Would you pay $2 millions for this shit?

Syzygys

Syzygys

As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
Well, I wanted to post in the Art section, but there was a legal battle involved, so I figured maybe Ethics is the better forum:

http://www.bookofjoe.com/2007/01/etroits_sont_le.html

The Halls paid $2 millions for this pile of crap and the locals wanted them to remove. Since the owner most likely is a major asshole, originally he would have rotated the piece, but when was told to remove it, he left it there. The neighbours eventually won, and the "leftover from Interstate 95" was removed

So whose side are you on, the artlover or the neighbours???
 
Last edited:
Boy, that's ugly. No matter how much of an artlover you are, it's appropriate to work within the community and respect their wishes for something creative that actually looks good too. If it were inside, that would be a different matter.
 
OK, I have to correct the first post. It was actually the town who sued, and the neighbours apparently didn't have problem with the site. The owners have other similarly strange contemporary "art" pieces in their yard....

It is a 50/50 decission. First Amandment vs. good taste and local authority...
 
From the link:

Long story short: The Halls purchased the work in 2002 and installed it in August of 2003. Now the town is taking them to court to demand they apply for a certificate of appropriateness in order to have the work remain in place.

(BookOfJoe)
Click to expand...

A "certificate of appropriateness"? What the hell is that?

At any rate, January 2007? Does anyone have an update on this?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/arts/design/04kief.html

To its proud owners it was a great work of art. To the Historic District Commission of Fairfield, Conn., it was a broken down concrete wall and it had to go. The courts sided with the commission, so the 82-foot-long, 42-ton concrete sculpture by the internationally celebrated German artist Anselm Kiefer no longer occupies the lawn in front of Andrew and Christine Hall’s 19th-century Greek Revival mansion, where it had resided from August 2003 until late this summer. Now on extended loan to the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art here, it is the centerpiece of an exhibition that includes six gigantic Kiefer paintings, also owned by the Halls.
 
Honestly, if the family wanted a gigantic effigy of a Christ on the cross soaking in actual urine on their front lawn, I would still say "it's their property to do with as they wish."

If the locals want them to stop with all the "free speech" the locals should pony up some cash, buy them out, and make the land public.

There's no unwritten duty for me to conform my sense of art to what the local rubes enjoy, and there is an actual law saying that I can express myself in any way I damn well please, so long as it does not create an imminent risk of harm to others.
 
'Land of the Free', but you need to ask some authority before you can put a sculpture on your own property.

If no individual complains, and the thing is no danger, doesn't occlude the Sun, or in any way cause a nuisance, it should have been let be. Anything else is pointless bureaucracy.
 
Tiassa said:
From the link:



A "certificate of appropriateness"? What the hell is that?

At any rate, January 2007? Does anyone have an update on this?
Click to expand...

I don't know what a certificate of appropriateness is, but George Orwell could have used the notion in his book.
 
phlogistician said:
'Land of the Free', but you need to ask some authority before you can put a sculpture on your own property.

If no individual complains, and the thing is no danger, doesn't occlude the Sun, or in any way cause a nuisance, it should have been let be. Anything else is pointless bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

For example, pet lions.
 
So whose side are you on, the artlover or the neighbours???
Click to expand...

I'm on the side of good taste and that piece of shit "artwork" should have been thrown away when they removed it when they demolished the structure it came from.:(
 
Tiassa said:
From the link:



A "certificate of appropriateness"? What the hell is that?

At any rate, January 2007? Does anyone have an update on this?
Click to expand...

I'm remodeling a bungalow that is in an H-1 overlay district downtown, and I had to pay $40 for my "Certificate of Appropriateness". I laughed too when I first heard that term, but that's what the Histerical Society and MPC agreed to call it. Basically I had to outline everything I planned to do to the house, and include what type of materials I intended to use. They're trying to prevent people from buying up old Victorians', and slapping blue vinyl siding over the wood.

I don't know why anyone would pay to have a pile of concrete and rebar in their yard when you could just go to any demo site and load up the stuff for free.:shrug:
 
Pandaemoni said:
Honestly, if the family wanted a gigantic effigy of a Christ on the cross soaking in actual urine on their front lawn, I would still say "it's their property to do with as they wish."
Click to expand...

Not true. Local laws apply. In my neighbourhood there was a big board House For Sale by Owner, and they were made to take it down because it was bigger than the allowed sales advertisement. Same with political signs.

So the locals can control quite a few things in their neighbourhood. If someone doesn't like it, they can move...
 
15ofthe19 said:
I don't know why anyone would pay to have a pile of concrete and rebar in their yard when you could just go to any demo site and load up the stuff for free.:shrug:
Click to expand...

No kidding. I wish I had that much money to just throw away. They say it is 80 ft long? It doesn't look that big from the picture. :shrug:
It also says it is behind the bushes on his property. If he paid for it and it is on his property......what can anybody really do about it regardless
if they like it or not.
 
Syzygys said:
Not true. Local laws apply. In my neighbourhood there was a big board House For Sale by Owner, and they were made to take it down because it was bigger than the allowed sales advertisement. Same with political signs.

So the locals can control quite a few things in their neighbourhood. If someone doesn't like it, they can move...
Click to expand...

Legally, in the U.S. they can have reasonable CONTENT NEUTRAL rules on the time and manner of private expression. So, at least, they cannot ban the expression because they do not like the content. Banning art because "we think this particular art is ugly" is the exact opposite of content neutral.

In this case, though I am not arguing the law, I am saying the bozos who are objecting to the art or are abusing the building certification laws in this way need to be shouted down for being the intrusive fucktards they are.
 
Last edited:
I'm on the artlovers side.

The wave of "you cant have that because I dont like it" attitude sweeping across large portions of the USA, is troubling in many aspects, most notably the lack of respect for property lines. What makes this even more alarming is it does not appear to be an issue originating with neighbors being uncomfortable with the art, rather a drive by Oh My God thats Just Awful attack on someone else.

Would I pay money for that 'art piece'. NOPE!
 
Pandaemoni said:
Legally, in the U.S. they can have reasonable CONTENT NEUTRAL rules on the time and manner of private expression. So, at least, they cannot ban the expression because they do not like the content.
Click to expand...

Certain areas have distinctive styles. I think in Miami's waterfront the color is controlled, so they can only use the similar pastel colors.
The same could apply in this case, if the houses are mostly Victorian style, there is no room for modern art. Additionally, this particular art looked like a leftover from a building demolishment, thus it could go against the keep your lawn tidy rule...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top