Jump to content

The Beatles By David Adickes

KimberlySayWhat

By KimberlySayWhat
in The Arts in Houston

Recommended Posts

Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
You already quoted my response.

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

. 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.

First of all it's formed concrete, not concrete as your assuming. It has a 2/3 mixture of plaster because it does have to be molded Dal. Secondly, if you cared to learn a little about how Adickes made these you would find out that the base is welded L beam (carbon steel). This is very tricky stuff as it must be cut and welded basically like a stick figure except 20 times harder. He then forms chicken wire in order to have a support for the base form of the concrete. When the superstructure is finished, he then begins the carving and molding of the piece.

Sounds to me like art... And a hell of alot of work.

I will apologize if I misunderstood your sentiment, as I didn't read your last post before my rebuttle. That being said, I still think this is great stuff for a non commisioned artist. Would I like them in marble or bronz? Of course, but again, this guy is non commisioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dalparadise

dalparadise

Posted
Posted
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.

It will just be what it is.

On all of this, we seem to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dalparadise

dalparadise

Posted
Posted
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.

This is where you asked me to explain myself, then chastised me for doing so.

I don't think expressing a dissenting opinion is elitist. I didn't really expect you to think so either. What really surprised me was your confusion over art expressing a unique vision. Do you approach your music this way? Are you in a cover band? Do you set out to sound exactly like any other band? I understand influences, but don't the really great bands develop their own sound that is truly a product of unique vision? Isn't that what The Beatles did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nmainguy

nmainguy

Posted
Posted

Art is what the artist says it is. My sculpture is art because I say so. The people who buy it say so.

As far as the Beatles go, I'm OK with them but I've never been a fan of Adickes; mostly because of his execution.

Gary, Maybe someone needs to suggest he rearrange them so as to put John where he belongs? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
I don't think expressing a dissenting opinion is elitist. I didn't really expect you to think so either. What really surprised me was your confusion over art expressing a unique vision. Do you approach your music this way? Are you in a cover band? Do you set out to sound exactly like any other band? I understand influences, but don't the really great bands develop their own sound that is truly a product of unique vision? Isn't that what The Beatles did?

Expressng your opinion is not elitist, and i apologize if my post came off harshly. What bothered me about your post was that you matter of factly called it "crap", and that was after 1 or 2 posts expressing your disdain for the sculpture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
What really surprised me was your confusion over art expressing a unique vision. Do you approach your music this way? Are you in a cover band? Do you set out to sound exactly like any other band? I understand influences, but don't the really great bands develop their own sound that is truly a product of unique vision? Isn't that what The Beatles did?

Confusion? I'm not sure what your getting at, and as a matter of fact your once again trying to show your superior knowledge regarding art and it's expression, unique or not. As I said, like it or not, Adickes sculpture is "unique" in that you don't see giant pieces of art on every corner of every city in America, let alone the Beatles.

In answer to your question of "how do I approach my music... I already mentioned one facet (and there are many formulas) yesterday, and no I don't play in a cover band, in fact as of last month my band (Stride) made it into the top 50 in Japan, and just had a 3 page write up in "Burn" magazine (Japans Rolling Stone). We've opened for Bon Jovi in Toyota Center, and we've sold out a number of 2500 seat venues as well, so at the risk of sounding arogant, We are not run of the mill.

http://strideonline.com/ The site is ancient as we use "myspace mostly, but you can hear a few clips.

Again I will argue that this art is unique because of what it is. You can call it crap all you want, but as I've already mentioned, and will say to the cows come home..."art is in the eye of the beholder", and this beholder likey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dalparadise

dalparadise

Posted
Posted
Confusion? I'm not sure what your getting at, and as a matter of fact your once again trying to show your superior knowledge regarding art and it's expression, unique or not. As I said, like it or not, Adickes sculpture is "unique" in that you don't see giant pieces of art on every corner of every city in America, let alone the Beatles.

