Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad

« TV AD FROM 1950 | Main | BWANA JOHNNY ON 91 KISN »

October 27, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

That particular piece of...art is perfectly Portland. A woodland citter with a baby face just embodies the pro-vegan, animal-rights minded nature of the region as it subtly flips the bird to those big, meany, long-gun, hunter types.

After all, why would you shoot, kill, and eat something with such an innocent baby-face? (Ummmm, maybe because it tastes good?)

Ain't taxpayer-funded "art" grand?

art, especialy public art. that art placed where people can see and interface with it in there everday drugery. all classes of people; from the "sort" one finds sculking on this blog, to the average man-in-the-street. the street-kid, or collage type. even little folks who doen't even understand that a thing is "art" when they are marveling at it and wondering just why it is recignizible, but they can't understand it at the same time as it is strangely out of place. for the great mass of people who will flow in and around this and all the other public art in all the other cities of the world. incermentelly, day by day, year after year......
this people, is "Public Art". it inspires thought and begets question. without art, we are a culture of cows. with art we aspire to be "Humanity"....... please join in......


Art is fine. No argument. But why should it be taxpayer-funded? It seems that the majority of taxpayer-funded art has been low on artistic creativity and imagination and way high (in more ways that one) on cheapness, dullness, tackiness or outright obscenity.

Art will not disappear if it is weaned off of the public teats. It may well be forced to mature from its currently infantile state.

(sighs..... throws up hands..... goes back to ghost dance)

I saw this story and read all of the comments, only after all of this did I realize that the picture at the top is what is supposedly "art" being installed. Looks like a giant turd from a Warthog. Well, after all there is nothing I can think of to better describe Portland! If I ran that "city" anyone that even thought of spending that kind of money on CRAP like that would be fired or taken out back. Shame on them for screwing all the customers and employees and taking all of our money for crap like this when BILLIONS of people are out of jobs.

first, a bit of History..... (this is all a copied)

Passed in 1975, Oregon's Percent for Art legislation guides the acquisition of the state's public art collection, which includes more than 2,500 works of art.
Public art program discussions in Oregon began in 1975 as the State Capitol in Salem underwent a $10 million expansion. Initial legislation, passed in July 1975, applied to public construction budgets for facilities in Marion and Polk counties. In 1977, the program extended to state buildings in all Oregon counties. Oregon Revised Statutes set aside “not less than 1% of the direct construction funds of new or remodeled state buildings with construction budgets of $100,000 or greater for the acquisition of art work which may be an integral part of the building, attached thereto, or capable of display in other State Buildings”.

Since then, the Percent for Art has placed high quality, accessible to the public, permanent art in public places. The work reflects a commitment to the successful integration of artist, the public, and architects as a working team to plan for the art. The program remains dedicated to the enhancement of public environments and the improvement of the character and quality of state buildings with art in order to create an accessible, publicly-owned collection which is inspiring and available to Oregonians and visitors.


Now, when i go to a museum or the like with a friend; i often times don't like the things or pictures that my friend may like. i don't need to. my friend and i are "individguals". we can agree on the facts of the thing such as what color it is. but we can each have our own opinions that may or may not agree.
it's like this, that a persons butt smells is most probably a fact. weather or not you would find that smell plesent is your opinion...... and i for one will certenly respect your opinion in both butts, and art, what ever they are......


I think the point is F (if that is your real initial) that even if they had to spend a quarter of a million, they could have spent it more wisely than on that reindeer like thing pictured above.

At any rate, the law of unintended consequences is certainly at work here. It's time to revisit the public art laws. They don't make sense in times of 20 percent (real) unemployment. You think maybe this is what the "occupiers" are upset about if they really took a look at things?

Kind of looks like that inflatable crap people put on their lawns and call them Holiday Decorations. Cost a lot less than $250k at Walmarts.

F...You...really are transparent-not to mention evidently clueless.

You are the only one who went immediately for the gradation of rectal fragrance card. (That's "butt smell" to U...F.)

It is at once telling that "butt smell" is the first thing which pops into your mind, and that it is the first thing which you associate with the current state of "publicly funded" art.

(FYI, "publicly funded" just means that such funding is jacked from the citizens wallets by force of mandate.)

As to "weather or not you would find that smell plesent"....gee, why is a meteorologically dependent fragrance enjoyment of interest to you, of all things? When not establishing your semi-literacy in cyberforums do you stay indoors when it rains to sniff the trouser seats of others? And in the so-doing, is your rating on a letter or number scale?

Or are you just working up to a one-person, live art, bottom-sniffing show worthy of NEA grants and bestowalls from John D & Catherine T McArthur?

Sharpen those olfactory receptors, F...You...may have an eccentric art future ahead of you in Puddle-City.

a well timed quote from another online source.....

MORE ABOUT PERSONAL ATTACKS AND AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS: This is a common form of verbal abuse. We see this all the time on the Internet. For example, Person A in a newsgroup writes "Health care insurance has become increasingly expensive, its costs rising much faster than the rate of inflation." And Writer B responds, "You would say that since you are a hippie and don't want to take responsibility for paying your own bills." There could be good arguments against what Person A said such as health care is better, more procedures are being covered than were covered before etc. BUT Writer B decided to attack the character of person A instead. This attack was not an argument; it was a ploy to discredit Person A so that Person A's argument would be rejected by others in the newsgroup. I see this as a form of verbal abuse. And when someone like Writer B uses such an argument, Writer B has lost by default because Writer B did not play by the rules of reasonable discourse.

Confused F. Loren, are you on crack too?

Effie, dear,

Nice try, but you are the one equivocating and doing the classic hit-and-run posting.

No ad hominem attacks were made.

Merely enquires made for purpose of being more informed.

Since you made mention of the relativities of appreciation of the scent or smell eminating from the terminal lower orifice of the human digestive trac, i.e. the rectal/anal region, it is only fair to enquire as to the reason or backstory to your making such a non-sequitor reference in order to attempt to abet your specious argument.

Being unable to substantively respond, you plagarize without citation in crying, or mewling, about "verbal abuse".

Do you feel "abused", Effie, dear?

Merely because you have been challenged or called out on your postings?

Has a nerve been touched concerning a certain private interest or "fetish" of yours? What happened to being out, proud, bold and fearless? Or is that only when grouped in packs or dancing in parades in June?

I only ask these things in order to become better informed. Please do enlighten us, ok, Effie, dear?

ya they smoking crack!

The comments to this entry are closed.