Proposed permanent Subbuteo advert for Parker's Piece

[John Sturdy]

If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque, shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716

Or does "The £88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions" actually mean "The £88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?

__John

[Michael Kilpatrick]

For heaven's sake, do we have to have bloody sculptures celebrating
something as banal as the game of football? I bet there are a million
other things of more noteworthiness that originated in Cambridge.

Parker's Piece is just fine as it is, thank you very much.

Michael

[Paul Bird]

Please God no. Parker's Piece does not need some awful artwork
desecrating any part of the space. Various temporary stands come and go
throughout the year like the ice rink, the French market and a small
funfair but the last thing it needs is this ghastly excressence.

Let's hope this is voted off and forgotten before it goes any further.

PB

[Richard Kettlewell]

Mostly I would say the more sculpture the better. But a giant subbuteo
piece? Seriously?

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[jame...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:15:05 PM UTC+1, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
> Mostly I would say the more sculpture the better.

Really? Look how much grass space it takes up. How many such sculptures do you think are appropriate for Parker's Piece?

With the population of Cambridge increasing, the pressure on green open space is only going to increase. Surely we should be looking to increase the space where possible rather than reduce it.

Surely a better place for the scuplutre would be somewhere such as here:

<http://public.tek303.xsmail.com/parker.jpg> - plenty of space there for the human figure without the massive plinth.

And is there no improvement to Parker's Piece that the 88,000GBP could be used for that doesn't involve replacing grass with concrete?

[John Sturdy]

There's hope yet. Remember the "Golden Ball on a stick" plan for the Market Square to be desecrated into a "piazza"? That was eventually chased off, although ISTR the council being very keen on it.

I suspect a football-related statue would get spray-painted in a variety of team colours in rapid succession, vandalized in various other ways (some of them possibly mildly entertaining) and eventually removed with the explanation "It was only meant to be temporary, honest!"

__John

[The Natural Philosopher]

Rapists might hide behind it. The precautionary principles says 'no'

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[magwitch]

Agreed. Just leave it as grass and trees... they're becoming a rarity.

[magwitch]

That is vile. Really vile and obscenely ugly.

[zulu]

"John Sturdy" <jcg.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com...

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

> For heaven's sake, do we have to have bloody sculptures celebrating
> something as banal as the game of football? I bet there are a million
> other things of more noteworthiness that originated in Cambridge.

It's only the world's most popular sport.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> Mostly I would say the more sculpture the better. But a giant subbuteo
> piece? Seriously?

I quite like it. My neighbour just suggested mounting it on springs so
it would wobble.

[Tim Ward]

It ain't art if nobody hates it.

Beyond that I know nothing, and am happy not to be part of the decision
making process!

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Peter Ellis]

So put something up at the bloody football ground then.

Peter

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <av01c1...@mid.individual.net>, pj...@cam.ac.uk (Peter Ellis)
wrote:

People on Usenet can be so ignorant! The reason for a memorial on Parker's
Piece is because it was exactly there that modern day football rules were
invented!

Philistines!

Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <av0005...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim

Me too!

Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <3mzit.48838$Y_6....@fx32.fr7>,

No. It was paid by developers of property under planning ("section 106")
agreements.

Colin Rosenstiel

[Paul Bird]

Pity that can't fund a council house. Better use for the money.

PB

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:14:44 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
finger to keyboard and typed:

It's not so much Philistinism as narrow-mindism. "I am not interested in
it, therefore I fail to comprehend how anyone else can be interested in it"
is a common complaint, particularly among those who inhabit Usenet.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[The Natural Philosopher]

And therefore True Art. Which reflects the society it comes from :-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

after live sex. Why not put an installation of mechanised humping?

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 09/05/13 07:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> It's not so much Philistinism as narrow-mindism. "I am not interested in
> it, therefore I fail to comprehend how anyone else can be interested in it"
> is a common complaint, particularly among those who inhabit Usenet.
>
> Mark

Flip it .

It's not so much Philistinism as narrow-mindism. "I am interested in
it, therefore I fail to comprehend how anyone else can not be interested in it"
is a common complaint, particularly among those who inhabit Government.

[Roland Perry]

In message <kmfi0q$tp$2...@news.albasani.net>, at 08:08:12 on Thu, 9 May
2013, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> It's only the world's most popular sport.
>after live sex. Why not put an installation of mechanised humping?

But was sex invented in Cambridge?

(There's a Watneys Red Barrel joke lurking somewhere).
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 06:50, Paul Bird wrote:
>
> Pity that can't fund a council house. Better use for the money.

