16 November 2011
BALLS.
Anish Kapoor with "Tall Tree and the Eye" in the Royal Academy courtyard on Piccadilly.
Reading David Staples’ article today in the Edmonton Journal regarding his rectally-derived opinions on “Talus Dome”, the $600,000 bauble at the side of Quesnel Bridge, I was compelled to respond to his nonsense.
From: Ryan McCourt
Date: November 16, 2011 5:45:22 AM MST
To: dstaples@edmontonjournal.com
Subject: Are you the Journal’s new art critic?
I just read your article about the rabbit turds, and wondered why the Journal is publishing your entirely naive and unqualified opinions as if they amount to credible art criticism.
As someone with an advanced degree in the field, I am dismayed that my profession should be treated with such disrespect, that it should be commented on in the press by someone with no apparent qualifications, and the hubris to think that their inexperience doesn’t matter. Sports writers would have to know about the field they cover, so why aren’t the Journal’s art writers like yourself held to any standard likewise? Would someone as ignorant of hockey as you are about art be covering the Oilers? I think not.
I am very much in favour of art, and the public funding of art. I’ve studied and made abstract sculpture for years, and I can tell you that, from a professional artistic standpoint, this is an absurdly poor architectural piece, at an absurd expense. It is an embarrassment to our citizens, a symbol of the Edmonton Arts Council’s continued bungling of their portfolio, and an unforgivable waste of public funds.
You refer to the Talus Dome piece as “Edmonton’s most expensive, most exposed and best piece of public art”. These three points are stated not as opinion, but as if they are facts. But, while it may be the most expensive, how is it “the most exposed”, exactly? The most drive-bys at high speed?
And, most crucially, how do you judge it to be “the best”? Twice this is claimed, but not backed up with anything but your dubious assertion. I don’t believe for a minute you are even AWARE of all the sculptures in Edmonton, much less that you’ve assessed the merits of each, so your claim is patent nonsense, when Edmonton obviously has many better sculptures made by many better (read: actual) artists. Your chummy, credulous chat with the LA architects of the work, as reported, doesn’t do much to help your credibility.
Much of the widespread criticism of the piece consists of what a BAD SITE it is for the artwork, and how it does indeed appear to be PLOPPED DOWN (the architects themselves call it a PILE, for pete’s sake! EARTH TO STAPLES!!!) at the side of a busy road like construction materials (or x-mas ornaments, maybe), but your article attempts to counter this all by mere contradiction. No it doesn’t, you say. Well, um, sorry, but, yes, it does, and your wishing doesn’t just simply counter reality and magically make the art or the site work any better.
“Another issue is that drivers fear it might be too distracting because it’s so visually stunning.” Come on, Dave! Get serious… that’s not the reason, and you know it! Otherwise, drivers would be distracted by commercial message flower beds, and roadside memorials… because they are SO VISUALLY STUNNING!!! Or, they could just be visually un-stunning, but eyesores nonetheless… that’s the reality.
A Magnet for Natural Art Criticism
So, is this just more of the Journal’s usual browbeating boosterism, bullying people into going along with the next boondoggle? Because, honestly, it just comes off as bullshit, in the precise Frankfurtian sense of the word.
You are welcome to be thrilled by the work. Indeed, I wish I could be, but for myself, and others who have an education in the history and production of sculpture, it is a head-shaking, mind-boggling disappointment: a sad waste of money and opportunity, and another embarrassment for our city.
Foreign architects will continue to muscle real local studio artists out of public art commissions for many reasons (forgive me, but it’s not the purpose of this letter to educate you on these issues). The last thing we need is for generalist journalists to muscle the real art critics out of the media, too.
I look forward to the Journal giving equal space to informed, dissenting opinion on this issue, to correct your careless, ill-considered misinformation.
Sincerely,
Ryan McCourt, MFA
David Staples responds:
November 16th, 2011 at 8:26 am“Maybe we should publish your wise and knowing commentary, as you seem to understand the newspaper business. What do you say? Cheers, David.”
