"Stupidity jumps the pond." Topic

Now Aussies (or were they?) are tearing down historical statues that don't conform to some people's modern ideas.

Well, one has been within the last day or so, going by the news.

If you have the access and the equipment, please scan and film and photograph them before more are cowardly attacked.

Also, if any are in your area, it may be wise to keep an eye on them, incase of copycat attacks. Put a camera pointing at them, if you can, to identify vandals, or do patrols.

Like knife mischief, it's likely to escalate over coming weeks.

Great.

On behalf of sensible Americans, sorry Australia.

For those interested in the subject matter:

link

On behalf of sensible Americans, sorry Australia.

It's not America's fault, doubleones. Activists of several stripes have been doing that for decades. It hasn't happened for a while, so the media is sensationalising it. Back in the '60's and 70's anti-war activists were damaging or pulling down statues at cenotaphs every couple of months. More recently the fashion is to deface, paint or demand the removal of statues of Cook, Philip or anyone else not of a specific ethnic group or sexual orientation.

Over-educated idiots with the morals and ethics of four-year-olds are something every country has.

Always sad.

Destroying history is disgusting. The easily offended need to get over themselves.

+1 Choctaw

I agree with Del Gavan. How is this America's fault? Vandalizing statues of colonial leaders due to modern views does not happen in the US much.

Of course, this vandalism should not be confused with sanctioned removal of statues of men who led a rebellion against the country. One can still study their exploits without providing undeserved public honor.

Colonial leaders will always be viewed in a number of ways depending on who is doing the viewing.
It's impossible to separate people from both the good and the bad they have done. Like most colonialists, this chap probably did bad as well as good.
The question then has to be, which of his actions are we celebrating by building a statue of him? So we shouldn't be surprised if some people object to the presence of the statue.
As the decision appears to have been made by an elected council, it appears that it is a democratic decision to remove it.
What more could we ask for?

Australian premier William Crowther is accused of "…cutting off and stealing the skull of William Lanne, an Aboriginal Tasmanian leader known as "King Billy", whose body was dismembered and used for scientific research after his death in 1869."

The statue was already scheduled for removal, but vandals sliced it off at the legs first.

"but vandals sliced it off at the legs first."

And didn't even have the decency to strap on a jet pack.

"How is this America's fault? "

It happened over there a lot recently.
Just a few bad eggs.

"does not happen in the US much."

How could you miss all the fuss over tearing down statues in the US?

"One can still study their exploits without providing undeserved public honor."

I can't see the issue with a statue, whoever it is.

There's no huge fuss when a new war movie comes out. No one's burning theatres (it's probably happened somewhere, but you get my point).

I think Ned Kelly's death mask may be on display?? And he was an out law.

This chap was conducting scientific research.

I'm unclear as to whether he killed the guy, but I'm assuming he was already deceased.

"cutting off and stealing the skull"

I guess he was deceased. Solves that.

I suspect he replaced the head so as not to upset people, not for devious reasons. Morticians do things like that too, hence morticians wax.

He was probably quite a nice guy, but that doesn't fit their narrative.

There are surgeons who have killed people, but doesn't even make them monsters. But, like studying anatomy, they too were trying to do something to benifit others.

Scandalous headlines, little substance.

"undeserved public honor."

Speaking of bizarre modern mindsets.
Yes, because people are always building statues of people they think don't deserve public honor.

"1869"

Without checking, I'm thinking Aboriginals were not Australian citizens then, if even considered human/modern human.

If I'm right, the chap was playing by the book.

Are we going to start burning down Egyptian cosmetics factories for poisoning people with lead hundreds of years ago?

As for the vandals, they remind me of some chap who vandalized some status in the middle east, he's at the bottom of the ocean now.

I am far more bothered by idiots attacking classic works of art to protest climate/some oppression du jour.

Same difference.

A sculpture is art.

Looking at the picture in the link, that particular statue is under no possible interpretation a classic work of art and in fact, a mediocre statue of a mediocre politician on its' best day. It may or may not have some historical value but as art, it achieves only the same worth that tens of thousands of other mediocre public statuary worldwide serving no real public value other than as a pigeon lavatory.

The neo-iconoclasts won't give up until they have completely destroyed/rewritten history. Somewhere, George Orwell is turning over in his grave (if anyone doesn't get the reference, read 1984).

"under no possible interpretation a classic work of art"

Go tell the artist that.

I suppose Greek and Roman statues are similarly worthless?

I believe no rational individual, ever, could use the word classic on that pedestrian pile of bronze whereas the works of artists such as Michalangelo, Monet and Da Vinci that various cretins have attempted to harm for ostensibly justified political reasons are inarguably classic.

If every piece of mediocre statuary lauding mediocre politicians is deemed precious art then the value of true classics is diminished and my two year old granddaughters finger painted ‘art' is of equal worth and frankly she is vastly cuter than that Victorian numpty.

It may or may not be worth preserving as history. As preservation worthy art, it isn't far above the aforementioned finger painting or a statue of Goofy at Disneyland.

Whereas, of course, the turtles mentioned (1, but I'll take what I can get) only produced personal works for themselves, splinter and April.

Infact many famous classic works were commissioned, just as this poor chaps sculpture no doubt was.

The last supper was commissioned by a Duke. No doubt to swish his cloak in front of and say what a good religious fellow he was.

"Yo, dudes, got a free weekend. Mind if I scribble on your chapel ceiling?"

"Sure thing, just check your 'chuks at the door."

