The Panopticons

• Sid Morrison
  January 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  ummm…. I’ll need to look it up, but I think the *original* “Panopticon” was Jeremy Bentham’s design for an 18th century prison that wouldn’t require very many guards to mind all the convicts.

  Is the use of “panopticon” here intended to be perjorative? They sure are ugly & pointless — what a waste of taxpayer resources.

• Sour Grapes
  January 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

  Too bad none of the pictures includes something to give an idea of scale. It’s pretty much impossible to get a good idea of how big these things are.

  I have no idea why the first poster thinks the use of “panopticon” might be pejorative. Perhaps he doesn’t understand what the word means.

• Jazzy Jeff
  January 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  um… Perhaps because the original coining of the word was for an PRISON, and it isn’t the brightest idea to name your supposedly uplifting artwork after prisons?

  Yeah, taking it back to the Greek roots it means something along the lines of being able to “see all” within it (because it was a round prison… guards could mind the convicts easier). But it was still a prison — I wouldn’t name my sculptures Sing Sing, Abu Ghraib, or Devil’s Island either. Dumbasses should have coined a new name.

• Fresh
  January 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  That last one just reminds me of that one Spongebob episode. Only it’s a billion times cooler.

• aware
  January 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  i love the tree one. but i’m glad i don’t live next to it. or hey, may be a soothing place to take a nap.

• Ali S.
  January 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  The Atom shape reminds me of those ball shaped artificial reefs being created now for coastlines to stem beach erosion!

• kati
  January 30th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  Ok thanks guys. I am going to have nightmares about that Singing Tree for life now!

• attn peons
  January 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  Panopticon n. Structure, space or device providing a comprehensive or panoramic view.

• Christophe
  January 30th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Sid: “greekly” the name signification stands. Historically it’s another matter I agree. Those circular prisons were renowned to be the hardests, even if, and you will appreciate that ;), they maximed the ratio convitcs/tax paid wardens.

  As for the art, we’ve seen much worse. Installing the Singing Ringing Tree in your garden is a perfect way to settle that old neighbourhood grudge.

• c-dub
  January 31st, 2008 at 1:33 am

  Lighten up, Sid, you old curmudgeon.

• John O'Donnell
  January 31st, 2008 at 5:27 am

  If you or I left this crap lying around in these attractive settings, we would be taken to court, fined and ordered to remove them immediately. Instead, hardworking people, with a life, have had money taken from their pockets to support the wasters who do this.

• Sid Morrison
  January 31st, 2008 at 8:35 am

  Bah, humbug
  Better to have just paid off the “artists” not to have left this crap lying about soiling the view.

• Peter Steen
  January 31st, 2008 at 9:13 am

  We are very proud of our new sculpture in Rossendale to the extent that i am organising a May bank holiday event at the Halo this year with local accustic bands and residents suppling the entertainment

• sparge
  January 31st, 2008 at 10:48 am

  The Atom actually seems to fit the landscape in an odd sort of way, something about its rolling curves. I also really like the Singing Ringing Tree — its hilltop location is great, and it’s not so big that it’s going to spoil anyone’s view. I actually think it reminds me more of a tornado though.

  The other two, I agree are pretty craptacular. Colourfields just seems pointless, and while having a glowing UFO hovering around might seem cool, in reality it’s incredibly intrusive on the landscape, and annoying for anyone who might have to live near it.

  But OTOH, you see this sort of thing in cities all the time — random abstract sculptures seem to wind in parks, subway stations, outside hospitals, banks, etc. Are these any worse than that?

• c-dub
  January 31st, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  @John O’Donnell and Sid Morrison:

  You can all groan about the cost of public art installations like this, but the fact of the matter is that they often generate economic activity that far exceeds their cost. The best recent example is probably Christo’s “The Gates,” which was temporarily installed in Manhattan’s Central Park in 2005. That installation generated over $250 million in economic activity in New York City, compared to independent estimates of only $5-10 million in installation costs (which were privately funded in any case). Admittedly, this project isn’t at the scale of “The Gates,” and it’s not in the heart of a major metropolitan center, but the area will likely see economic benefit (that’s why they did it, after all). Of course, you still may not like the pieces as art, which is fine – I’m not crazy about them myself – but the economics are reasonably sound.

  In any case, I am very willing to see my tax dollars being spent on art; the governments of every great society in history have supported, and funded, the arts. Our continued cultural and artistic legacies depend on it.

• Robert
  January 31st, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  I would rather my tax dollars weren’t spent on curmudgeons, naysayers, and trolls. They leave crap lying around that spoils the landscape and keep the farm animals up all night with their cacophonous, cynical braying.

• Sid Morrison
  February 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am

  A couple comments:
  1. Christo’s projects (including “The Gates”) are generally fully funded by the artist and own financing. I might not appreciate it as art, but at least he didn’t do it on the public dole, picking the pockets of hardworking folks. On the other hand, I’ve no knowledge of anyone getting killed by the Panopticon sculptures, whilst Christo has a mounting death toll.
  2. The Atom looks like it fell off the truck hauling leftover stuff from “The Prisoner” TV series to the dump. Frankly, a Lotus 7 up on a hill would be prettier.

• c-dub
  February 1st, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  @Sid:
  1. Yes, “The Gates” was privately funded, but it still generated over $250,000,000 in economic activity on a $10,000,000 investment. Even if the installation had been funded by the city (I’m sure the city incurred some costs in any case) I don’t see how that’s picking anyone’s pockets; it’s in the city’s, and the public’s, best interest to develop economic activity. And Christo does not have a “mounting death toll,” but nice spin.
  2. Again, you can debate the value of the pieces as art, I don’t really care. To each his own.

• Adam Fuhrer
  February 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  Stunning!

• lauren
  February 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  Maybe this is just because I’m an okie…but does the ‘tree’ one resemble a tornado to anyone else? It even kind of sounds like one.

  two words
  CRE-PEE!

• Sid Morrison
  February 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

  @c-dub:
  2 people met their ends via Christo’s “The Umbrellas”. One woman got killed by one of the giant umbrellas that blew loose in the wind and whacked her and a worker was also electrocuted when the display was being dismantled and a giant umbrella he was handling touched a too-near power line.

  I would say 2 disconnected deaths from a single artist justifies my use of “a mounting death toll” :-P.

• c-dub
  February 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

  Yes, two people were killed: but that was at the site of one exhibition, and it was seventeen years ago. The word “mounting” denotes a current and ongoing increase, which is inaccurate here.

• Andre
  February 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am

  Wonderful stuff!

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!