David Staples responds, again:
November 16th, 2011 at 8:26 am“And, of course, the first rule of journalism is that if you praise someone in a particular field, few will react with more bitter feeling than competitors in that same field.
Perhaps your view of this sculpture will prevail. Or maybe mine will do so. “
David Staples responds, once more:
November 16th, 2011 at 8:27 am“I will forward this to the letters editor. Others must read your opinion. Thanks for brightening my morning. Cheers David.”
To the first, I replied:
“I don’t know much about the dying newspaper industry, but I do understand arrogant, misplaced sarcasm, anyway.
Your lack of respect for my profession is, once again, duly noted.
I’ve already published the letter at NESW.ca.
Thanks anyway,
Ryan”
David, once again, responds:
November 16th, 2011 at 8:30 am“No sarcasm, except on the first note, of course. Meant every word.
That was a helluva letter. Enjoyed every word. Cheers David”
Well, my email’s gone quiet now, so I sent David a short note:
Perhaps, after you’re done patting yourself on the back for your cheeky irreverence, you could respond to my questions.
-why aren’t the Journal’s art writers like yourself held to any standard likewise?
-how is it “the most exposed”, exactly? The most drive-bys at high speed?
-how do you judge it to be “the best”?
Also, on a related note, have you read Harry Frankfurt’s book, “On Bullshit”?
You should. You’ll find your writing (and thinking?) style described therein.
Sincerely wanting answers,
Ryan
p.s. I know this is tough love, but believe me, I’m trying to help you…
November 16th, 2011 at 9:24 amDisappointingly, David Staples sent this pathetic response:
“With all due respect, you’re not interested in debate. Your mind is made up.
Cheers
David.”
… necessitating my reply:
“No, David, I don’t accept that. It is precisely your lack of due respect that I take issue with.
You make a series of assertions in your article, and I am questioning how you came to your conclusions.
I do not know how you came up with your assessment of the Talus Dome as the most exposed, and the best, so i am asking you, what was your methodology?
My suspicion is that it is non-existent, but I would be pleased to hear otherwise.
With due respect, back up your assertions, or admit they are baseless. If you did in fact survey the existing public art, then tell me so. Or, if you’re just making it all up, pulling it out of your ass, like your ridiculous “first rule of journalism” nonsense, then admit it, already. What are you afraid of?
For a critic, you sure seem squeamish about an informed critical eye focused on your writing…
Sincerely,
November 16th, 2011 at 9:44 amRyan”
As an aside, I’ve never worked for a newspaper, but even I know that the first rule of journalism is either:
1. If it bleeds, it leads. If it’s sex, it’s next.
…or…
2. Don’t become the story.
David’s alleged “rule” is, like his other writing, evidently anally-borne.
November 16th, 2011 at 9:50 amSadly, once again, David Staples proves himself unworthy of dialogue with the following reply:
“My views on this work are clear. But if you want to deconstruct my thinking, let me recommend one book to you, Tom Wolfe’s The Painted Word. Good as any place to start, as it relates my own take on sculpture, and to your own critique, so far as I can gather your meaning.”
So, I bring our “debate” to a close, with this final reply to him:
“Yes, it is clear to me how superficially you treat the issue, but for myself, I could not write you completely off in good faith without first giving you a chance (multiple chances, actually) to show otherwise.
TOTAL FAIL.
In the process of your article, you carelessly discount all of Edmonton’s hundreds of worthy public artworks, without so much as a thought. It is truly despicable, deserving nothing but my clearest expression of scorn.
Never mind the legacy of artwork in and around the Winspear, or City Hall, or all over town… SHINY BALLS! …EXPENSIVE!… SQUIRREL!
Your citing of the notoriously anti-Semitic Wolfe book is laughable, but somewhat telling of your hubris. From this, your “take on sculpture” and bizarrely, my critique of your writing, allegedly stems?… Unfortunately, that makes no logical sense at all. Par for the course, I suppose.
It is lamentable to think of the public platform you have to spread your shallow thinking, and your allergic reaction to reconsideration once your errors have been called out.
