It looks very ugly and I believe that almost anybody, even somebody totally lacking artistic talent, could design a better looking fountain in about five minutes.
Just because something has existed for a few decades doesn't mean that it is worthy of being preserved.
If the fountain is not part of Apple's plans, then the fountain should be destroyed and removed from the premises. It is an eyesore and doesn't belong next to an Apple store.
Fountains can be moved. I was talking to an old man about things that were in a local town, he talked about landmarks such as statues and fountains that were moved, and apparently the apocalypse didn't happen.
No offence, but you clearly know little about what constitutes "good art."
High horse, you has a big one. It's quite unbecoming.
By what merit can you say that it's good art and no one else is allowed a dissenting opinion? You've yet to claim any credentials if you're making some claim of meritocracy.
Hint: "Art" has almost nothing to do with physical beauty or attractiveness (even though personally I find this quite a nice looking piece as I'm sure others do as well).
Hint: "good" is a comment on an opinion of quality, which which you have little place telling people they aren't allowed to have such an opinion.
Also, even if this wasn't "art" by anyone's definition, it's still an important city landmark and a piece of the city's history. It has as much right to be preserved as any public art. Certainly more so than many heritage buildings, signs, etc.
Who is saying that it needs to be destroyed? Is preserving it only valid in the context that it absolutely must stay there, that it cannot be moved? I don't think anyone is saying it has to be melted down.
People should basically just stop with the "it's ugly" or "it's not art" comments because it's completely irrelevant anyway.
So you're saying that people can't even say with validity that it's ugly? It's an opinion and I don't think you're in any place to say people can't have that opinion.
It looks very ugly and I believe that almost anybody, even somebody totally lacking artistic talent, could design a better looking fountain in about five minutes.
The photo in this article does not clearly show all of the sculpture details. I agree that from a distance there is not much to admire about the overall shape of the fountain but the artwork is in the details. I think it took a little longer than five minutes to design. It was designed for close up observation. Take a look at this high resolution image.
Fountains can be moved. I was talking to an old man about things that were in a local town, he talked about landmarks such as statues and fountains that were moved, and apparently the apocalypse didn't happen.
How do you know? Can you find that town anymore?
I'm surprised WS didn't spin this: San Fran thinks about rejecting Apple Store. Will other towns follow?
The photo in this article does not clearly show all of the sculpture details. I agree that from a distance there is not much to admire about the overall shape of the fountain but the artwork is in the details. I think it took a little longer than five minutes to design. It was designed for close up observation. Take a look at this high resolution image.
Apple customers like surprises, now they might have to reveal their iFountain?! hahaha
If Apple buys the property, then the property owner should have the right to build as they see fit on their private property. That's what property ownership is all about!
Good for San Francisco. Stand up for what is important.
Apple could open a new store in downtown Austin instead. I bet Texas would be glad to have it, along with more Apple offices, employees, and the new Mac manufacturing that Tim Cook is talking about.
If the fountain is so special they can easily move it into Union Square; there's plenty of room there. The fact that it lies in the shadow of a Levi's store doesn't speak much to it's significance, although it is fairly interesting, and I do remember waking by it as a kid. I'm sure it's important to some, but not a reason to cancel the Apple Store plans. And for those criticizing the "blank wall," minimalism can be beautiful, particularly in juxtaposition with the relative chaos and dirtiness that is San Francisco.
First of all, I didn't know San Francisco was so high on nostalgia being one of the most "progressive" and "backward" cities in the US. Second, I've never seen such an important landmark with no name especially given that the designer named all her other pieces. It doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page...probably because it has no name and is so insignificant that no one more than several blocks from the square even knows it's there.
In San Francisco, the mayor is keenly interested in micromanaging some ugly fountain that sits in the shade of a hotel behind a failed, awkwardly triangular retail store, but has no problem with the fact that the City's failing transit system has an ontime rating of 58%.
Priorities in a direct democracy! Have some washed up columnist setting the City's agenda.
While I love my beloved San Francisco, I am ashamed that it is being run by a bunch of monkeys.
I walk by that fountain several times a week. It's not even viewable from Union Square, it's in the shadows, and it's mainly occupied by vagrants, homeless folks, and panhandlers. I either walk the other side of the street, or walk past it fast. Most folks would not even know its there.
I highly doubt most San Franciscans would even care if its moved or not. It's just a small minority of loudmouths having their hissy-fits while sipping their tea at the Palace. They do not represent the majority of San Franciscans.
