A good copy.I just read the blurb on the original - what a load of of pretentious wank!
(,
Fri 17 Oct 2008, 12:43,
archived)
Yes, it is a little sad that they fucked up something which was actually quite breathtakingby pretending it was more than just pretty.
I did use the original as a model when I was segmenting the nearly dry mortar.
For myself, I placed kitchen weights under the block and pressed down at the edges. Doris obviously was not able to do that with the Tate, I think her construction of the piece was impressive.
(I did use the original as a model when I was segmenting the nearly dry mortar.
For myself, I placed kitchen weights under the block and pressed down at the edges. Doris obviously was not able to do that with the Tate, I think her construction of the piece was impressive.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 17 Oct 2008, 12:49,
archived)
Decent engineering is always impressive - see anything by Kingrom BrunelBut this does not make it art.
The singular most impressive thing in the Tate (with one exception) is the gantry crane in the main hall. The one exception was that "sun" setting into the mirrors of the roof. That was trés cool.
That means that the best thing in the Tate is not art. Oh, the irony.
(,
Fri 17 Oct 2008, 12:54,
archived)
The singular most impressive thing in the Tate (with one exception) is the gantry crane in the main hall. The one exception was that "sun" setting into the mirrors of the roof. That was trés cool.
That means that the best thing in the Tate is not art. Oh, the irony.
Hmm,that depends - if Brunel had built Box tunnel just for it to be looked at then yes, it would be art.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 17 Oct 2008, 13:13,
archived)