I’ve just finished reading this months issue of country walking. There was an article about pieces of art placed in naturally beautiful locations. I acknowledge that I haven’t visited any of them.
If I haven’t visited any of them, how can I possibly comment on them? Can I even ask the question is it appropriate for that piece to be there? I wonder how much research whoever commissioned the piece did to confirm that it would be acceptable for the piece to go there? In fairness, it may not even have been anything to do with the artist, who was merely commissioned to deliver the piece. So, this isn’t aimed at the artist so much, as who commissioned the piece for that location?
Why would you put a piece of art in a place with so much natural beauty? I have to admit to feeling a mild irritation that those pieces described in the article were put there, but I have no context for them being in those locations. Now, if they are temporary, then it may be OK, but if they are permanent is that a different story?
I suppose features that come to mind are The angel of the North and Anthony Gormley’s statues on the Liverpool beach. The Angel of the North I kind of get, firstly, I’m not sure about the natural beauty of the site, which makes that location functional. I haven’t seen Gormley’s statues, are the appropriately positioned? I really don’t know. Are they acceptable merely because the artist is famous? I don’t know. As you can imagine, the piece raised a bit of grumpiness in me. Most unlike me.
Bills Posts 