The Beatles By David Adickes

[Vertigo58]

I went by Adickes studio on Saturday and the place was packed. The statues were amazing for plaster work, and looked much larger than the 36' advertised. The only thing I found disturbing is that john is on stage right when he ALWAYS played stage left.

Hopefully, someone/organization will point that out for the sake of historical accuracy. I knew someone that was hardcore into The Beatle's and knew every bit of detail. There was a certain way each one of the guitar players held the instruments too. I hope they have thought up a good security plan. These days people try anything.

and yes, our city needs way more creative artists to pursue similar achievements. It's done the world over why not here? and we can still be ourselves like mtcoog says.

[Highway6]

In case anyone is wondering where exactly the Beatles will be installed.. I looked up where Addikes owned land, not including his studio.

He owns 3 adjacent lots and then a 4th across the street, between Shepherd and Heights.

Also, he own another lot just off the freeway where I-10 and 45 meet, near the Smith exit. And I do remember hearing something about another freeway installation, but i can't remember what it was... least we'll know where it will be.

EDIT : I remembered what I heard was going on the other site near Smith ... the Mt. Rushhour. Which I've heard is 4 presidents heads - but not neccesarily just US presidents.. I heard Stephen F Austin was one to be included.

[Gary]

and yes, our city needs way more creative artists to pursue similar achievements. It's done the world over why not here? and we can still be ourselves like mtcoog says.

Houston actually has a vibrant art community. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen scultpture artist who are full time, the simply don't commisioned much in Houston.

Hopefully, someone/organization will point that out for the sake of historical accuracy.

I wish it didn't have to be pointed out, in fact it's a pretty big blunder in my book. I can't understand how it happened seeing that any photo he may have worked from, would be John on stage left.

[pachanga]

yeah! yeah! yeah!

[Subdude]

In case anyone is wondering where exactly the Beatles will be installed.. I looked up where Addikes owned land, not including his studio.

He owns 3 adjacent lots and then a 4th across the street, between Shepherd and Heights.

Also, he own another lot just off the freeway where I-10 and 45 meet, near the Smith exit. And I do remember hearing something about another freeway installation, but i can't remember what it was... least we'll know where it will be.

EDIT : I remembered what I heard was going on the other site near Smith ... the Mt. Rushhour. Which I've heard is 4 presidents heads - but not neccesarily just US presidents.. I heard Stephen F Austin was one to be included.

This is the location of Addickes big banana statue, aka "Star Spangled Banana."

(photo from Artefaqs.com)

What with the Beatles, mega-banana, giant Sam Houston in Huntsville, Big Head on Main Street, and scores of giant presidential heads scattered about, Addickes has really made his mark on the local art scene, especially when it comes to jumbo-sized sculpture. If you ever want a giant statue of something, he's definitely your go-to guy.

[Highway6]

This is the location of Addickes big banana statue, aka "Star Spangled Banana."

Don't think so... the banana is up 45 at Quitman on the north side of 10. It's address is 1000 Quitman.

The site I've highlighted is 1001 Bingham... South of where 10 comes in, where 45 and 10 are basically the same.

[Subdude]

According to the Houston Business Journal, Adickes also owns land downtown at the I-10 approach into Smith. That plot is going to have large busts of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sam Houston, and Stephen F Austin.

[lockmat]

He uses concrete? Perfect choice of material for a Houston artist.

[editor]

He said that these two projects will probably be his last major ones.

I don't get the Beatles thing either. I saw a piece on him on TXCN a couple of weeks ago and it showed him working on a Paul McCarty statue, but I never imagined it was for local display.

So YOU'RE the person watching TXCN!

How about a giant astonaut on 45 south near the Nasa Road 1 exit in one of those empty fields. I would have liked that more thant the Beatles.

Imagine the TV station hurricane live shots. All the reporters lined up along the road with the wind and rain whipping by as Ringo slowly leans over and plants his giant face in the mud.