As Schopenhauer writes, “A great many bad writers make their whole living by that foolish mania of the public for reading nothing but what has just been printed,— journalists, I mean. Truly, a most appropriate name. In plain language it is journeymen, day-laborers !”
I suppose for you, it’s just another ham-fisted day of hackery at the office… moving on, eh?
With vanishing respect,
November 16th, 2011 at 10:29 amRyan McCourt”
Ryan McCourt, MFA,
It’s pretty pathetic that you constantly emphasize your ridiculous degree.
Only pompous, self-conscious idiots display such irreverent contempt for the opinions of people who lack a bunch of university credits.
Please, stop taking yourself so seriously. It’s a goddamn MFA.
Cheers,
Jack
November 16th, 2011 at 2:22 pm“…constantly…”
LOL.
“It’s a goddamn MFA.”
Hey, that’s what I said! Quit constantly emphasizing it! Waaaaa!!!!
November 16th, 2011 at 2:31 pmWho should I take seriously, then? David Staples? Or, maybe “Jack Horne”?…
LOL
November 16th, 2011 at 2:32 pmMr McCourt,
November 16th, 2011 at 4:14 pmI do take considerable issue with your incredibly pompous attitude towards how people outside the world of MFAs perceive art. To insist that proper critique is only in the hands of an elite few is ridiculous. Honestly, you come across as a fool.
Thank you for your honesty, Amanda. Take as many issues as you like… enjoy.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:34 pmRyan McCourt, MFA:
I recognize that you probably didn’t expect Staples to publish your email, but realize that you come across as pretty pompous. “As someone with an advanced degree in the field”, you should consider that the way you express yourself outside of your art-world bubble may have an impact on things like, say, getting commissions for public artwork. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to support local artists, than see them go towards some guys from LA. I’d also like to see good art, rather than a pile of balls on the side of the freeway.
I agree with you, fundamentally. But your rather misplaced arrogance – yes, you have an “advanced degree”, along with a lot of other people, and are an artist of limited renown in a small provincial backwater – makes it hard to sympathize. If you truly believe that only those who have attained your level of academic and professional achievement have the authority to comment on PUBLIC art – note the key word – then I suspect you may need to reevaluate your belief system.
I’ll put this under some ridiculous fake name, but my real name’s in my email address.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:42 pmIt’s weird how ALL of these different commenters are illiterate in exactly the same way….
November 16th, 2011 at 4:57 pmRyan McCourt, MFA:
I thought I’d initially post a semi-sympathetic comment to see how you replied, thus get a better read on your personality, as I don’t know you (and for that I am thankful). Now I can say what I was thinking: you’re an arrogant disgrace, and not very bright, I suspect – certainly not as bright as your mom told you you were. You’re certainly not the type of person I want representing the local art scene; nor are you the type of person I want to see supported by a penny of public funds.
I notice you haven’t really addressed any of the criticisms aimed at you by Staples or by any of the commenters here. I know you’ll say “I won’t dignify such drivel with a response”, or maybe something sparklingly witty like “LOL”, as above, but I suspect the real reason is because you’re really not smart enough or tough enough to defend yourself properly. You’re welcome to prove otherwise, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Staples got you on the run, Ryan McCourt, MFA? STAPLES, of all people? You know he must be very amused by this, as am I. Good luck with your future endeavours; I strongly suspect you’ll need all the luck you can get. You’re already known as “Ryan McCourt, MFA” by a fair number of people after today’s little debacle, and I’m pretty sure they’re not calling you that because they’re in awe of your academic credentials. And you’re just digging yourself in deeper. It’s fascinating to watch; carry on.
November 16th, 2011 at 5:38 pmLOL
November 16th, 2011 at 5:43 pmThat was actually a pretty funny response. Fair enough: might as well go all in, right?
November 16th, 2011 at 5:48 pm[... looking for the part where I wrote that only people with MFAs can judge art.... searching.... searching....searching.]
Blustering illiterate accusation by outraged morons not found in document.
