But is it art?

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 post Public Porn in Paris by The Thinking Housewife):

It’s supposed to be a Christmas tree. Uh-huh.

In the thread from several days ago about feminist art, Scott gave a partial explanation for 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 this truth:

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:


“Adam And Eve Expelled From Paradise” Giuseppe Cesari – 1568-1640.





[Note: This post was edited to move my comment into the body of the essay.]

14 thoughts on “But is it art?

  1. The first thing that popped into my head was that Bodycrimes is going to be furious. My previous comment with a link to the 1812 Overture from Ft. Sill would be mild in comparison. It had lot of artillery.
    At a guess, and without checking, I’ll wager a doughnut that the artist was a woman.


  2. It doesn’t surprise me that the artist is a man:

    His name is Gregor Kregar. From the article:

    Sculptor Gregor Kregar, who with his artist wife Sara Hughes and architect Davor Popadich created the work, said there was never any intention of creating a large phallic image in the sky.

    Transit Cloud, he said, was connected to 30,000 tinted ceramic dots in the laneway floor, acknowledging the local portage history and modern transport focus of the precinct. The forms above resembled clouds and liquid matter, like raindrops.

    “Art is out there to stir reaction,” said Kregar.

    He was confident people would embrace the work after 50m of neon lights are connected in each form.

    Oh, well, that explains it then; it just needed some neon lights!

    Only a modern intent on uglification would think neon lights blasting on a large metal you-know-what would be “embraced” by the people. In reality, I suspect that the artist knew what this resembled and now he gets the privilege of not only earning a chunk of cash for creating this mess but also experiencing the thrill of superiority as he feigns ignorance. “Wha-? A giant what?! Why, I never! How could you…? *sigh* The people in this working class town just don’t understand art.”

    So superior to the working class, isn’t he.


  3. As a former high school teacher, can we not do better than this? I would expect this from 16 year olds, not grown men, though it doesn’t surprise me. I have many friends, both male and female, making art, and none of them are using these images. Have some class.


  4. I can see the possibility of the artist not immediately cluing in to what his art looked like–I once noted to a knitter that the bottle knitted on a baby washcloth looked like something else seen here–but I am at a loss as to how a number of people building this atrocity and installing it would not figure out what it looked like.

    And Lucien makes a great point about those the big socialist murals from the WPA and such. James Lileks of the Star-Tribune (lileks.com) noted once that that faraway gaze so popular in such dreck resembles nothing so much as what someone does when they break wind and don’t want to be blamed for it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s