[dalparadise]

I love the Beatles, but this is crap.

[njvisitor]

GOOD!

Houston needs more creative sculpture. A cowboy/Sam Houston/Texan-related thing would be very predictable, and would therefore be less significant in the eyes of visitors.

[Gary]

I love the Beatles, but this is crap.

Dal we understand how much you hate it, you've made that clear on several post. Could you be a little more clear on WHY you see this as crap. Have you seen them in person? If not i suggest you do so, it may change your mind.

As I've said before, I'm biased, but I believe this adds to Houston's propensity for quirkiness.

[Subdude]

The Beatles will be floodlit at night, correct?

[dalparadise]

Dal we understand how much you hate it, you've made that clear on several post. Could you be a little more clear on WHY you see this as crap. Have you seen them in person? If not i suggest you do so, it may change your mind.

As I've said before, I'm biased, but I believe this adds to Houston's propensity for quirkiness.

If they were carved stone, I might be able to overlook the randomness of the subject matter. Then, it would be about the artist's craft. If they were still concrete, but instead explored some kind of unique vision, ala Watts Towers, I'd see their significance as public art. If they were giant, like Mt. Rushmore, they might make a more fitting tribute to the band and distinguish themselves as art that someone might actually travel to see.

As they are, they are half-assed cast concrete junk that you can file away with the giant balls of string and mystery spots that litter rural highways across the country. They certainly aren't appropriate public sculpture for a major metropolitan area -- particularly one where so many have worked so hard to place it on the cultural map. We have real art here. This is more like the neighbor down the street who puts lawn ornaments or a concrete birdbath in his front lawn...only on a truly offensive scale.

The big Sam Houston in Huntsville and the Stephen F. Austin in Angleton, I at least understand -- though the concrete plasticity of those "sculptures" cheapens them, too. "The Beatles" is neither fitting tribute nor art. I hope David Addickes is fined for littering on the freeway.

[moni]

What??? No lawn ornaments, no concrete birdbaths, ...excuuuuuuuse me!

[RedScare]

We have real art here.

This cracks me up.

[tomv]

I took some family by there last night around 9 pm after the Astro game. The artist's studio, where the statue (statues?) is on display now, is so convenient, right off I10 at Taylor. I hadn't been over there recently. There's a new Target and other retail. The neighborhood is changing, for the good.

Everybody was blown away by the sculpture. The scale, the style, and the attention to detail is impressive.

Alarmingly, however, my brothers were both surprised and even a little amazed that there wasn't any visible security on hand. Mr. Adickes is a very talented and also a very cool guy. He believes in making art accessible to the public. But I sure wouldn't want anything happening to our precious Beatles. (Graffiti-ugh!) Houston does not need that.

Of course, those heads of Presidents have been there for years, and nobody's tried to paint or drive into one of those yet.

[dalparadise]

This cracks me up.

You don't think the Menil Collection or MFAH, along with their associated organizations and efforts are real art? I guess you're trying to say that Houston is not on par with the great art centers of the world. You're right.

However, there are some excellent pieces and collections here, brought to the city by a few who truly wanted to give something beautiful to it, none of which is concrete crap on the side of the freeway.

Ask yourself this, is the concrete replica of David that stands in the Palazzo Vecchio just as nice as the marble one in the gallery a few blocks away?

PS - I doubt it really cracks you up. If so, your ability to comprehend what you read here and your participation in this discussion is highly overrated by many of your "fans" here.

[Gary]

If they were carved stone, I might be able to overlook the randomness of the subject matter. Then, it would be about the artist's craft. If they were still concrete, but instead explored some kind of unique vision, ala Watts Towers, I'd see their significance as public art. If they were giant, like Mt. Rushmore, they might make a more fitting tribute to the band and distinguish themselves as art that someone might actually travel to see.

