# For or Against



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

In 2011 the sculptor Anacleto Abraham installed his statue "l'Uomo Comune / Common Man" on the bridge close to the world famous Ponte Vecchio, Florence. After 7 days the statue was removed. After two years the sculptor received a fine of 190 Euro for having "hindered the usability of the bridge." On June 19, 2013 the sculptor reinstalled his statue. He is willing to cast it in bronze, but it would have to remain on the present location.

On the 2nd panorama one may notice that it is not a large edifice.

OK now your opinions please: for or against


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm not sure what you're after here. At first I thought this would be a thread similar to "This or That" where someone mentions something and someone says if they're for or against it. Then starts a new topic. As for this statue, I think it's an eyesore and should be removed immediately. And in Florence? Possibly one of the top three cities of artistic expression in history. I will say this. The water is lovely. I can't decide if I'm looking at Cleveland or Galveston.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

As teenager, I've covered the walls of male locker-room at my school with avant-garde frescoes and was also fined by school authorities for act of vandalism. I'd say I was as much of Rafael Santi as he is a sculptor to be displayed in Florence. What are arguments "for", some far-fetched idea of artistic freedom that enables everybody to display anything they want wherever they want?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Against: I'm assuming that the piece wasn't commissioned.

I like the sculpture but it deserves a more modern environment...and a city who actually requests it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

For. I like it .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Flat or three dimensional, a graffito is a graffito, unsolicited, and a matter of sheer ego on the part of the maker who placed it there, regardless of the merits of the graffito.

C'mon, this is like a boy begging to be let off for marking that locker room wall under the banner of art. Sorry the sculptor could not find a gallery, or buyer, who would want to display it. A private buyer could opt to display it atop their garden wall, for example.

The bridge is a public way and common area, though, and anyone else 'defacing' it would not be so disingenuous as to even pretend to be alarmed to be asked to remove whatever they had put up without prior permission.

...and I'm all for contemporary art in public places, including historic districts of antique cities and towns.

I imagine you thought the nature of the post was something brilliantly socio-political and 'controversial.' It is not. The artist's action in installing the piece is little boy punk attitude stuff... ADD... and a wholly contemporary publicity stunt


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

As has already been said, if he installed it without permission, then he absolutely should have had to remove it and pay a fine. On the quality of the art itself, I am not impressed. First of all, I can't even see it in the second picture, and what I see in the first picture is utterly boring.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

DrMike said:


> As has already been said, if he installed it without permission, then he absolutely should have had to remove it and pay a fine. On the quality of the art itself, I am not impressed. First of all, I can't even see it in the second picture, and what I see in the first picture is utterly boring.


Agree completely. I did not vote, because you do not explain what for or against mean in this case (the sculpture or its removal).


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Wherever You come in the world, cities are way to organized by engineers, all of then hastily needs some covert art installed! so I'm all for guerilla art embellishments of urban environments (And that most often does not include lowly forms of Graffiti)! 

/ptr


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ptr said:


> Wherever You come in the world, cities are way to organized by engineers, all of then hastily needs some covert art installed! so I'm all for guerilla art embellishments of urban environments (And that most often does not include lowly forms of Graffiti)!
> 
> /ptr


Trouble is, like about anything contemporary, there is a glut of it: a tiny percent terrific to good, the bulk of it mediocre to dreadful. Some urban bleakness can be brightened up by just about any means


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

It's a great little piece of art, cities need far more people taking control of their urban environments and adding embellishments to the sterile, utilitarian forms. The charge of "hindering the usability" is a tellingly false excuse, a blandly bureaucratic, public-safety lie to avoid saying, "we don't like it, you don't have the right".

Also:
I don’t know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway, Whatever it is, I’m against it. No matter what it is or who commenced it, I’m against it.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

quack said:


> It's a great little piece of art, cities need far more people taking control of their urban environments and adding embellishments to the sterile, utilitarian forms. The charge of "hindering the usability" is a tellingly false excuse, a blandly bureaucratic, public-safety lie to avoid saying, "we don't like it, you don't have the right".
> 
> Also:
> I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway, Whatever it is, I'm against it. No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it.