In answer to your question of "how do I approach my music... I already mentioned one facet (and there are many formulas) yesterday, and no I don't play in a cover band, in fact as of last month my band (Stride) made it into the top 50 in Japan, and just had a 3 page write up in "Burn" magazine (Japans Rolling Stone). We've opened for Bon Jovi in Toyota Center, and we've sold out a number of 2500 seat venues as well, so at the risk of sounding arogant, We are not run of the mill.

http://strideonline.com/ The site is ancient as we use "myspace mostly, but you can hear a few clips.

Again I will argue that this art is unique because of what it is. You can call it crap all you want, but as I've already mentioned, and will say to the cows come home..."art is in the eye of the beholder", and this beholder likey.

Gary -- just so we're clear -- I expected you to answer the questions about your band the way you did. I asked them rhetorically. I hope I didn't come off as suggesting otherwise.

I suppose I either lack the vocabulary to express my opinion effectively, or this forum is overly limited in this regard...I don't know. The core for me is the concrete-as-cut-stone issue. Sure, concrete can be art. Sure his work requires a lot of intricate form work. But, in the end, it's akin to someone playing Beatles songs on a synthesizer set to sound like a guitar.

Yes, it can be considered art -- I'll grant you that. Yes, it may even be appealing to many people. Is it lasting and fitting, though? Is it something that adds to your record collection? Is it meant as a tribute, or is it self-serving? Is the artist playing the synthesizer to sound like a guitar because it's easier, or because he believes it's truly the contemporary expression? Would it be more artistic to play the synthesizer and make it sound like a synthesizer( whatever that may be), instead of a guitar?

Then, to further put it into your terms -- what venues do you think this synthesizer artist might play? Do you think he would sell out stadium shows, or would he more likely play dumpy clubs? Which do you consider Houston to be in this analogy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
Gary -- just so we're clear -- I expected you to answer the questions about your band the way you did. I asked them rhetorically. I hope I didn't come off as suggesting otherwise.

Yes I understood, and answered also to qualify that I'm not a wannabe artist, but serious about my craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
I suppose I either lack the vocabulary to express my opinion effectively, or this forum is overly limited in this regard...I don't know. The core for me is the concrete-as-cut-stone issue. Sure, concrete can be art. Sure his work requires a lot of intricate form work. But, in the end, it's akin to someone playing Beatles songs on a synthesizer set to sound like a guitar.

Yes, it can be considered art -- I'll grant you that. Yes, it may even be appealing to many people. Is it lasting and fitting, though? Is it something that adds to your record collection? Is it meant as a tribute, or is it self-serving? Is the artist playing the synthesizer to sound like a guitar because it's easier, or because he believes it's truly the contemporary expression? Would it be more artistic to play the synthesizer and make it sound like a synthesizer( whatever that may be), instead of a guitar?

As you continue to post your making more sense, at least to me. In fact I don't disagree with the above, but I'm still trying to figure out why so many art enthusiasts feel that art must make the statement, "look how grand I am", or "look at my character and depth". Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the presidential busts, and I'm certainly not a fan of Lady Gadiva (sarcasm) in downtown, but I do believe that this statue is different. Yes it follows the slightly abstract line of the albatross in downtown, but it's done with more charm, and a larger than life feel.

I certainly understand that Adickes stuff is not great art, and I am very hesitant about presidential heads lining our freeways, but the Beatle statue is unique for what it is regardless of how plain or cheap it may seem to you or me. Is Adickes going to set the art world on fire? of course not, but he got some damn good press out of it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dalparadise

dalparadise

Posted
Posted
As you continue to post your making more sense, at least to me. In fact I don't disagree with the above, but I'm still trying to figure out why so many art enthusiasts feel that art must make the statement, "look how grand I am", or "look at my character and depth".

Why would someone want to listen to Stride when there are plenty of Britney Spears CDs out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary

Gary

Posted
Posted
Why would someone want to listen to Stride when there are plenty of Britney Spears CDs out there?