As they are, they are half-assed cast concrete junk that you can file away with the giant balls of string and mystery spots that litter rural highways across the country. They certainly aren't appropriate public sculpture for a major metropolitan area -- particularly one where so many have worked so hard to place it on the cultural map. We have real art here. This is more like the neighbor down the street who puts lawn ornaments or a concrete birdbath in his front lawn...only on a truly offensive scale.

The big Sam Houston in Huntsville and the Stephen F. Austin in Angleton, I at least understand -- though the concrete plasticity of those "sculptures" cheapens them, too. "The Beatles" is neither fitting tribute nor art. I hope David Addickes is fined for littering on the freeway.

Geez! Why does everything always have to be done with a "unique vision" in regards to art.

I'm an artist, and no damn well that art is, and yes folks you heard it here first, "in the eye of the beholder". Yes it's a cliche but it's cliche because it's true and for the most part undebateable. What get's me bothered about your comments is not that you don't like the statue, it's that you come across as an elitist who knows art better than all of us commoners.

Maybe if the city commisioned Adickes they could afford bronze, or more mezmerising detail, but as it is now we've got a guy who's putting his own investment in this city, and I for one am very happy about it.

By the way, I happen to think that what Adickes is doing is "unique". Can you name another city in the country with 36 foot Beatles staues?

[TheNiche]

Ask yourself this, is the concrete replica of David that stands in the Palazzo Vecchio just as nice as the marble one in the gallery a few blocks away?

The replica is a replica, so it is not art...merely a form of appreciation. This peice is original, and regardless of the medium that was used, I'd consider it art. ...whether it fits your taste is irrelevant. If you don't like it, then you probably aren't the audience. Art is about creativity and expression, and it does not necessitate great expense or ornamentation...in fact, I personally consider the most brilliant peices those that can convey meaning in as little effort and expense as possible. That is a greater challenge than just throwing millions of dollars around.

[dalparadise]

Geez! Why does everything always have to be done with a "unique vision" in regards to art.

I'm an artist, and no damn well that art is, and yes folks you heard it here first, "in the eye of the beholder". Yes it's a cliche but it's cliche because it's true and for the most part undebateable. What get's me bothered about your comments is not that you don't like the statue, it's that you come across as an elitist who knows art better than all of us commoners.

Maybe if the city commisioned Adickes they could afford bronze, or more mezmerising detail, but as it is now we've got a guy who's putting his own investment in this city, and I for one am very happy about it.

By the way, I happen to think that what Adickes is doing is "unique". Can you name another city in the country with 36 foot Beatles staues?

So, you ask me to explain why I don't like the "sculpture," then accuse me of being elitist when I do?

For the record, I never said anything negative about you for liking the "sculpture". I don't understand why you're taking this personally. It's a little ironic that you describe art as being "in the eye of the beholder" and go on to declare that "undebatable," don't you think? The very nature of that statement invites debate.

The idea of big Beatles statues isn't such a big problem for me -- it's the shitty concrete material choice. It's like columns or pedestals made out of concrete. They're cheap immitations of cut stone. They can be easily replicated. To me, they are craft, not art.

[TheNiche]

The idea of big Beatles statues isn't such a big problem for me -- it's the shitty concrete material choice. It's like columns or pedestals made out of concrete. They're cheap immitations of cut stone. They can be easily replicated. To me, they are craft, not art.

What's wrong with concrete? Please respond to post #80.

[dalparadise]

What's wrong with concrete? Please respond to post #80.

You already quoted my response.

Is a concrete pedestal at the Home Depot garden center art?

I stated earlier that concrete, in and of itself, isn't offensive. For instance, One Shell Plaza is a beautiful expression of concrete. Watts Towers are a unique expression of concrete, tile and steel. What's low-rent about Adickes is he attempts to "sculpt" in concrete to mimic stone, just like the makers of pedestals and columns you find in Home Depot. Had these statues been carved, people might have marveled at the artistry. As poured concrete, they will be noted, I guess, for their size, but not much else.