November 16th, 2011 at 5:54 pmIt’s very entertaining how the little MFA’s response is LOL!!! to everything, just like a fourteen year-old giggly teenage girl. Pathetic. What’s more, he keeps referring to everyone as “illiterate,” when clearly everyone has offered an articulate point (unlike LOLZ!!!). I guess that’s the kind of education you acquire when you obtain such a ridiculous degree. A fucking MFA. Ha!
November 16th, 2011 at 6:23 pmSorry to throw you, Damian.
LOL means I’m laughing, out loud. Because these comments are funny.
“Illiterate” means that these commenters have difficulty comprehending written words. I pointed this out in the comment above yours, but, you seem to have had trouble, um, comprehending those written words.
LOL.
November 16th, 2011 at 6:39 pmSo, let me get this straight. Newspaper writer claims TalusDome to be “the single-best public sculpture yet erected in Edmonton.” Local career sculptor calls, “Bullshit! Prove it.” Writer says, “Prove it’s not.” Sculptor says, “Despite my qualifications to do so, impetus of proof is on the claimant.” Writer demurs, and the dogs pile on!
Surprisingly often these days, when there’s no buttons for ‘like’ or ‘dislike’, people react reflexively to a negative tone with ad hominem counterattack. Apparently correct-thought is discernible by propriety alone; and a sensible expression of outrage (sculptor) redflags unacceptable, dangerous thinking more surely than illogical blandishments (writer). Apparently.
It’s amazing how dis-educated our society currently is, that it is considered entirely abnormal to expect people to read or write for actual meaning in parsable phrases. Or to recall exactly what they just read. Yet they can make words fit into configurations that sound so much like sentences. Yes, very weird!
And I hadn’t realized before now that the MFA was such a powerful allergen. The collective sneeze-cloud is a diversion of A-Team proportions. Perfect time to slip in something that makes sense right under their noses.
Err… Don’t rubberneck passing Balls.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:18 pmPlease. You are an arrogant piece of work. I have a Master’s degree in Linguistics (a real discipline), and I don’t go around broadcasting it like an insecure idiot. You have a Master’s in fucking Fine Arts. No wonder you’re pretty inarticulate and lack the ability to make an argument.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:23 pm“I have a Master’s degree in Linguistics (a real discipline), and I don’t go around broadcasting it like an insecure idiot.”
LOL… what kind of idiot, then?
November 16th, 2011 at 7:35 pmLOL!!! LOL!!
November 16th, 2011 at 8:44 pmFuck, your language skills are poor.
You can’t even spell commentator. Fucking pathetic (and hilarious).
Journalist likes particular artwork and, evidently, likes the idea of public art as a feature of his city, and $$ to support this. In the course of his article, makes a couple unsupportable qualitative comments about the piece.
Artist doesn’t like said artwork, and doesn’t like unsupported comments (so far so good) and proceeds to rip journalist new one.
Mark, this is why all the negative comments–your polemic makes polite discourse impossible.
You ask Staples to show you ‘due respect’ but simultaneously decry journalists en masse. Orwell, Waugh, Hitchens . . .
November 16th, 2011 at 9:29 pmSincere apologies–you’re Ryan of course, not Mark. Brain fart.
November 16th, 2011 at 9:36 pmAhab–I substantially agree, but this trifle hardly merits a ‘sensible expression of OUTRAGE’ (my caps). God knows there is enough to be truly outraged about without including this pissing contest.
November 16th, 2011 at 9:49 pmI just have to note some funny comments from the twitterverse, and elsewhere:
ArtRubicon (“a project undertaken out of love by Dawn LeBlanc and Allison Argy-Burgess”) tweets:
“@DavidStaplesYEG RE:Ryan McCourt- sadly Mr. McCourt fails to get this is PUBLIC ART, funded by the public–no one cares if he approves”
Wait… I’m a member of the public, just like Mr. Staples, so, what gives?… Maybe the ArtRubicon ladies haven’t thought this one through… (gosh, I hope that wasn’t too negative!).
