Comments for North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop

Comment on A Friday Night in Edmonton by John Link

John Link — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:43:53 +0000

Nice to see you are still going strong.

Comment on E.O. Wilson On The Evolution Of Culture by Richard L. Johnson

Richard L. Johnson — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:27:02 +0000

What a great article by EO Wilson! I had not heard of your magazine or ezine before but this article alone makes a multitude of issues worth more than gold.

Comment on Nine Out Of Ten by MC

MC — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:13:09 +0000

Thanks for the link… interesting stuff, for sure.

Comment on Nine Out Of Ten by nacnud

nacnud — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:08:29 +0000

Dunno if I would call Taya's work oafish, marginal, awkward, or provincial, but some of it I would say is very good. Please see link to review and comments for background and a healthy chuckle. Also, don't miss the mention of a new Jack Bush retrospective and catalogue raisonne 2014, NGC. Woot woot! David Cohen on Jack Bush

Comment on BALLS. by Herbert B. Patrotage

Herbert B. Patrotage — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:24:31 +0000

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/01/edmonton-eyeing-million-dollar-golden-balls

Comment on Portrait of the artist as… critic by MC

MC — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:35:58 +0000

Substitute ‘music’ and ‘musicians’ with ‘art’ and ‘artists’…

Comment on BALLS. by Ixnay on the Omeday

Ixnay on the Omeday — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:29:33 +0000

Just waiting to see how many lawsuits come from the placement of this artwork. Let’s think about the safety issue here. Highly reflective, polished stainless steel directly in the view of motorists traveling at a high rate of speed. Throw in a little sunshine and you have an accident just waiting to happen. Not a very “bright” (pun intended) idea!
Now I know people will say that we as drivers need to pay attention to the road, but unfortunately, our new distracted driving law says we are unable to do so. Didn’t the city ban those advertisements on the sides of the freeway because they were too distracting? As it stands, the city can’t trust “Joe and Jane” driver to respect the safety of others by keeping their eyes and attention on the road. But here comes another thing for motorists to look at now while driving, and this time it might just prevent you from being able to see the road at all!
The artwork is interesting to say the least, but it could have been built for way cheaper, by a local artist and in a place where foot traffic would be its primary viewing. It has no business in an area where it could
clearly be a hazard!

Comment on BALLS. by Tom

Tom — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:05:41 +0000

Thanks, Franklin. See here:
http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=5612208
for an explicit reference to the similarity. Was this an intentional ‘inspiration’, does anybody know?

Comment on An Important Message by MC

MC — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:15:00 +0000

“and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly…”?

What was I going to write, before I switched thoughts there, I wonder…

Comment on An Important Message by MC

MC — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:13:25 +0000

Well, if Anonymous is ‘threatening’, then it is merely in response to the very real threats posed by the government: if governments make no distinction between civil libertarians and child abusers, AND have the power to send men with guns to your home to enforce such draconian laws… let me just say, that is some serious threat, so I view Anonymous’ ‘threats’ (scary music!) as a completely justifiable form of self-defense.

Vic is the target, because he is the point man: he’s the one who smeared his opponents as “siding with child pornographers”, so he has painted the target very clearly on his own forehead (not smart for a man with so many seedy skeletons in his own closet).

What is little appreciated in the ‘lame-stream’ media is the reason why Anonymous, and by extension all internet-based activism, is so powerful: it is truly leaderless, truly democratic. “Anonymous” isn’t an organization, anymore than “the online community” is an organization.

I read a funny article where the writer talked about “the online community” being overwhelmingly against the bill, and I thought, “who does that phrase include, exactly?”… you could just as easily substitute the phrase with the word “people”, and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly what we’re talking about. People are against this bill, and people communicate their revulsion for it on the internet…. and the people who understand the internet the best are the ones who are most against this kind of legislation.