Different s106 category. If we spent money collected for one thing on
another the developer would take us to court to get it back, and win.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Andrew May]

Except that according to the FA, the arbiters of football in this
country, it wasn't.

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 09:00, Andrew May wrote:
>
> Except that according to the FA, the arbiters of football in this
> country, it wasn't.

Yeah, you do get this phenomenon of other people trying to write
Cambridge out of history - there are some people in Manchester for
example who think they invented the computer!

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Brian Watson]

"John Sturdy" <jcg.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com...

If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque, shouldn't
it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716

> Or does "The �88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions"
> actually mean "The �88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?

What a stupid idea, this proposal is!

Everyone knows the name "Parker" is much more commonly associated with two
things:

1) Fine fountain pens. So why not a fountain in the shape of a pen? Geddit?

2) Lady Penelope's chauffeur from Thunderbirds. A huge statue of the
pudgy-faced puppet, ideally equipped with a solar-powered mechanism to
intone, "Yus, milady!" at random intervals through the day (cloud cover
permitting), would look just fine slap dab in the middle of that open space,
IMHO.

Either would be preferable to the preposterous suggestion being considered.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

[zulu]

<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MeednbCcId7odxfM...@giganews.com...

Bugger the rules!
Stick your necks out.
Do something USEFUL with the money.

We already have enough "art".

--
zulu

[magwitch]

You are the Philistine if you allow that hideous artefact to desecrate
Parker's Piece. What are you on?

[zulu]

"Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:kmeh0a$k4c$1...@dont-email.me...

That's no reason to despoil Parker's Piece!

--
zulu

[magwitch]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/05/13 22:44, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> For heaven's sake, do we have to have bloody sculptures celebrating
>>> something as banal as the game of football? I bet there are a million
>>> other things of more noteworthiness that originated in Cambridge.
>> It's only the world's most popular sport.
> after live sex. Why not put an installation of mechanised humping?
>
>

I thought it was coarse fishing. Or is it now 'shopping' (wandering
around aimlessly with a credit card)?

[magwitch]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/05/13 21:53, magwitch wrote:
>> John Sturdy wrote:
>>> If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque,
>>> shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716
>>>
>>> Or does "The £88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions"
>>> actually mean "The £88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?
>>>
>>> __John
>>
>>
>> That is vile. Really vile and obscenely ugly.
> And therefore True Art. Which reflects the society it comes from :-)
>
>
>

Indeed. If the rules of football were decided in Parker's Piece why not
a nice bronze of the guys who decided them? Or a sculpture of
footballers breaking the offside rule? I'm sure Anthony Gormley
(ex-Trinity) could oblige...

Not some cheap plastic Subuteo 'player'.

I was horrified by the giant silver hand holding a gold scooter on Park
Lane and that ghastly golden kid on a rocking horse in Trafalgar Square.

"Shiney thing make it all better" - infantile.

[Theo Markettos]

zulu <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Bugger the rules!
> Stick your necks out.
> Do something USEFUL with the money.
>
> We already have enough "art".

It seems there's a requirement for 'public art' in every development
project, with the result that there's a lot of scratching around that we
must find some art to produce now (before the money disappears).

On the southern section of the busway we've gained:

A small section of brick wall, with a few things embossed in it. At least I
think it's supposed to be public art, it seems to be randomly placed in a
field by the busway junction. Or it could just be a brick wall, I have no
idea, there's no interpretation provided.

At Trumpington P&R: two railway sleepers with a video screen embedded
inside. The first time I saw the video I thought it was live CCTV, that's
all it looks like. Maybe in a few decades time it'll be interesting in a
nostalgic kind of way (what we used to wear! when this was all fields!) but
I'm not sure what bad CCTV adds to the picture today.


So it seems there's no mechanism for saying 'thanks for the developer
contribution, we'll put it in the bank until somebody comes along with a
good idea' because we have to spend it /now/ or it will vanish. So we get
art-by-contractor not art-by-visionary.

Theo

[Michael Kilpatrick]

Crap. There's enough pointless idolisation of the banality of football
and other sports.

Just as an example: tomorrow night I am going to the Annual Parish
Meeting of the village of Whittlesford. At the meeting I am going to
propose something in the "any other business". I am going to ask how
many people know we have a Nobel Prize winner in the village, and
propose that to honour this we apply to Royal Mail to have the postbox
painted especially to mark this.