November 17th, 2011 at 7:12 amAlso, Staples posted my letter on his Journal blog, where he strangely misrepresents my comments, alleging that I called him a “bully” when, to be precise (not Staples strength, obviously), I refered specifically to the Edmonton Journal’s “usual browbeating boosterism, bullying people into going along with the next boondoggle”… see, that’s calling the Journal’s editorial stance the bully, not the writer… but I digress, once again, into offering remedial reading education to Mr. Staples.
More interesting are some of the comments from that page:
Whaddya know! Somebody agrees with me… sweet vindication! Huzzah!
I think this is the funniest comment, though:
LOL.
November 17th, 2011 at 7:21 amPile of balls? That criticism seems hollow to me. But piles are not hollow. Seems that the “dome” term of it is more applicable to the form of the work. Domes are hollow.
That thing provokes the question “what is art?” among the local yocals than any public work I’ve seen. . . .
November 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm“We (also) started to think of it as more of a pile. It refers to the kind of construction you might see along the freeway in Alberta, or a pile of sugar beets, or a natural accumulation of gravel or sand.”
That’s not a criticism, Anonymous: that’s one of the artists talking…
READING IS HARD.
November 17th, 2011 at 6:47 pmSure, that’s what was quoted in that interview by Staples.
As a reference for a work of art in public space it seems like a great subject that will push people’s buttons. “That’s not art!” Seems to be working! It’s quite banal in some ways.
Perhaps its a little more Cal Arts and little less University of Alberta . . . . .
I looked at it, and it isn’t literally a pile – you can see through it. It’s more of an image of a pile, a charicature of a pile. Its a banal, almost everyday form within that context rather than a piece of “sculpture.” Makes you look but you could also mistake it for something other than art; perhaps something utilitarian.
November 17th, 2011 at 7:37 pmBanal is a fine word.
November 17th, 2011 at 8:06 pmBanal seems like an especially subversive quality vis-a-vis art public spaces. The public, and perhaps a lot of artists, still expect to see “expression.”
November 17th, 2011 at 8:13 pmWhat happened to my last comment? Does this thing not post automatically? I thought we were getting into some interesting territory.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:38 pm“It’s amazing how dis-educated our society currently is, that it is considered entirely abnormal to expect people to read or write for actual meaning in parsable phrases. Or to recall exactly what they just read. Yet they can make words fit into configurations that sound so much like sentences. Yes, very weird!”
Ahab, you’ve cut to the heart of the issue, amidst all these other commenters’ (or, as Damian prefers, Common Taters’) non sequitirs, red herrings, straw men, and other ‘banal’ bullshit. It’s fascinating to me, to see this ample evidence of such widespread ignorance, dishonesty, and narrow-minded conservatism.
Welcome to Alberta, eh?
November 18th, 2011 at 10:07 amLittle Ryan, can you point to the place on the doll where the bad man touched you? Can you do that for the doctor?
No discussion on NESW comments page. See you at the bar.
November 18th, 2011 at 11:30 am“No discussion on NESW comments page. See you at the bar.”
Almost 40 comments so far!
November 18th, 2011 at 11:48 amAlas, I can’t vouch for the merit of all of them; nevertheless, keep ‘em coming, folks… it’s all terribly interesting stuff.
Damian says,
“LOL!!! LOL!!
Fuck, your language skills are poor.
You can’t even spell commentator. Fucking pathetic (and hilarious).”
So you think you’re up to the task of critiquing “language skills” do you, Damian? I mean, fuuuuuck, dude. LOL. And I think the word you’re referring to is commenter, as in someone that comments on a blog post. Just an FYI.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commenter
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commentator
Oh and I think my favorite line has to be “David’s alleged “rule” is, like his other writing, evidently anally-borne.” LOL.
And say, has David finally let us know how he deemed the balls to be “the best”? Seems to be one of the most important questions here.
November 18th, 2011 at 12:26 pmI think David mixed up “I like it” with “it’s the best”, then the poor fella got embarrassed and defensive when I pointed out those aren’t necessarily the same thing… I’m sure he’s much better as a hockey blogger.
November 18th, 2011 at 4:52 pmI agree that Talus Dome is a mere trifle, but the thing that it hardly meritted was a thousand-word blend of adoration and promo-copy. I feel it’s too lousy ( too banal, to be sure) to deserve that much debate, critically sophisticated or not.
