Photo: Cmglee/Wikipedia
Fans said that it's comparable to the Eiffel Tower, whereas critics billed it as a roller coaster gone bad. Whatever you think, it's safe to say that London's new ArcelorMittal Orbit - which is now the tallest sculpture in Great Britain - sure generates a lot of opinion:
LinkSome critics have called the ruby-red lattice of tubular steel an eyesore. British tabloids have labeled it "the Eye-ful Tower," "the Godzilla of public art" and worse.
But artist Anish Kapoor and engineer Cecil Balmond, who designed the tower, find it beautiful.
Belmond, who described the looping structure as "a curve in space," said he thought people would be won over by it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_of_the_Bang
Makes me want to sweat blood.
But artists being funded to create art is not a new issue. Almost every artist in history had outside funding. They are called patrons. I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_patron.
These artists who "do more pure art when no one gives them money . . " Do you have any examples in particular? I cannot think of any great artists that did not either have a patron or sell their works commercially.
And I completely agree that the Christopher Wren comparison was pretty danged arrogant.
I was mistaken to say 'public funding' when I meant to say 'funding'.
My point stands (or, in other words, I still make it) because I believe that artists do more pure art when no one gives them the money to do it.
And I'll go further and point out the utter hubris of this artist comparing himself to Christopher Wren.
How does your point stand? You claimed that "Art often goes horribly wrong when financed with public money." This was not a government funded project. You were proven wrong therefore your point cannot stand.
Did you cite any specific examples where "Art often goes horribly wrong when financed with public money?" Can you?
And art is subjective, so what you find as "horribly wrong" is not necessarily what others see.
The thing with art is that it's subjective. What one person finds beautiful, another finds ugly. But there are always some designs we can all generally agree on, such as classically inspired sculpture. Such 'out there' art should be kept for museums, not foisted upon the public.
I suppose I shouldn't blame the architect, really, as this was clearly designed by computer... probably with the intent of showing off what can be done with steel these days.