the wave

where is this taken at?

I don’t like it. If it was done by school kids, fair enough but otherwise it’s trite.

It’s a 3 dimensional cliche – a stylized, tapered curl representing a wave. Wow!!
It’s a corporate logo made from tin
It’s riddled with budget compromises – from making it out of prefabricated metal and flat studded surfaces to replicating the exact same shape and size four times over.
Even the title (‘The Wave’ if that’s what its called) is mind numbingly dull.

Where’s the originality?
Where’s the quality?
Where’s the message – the mental stimulation – other than saying ‘this is a wave’?

If I’m being mean, it’s because some council thought this was worth being shown in public and most people would therefore accept it as ‘interesting’. It’s anything but

I hate seeing people uncritically accept meaningless clichés as wisdom or art.

.

I like it,

I think you gotta look at the curl of the wave from the smallest part first and then outward.

I mean personally I support more public art in general. It just seems like a lot of todays architecture is so devoid of any sign of life. Just brick and cement.

Yes but there is public “art” and then there is something beautiful. These metal wings are installed above a flower shop in The Angel in London. They dominate the square, one cannot help but be awestruck.

A

true, but all I’m saying is, at least it is something, some sign of the mysterious or life. that’s all,

amazing.

thank you, this touched me at the right moment

I understand. I expect though that an empty block of concrete holds more mystery than a meaningless installation reflective of mind control.

Hmm…don’t thank me, wisdom like art knows how to touch.

A

I worship no statue - no matter what qualities/hsitory it may have.

what he said.

waves don’t reflect mind control to me. waves reflect free-ness to me.

the waves was not a meaningless installation either. If children did it, then they probably put some meaning into it.

I wan’t awestruck when I first looked at it either. But on a few more looks, it seemed like something worth keeping.

Fine. If you have considered the criticism and still like it, then you’ve made an informed choice. That’s the most important thing – not whether we agree or not.

I could allow myself to have a lot of fun trying to find layers of meaning in this piece if I wanted to, but I’d feel like I’m forcing it to be something it isn’t.

For instance, I’d probably start by asking: why are there four waves and not one, two, or three? Is the 4 a reference to:
The fourth sign of the zodiac - Cancer (which is a water sign)
The four Seasons
The four fundamental forces of nature
The four dimensions of time/space?
The four Noble Truths of Buddhism
The Tetragrammaton (4 letter word) a reference to the Hebrew God?
The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (war, famine, plague, death) etc.
In truth, the artist probably chose four wave curls because if he/she arranged them into two pairs – setting one pair behind the other and staggered them – he’d/she’d have a cliché symbol of a 3D wave. That’s what I really believe happened here because there’s no evidence of any deep thought ANYWHERE.

Having said that, if the artist had done just one tiny thing, like giving it an interesting title, then the meaning and power would change dramatically. For instance, what if the sculpture was called “Time”? This would surely make people stop and ponder.

What’s the significance of these curls?
Why do the curls taper into (or out from) a point?
Why are the surfaces flat, not round?
Is the material meaningful?
Is the number of ‘time pieces’ significant (see the significance of the number 4 above – then relate it to Time) etc
In other words, we’d have a Theory of Time (waves of time?) here instead of a waves of water.

.