The problem with Edmonton’s public-art systems is not that the city’s spending money, but stems from how it spends the budgeted 1% of a given project. For the price of those 1000 shiny baubles, the EAC could have purchased and sited thirty really big, absolutely unique sculptures that already exist (languishing in their creators’ studios), thereby providing so many artists (regional or national) with the resources to keep their studios open a little longer and make the next thing.
Also, I think it needs to be said, nice guys are not right because they’re genteel. And rough guys are not wrong because they’re brash. Pretty easy stuff, this.
November 18th, 2011 at 7:03 pmThe Talus Dome looks like the rejected shrapnel of Jeff Koons’ lack of imagination. I would love LOVE to be a fly on the wall of the committee who discussed that was worth blowing 600 grand on. Way to represent Edmonton. fucking cockbites….its such a waste of money and resources and lacking imagination to such an extent that there has to be an inside story on this. Seriously, whose brother/father/nephew is the artist? Did somebody lose a bet? This is shitty on the same scale as the fucking morons who chose the architect for the AGA. Maybe the irony is that this really IS representing edmonton, and sad truth is Edmonton is no place for originality or beauty. I can’t wait to see who the city council appoints to polish their fancy balls.
November 18th, 2011 at 8:45 pm“Why do people say “grow some balls”? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding”
November 19th, 2011 at 12:14 am― Betty White
Excellent comments from Ahab, Canucklehead, Vincent, and Cherbare… you guys seem to have no difficulty following the plot; meanwhile, other dimwit commenters (I won’t name names) can’t help but shit the bed…
Over on the Connect2Edmonton forum, a couple of other comments stand out:
JamesL writes: “I started reading this letter by Ryan McCourt, a local sculptor, with the attitude that “This guy is pretentious”, but ended up being quite entertained by his points and passion. (And I guess it doesn’t hurt when someone tears David Staples a new one.)”
… to which Edmonton Daily Photo adds:
“He is right though… what is a sports writer doing offering commentary as art and passing it off as professional.”
Indeed, my point was not that I, or other MFAs are the only people qualified to judge art, but merely that, by featuring Staples naive and unqualified opinions at the exclusion of others, the Journal abuses their bully pulpit, and does a disservice to their readers in general, and the city’s art community especially.
There are, of course, many other folks out there who just don’t get it…
Gemini writes: “Interesting letter. I do think McCourt is pretentious. He fails to point out that art is very subjective….”
In reality, “pretentious” (that big bad word gets thrown around quite a bit!) ACTUALLY refers to people who make unjustified and exaggerated claims.
Pretentious, like, say, David Staples, on “Talus Dome” being the “best piece of public art” and “the single-best public sculpture yet erected in Edmonton”, or Gemini, talking of my alleged “failure” to “point out” some confused and vague assertion that “art is very subjective“.
November 19th, 2011 at 7:25 amHave a bitter at the bar. Maybe a sour glass of wine . . .
November 19th, 2011 at 9:53 amSure, of course it’s easier to attack me than defend Staples (his comments are indefensible, I know), but, come on.. that’s the best you can do? WOOF!
Good luck overcoming your collective butt-hurt, folks.
November 20th, 2011 at 8:09 amAttack: you are an uninformed tool who lives in a backwater?
November 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pmDefense: Staples is not a critic but he knows what is good for the City.
Attack : your work wouldn’t have cut it … stuck in the 70′s without irony. And, you are a dick.
November 20th, 2011 at 1:39 pmWoof.
November 20th, 2011 at 3:30 pmYou use dumb male platitudes at the expense of intelligent dicourse? As an intellectual with an advanced degree, is this how you express yourself?
November 20th, 2011 at 7:40 pmWait, what?
Where?… Who?
(Shut up already, stupid. Nobody’s talking to you…)
November 20th, 2011 at 9:34 pm“Stuck in the 70′s without irony.” Huh. I hope no one ever accuses me of that, I wouldn’t know what to make of it. Better to be ironically stuck in the 21st century, perhaps?