Oh C'mon, don't bring Adickes down to Brittany's level, that's insulting.

Just because Stride is proggressive musically doesn't mean we don't listen to and love pedestrian material, in fact I was enjoying some Tom Petty earlier this evening. I mentioned liking "pedestrian" stuff because as an artist I find great value in many types of music. Using the Beatles as an example... They were terribly pedestrian (musically and lyrically) for a number of years, yet they basically changed Western culture with thier music. Of course now thier considered brilliant (which they are). Bob Dylan who couldn't play or sing his way out of a wet paper bag also changed many things in music, mainly how folk was defined. there are many more examples but i'll spare you.

Another thing in respect to being "unique". You do realize that about half of what the Beatles did through 64 was copy material. They also were largely using copy material through thier many recording sesions at the BBC. Would that qualify them as not being unique, or was that just another form of art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highway6

Highway6

Posted
Posted

From the Chronicle yesterday - Addickes on the Beatles positioning.

Here's the artist, David Adickes, explaining why he flopped Lennon and McCartney:

"There is a reason, which is to point their guitars toward the middle of the sculptural composition, to make it more composed," Adickes said.

Lennon was right-handed, McCartney is a lefty.

"If they had been placed as they were onstage, the guitars would lead the eye outward. Also the lot on which they will be placed (along I-10) is sort of narrow, so the positioning was purely a sculptural composition decision."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarthaG

MarthaG

Posted
Posted
From the Chronicle yesterday - Addickes on the Beatles positioning.

Here's the artist, David Adickes, explaining why he flopped Lennon and McCartney:

"There is a reason, which is to point their guitars toward the middle of the sculptural composition, to make it more composed," Adickes said.

Lennon was right-handed, McCartney is a lefty.

"If they had been placed as they were onstage, the guitars would lead the eye outward. Also the lot on which they will be placed (along I-10) is sort of narrow, so the positioning was purely a sculptural composition decision."

I can respect this... but I think it would be cool to see the guitars pointing out. Of course like most woman.. I would want to see it both ways before making a final decision.

I really like them... but then I'm a huge Beatle's fan. Can not wait to see them on I-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 1 year later...
tanith27

tanith27

Posted
Posted

I spent some time talking with David Adickes this weekend and finally got around to asking him "Whats up with the Beatles?". He said the original spot off I-10 turned out to be too small for the 4 statues. Instead he said he has something else for the piece of land that should be moving there in the next few weeks. He didn't offer up exactly what those pieces might be.

As for the Beatles statues, he said he's talking with the city about the possibility of them residing permanently at Discovery Green. As much as I'd love for them to stay in the Heights, honestly I think this would be a really cool spot for them to be. That area is already becoming a highly photographed part of town and the addition of these would take it to a whole new level. Hopefully something can be worked out. Soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Subdude

Subdude

Posted
Posted

I spent some time talking with David Adickes this weekend and finally got around to asking him "Whats up with the Beatles?". He said the original spot off I-10 turned out to be too small for the 4 statues. Instead he said he has something else for the piece of land that should be moving there in the next few weeks. He didn't offer up exactly what those pieces might be.

As for the Beatles statues, he said he's talking with the city about the possibility of them residing permanently at Discovery Green. As much as I'd love for them to stay in the Heights, honestly I think this would be a really cool spot for them to be. That area is already becoming a highly photographed part of town and the addition of these would take it to a whole new level. Hopefully something can be worked out. Soon.

I kind of liked the idea of having them in a spot along a freeway where they could be seen from passing cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
kylejack

kylejack

Posted
Posted

Those Presidential heads were supposed to be the centerpiece of a master planned community that ended up getting the axe due to the 08-09 recession, right?

 

The sets of President's heads were made by David Adickes and sold to various municipalities, one in Virginia and another in South Dakota. A third set was being worked on, but the commission was cancelled, so the heads were sold with the building when Adickes sold his Sculpturworx Studio. They're now owned by the owner of the building, which is now called Summer Street Studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...