I want to cock a snoop at all the "philistines" who think it appropriate
to paint postboxes gold around the country just to celebrate a load of
drongos running round a track or riding a bicycle, last summmer. It
seems that sport, all of a sudden, is of such national importance that
it deserves such eternal (well, until the paint chips off) memorials.

Never mind all the other people who have contributed to science,
engineering, and such-like.

Never mind all the soldiers who have died for Queen and Country in the
last decade. Why shouldn't every one of *them* have a postbox painted
black, for example, or a sculpture in the corner of every city park
nearest their place of birth?

Michael

[Robin Fairbairns]

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

> pj...@cam.ac.uk (Peter Ellis) wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/2013 22:44, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> > Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> >
>> >> For heaven's sake, do we have to have bloody sculptures celebrating
>> >> something as banal as the game of football? I bet there are a million
>> >> other things of more noteworthiness that originated in Cambridge.
>> >
>> > It's only the world's most popular sport.
>>
>> So put something up at the bloody football ground then.
>
> People on Usenet can be so ignorant! The reason for a memorial on Parker's
> Piece is because it was exactly there that modern day football rules were
> invented!

but put a subutteo figure on it? that's related at some remove to the
event that this object is supposed to commemorate. (one might have a
plaque in the village where i grew up, in kent: subutteo was made there,
back then, at least.)

> Philistines!

hmm. those of us who don't enjoy foopball are pre-christian opponents
of the jews in palestine? weird.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

[Robin Fairbairns]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:

> In message <kmfi0q$tp$2...@news.albasani.net>, at 08:08:12 on Thu, 9 May
> 2013, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> It's only the world's most popular sport.
>>after live sex. Why not put an installation of mechanised humping?
>
> But was sex invented in Cambridge?

no, in ancient rome. after they'd got quattuor and quinque out of the
way.

> (There's a Watneys Red Barrel joke lurking somewhere).

euch. i didn't like that stuff, and i can't imagine why anyone else
would...
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

[Al Grant]

On May 9, 8:59 am, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> Different s106 category. If we spent money collected for one thing on
> another the developer would take us to court to get it back, and win.

So offer the developer half the money back if they agree to
let you spend the other half on, say, improvements to
Parkside Pool or Kelsey Kerridge). It's a win-win situation.

[John Ionides]

I don't think it quite works like that :(

However, it seems to me as though Parkers Piece has just had a pilot lighting study that had real problems with aesthetics, and is now going to have next to ninety grand sunk into a separate project (which many are going to consider of dubious artistic merit). I think the money would be far better spent casting some proper lampposts (and by all means stick with the football theme; "footballer" caryatids?). That would commemorate the Cambridge Rules and provide something useful.

J

[zulu]

<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J7udnZQnDozpdxfM...@giganews.com...

.

What part of NO! don't you understand?
Better a Philistine thana vandal.

--
zulu

[magwitch]

Again I agree. Every time I hear some actor or pop star mouthing off
about something they know nothing about, I wonder why I'm hearing it.

Why should Ian McKellan's views on living in the countryside (the
Cotswolds - yawn) be of any interest to anyone?

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <518B3913...@nospamcamtutor.co.uk>,

pa...@nospamcamtutor.co.uk (Paul Bird) wrote:

> On 09/05/13 01:14, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article<3mzit.48838$Y_6....@fx32.fr7>,
> > zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com (zulu) wrote:
> >
> >> "John Sturdy"<jcg.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com...
> >> If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque,
> >> shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
> >>
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716
> >>

> >> Or does "The _88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions"
> >> actually mean "The _88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?

> >
> > No. It was paid by developers of property under planning ("section 106")
> > agreements.
>

> Pity that can't fund a council house. Better use for the money.

Social housing is usually provided more directly as part of a development
site.

Colin Rosenstiel

[Alex Selby]

I've often thought that functional art would be a good idea. E.g.,
instead of the granite bollock, the brief could have been for an
installation that was both imaginatively artistic and also a place to
sit, or a place to tie up your bike, or whatever.

[tony sayer]

>Crap. There's enough pointless idolisation of the banality of football
>and other sports.
>
>Just as an example: tomorrow night I am going to the Annual Parish
>Meeting of the village of Whittlesford. At the meeting I am going to
>propose something in the "any other business". I am going to ask how
>many people know we have a Nobel Prize winner in the village, and
>propose that to honour this we apply to Royal Mail to have the postbox
>painted especially to mark this.
>


>I want to cock a snoop at all the "philistines" who think it appropriate
>to paint postboxes gold around the country just to celebrate a load of
>drongos running round a track or riding a bicycle, last summmer. It
>seems that sport, all of a sudden, is of such national importance that
>it deserves such eternal (well, until the paint chips off) memorials.
>

Seeing that Obesity is becoming a national problem should not we be
doing all we can to encourage people to get of their backsides and
practise -some- type of sporting activity?..