November 20th, 2011 at 10:56 pmYeah, it’s a real zinger, Ahab… I’ll have to break out my disco records, my platform shoes, and of course, my MIRROR BALLS…
Oh, the irony!
November 21st, 2011 at 6:35 amIt would be a better sculpture if it was rusty.
November 21st, 2011 at 8:32 amDeej, you’re probably joking, but you might be right, inadvertently.
Obviously, it still wouldn’t be worth paying $600,000 for, and it would still be a crappy site, and, of course, Staples original article would still comprise naive, unqualified bullshit.
But, yes, the mirror finish is clearly part of the sculpture’s problem, so a less-reflective surface would likely be an improvement. I guess we’ll see if that stainless holds up…
November 21st, 2011 at 9:07 amI’m disinclined to make too much of credentials when it comes to art. Ryan’s expertise on public sculpture derives from his talent for making it and the persevering exercise thereof. Mr. Staples’s article stands or falls as criticism apart from his background, which I’m led to believe is hunting groundhogs. Wait, that’s not correct. The Edmonton Journal describes him as the “current City Hall columnist and hockey blogger.” But! All things being equal, this may be a hockey blogger with a good eye. Let him have at it.
And indeed he has. It didn’t go so well. He finds the balls thrilling, which is sad. He notes that the sculpture fits the setting, which sounds dubious. Arguably, the building blocks are there, insofar as criticism consists of such observations and justifications built up over the course of an essay. But these pieces are too primitive and too few. The sculpture meshes with the surroundings, but why? It just does. It reminds him of marbles, but so what?
The real tragedy has been overlooked here: the degree to which contemporary art has become a sheltered workshop, in this case, for architects unable to find opportunities to design interesting buildings. Notice how the artist blithely absorbs Staples’s wife’s comments about the gigantic silver rabbit, which is the best line of the whole piece. (She might want to try writing art criticism.) The answer is pablum. “We want it to look like a lot of different things. It’s not meant look like anything in particular. We want it to produce a lot of different associations.” And this redundantly described, retarded creative ambition goes unchallenged, likely because the author doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
November 21st, 2011 at 6:23 pmUnsurprisingly, Franklin, you’ve put it better than I did, or could have.
November 21st, 2011 at 6:34 pmOf course, you’re a pro… although, I would like to see Staples’ wife get the same column inches to voice her view.
It’s also worth noting two Letters to the Editor, published in the Ed. Journal:
… and this…
November 22nd, 2011 at 6:38 amIn related news…
November 24th, 2011 at 8:58 amAnd then, there’s this excellent editorial by the Edmonton Examiner staff:
November 24th, 2011 at 9:09 amAlso of note, West Edmonton Local has an article featuring Benjamin Ball “striking back” at critics of Talus Dome, calling them “small-minded”….
November 24th, 2011 at 1:44 pmI only have photos to go on, but the sculpture in question looks like the sort of thing you’d make by default if your only investigative tool was AutoCad. The whole Ball-Nogues portfolio tends towards this Gee, Look What We Did On The Computer aesthetic.
November 25th, 2011 at 3:51 pmTo show more realism, they could have included some bits of corn, or chunks of peanut, maybe.
November 29th, 2011 at 7:55 amI’d like to see a statue of Buddy the Elf beside it, poised to throw these silver snowballs at passing motorists.
December 4th, 2011 at 2:48 pmI found out this is a piece of art while talking with a friend on the bus wondering “When are they gonna move all those metal balls? I mean they must be building something with them….” and an eavesdropper informed me that “Actually it’s art.” My friend and I made confused and slightly appalled expressions and the eavesdropper said “I know.” I think that is the most honest critique of the piece. It’s a pile of shiny building materials someone forgot on the side of the road and it cost the city $600000. Whatever tangential nonsense you decide to refocus on, the fact of the matter is that the thing is a highly overpriced, misplaced bauble.
December 4th, 2011 at 8:47 pmFrom the stunted list of Talus Dome‘s virtues, we can subtract originality.
December 6th, 2011 at 9:20 am