This new sculpture has just appeared in Lumphini park.

To me it looks like the immortalisation of the modern western form.

I quite like it.

What do you think?

Sorry, the second picture should not have been the woman feeding the turtles.

This is it.

Well, to me that loks like the international belly flop competition being immortalised in chocolate sculpture.

Would a pic from the front, but on the other side have been revealing? You have avoided this, the obvious angle...any reason for this, not that it's important.

In this land of relatively thin people, It's the last sculpture of its type I would expect to see. I'm no expert, but it looks to be an original 'concept', and a bit of fun.

Sorry but I'm not cultured enough to get any enjoyment from it. I get a lot more satisfaction from watching the different kinds of lizards in my yard.

looks like the Michellin man has been sunbathing to me...

I think this one in Benjasiri Park is more sensual:

I agree absolutely Gary...living things are far more fascinating. If the taxpayers in my country had paid some w*nker 'artist' a ton of money tp produce it, my attitude would be radically different. I assume that the Thai taxpayers didn't pay for this. It's just that, as far this sort of stuff goes, it's a bit of fun, and probably an original idea.

In the scheme of things, it's importance rates well below a well-designed toilet bowl.

From what I can see, I agree Jetset (but that's just my personal preference). Is there a head involved? Possibly not, as one can see where the emphasis lies.

Art, I say, (in Lumpi Park ).

There's a very long tradition of sculptures of athletes poised; this indeed seems a modern take.

Some sculptors like to play with seemingly impossible balancing acts, too. It's playful and fun.

I think the brown-ness may not be undeliberate ... i.e. it does not refer to westerners .

Who's the sculptor ?

looks like my ex-wife

looks like my ex-wife

looks like my ex-crement

I think this one in Benjasiri Park is more sensual:

My goodness! Ballon Sellers have come on a bit since my childhood

From what I can see, I agree Jetset (but that's just my personal preference). Is there a head involved? Possibly not, as one can see where the emphasis lies.

No, no head, just an enormous pair of golden globes pointing skywards! Lovely!

Well I'm in the UK now so I don't have to be in Lumphini park to see that, just walk down the street LOL !

Talking of bad sculptures; check out this one that they erected in my UK home town of Basingstoke

It quickly gained the nickname of the "Wote Street Willy"

Sorry OP, I didn't bother to read through the posts. What's that thing for?

Well I'm in the UK now so I don't have to be in Lumphini park to see that, just walk down the street LOL !

My thoughts exactly

Looks like something I backed out this morning

looks like my ex-wife

looks like my ex-crement

Sorry OP, I didn't bother to read through the posts. What's that thing for?

A warning. Eating too many MacDonalds can cause westernisation.

Ease up people - this is "ART" I'll have you know. Art's function is to give us a good laugh, or cause for much staring, pondering, ruminating, and learned, highly serious discussion, all while licking an icecream. As for it's importance relative to licking icecream on a hot day, icecream wins.

Wote Street Willy -- now this is serious stuff, people. Appropriate respect, pihlease.

However I wouldn't be seen dead anywhere near an icecream anywhere in Wote Street.

Would a pic from the front, but on the other side have been revealing? You have avoided this, the obvious angle...any reason for this, not that it's important.

In this land of relatively thin people, It's the last sculpture of its type I would expect to see. I'm no expert, but it looks to be an original 'concept', and a bit of fun.

I think it is informed in part by Botero, who also exaggerates parts of the body without retaining true scale. Has very good movement. To me it can be read in two ways, from the front a bold and exuberant leap into the future, from the rear looks like a child running to its mother.

Who is the artist, and what is the piece called?

Cheers,

Mike

I quite like the Lumpini sculpture, it's quite energetic, full of vivre, it excudes hunger for life, hunger to improve oneself.

typical case. this cr*p cost xx,xxx thb but the park was charged xxx,xxx

the rest in the pocket. who cares about art?

Sorry OP, I didn't bother to read through the posts. What's that thing for?

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

A year ago, if someone printed "why don't you shut up" on a t-shirt, no-one would find it funny; but when King Carlos said those words to Chavez, it changed the meaning. Now, if someone writes on a T-shirt, "why don't you shut up", we understand it to be a reference to King Carlos, and perhaps find it amusing. Again, in 5 years, no-one would understand the T-shirt. The context is important.

Cheers,

Mike

edit> typos

Edited November 29, 200718 yr by phibunmike

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

I would say this is true of all art, contemporary or not.

For example a Caravaggio might 'look like good art' but how many people understand what makes it ‘great art’?

An example of what we might call ‘Traditional Art’ , acceptable to a wider audience because it doesn't challenge their eyes – While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

One difficulty in reading contemporary art, is that the works are often part of a debate or consideration of ideas. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to understand a work without knowledge of the background. We might enjoy it at a superficial level, or perhaps find it "silly".

I would say this is true of all art, contemporary or not.

For example a Caravaggio might 'look like good art' but how many people understand what makes it ‘great art’?

An example of what we might call ‘Traditional Art’ , acceptable to a wider audience because it doesn't challenge their eyes – While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

That is true, for example most people have lost the knowledge of the symbology used in many of the older paintings (especially 16th 17th 18th C). We completely miss the significance of a particular coat of arms in a della Francesca, or an orange in a Vermeer. We miss the "story". Much of the symbolism used, especially in religious painting, would at the time have been readily understood even by lay people.

However, up until Impressionism, composition and technique generally followed established, but evolving, principles, which can be appreciated by the majority. It is difficult to spot either technique or composition in something like Klein's "International Klein Blue 79" or Malevich's (much earlier) "White on White". Except to say that perhaps the composition is perfect; but that is precisely the type of debate that I was referring to.

So, a question of degree. I agree with you, but think that since the Impressionists, the back story becomes a lot more important if you want to get anything out the art work at all. (Not in all cases, of course).

edit> re-wording

Edited November 30, 200718 yr by phibunmike

– While totally missing the point that it was meant to challenge the mind, the beliefs of the day, the political, religious and social status quo.

Sorry to go on, but I totally agree with this. Consider, for example, Caillebotte's 'floor scrapers'. Most people now see this work either in an art book or on the internet - and totally miss the point that he used a larger canvas than was considered reasonable to depict manual workers. The challenge that he was making to convention, and the Academy in particular, is lost.

Ok, I'll shut up now