The Levi's building where the fountain is situated is an eyesore. An Apple store there would really liven the street up. Get rid of that fountain. No love will be lost.
Comments
I've never seen or heard of that fountain before.
It looks very ugly and I believe that almost anybody, even somebody totally lacking artistic talent, could design a better looking fountain in about five minutes.
Just because something has existed for a few decades doesn't mean that it is worthy of being preserved.
If the fountain is not part of Apple's plans, then the fountain should be destroyed and removed from the premises. It is an eyesore and doesn't belong next to an Apple store.
High horse, you has a big one. It's quite unbecoming.
By what merit can you say that it's good art and no one else is allowed a dissenting opinion? You've yet to claim any credentials if you're making some claim of meritocracy.
Hint: "good" is a comment on an opinion of quality, which which you have little place telling people they aren't allowed to have such an opinion.
Who is saying that it needs to be destroyed? Is preserving it only valid in the context that it absolutely must stay there, that it cannot be moved? I don't think anyone is saying it has to be melted down.
So you're saying that people can't even say with validity that it's ugly? It's an opinion and I don't think you're in any place to say people can't have that opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It looks very ugly and I believe that almost anybody, even somebody totally lacking artistic talent, could design a better looking fountain in about five minutes.
The photo in this article does not clearly show all of the sculpture details. I agree that from a distance there is not much to admire about the overall shape of the fountain but the artwork is in the details. I think it took a little longer than five minutes to design. It was designed for close up observation. Take a look at this high resolution image.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3249/2996766277_4b2a362e4a_o.jpg
How do you know? Can you find that town anymore?
I'm surprised WS didn't spin this: San Fran thinks about rejecting Apple Store. Will other towns follow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The photo in this article does not clearly show all of the sculpture details. I agree that from a distance there is not much to admire about the overall shape of the fountain but the artwork is in the details. I think it took a little longer than five minutes to design. It was designed for close up observation. Take a look at this high resolution image.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3249/2996766277_4b2a362e4a_o.jpg
Yes, that photo shows the fountain in quite a different light and it looks very detailed. The photo accompanying this article was poor.
So, maybe it doesn't need to be destroyed, but it can certainly be moved, if the fountain is not part of Apple's plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by city
Put the fountain in the store.
Then, afterwards, we can all go dance on Steve Jobs' grave.
Oh wait, we won't have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo
Garish.
Hey, it was the seventies. Everyone was on acid. That was a common artistic style at the time.
Apple customers like surprises, now they might have to reveal their iFountain?! hahaha
If Apple buys the property, then the property owner should have the right to build as they see fit on their private property. That's what property ownership is all about!
Good for San Francisco. Stand up for what is important.
Apple could open a new store in downtown Austin instead. I bet Texas would be glad to have it, along with more Apple offices, employees, and the new Mac manufacturing that Tim Cook is talking about.
If the fountain is so special they can easily move it into Union Square; there's plenty of room there. The fact that it lies in the shadow of a Levi's store doesn't speak much to it's significance, although it is fairly interesting, and I do remember waking by it as a kid. I'm sure it's important to some, but not a reason to cancel the Apple Store plans. And for those criticizing the "blank wall," minimalism can be beautiful, particularly in juxtaposition with the relative chaos and dirtiness that is San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
If the fountain is so special they can easily move it into Union Square;
Or they could move it over to Golden Gate Park near Haight and Ashbury as a monument to the hippies who no doubt inspired the work.
In San Francisco, the mayor is keenly interested in micromanaging some ugly fountain that sits in the shade of a hotel behind a failed, awkwardly triangular retail store, but has no problem with the fact that the City's failing transit system has an ontime rating of 58%.
Priorities in a direct democracy! Have some washed up columnist setting the City's agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
End of the Vietnam war was sort of a big deal, but then you were probably not around at the time, were you?
Except the Vietnam War was not over in 1973. It lasted until 1975. I was around at the time.
While I love my beloved San Francisco, I am ashamed that it is being run by a bunch of monkeys.
I walk by that fountain several times a week. It's not even viewable from Union Square, it's in the shadows, and it's mainly occupied by vagrants, homeless folks, and panhandlers. I either walk the other side of the street, or walk past it fast. Most folks would not even know its there.
I highly doubt most San Franciscans would even care if its moved or not. It's just a small minority of loudmouths having their hissy-fits while sipping their tea at the Palace. They do not represent the majority of San Franciscans.
The Levi's building where the fountain is situated is an eyesore. An Apple store there would really liven the street up. Get rid of that fountain. No love will be lost.
You decide.