In case you don’t know anything about it the piece is called Temenos and be located between the Transporter Bridge and Middlesbrough Football Club. It’ll have been 10 years in the making and cost £2.7m. Temenos is however set to become just one of many sculptures as part of the ‘rejuvenation’ of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar, Hartlepool and Darlington set to cost £15m.

To get an idea of scale Temenos will be 110m long or the size of a football pitch and 50m high.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of public art, I’m one of those people who still doesn’t like Anthony Gormley’s Angel Of The North sculpture. If your a regular reader to this site you’ll realise that I don’t say these things because I hate art or I think it should always be in galleries. Quite the contrary, art should be for everyone.

But have you ever been to Middlesbrough?

Recently its been in the news for other reasons, massive job losses at the Corus steel working plant. The recession it seems is hitting the region hard and you can’t help but feel the money would have been better invested elsewhere.

“When I went to Middlesbrough for the New Statesman last year to find out how the recession was affecting the area, I found an atmosphere of grim transition — of council officials and local radio presenters grinning desperately through the decline of the last of Teesside’s manufacturing industries, hoping to patch up huge wounds with regeneration rhetoric.” Dan Hancox

I understand that this is a horribly grim opinion of public art and one that could be more positive.

“There are all the arguments about public art – couldn’t we have spent money on a hospital, say – and all the arguments are correct. But what happens after a while is that these things have the possibility of infiltrating people’s consciousness. You can’t say it’s going to happen, but you can hope it does.” Anish Kapoor

Its a very lofty ambition for public art to achieve but even Kapoor himself says that he ‘hopes’ it will change the individuals view of Middlesbrough. Its not a guaranteed result of spending all that money. In my experience a place doesn’t change until its people do.

Why not invest money to local artists who otherwise struggle to make a name in the region? Part of the problem with public art is that the money gets invested into big name artists when regional ones can create beautiful pieces and have first hand experience of the region.

Why do all public sculptures have to be so huge? One of my favourite pieces of public art is Tracy Emin’s Sparrow – even though yes it is too expensive.

While we’re on good public art I also really like the Love sculpture designed by Robert Indiana. Its both an iconic piece of art and a great display of typography.

I also really like traditional sculptures otherwise known as ‘blokes on horses’. Theres something attractive about the authoritarian nature of these sculptures, and you can feel somehow connected to the past by viewing them in public spaces.

Regardless of if you think they’re good on not ultimately its that test of time that public art has to endure.

My beef with public art is a post from: The Typhon

Rosetti was a poet, illustrator and painter perhaps best known for his work with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood during 1848 as one of its founding members. Together with William Holman Hunt and John Everett Milais the brotherhood founded what could be considered as the modern art industry, selling prints of work and illustrating books. This made art more commercial and more public but retained the ideology of the Pre-Raphaelites.

His work is closely linked with female sensuality and medieval romanticism. Rosetti fostered an interest in medieval art from a young age during his time at Kings College School and The Royal Academy.

Often his work features medieval style compositions and deep colours from a very natural colour pallet; maroon, burgundy and deep forest greens. Mythological arthurian legends and italian folklore appear as common inspirational themes.

Rosetti’s private life and love of women often comes to the fore as a subject for his paintings, particularly featuring his eventual wife Elizabeth Siddal as a sitter for a number of paintings. He also won the eventual support of John Ruskin who became a patron for the brotherhood. However Ruskin’s criticism of Rosetti’s work made him more introverted and unwilling to create pieces for public showcasing.

The Victorian social landscape during the 18th Century was undergoing great change. You only have to know a little about Dickensian novels which heavily feature the plight of widowed women and the poorhouse. Along side social change was great scientific and manufacturing change, the industrial revolution meant that goods could be mass produced and people were progressing forwards towards a machine age.

Arguably the work of the Pre-Raphaelites was a direct backlash against the encroachment of mechanisation and everyday struggles of the working man harkening back to a mythical simpler time.

I enjoy his work mainly because of how it portrays the female form. The very striking looks of the women, which are portrayed in a liberating manner – both powerful and feminine. As a teenager I found these images particularly inspiring and compelling from both an artistic point of view and how empowering it is.