>Never mind all the other people who have contributed to science,
>engineering, and such-like.

Well some of them are under valued as they are now..

>
>Never mind all the soldiers who have died for Queen and Country in the
>last decade. Why shouldn't every one of *them* have a postbox painted
>black, for example, or a sculpture in the corner of every city park
>nearest their place of birth?

My dad fought for king and country and now departed this life I'm sure
he'd vehemently disagree re the other point your making;!..

Course the rules of football should be celebrated as a Cambridge
"invention" and some sort of well designed memorial could be erected
that is in keeping with its surroundings.

Problem is we're just too modest ;!...

Could be worse .. what if that other place had the idea;??..

They do seem to do well messing about on the river;)(


>
>Michael

--
Tony Sayer

[Mike Clark]

In message <kQ26qmBp...@bancom.co.uk>
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>
> Seeing that Obesity is becoming a national problem should not we be
> doing all we can to encourage people to get of their backsides and
> practise -some- type of sporting activity?..
>

So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
for recreational activity.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Roland Perry]

In message <a75e3f4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
19:09:13 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
>for recreational activity.

The obvious solution is for the 'monument' to be a set of goalposts
which people can use to kick footballs towards (and if really good,
between).

Even though this is cam.misc, I won't suggest that the goalposts be
moveable.
--
Roland Perry

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 09/05/2013 10:13, magwitch wrote:
> Not some cheap plastic Subuteo 'player'.
>
> I was horrified by the giant silver hand

Whatever that is, I haven't seen it, but it sounds like an off-cut from
one of Saddam's statues?

Michael

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 09/05/2013 13:05, Theo Markettos wrote:
> zulu <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Bugger the rules!
>> Stick your necks out.
>> Do something USEFUL with the money.
>>
>> We already have enough "art".
>
> It seems there's a requirement for 'public art' in every development
> project, with the result that there's a lot of scratching around that we
> must find some art to produce now (before the money disappears).
>
> On the southern section of the busway we've gained:
>
> A small section of brick wall, with a few things embossed in it.
>

> At Trumpington P&R: two railway sleepers with a video screen embedded
> inside.

So, basically, this is just going through the motions, not proper art?
There was no prior need for a brick wall to represent or celebrate
something/someone, nor the video'd railway sleepers? No prior
inspiration that created an artwork which *subsequently* needed to be
found a home or *deserved* to be found one?

So, we're saying that the rules say that S106 money now has to have a
public art component and so we *have* to have the art whether we want it
or not, when it might be the case that city is desperately in need of a
new cycle path, a park, a lido, a skateboard park, or just some more
lamps on sticks?

Are local authorities now *not allowed* to say that they don't want the
art but would rather have the other amenities instead? If so, it seems
that art is no longer voluntary or spontaneous as it should be.

If that's all true, that's really shit.


Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its really shit.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Mike Clark wrote:

> In message <kQ26qmBp...@bancom.co.uk>
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Seeing that Obesity is becoming a national problem should not we be
>> doing all we can to encourage people to get of their backsides and
>> practise -some- type of sporting activity?..
>>
>
> So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
> for recreational activity.

Isn't that the corner of PP where the Special Brew drinkers congregate?

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Andrew May wrote:

> Except that according to the FA, the arbiters of football in this
> country, it wasn't.

Possible case of MRDA, though.

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 18:18, Alex Selby wrote:
>
> I've often thought that functional art would be a good idea.

Like for example street furniture other than boring bog standard grey
columns.

I watch out for such things when travelling, and have seen quite a few
good examples. It's a problem though if you get this stuff installed ...
and the county council come along a week later and ruin the whole effect
by sticking a boring bog standard grey column in the middle.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 21:17, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> Are local authorities now *not allowed* to say that they don't want the
> art but would rather have the other amenities instead?

Correct. Having collected s106 funds for a particular purpose, the
alternatives that the authority have are:

(1) spend them for that purpose (within the time limit), or:
(2) give them back to the developer.

This'll change with CIL, which isn't hypothecated in quite the same way
and doesn't have time limits.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Al Grant]

On May 9, 9:17 pm, Michael Kilpatrick <n...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk>
wrote:

> So, we're saying that the rules say that S106 money now has to have a
> public art component

The statutory rules as in s106 of the T&CPA 1990 don't say that.
There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to claim a
percentage of s106 for public art.

