptures, lacking in any details to justify or help us understand it, contributes nothing to the discussion.
 
junctionist said:
That has nothing to do with this sculpture and your opinion about modern sculptures, lacking in any details to justify or help us understand it, contributes nothing to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Your complaint comes across as the whine of someone not bright enough to divine the comparison i was making, so allow me to elucidate...

Not only is there an obvious visual comparison of Lady Gaga's hat to this particular sculpture, but the notion I was intimating was that neither has any substance to their statements. In Lady Gaga's case she is trying to make a statement, but if there is a message, it is lost. Is she saying my face doesn't matter? If it is a rant against men objectifying women, then why show off her legs? It just becomes fashion for shock value and not about anything political or meaningful. The outfit is wearing her.

Same for this sculpture or many other public art pieces. The giant Egg Beaters at The foot of Yonge street come to mind. What are they saying? "Wow, look how small I am next to this over-sized household object." These giant red pipes look like the stock yards of plumbing supplies at Home Depot. It says nothing. All it says to me is... "This is a modernist building in the vein of Mies van der Rohe and you expect a big red abstract piece of art at the bottom, so I'll give you one." It seems pedestrian and expected.

Now that you know my opinion, it still is not relevant to this discussion because it is an opinion. No one person's opinion is any more relevant than another's.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I know about art is what makes me think, how my gut reacts to a piece or if something evokes emotion. Most condo art components do nothing for me or they fail in their execution, which both irritates me and maddens me with so many missed opportunities. To me, Shayne Dark's "Double Vision" creates a wonderful contrast between the building and the public space, a rarity in this city. I look forward to seeing what he does with X2.
 
Isn't that first one done by the same guy who did this one in front of X?
I quite love it myself :D
 
Traynor said:
Your complaint comes across as the whine of someone not bright enough to divine the comparison i was making, so allow me to elucidate...

Not only is there an obvious visual comparison of Lady Gaga's hat to this particular sculpture, but the notion I was intimating was that neither has any substance to their statements. In Lady Gaga's case she is trying to make a statement, but if there is a message, it is lost. Is she saying my face doesn't matter? If it is a rant against men objectifying women, then why show off her legs? It just becomes fashion for shock value and not about anything political or meaningful. The outfit is wearing her.

Same for this sculpture or many other public art pieces. The giant Egg Beaters at The foot of Yonge street come to mind. What are they saying? "Wow, look how small I am next to this over-sized household object." These giant red pipes look like the stock yards of plumbing supplies at Home Depot. It says nothing. All it says to me is... "This is a modernist building in the vein of Mies van der Rohe and you expect a big red abstract piece of art at the bottom, so I'll give you one." It seems pedestrian and expected.

Now that you know my opinion, it still is not relevant to this discussion because it is an opinion. No one person's opinion is any more relevant than another's.
Click to expand...

I think you're self-consciously overloading the argument with these critiques of lack of substance, all the more so w/throwing the Richard Deacon at the foot of Yonge into the mix...
 
Not only is there an obvious visual comparison of Lady Gaga's hat to this particular sculpture, but the notion I was intimating was that neither has any substance to their statements. In Lady Gaga's case she is trying to make a statement, but if there is a message, it is lost. Is she saying my face doesn't matter? If it is a rant against men objectifying women, then why show off her legs? It just becomes fashion for shock value and not about anything political or meaningful. The outfit is wearing her.
Click to expand...
You put together a good explanation, and that's all I asked for. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. It's some of the contradictions in Lady Gaga's edgy aesthetic that has caused me to lose interest. However, I have to say that the irony of your original presentation to make this point is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Some people, myself included, thought you were comparing the sculpture to her hat. It seemed quite shallow at that point. If my response was harsh, I apologize.

Same for this sculpture or many other public art pieces. The giant Egg Beaters at The foot of Yonge street come to mind. What are they saying? "Wow, look how small I am next to this over-sized household object." These giant red pipes look like the stock yards of plumbing supplies at Home Depot. It says nothing. All it says to me is... "This is a modernist building in the vein of Mies van der Rohe and you expect a big red abstract piece of art at the bottom, so I'll give you one." It seems pedestrian and expected.
Click to expand...
We've seen similar presentation before, in Chicago notable, so it is understandable that the Dark piece comes off as pedestrian. Being abstract, there's a lot that can be read into it. At a basic level, it's a modern cityscape, of unadorned functional components creating a striking whole, with a colour that suggests vitality and relevance. The organic nature of the "tubes", slightly curving seems to reassure against perceptions of the Modern aesthetic as cold and harsh and merely "machine age", lacking in a human side. There's a sense of optimism in this regard.

Now that you know my opinion, it still is not relevant to this discussion because it is an opinion. No one person's opinion is any more relevant than another's.
Click to expand...
Why not? Discussion requires some opinion. I believe that some people's opinions are more valid than others. Some are logical, some are not. Some are based experience and/or research, some are out of ignorance. Not all opinions are closely rooted in reality.
 
And it's all probably irrelevant in the end; because by simply existing, the sculpture plays its civic role. And it isn't as if a lot of what adorns the grounds and plazas of 60s apartment and office buildings is of much more or less substance--yet it often comes across as rather likeable beyond its decreed "merits" today.

So, in a funny way, I'd rather have just offered the superfluous Lady-Gaga-hat comparison and left it at that, with us to fill in the rest of the blanks...
 
Thank God they painted the undersides of the balconies, it really looks good, especially at night when they reflect the light from inside the units.

xf13.jpg
 
Wonderful photo! They plan on adding a second coat of paint when it gets warmer out.

I do have a great vantage point of upcoming developments. I have Couture to the North, X2 to the South, Chaz and the future YMCA development to the West. I'll be able to see 1 Bloor as well and at the moment I can see the crane for Burano peeking through in the distance.
 
I love how the colour slashes are caught in androiduk's great photo by night. I can never get enough of this building, and I walk by it most every day.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top