I lived in London for a few months in 2011 and had the opportunity to see the Orbit being constructed at the Olympic Village. To me it looked like a twisted radio tower, and reading about it I realised that it was supposed to be a "sculpture" by the renowned artist Anish Kapoor. Many Londoners were criticising the Orbit being an eyesore, and a waste of money (20 million pounds funded by Laxmi Mittal). But the creators' justification was that people said the same about Eiffel tower when it was being built, and that it takes time to appreciate the beauty of a creation. A few months later, I visited Paris and while looking at the Eiffel, I couldn't find any reason why the Orbit should be in the same ball park!
I saw a couple of other installations by Sir Anish Kapoor in the following years - The Bean in Chigaco, and The Sky Mirror exhibited in Sydney.
Both these were far more appealing to me than the Orbit, for obvious reasons. Reading up, I realised that these were created in the early 2000s, much before the Orbit. Would that be a reason for its appeal - that enough time has passed and our sensibilities have changed?
I remember a scene in the movie The Fight Club where a corporate art installation is destroyed by the "club members. I am very sure that majority of the viewers chuckled at this sight, thinking "Yeah, we never got it, anyway!" I definitely did.
If you have been to Melbourne, one thing that strikes you immediately on the drive from the airport to the city is the number of modern art installations. It is a bit overwhelming, it was for me at least. Is it because these are too abstract? Or is it that the engineering marvel that these constructions are overrides the creativity or aesthetics behind it? Is construction art?
(to continue)
(to continue)