When you look at the way the women look its highly stylised, at times almost graphically styled yet retaining realism. This intentional stylising could have something to do with Rosetti’s later friendship with designer William Morris.

I’ve also always loved the natural imagery of Rosetti’s work. Its my own personal view that in many ways we’ve lost touch with nature due to the computer being the domineering force in modern times. Perhaps once it was the vast machinery in mills that kept us indoors but now computers have us in their digital grip. Its that wild abandon of freedom which I think is so beautiful.

Dante Gabriel Rosetti is a post from: The Typhon

This time its the turn of Lou Romano.

Lou Romano works at Pixar Animation Studio’s as a voice actor and production assistant. If you’ve never heard of Lou its not surprising, like a lot of industries its the final product which most people see rather than the work ‘behind the scenes’.

Having graduated from the California Institute of the Arts in 1992 he’s worked mostly as an an art director for Dexter’s Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls. Arguably two of the most influential modern children’s cartoons.

However what attracts me to Lou’s work isn’t the fact that it looks modern its that retro edge mixed with an almost childish innocence which gives it a unique charm. Its a notable homage to the works of many other artists who worked at Disney during the 1960’s, in particular Mary Blair who created the ‘Its A Small World’ ride.

I first discovered Lou in a compilation book of Pixar production artwork. Normally shy away from any artwork which has harsh geometric lines. I’m not the sort of person who enjoys cubism or Picasso but the charm of Lou’s work really captured my imagination.

Another distinctive technique in Lou’s work is the depth of vibrant colours and the rendering of shadows. Its that use of light which makes many of his more serious adult works appear sinister or even sombre.

Even without colour theres a dynamic graphic look to his work which is highlighted through the detail of black and white – the balance between the positive and negative space.

Lou’s work has been exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art and at The Metropolitan Opera in New York along with being published on the cover of The New Yorker.

You can see more of Lou’s work over at his blog.

I realise that the last two entries I’ve posted in this series are about living artists, next time I may take a look at one of my favorite artists from the past.

Lou Romano is a post from: The Typhon

I’d like to start with a relatively unknown artist and illustrator Kit Williams. He’s probably most famous for a book entitled Masquerade.

Masquerade was a sensation during the late 1970’s selling thousands of copies based on the premise of solving a puzzle. The solution was a clue to the hidden whereabouts of a golden hair buried somewhere in the UK.

Kit was recently subject of a BBC programme ‘The Man Behind the Masquerade’. He appeared quite a reluctant subject, camera shy and reclusive – a contrast to many modern artists.

What I like about Kit’s work is the sensitivity, thought and detail which goes into each piece. They also have a magical quality about them too, this may in part be down to the subject matter. His pieces have more in common with the arts and crafts movement along with the Pre-Raphaelites than modern art. Two genres of art I’ve always loved.

The BBC show brought to light something about modern life and in particular modern art. Many modern artists work with teams of people to create huge paintings en mass, this is both financially profitable and gets your name around.

However Kit created over 300 works of art by himself simply because he wanted to, his art isn’t particularly political or shocking but it performs the primary function of art and that is to be beautiful.

In addition to paintings and two books hes also worked on two clocks both in shopping centres. The Regent Arcade in Cheltenham is home to the Wishing Fish Clock featuring a duck that lays golden eggs, and the Frog Clock in Telford Shopping Centre.

If you’ve never heard of Kit Williams then I’d recommend you check out his work, or even read Masquerade the story of a rabbit delivering a pearl from the moon to the sun.

Kit Williams is a post from: The Typhon

I’m a massive fan of Matthew Collings. He’s a British artist but more well known for his critiques of modern art. I first saw his series ‘This is modern art’ in 2000, it was so good he won a bafta for it. So, I was pleased to see a brief return on BBC2 in a show entitled ‘What is Beauty?’

‘What is Beauty?’ was a look at why we think some things are more beautiful than others. Thinking about beauty isn’t just important for artists its also is fundamental principle of design. Beauty is often subjective, not everyone likes the same colours for example. Stripping opinion away we are all hard wired to find certain things universally beautiful.

Symmetry, pattern, simplicity, and nature are just a few beautiful traits – when you actually stop to think about it these are quite obvious. So why do we need a programme to tell us what is beautiful?

