-
31st August 11, 07:00 PM
#1
I have mixed feelings especially having just finished a wonderful river cruise through Germany where my wife and I saw/visited many old, beautiful castles. However, the Brazilian art work on the Scottish castle really is fantastic.
-
-
31st August 11, 08:59 PM
#2
I can't say I'm impressed. If the artwork was on a freeway underpass in San Diego or LA, that's one thing. On a Scottish castle? No thanks.
-
-
29th September 11, 05:13 AM
#3
Re: The disrespect turns my stomach.
Can see both sides of the argument, but have to say I'm firmly in the traditionalist camp.
Yes, it is art rather than the meaningless tagging etc we see so often, but for me immortailise it in pictures, do a display inside, and put our heritage back as it should be.
Reminds me of a Beautiful South line - The world is turning Disney and there's nothing you can do...
Martin.
AKA - The Scouter in a Kilt.
Proud, but homesick, son of Skye.
Member of the Clan MacLeod Society (Scotland)
-
-
29th September 11, 05:42 AM
#4
Re: The disrespect turns my stomach.
I see a bit of Diego Rivera's mural work, combined with Nickeodeon. Upon further reading, I see that the Earl has other tourist attractions on his property, and that this is a way to bring in the tourists.
It's his castle, and he may be eccentric, but I don't think it's appropriate or tasteful for the surroundings.
I know I certainly wouldn't like it if my neighbor did that to his property. But to each his own.
Cheers, Jocelyn
-
-
31st August 11, 07:01 PM
#5
Meh... Unfortunately, art has a way of being art for some and rubbish for others. I also cringe when I see sculptures of twisted, rusty iron all over my alma mater's campus... What the **** are those supposed to signify, anyway? (Doesn't help that my wife's cousin is one of the artists responsible for erecting that crap either).
But whether it's crucifixes dipped in urine, or paint expelled from the artist's posterior onto a canvas, artists always seem to try and find new ways to shock and disturb others. In fact, I would say that the castle graffiti is less shocking and disturbing than the examples I mentioned above...
Let the earl have his fun... As others have mentioned, it won't last forever. I can understand from those who are really into historical preservation, this just rubs the wrong way... But that's the way things go.
For those who must have historicity at all costs, I recommend not coming to Japan then, where most medieval castles have been retrofitted with modern interiors, elevators, electricity and running water, much like any other modern building. Sure it's a bit disappointing, but I'm not the one who has to pay the bills on the building and clearly someone figured that making a museum with elevators, drywall and a gift shop would get the tourists to drop more money than preserving the interior like it was in the 1600s.
-
-
31st August 11, 07:16 PM
#6
I don't share or appreciate the Earl's taste, but I don't see that he has been disrespectful. It is his castle, and it seems that he did have permission from the appropriate commissions to alter the appearance of an historic building for three years. That said, the commissions could deny his request for an extension.
-
-
31st August 11, 07:19 PM
#7
As long as no damage has been done to the surface material, and the project is not permanent (once it starts to wear away, it will quickly become very shabby,) I think it's entertaining (although not really my taste.) No harm no foul.
Being that the building is an active residence, and undoubtedly permission was granted for the project, it seems the Earl was within his rights. Eccentric nobility stirring the pot? Probably. Am I offended? Not really.
I am a bit conflicted however, and am want to play the devil's advocate. Presumably the building has historic landmark status? As such, even though privately owned, does the Earl not also have an obligation to maintain and preserve the buildings "historically correct" facade? I have to say it's VERY unlikely that permission would be granted for such a project on an historic/landmark U.S. building. (i.e. Paul Revere's house or Hurst's San Simeon "Castle".) Granted, our histories are different and historical value can be subjective.
-
-
31st August 11, 07:32 PM
#8
Yeah, not my cup of tea. I certainly wouldn't have done it. I like old buildings and like to see them as they should be. I don't like murals anyway, no matter where they are or how well they are done. But to each his own.
The flag thing however, is rather uncool, IMO.
-
-
31st August 11, 08:03 PM
#9
If the mural were something having to do with Scotland, it would be bad enough. To have all those images interposed higgledy-piggledy looks to me like somebody was "less than lucid" and somehow remembered it all, then started painting.
--dbh
When given a choice, most people will choose.
-
-
31st August 11, 08:18 PM
#10
 Originally Posted by piperdbh
If the mural were something having to do with Scotland, it would be bad enough. To have all those images interposed higgledy-piggledy looks to me like somebody was "less than lucid" and somehow remembered it all, then started painting.
Reminds me of the ways of some artists I've known.
"higgledy-piggledy" I like that phrase.
I tried to ask my inner curmudgeon before posting, but he sprayed me with the garden hose…
Yes, I have squirrels in my brain…
-
Similar Threads
-
By BroosterB1 in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 9
Last Post: 22nd July 09, 08:04 AM
-
By pdcorlis in forum Miscellaneous Forum
Replies: 7
Last Post: 11th June 09, 01:30 AM
-
By phil h in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 13
Last Post: 26th July 06, 03:12 PM
-
By Space Moose in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 8
Last Post: 21st March 06, 09:13 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks