I don’t think we can blame feminists for this one.
Get your mind out of the gutter; according to the New Zealand Herald, the artist says it’s supposed to be a cloud:
The Auckland Council-commissioned Transit Cloud has been created as part of a project to breathe new life into traditionally working class New Lynn.
The aerial component – four aluminium mesh cloud forms – hangs more than 8m over a lane linking New Lynn’s shiny new railway and bus station with the town’s library and shopping mall.
The public sculpture cost more than $200,000.
Being mere plebes and not elite art critics, the public reaction was less than enthusiastic.
“What the hell is that? It’s certainly not a cloud. It looks like a penis,” said Joy Dale, of Mt Roskill.
Now that we’ve had a chuckle, let’s ask ourselves this: why is modernity so ugly? And why are the elite vanguards of modernity hell-bent on *inserting* their ugliness into the public’s face at every opportunity?
Recall this grotesque stunt at Christmas (highlighted in the postby The Thinking Housewife):
It’s supposed to be a Christmas tree. Uh-huh.
In the thread from several days ago about feminist art, Scott gavefor this impulse by moderns to uglify the world:
…the mantra of Avant Garde is “shock the middle class.”
At this point, there are no more middle class values to shock, because absolutely nothing is sacred. Every boundary has been crossed.
and also added:
Beauty is an objective truth. This has been known for a long time.
Yes. And unlike this monstrous mesh dong cloud in the sky, the male form in art need not be ugly. Consider:
[Note: This post was edited to move my comment into the body of the essay.]