Art for art's sake is not our convenience
PUBLISHED: 14:31 13 July 2006 | UPDATED: 11:53 04 May 2010
IN last week s issue you were good enough to invite observation on the example of contemporary art proposed for erection in the Jubilee Gardens about which you quote the arts development officer at ADeC as saying It s a very exciting piece and My fee
IN last week's issue you were good enough to invite observation on the example of 'contemporary art' proposed for erection in the Jubilee Gardens about which you quote the arts development officer at ADeC as saying 'It's a very exciting piece' and 'My feeling is that people will like it'. I am sad not to be able to share this opinion.
The Jubilee Gardens I do like and use regularly and I should be sad to see the river frontage marred, in my opinion, by this lump. I am at a loss to imagine why anyone would choose to observe 'scenes of flowing water on a plasma screen' when a few feet away they can see the real thing.
I note the Friends of Jubilee Gardens have doubts about the choice of site, so I suggest that the contraption might be placed at the far end of the gardens alongside Broad Street and then the screen could display a never-ending line of moving motor vehicles complementing reality in that direction.
I am firmly against the project. I do not know the arts development officer and nor I am aware of what qualities she may possess in order to judge the public taste with such clarity - but she does not convince me.
In the same issue of the Ely Standard I read that the district council is about to consider closing the public conveniences off the High Street because only 108,000 people visit them in a year. Such action, we are told, will save £5,000 per annum.
Are we so hard-pressed as a community that we need to withhold comfort from 108,000 people, who I am sure are most appreciative individuals while at the same time £40,000 of public money can be spent on a project that, so far as I am aware, no one has asked for or needs.