We don’t spend time thinking about beauty, rarely do we stop to think about what makes something beautiful. The show itself was about beauty but it was more of a wake up call to get us to notice it in our everyday lives.

I’d also like to add some things to Colling’s list of beautiful things – light and randomness.

I think any scene can be made beautiful through the use of light, especially dappled low lights. Colour can be added to light which can again give it a different mood. All too often we experience the dreaded strip light that inhabits our offices, and that in itself is a mood indicating ‘its time for work’.

Even though we’re hard wired for patterns I also think randomness is a pleasant relief from our natural need for order. The way leaves fall in a random way drifted by the wind and the seemingly random twinkling of christmas lights can also be quite beautiful.

One of the reasons why I like Matthew Collings is the way he talks about art. He doesn’t think for you but does assist in finding meaning in modern art and how it connects to traditional pieces. Even for the uninitiated Collings approach to art is a very straightforward and logical.

I also recently watched another programme in ‘The Modern Beauty Season’ on the BBC entitled ‘Why Beauty Matters’ presented by Roger Scruton.

Scruton doesn’t hold back when it comes to berating modern life and pointing out how ugly it is. I would be inclined to agree, we’re locked into a consumerist culture bombarded by images. Where we’re encouraged to buy products that ‘add value’ to our lives and yet we are poorer for having bought them.

As a result of how ‘ugly’ life has become Scrunton argues that art too has become a reflection of the world’s ugliness and that we need beauty in our lives to escape the mundane. If modern art was television then it would be something like ‘Life Of Grime’ a contorted reality showing only the nastiest bits.

Despite my agreement with this show I felt it neglected two key points. First off the comparison between art and religious experiences. Back when I was reading John Berger’s ‘Ways Of Seeing’ he describes the reasons why ‘normal’ people don’t go to art galleries. They are too much like libraries or churches. I’ve always believed that art should be for everyone because it prompts us to think.

Second of all I think the show also neglected design as a key facilitator in modern life. We’re bombarded by design images everyday. It creates desire and permeates our lives in a silent way. John Berger covers this topic in his final chapter of ‘Ways Of Seeing’, advertising affects our opinions of ourselves making you wonder is design a force of good or evil?

What is beauty? is a post from: The Typhon

Its one of those books that I’ve heard of but never actually read myself, and if your into art I would highly recommend it. Although not a light read it gives some interesting opinions about how even in the pre-internet days people were concerned about how images are reproduced and consumed.

Some of the arguments in Ways Of Seeing are inspired by another essay called The Work Of Art In The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin.

Along side my reading of the book I actually started watching the TV version on Ways Of Seeing on Youtube. Watching the series is completely different to reading the book, it’s actually easier to follow the arguments in the filmed version. This is in part due to the ironically poor quality reproductions in the book.

At the end of the first episode John Berger states after spending the whole episode talking about the manipulation of images that the viewer should form their own opinions and that his opinion is in itself a manipulation. He also speaks about how even though viewers should have their own opinions they cannot express them to him directly unless there’s a change in the way television works.

This almost throw away comment isn’t really what the show is about but is really interesting, you have to remember that 1972 was long before public internet usage and people on YouTube seem to want to discuss Ways Of Seeing into the ground. Some of the comments point towards the arguments in the series being apparently too simple and lacking any revolutionary ideas.

I do wonder what John Berger would make of something like YouTube with its participatory nature.

Anyway even if some of the ideas are too simplistic sometimes its nice to have these things we don’t normally consciously think about brought to the fore. When I was at university I wrote my dissertation on images of women in comics, had I read Ways Of Seeing perhaps I would have written a few things differently. His book contains a chapter about women in paintings and also how people would want to have paintings of things they could own since it was a constant record of ownership.

Its interesting to link these two ideas together that by having paintings of women somehow they are possessed and have ownership.

The show also brings up the idea of contextual cases for art and design is no different. If you design a website someone viewing it can be on a train, a bus, in their home or at work. Media has become more and more ubiquitous and as it does the designer’s role becomes more important. To understand the role of the user and design things that are fit for their purpose.

Ways of seeing by John Berger is a post from: The Typhon

Related posts:

1. What is beauty? I’m a massive fan of Matthew Collings. He’s a...