Hooray for Captain Quack.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Alternative procedure: let the locals vote!


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> Alternative procedure: let the locals vote!


I guess here the whole world belongs to 'the locals'... That's why I'm putting up the vote here.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

TxllxT said:


> I guess here the whole world belongs to 'the locals'... That's why I'm putting up the vote here.


Was merely imagining the benefits of a democratic debate in the local environment - sculptures or public "embellishments" tend to be put up without much debate taking place ( it wasn´t meant as a comment on the subject being posted here on TC ).

In this case I might vote yes, but for a limited period and with an accompanying plate with more about the artist, and then a further evalution. It´s a harmless sculpture, better than a lot of the recent public decoration schemes found in many places, and the photo of the sculpture "against the river stream" indicates a good effect, but it´s also very toy-looking, of the cute-like sort, and a bit of a contrast to the historical surroundings.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

Why should someone have the right to simply erect a creation of their own wherever they feel like it? If the property is theirs, then by all means, let them place whatever they like. But given that this is a public space, more than likely constructed by public funds (whether collected by taxation from a public that consented, or by force via some monarch, the money came from the people initially), and so no one person gets to determine what gets put there. I have no doubt that the artist was trying to get some free publicity, thus boosting his name recognition and hopefully propelling him into a more lucrative career - so I would say that I am against such willy-nilly acts. What then becomes inappropriate? How do you tell one person they can, and another person they can't? And if you don't tell anybody they can't, what happens when it reaches a ridiculous level? 

I think the art itself is bland and unremarkable. I think the act of putting it on the bridge was nothing more than self-promotion and personal aggrandizement.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I think the art itself is bland and unremarkable. I think the act of putting it on the bridge was nothing more than self-promotion and personal aggrandizement.


Bingo... and already, this sculptor has had an extension -- far too long -- of his more than fifteen minutes of [free] fame


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The artist has been using this figure in several of his works in public spaces, as a symbol of the values and struggles of the common people and an attack on the elite money-can-buy aspects of modern art (such as that represented by Damien Hirst at an exhibition in Florence at the time). It´s not meant as purely decorative, but has an art-political programme.

(http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clet_Abraham)


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Its very modern but i dont know why not?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

There´s probably early 20th-century inspiration from Boccioni "_Walking Man_" (1913) and others


----------



## JohnnyRotten (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm for! I like the sculpture. All the complaints seem to be a lot of hot air over nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> The artist has been using this figure in several of his works in public spaces, as a symbol of the values and struggles of the common people and an attack on the elite money-can-buy aspects of modern art (such as that represented by Damien Hirst at an exhibition in Florence at the time). It´s not meant as purely decorative, but has an art-political programme.
> 
> (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clet_Abraham)


Meaning people are willing to pay money to see the works of other artists, but not for his art?

In my experience, the ones who are trying to overthrow the system are the ones who primarily cannot be successful in said system - therefore, they are suddenly champions of the "common people." I have seen and heard many such artists, and rarely do I see anything in them that seems to have any commonality with common people - who don't typically flaunt their mediocrity in the public square.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> The artist has been using this figure in several of his works in public spaces, as a symbol of the values and struggles of the common people and an attack on the elite money-can-buy aspects of modern art (such as that represented by Damien Hirst at an exhibition in Florence at the time). It´s not meant as purely decorative, but has an art-political programme.
> 
> (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clet_Abraham)


ineffective is ineffective, no matter what your excuse. Littering banality in public places is not something I would call political as much as egoist littering, or an act like a dog marking their territory by urinating every several yards along their walking route.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Why is anyone asking the sculptor to remove it? I would suggest having city employees do so, impounding the sculpture like one might an illegally parked car, and then billing the sculptor for the costs involved when and if s/he comes to retrieve it. If it is not claimed, sell it for scrap metal to recoup some of the expense. It is ugly, especially the head.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

PetrB said:


> ineffective is ineffective, no matter what your excuse. Littering banality in public places is not something I would call political as much as egoist littering, or an act like a dog marking their territory by urinating every several yards along their walking route.


