by Kevin Gould
2017 – 2016 – 2015
La Presse: Chapleau & others
Le Devoir: Garnotte & Fleg
Journal de Montréal: Beaudet & Ygreck
François Cardinal has done some homework and decided Calder’s “Man” should stay where it is, in which he’s in agreement with Projet Montréal.
Philippe, qatzelok, Kate, and 7 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
It is municipal insanity to even be contemplating spending who knows how many hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of dollars to move a 50 year old chunk of aluminum from one place to another when were sitting in the middle of not crumbling but crumbled infrastructure. Leave it where it is. It may someday stand as a marker to the city that used to be here.
Here, have a Prozac.
Thanks but I prefer powerful sedatives like Narcozep or Dipravan to calm me after reading the local news of the day.
Kate, that was mean.
I think it was overdue. I find the over-used hyperbole in the comments on this blog tiresome, not to mention the self-proclaimed expert opinions.
I liked Bill’s remark. I thought it was poetical.
This is a non-news story. The statue looks great where it is, and it would be cheaper to commission a new oversized piece of origami made of welded-metal in situ (on site). Modern sculpture is easy and cheap to create. Why pretend this thing is some kind of fragile gift from a skilled craftsman? It’s just a bland industrial object that happens to look great illuminated on a pedestal by the river.
Here, have a Prozac, qatzelok.
Man is a wonderful work by a significant artist of the 20th century. What public art piece – anywhere – do you approve of?
Was anyone with any power to move the statue actually seriously considering doing so or was this just the media going back and forth on it enough that it started to seem like something that was going to happen?
@ Kate: “What public art piece – anywhere – do you approve of?”
Did I say I didn’t approve of this piece? No. I just said that it’s cheap and easy to design and build this kind of non-representational object.
C_Erb, François Cardinal refers in his Wednesday column to le débat public so I suppose somebody does. But he gives good reasons in this column why there’s no categorical reason to move the work, and there’s also some stuff about its historical background.
Cardinal is really into it – he has a second piece in La Presse today on the subject as well. Apparently one Alexandre Taillefer, presumably with some amount of influence, is pushing the city to move the piece, but Cardinal thinks not. And because it’s in the city’s biggest paper it does become a subject of debate.
Do you dislike all non-representational art?
Qatzi, just because you don’t appreciate this kind of art doesn’t diminish its relevance or what an honour it was for Montreal to have one of Calder’s pieces for Expo67 given his international stature.
Comment réaliser l’art?
Des masses, des directions, des espaces limités dans le grand espace, l’univers. Des masses différentes, légères, lourds, moyennes,—indiquées par des variations de grandeur ou de couleur—des directions—vecteurs représentant vitesses, vélocités, accélérations, forces, etc. . . .—ces directions faisant entre elles des angles significatifs, et des sens, définissant ensemble une grande résultante ou plusieurs.
Des espaces, des volumes, suggérés par les moindres moyens opposés à leur masse, ou même les contenant, juxtaposés, percés par des vecteurs, traversés par des vitesses.
Rien de tout ça fixe.
Chaque élément pouvant bouger, remuer, osciller, aller et venir dans ses relations avec les autres éléments de son univers.
Que ce soit, non seulement un instant “momentané”, mais une loi physique de variation
entre les événements de la vie.
Des abstractions qui ne ressemblent à rien de la vie, sauf par leur manière de réagir.
“Comment réaliser l’art?” par Alexander Calder, Abstraction-Création, Art Non Figuratif, no. 1 (1932)
For further reading, I suggest http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Calder …you will note that the two pieces used to illustrate Calder’s ouevre are both in Montreal.
Ian, all the Art History courses I have triumphed in have not blinded me to the fact that it’s really easy to “do” non-representational art. Sometimes I come across piles of garbage that evoke more than the “Man” sculpture. I’m not afraid of being accused of being a rube for noticing the nakedness of the Elite’s obsession with novelty.
it’s really easy to “do” non-representational art
Let’s see some of yours.
Good nonrepresentational art is wickedly difficult. Practice and study can teach anyone to model a human figure or other natural form. Going beyond that to create an object that evokes feeling and response but isn’t a copy of something already in the world is what takes real depth, craft and creativity.
Anyone can make a lovely inukshuk. And they’re sort of representational. Welding metal sheets into a giant shape is also really easy. What’s hard is getting the money and connections to get paid for it. If you read his bio, Sandy Calder was well connected by way of his mother, and that’s why his metal shapes decorates our island. Modern art was a scam to make New York look like it had culture, and not just mafia money.
Practice and study can teach anyone to model a human figure or other natural form.
Actually, I believe being able to realistically model the human figure is beyond the reach of most. I was once told by a Fine Arts graduate that such is not only looked down upon in most Fine Arts departments, the techniques and training for it are no longer widely available.
Required fields are marked *
← Everyone was on the take: Commission testimony
Water main gives way in Rosemont →
Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme: P2 by Automattic customized by Kate McDonnell – All contents © 2001-2017.