I made the David analogy to illustrate the point of artistry over common craftsmanship. I've looked at the replica David and been impressed with its scale and its environment. I imagined what it must have been like seeing the sculpture therein the Palazzo Vecchio. I didn't marvel at the artistry of creating such a statue, even though the replica is quite impressive. It is probably a priceless treasure, itself. The actual David, however, is awe-inspiring. I wasn't expecting much more than I had seen with the replica, but it was a different world. Imagining the artist working the stone with such skill, as opposed to bending rebar and pouring concrete into forms left me speechless.

To me, Adickes' work is art, in the same way that Nagel prints are art. Yes, they are appreciated by some. Yes, they can add decoration. However, they are easy to replicate and offer little distinction in their style. They don't command a sense of awe in how they were conceived or created, which is a shame, because I believe The Beatles' work does.

[TheNiche]

You already quoted my response.

Is a concrete pedestal at the Home Depot garden center art?

I stated earlier that concrete, in and of itself, isn't offensive. For instance, One Shell Plaza is a beautiful expression of concrete. Watts Towers are a unique expression of concrete, tile and steel. What's low-rent about Adickes is he attempts to "sculpt" in concrete to mimic stone, just like the makers of pedestals and columns you find in Home Depot. Had these statues been carved, people might have marveled at the artistry. As poured concrete, they will be noted, I guess, for their size, but not much else.

I made the David analogy to illustrate the point of artistry over common craftsmanship. I've looked at the replica David and been impressed with its scale and its environment. I imagined what it must have been like seeing the sculpture therein the Palazzo Vecchio. I didn't marvel at the artistry of creating such a statue, even though the replica is quite impressive. It is probably a priceless treasure, itself. The actual David, however, is awe-inspiring. I wasn't expecting much more than I had seen with the replica, but it was a different world. Imagining the artist working the stone with such skill, as opposed to bending rebar and pouring concrete into forms left me speechless.

To me, Adickes' work is art, in the same way that Nagel prints are art. Yes, they are appreciated by some. Yes, they can add decoration. However, they are easy to replicate and offer little distinction in their style. They don't command a sense of awe in how they were conceived or created, which is a shame, because I believe The Beatles' work does.

It sounds to me as though it is you who are confusing craftsmanship with art. Someone's willingness and ability to devote excessive time and physical resources into a peice adds nothing to its effect. I am not impressed by obsessive compulsion or wastefulness. I am impressed by the concept and the efficient execution thereof.

[Vertigo58]

Yeoweeeeee....

and Sir Paul McCartney turned 65 today!

[RedScare]

Yes, you really do crack me up. You purport to educate us as to what "art" is, yet you cannot even differentiate between art and the medium. Even though you will never find a definition of art that includes what materials can be made into art, you have decided to educate us on the subject. In your world, I suppose oil paint is art, yet water colors are not. Stone is art, but concrete is not. I wonder, where do plaster, steel, and human remains fit into your definition?

Art is an expression. The medium is the form used to make the expression. You have merely decided to include those mediums that suit your classical tastes, and exclude all others. Addickes has used concrete to express his thoughts. Others have used paint, stone, metal, glass, plastic, and human remains.

I don't begrudge your opinion of the statues. I don't mind that you believe concrete is a poor medium. I laughed when you lapsed into the misinformed statement that concrete cannot be used to create art, or that this is not "real art", as opposed to the "real art" at the Menil. It is art allright. It is merely art that does not impress you.

I am not particularly impressed by it, either. I am not a big Beatles fan. I am not overly enamored with Addickes' penchant for outsized creations. It doesn't seem to fit in Houston. But, whether I (or you) am impressed is not the yardstick by which a creation is judged to be art.

