It had to come eventually, I suppose. This blog has finally had to shoot a sculpture in video, and has realised it must get a tripod if this sort of thing is to spread.It is a light work by Michael Dan Archer installed on the RBS building, together with a large stone with a hole in it. The works will be on display until September 10.
Both artworks symbolise lots of stuff, according to ArtRabbit:
"Archer, his material, his stone, stands not for a nature we can be at home in, but for the stasis of death and the blind permanence of the earth. (Neil Fox, University of Essex)
Which just goes to show that artists should banned from keyboards. They really can't express a thought in English, poor loves, and should stick with the visuals.Michael Dan Archer describes his practice as dealing with materials ranging from massiveness and density of stone to the transcendence and intensity of light. The RBS sculpture forecourt will feature two works by Archer, one an Untitled work made of stone examines symbolism and the idea of portals that deal with transformation, crossing of borders and entry into other worlds and realities. The second sculpture, Beacon is a light piece which deals with intensity of the visual experience, the psychological or spiritual role of light in our consciousness. On occasion both these concepts collide and stimulate a visual conversation of ideas, thoughts and associations."
The RBS forecourt is adorned with an odd little memento, a lion by Alfred Stevens that was widely admired when he designed it in the 1850s as a cast iron topknot for a line of railings in front of the British Museum. They were later removed and some of the lions re-used in the Stevens' Wellington monument in St Paul's cathedral.Next to it is a sentimental figure of Bambi that could come from many a garden centre.
2 comments:
Phew! I read this post with mounting horror until I came to the phrase "Which just goes to show that artists should banned from keyboards". Oh yes, indeed.
Modern artists seem to have decided to rival the business community in writing over-jargonized and essentially vacuous prose that pretends meaning where there is none.
Does Archer not realize that his "light work" is merely one of those grotesque illuminated crosses that some churches insist on displaying, merely tipped at an angle as if one of the screws has come loose? No amount of arty pseudo-speak can change that and turn it into something worthy of respect and aesthetic enjoyment, though I am sure there are plenty of people who will disagree with me on that.
I think it has become too easy to produce "art" and that we have become too tolerant as to what we will accept as art. A stone with a hole in it does not become art by having three paragraphs of gobbledygook pronounced over it.
I'm with you Tiger.
Post a Comment