We´ve probably gone far enough.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Why is anyone asking the sculptor to remove it? I would suggest having city employees do so, impounding the sculpture like one might an illegally parked car, and then billing the sculptor for the costs involved when and if s/he comes to retrieve it. If it is not claimed, sell it for scrap metal to recoup some of the expense. It is ugly, especially the head.


The material is fiber-glass, not scrap-metal. The artist is willing to redo it in bronze for free, but he wants it affixed to this tourist-frequented location of Ponte alle Grazie.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

TxllxT said:


> The artist is willing to redo it in bronze for free, but he wants it affixed to this tourist-frequented location of Ponte alle Grazie.


How generous of him.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TxllxT said:


> The material is fiber-glass, not scrap-metal. The artist is willing to redo it in bronze for free, but he wants it affixed to this tourist-frequented location of Ponte alle Grazie.


:lol:..................................


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

:lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Agree completely. I did not vote, because you do not explain what for or against mean in this case (the sculpture or its removal).


Agreed. My 'for' was for the art, not for the placing it where it wasn't wanted/permitted. I didn't vote either.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> The material is fiber-glass, not scrap-metal. The artist is willing to redo it in bronze for free, but he wants it affixed to this tourist-frequented location of Ponte alle Grazie.


If he was trying to make a point with it, you would think he would want it placed more in a place frequented by the locals, as opposed to tourists who would have no idea of the significance. Again, this smacks of nothing more than shameless self promotion. Rather than being a champion of the common man, he is merely trying to improve his condition on the cheap, ignoring the rules that the common man must follow - but not him, because his art is so important that, dammit, you better let him put it wherever he thinks it should be, rules be damned.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> DrMike said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning people are willing to pay money to see the works of other artists, but not for his art?
> ...


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

Against. Is it suppose to be art. I see those everywhere but not in the same posture. It's the same litle guy I see on every man's public bathroom so I don't make the mistake to enter the ladies one. Not that I have ever done that by mistake or on purpose. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2014)

joen_cph said:


> > That is definitely your (very) mercantile interpretation & a narrow view of art as just another career opportunity for financial gain/investment ... he would say that it is a critique of the amount of money involved in the elitist or extremely commercialized art world.
> >
> > Taken literally: so attempts at innovative thinking, social debate, or critical and rebellious attitudes in the arts are the results of despicable envy, lack of talent and a lack of commercial success - a loser-mentality? We would have to exclude a lot of great and interesting artists then.
> >
> ...


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> joen_cph said:
> 
> 
> > See, now I kind of like those etchings.
> ...


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Googled this artist but couldn't find much. I guess he knows his Banksy's very well, but doesn't have the poetic quality that Banksy does have.
I'm afraid the expression "don't quit your daytime job" applies here...

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

So what exactly distinguishes him as an artist, as opposed to, say, a graffiti vandal with a sense of humor? Because he says so?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

DrMike said:


> So what exactly distinguishes him as an artist, as opposed to, say, a graffiti vandal with a sense of humor?


Maybe he graduated from academy of fine arts. Academic degree provides magical power of changing antics into art.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

DrMike said:


> So what exactly distinguishes him as an artist, as opposed to, say, a graffiti vandal with a sense of humor? Because he says so?


Anaclet Abrahams or Banksy ? Not sure if the question was aimed at me... Not sure whether either of them are artists or vandals with or without humor. Let's say that Banksy made a few nice ones, indeed with some humor and some quality. Art in the light of eternity? I really don't know.

Cheers,
Jos


----------