Though I will never really like this thing, I am warming up to its kitsch factor (credit to sevfiv). In a city that is often too businesslike, I think I will come to appreciate the quirkiness (albeit 36 feet of quirk) of these monstrosities. If they inspire others to express their quirky side, so much the better. Who knows, maybe their hideousness will inspire dalparadise to create some real art for the citizens of Houston to enjoy. Should this come to pass, Addickes himself would be proud.

[musicman]

Alarmingly, however, my brothers were both surprised and even a little amazed that there wasn't any visible security on hand.

wanted to put one in your trunk huh? i'm sure your car's suspension thanks you.

[dalparadise]

Yes, you really do crack me up. You purport to educate us as to what "art" is, yet you cannot even differentiate between art and the medium. Even though you will never find a definition of art that includes what materials can be made into art, you have decided to educate us on the subject. In your world, I suppose oil paint is art, yet water colors are not. Stone is art, but concrete is not. I wonder, where do plaster, steel, and human remains fit into your definition?

Art is an expression. The medium is the form used to make the expression. You have merely decided to include those mediums that suit your classical tastes, and exclude all others. Addickes has used concrete to express his thoughts. Others have used paint, stone, metal, glass, plastic, and human remains.

I don't begrudge your opinion of the statues. I don't mind that you believe concrete is a poor medium. I laughed when you lapsed into the misinformed statement that concrete cannot be used to create art, or that this is not "real art", as opposed to the "real art" at the Menil. It is art allright. It is merely art that does not impress you.

I am not particularly impressed by it, either. I am not a big Beatles fan. I am not overly enamored with Addickes' penchant for outsized creations. It doesn't seem to fit in Houston. But, whether I (or you) am impressed is not the yardstick by which a creation is judged to be art.

Though I will never really like this thing, I am warming up to its kitsch factor (credit to sevfiv). In a city that is often too businesslike, I think I will come to appreciate the quirkiness (albeit 36 feet of quirk) of these monstrosities. If they inspire others to express their quirky side, so much the better. Who knows, maybe their hideousness will inspire dalparadise to create some real art for the citizens of Houston to enjoy. Should this come to pass, Addickes himself would be proud.

Again, it's not the fact that it's made of concrete, it's the fact that Adickes uses concrete to mimic cut stone that cheapens it for me. In my opinion, this is a method one might use to model for a fine art sculpture, not as a final product. I'm not presuming to try to educate you (as you seem to be presuming to try to educate me), just trying to put my point across. Since when is that so bad?

PS -- I know all materials are fair game in art -- I'm well aware of Wayne Gilbert's human remains, junk used in sculpture and whatever. That's not my point, though in reading back over my rants, I can see how you may have misunderstood me in your zeal to make me look stupid.

[Gary]

So, you ask me to explain why I don't like the "sculpture," then accuse me of being elitist when I do?

I never asked you to explain anything Dal, so i'm not sure what your talking about.

For the record, I never said anything negative about you for liking the "sculpture". I don't understand why you're taking this personally. It's a little ironic that you describe art as being "in the eye of the beholder" and go on to declare that "undebatable," don't you think? The very nature of that statement invites debate.

never said you did. The problem I have with your comments is your pasion for hating it, as almost non art.Maybe i'm taking that to far but it certainly comes across that way.

And yes, Art is in the eye of the beholder, and with a few exceptions, that IS the rule.

You already quoted my response.

Is a concrete pedestal at the Home Depot garden center art?

Isn't that comparing apples and oranges?

[RedScare]

Looking at the responses, I am not the only one who misunderstood. But, on to the "art". Like I said, I don't find the pieces particularly intriguing or cerebral either, but this is his work, on his property, so I don't get a vote. What I do like about it is it's amusement value...36 foot tall hunks of concrete that make me chuckle. Like the "Big Head on Main Street", we will have one more iconic landmark to make fun of...in an offhand admiring sort of way, I guess.

Not every piece of sculpture challenges the imagination. Some of it exists just because the sculptor wants it to. I think this one falls into that category. I disagree that it will cause harm to the "real arts" community. It will just be what it is.