It glitters! It spins! It outrages!
Click here to see the Chandelier spin. Whee!
Since it was hung under the Granville Bridge, Spinning Chandelier has appalled those who deem it an insult. Like Melody Ma:
How did such an insensitive piece of public art come into existence? Did no one at the city of Vancouver anticipate the outrage that would follow?
… It’s like letting the McDonald’s golden arches be the emblem of a city. …
One spinning chandelier to remind us of the inequality in the city is more than enough. It’s time to review the public art process before it produces another obscene structure …
Whether it’s puritans or progressives who are condemning an artwork as obscene, watch out. Mediocrity is waiting in the wings.
And we happen to have an ideal comparison with two works by one artist: Rodney Graham, who actually created the obscene Chandelier, chosen by the developer, and another piece you’ve probably never heard of, chosen by the kind of process that Ma favours:
It was a commission for the Olympic and Paralympic Public Art Program, and it is, if I may be harsh, one of the most mediocre works on one of the most opportune sites in the city: the entrance to Stanley Park.
The work takes its title from a series of photographs … which documented a series of ‘incorrectly’ assembled toy glider kits… And the park, of course, is a place where children and adults may very well play with glider.
It would at least be appropriate next to a children’s play space. So how about we do a switch: put Graham’s work near a playground and replace it with the statue of Lord Stanley, arms spread wide, welcoming “people of all colours, creeds and customs” at the entrance to the park.
Except, of course, this dead white male colonialist wouldn’t pass the trauma test. Nor does the Chandelier, according to Mitch Speed in another scathing indictment in MoMus: Read more »