I would consider the artistry present in the statue beyond a child's ability, yes.

And a statue of Goofy would be definitely worth more.

PS

link

One sold for nearly $500 USD another is available for around $2,000. USD

I don't think they are Disney land sized though.

Well, you've given her a pretty high bar there.

"Over-educated idiots with the morals and ethics of four-year-olds are something every country has."

Unfortunately they're well funded by people, NGOs, and countries that want to see the West fail. Same as the pro-Hamas protestors.

"…artists such as Michalangelo, Monet and Da Vinci that various cretins have attempted to harm for ostensibly justified political reasons are inarguably classic."

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the useful idiots destroying statues. The fellows you mention above are old, dead, western, heterosexual, white men and deserve to be forgotten and their works destroyed.

old, dead, western, heterosexual, white men

I believe Da Vinci was gay/fluid but regardless of their ethnic origins or sexual proclivities, the cultural legacy of great art benefits the entire planet. The idea that destruction is somehow justified by being unhappy with their creators' background or to prove an unrelated political point is simply barbarism.

I'm not getting into the history debate, but great art is protected by nearly universal opinion and the attempted destruction should be universally condemned and punished.

but great art is protected by nearly universal opinion

Sorry, mate, but Jackson Pollock's "Blue Poles" is apparently considered "great art", but everyone I know thinks it's more like an untidy house-painter's drop sheet than any sort of art. Yes, I have seen the real thing in the national gallery. It's big, but it still looks like a baby crawled though some golden syrup and then across a bedsheet.

It's more about the process than the result.

Many pieces are never finished. The artist just has to stop.

With the statue in question, there's the sculptor, the techniques and materials used, the mould making and casting people and finishing techniques.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Aboriginals featured, perhaps in the final erecting of the piece. We may never know for sure.

Abstract expressionism is, I would argue, not universally considered ‘great' art per se and while Jack the Dripper might be considered one of the greatest artists of that school, it has not stood the test of time nor could it considered a classic in the traditional sense anymore than Pop Art.

It's the difference between smooth plastering/concrete, or a textured finish.

They both require time experience and skill to pull off effectively.

I don't think stupidity crossed 'the pond' – sadly, it seems pretty universal.
I think the old adage 'When America sneezes, the whole world catches a cold' is in play here!

To misquote George Carlin. Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize half the people are stupider than that.

Abstract expressionism is, I would argue, not universally considered ‘great' art per se and while Jack the Dripper might be considered one of the greatest artists of that school, it has not stood the test of time nor could it considered a classic in the traditional sense anymore than Pop Art.

At least some Pop Art shows a bit of artistic talent. "Abstract expressionism", in my limited experience, doesn't.

"limited experience,"

Evidently.

"limited experience,"

Evidently.

Happily guilty. Many things become evident on this board.

All lies.

If your not trying to replicate something, like a model or scene, you only have yourself to put into the work.

It's also why many paintings and sculptures appear rough, even at close inspection. Those marks and lines and brush strokes are the artists marks.

Often entire bodily features are just a line or two.

Abstract stuff is just an amplification of this.

Actually I believe blue poles literally had the artist in it as he was walking on broken glass on it, or something similar.

And KISS had their blood mixed with the red ink for a comic book cover.

While van Gogh cut off his ear to paint it, if I remember correctly.

Suffering for art in several forms there.

Not to forget the famous Aussie portrait painter who got cadmium cancer.

Whatever you say, H Man. Did an arts degree, did you?

People can suffer for their art, if they feel the need. Their suffering/efforts/visions don't oblige myself, nor anyone else, to admire or be impressed by either them or their art.

BTW, opinions aren't "lies" just because you disagree with them. They're not even always wrong, either, though that may surprise you

"Whatever you say, H Man. Did an arts degree, did you?"

Ah, 'Nam, the gift that keeps on giving.

"Their suffering/efforts/visions don't oblige myself, nor anyone else, to admire or be impressed by either them or their art."

Basically what the hippies were saying, right?

PS Also, all this on a site largely dedicated to sculptors and mini painters and picture artists, scale model builders who all put in effort, vision and often do suffer, financially/families/other for their art.

I find their efforts make for an impressive site.

I don't get the 'Nam reference. My question about art degree wasn't an attack, it was an honest question, as it's a subject about which you seem to be passionate..

As for the rest, nearly all on this board all paint our figures (not as quickly as I'd like, these days) and, in my case (and many others), display scale figures and scale models. That doesn't mean I'm special, it just means I enjoy those hobbies. There's certainly no reason for anyone (except the missus) to be impressed, to laud my efforts or "feel my suffering". Nor do I understand why there are those who believe otherwise.

"There's certainly no reason for anyone (except the missus) to be impressed, to laud my efforts or "feel my suffering""

Yet many do, even if they don't have a personal connection to it as well.

A typical person would usually respect and a knowledge someone's hard work, even if it's outside of their personal field of interest.

At least acknowledge, as I guess some people may not want to show respect for some efforts, though there were still usually dedicated and determined people involved. But they're extreme cases, not an artist.

The boards are full of people saying they appreciate the efforts people put into their hobby/work. And many conversations of people relating to each other's hardships.

Australia was the biggest pile of tosh I ever saw, getting only minutes into it before turning it off. But I know the cast and crew spent long hours in alsorts of conditions to see it through to completion. I think it made some money which is good for the Australian film industry.

Perhaps they can now use it to make a proper Mad Max film this century, speaking of rubbish films.