Cambridge City Council imposed a policy on themselves (in 1992),
to claim a percentage for public art in every s106 negotiation.
And of course once negotiated (in secret) with the developer,
by the time the public art is proposed to the public, it's a done
deal and can't be challenged.

But it would be dishonest of the council to imply that they have
their hands tied by anyone other than themselves.

[Al Grant]

On May 9, 9:54 pm, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 21:17, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
> > Are local authorities now *not allowed* to say that they don't want the
> > art but would rather have the other amenities instead?
>
> Correct. Having collected s106 funds for a particular purpose

... you mustn't then renege on your agreement. You don't
need a law to tell you that, it's just ethics.

But the question you are dodging is whether you are forced to
collect money for public art in the first place.

[Al Grant]

On May 9, 10:13 am, magwitch <magwi...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Indeed. If the rules of football were decided in Parker's Piece why not
> a nice bronze of the guys who decided them?

My old school helped draw up a football code and there's a
nice bronze statue at the MCG to commemorate it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_wills_statue.jpg
When you see it you are reminded of the history of the game
and how it has changed over the years.

All a Subbuteo figure will do is remind nerdy middle-aged
men of their nerdy childhoods.

> I was horrified by the giant silver hand holding a gold scooter on Park
> Lane and that ghastly golden kid on a rocking horse in Trafalgar Square.

Or the statue of Michael Jackson at Craven Cottage.

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 22:35, Al Grant wrote:
>
> But the question you are dodging is whether you are forced to
> collect money for public art in the first place.

I didn't dodge it, I wasn't aware that it was being asked.

What councils negotiate via s106 is up to them, within law, national
guidance and local policy, and taking account of the specifics of a
particular application (such as viability). And the councils set local
policy, again within law and national frameworks.

A council is not "forced" to set a policy demanding public art, but if
it does set one then it is "forced" to enforce it, on pain of Johnny
Public launching a JR (which would be pretty well guaranteed in Cambridge).

And even where there is a policy requiring public art, as in Cambridge,
the council is only "forced" to actually collect any cash as a last
resort fallback option.

We actually prefer not to take s106 cash money for public art, we prefer
art to be provided on site as part of the development, but sometimes
this is impractical (because of the nature of the site) and occasionally
the developers simply can't be arsed and would rather just write a cheque.

For an on-site example (three, actually) see the Sainsbury Laboratory.
Someone did compile a catalogue a few years back of public art in
Cambridge, but I can't immediately find it. Everything from statues,
through the Cavendish crocodile, to decorative gateposts.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 09/05/2013 22:24, Al Grant wrote:
> On May 9, 9:17 pm, Michael Kilpatrick <n...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk>
> wrote:
>> So, we're saying that the rules say that S106 money now has to have a
>> public art component
>
> The statutory rules as in s106 of the T&CPA 1990 don't say that.
> There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to claim a
> percentage of s106 for public art.
>
> Cambridge City Council imposed a policy on themselves (in 1992),
> to claim a percentage for public art in every s106 negotiation.

Perhaps the current administration ought to rescind that policy. I don't
think "enforced art" is particularly Liberal or Democractic.

Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, a plastic Karl Marx is what you need, with paint-by-numbers and a
gang of schoolkids to make it pretty.

[Tim Ward]

On 09/05/2013 23:49, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> Perhaps the current administration ought to rescind that policy. I don't
> think "enforced art" is particularly Liberal or Democractic.

You will have your opportunity to say so shortly, the draft plan is due
to be approved for consultation on 29 May.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 10/05/2013 00:04, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 23:49, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps the current administration ought to rescind that policy. I don't
>> think "enforced art" is particularly Liberal or Democractic.
>
> You will have your opportunity to say so shortly, the draft plan is due
> to be approved for consultation on 29 May.
>

Well, I'm not actually in Cambridge, I'm in South Cambs, so it's not
really my call, so it seems. But if I had my way there'd be a unitary
authority anyway.

Michael

[Theo Markettos]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> Someone did compile a catalogue a few years back of public art in
> Cambridge, but I can't immediately find it. Everything from statues,
> through the Cavendish crocodile, to decorative gateposts.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mariella.gregori/tim/cambridgesculpture/

Theo

[Al Grant]

On May 9, 11:06 pm, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> A council is not "forced" to set a policy demanding public art, but if
> it does set one then it is "forced" to enforce it

Quite right. A council should follow its own policies,
especially in planning, where there is potential for
bias and even corruption.

My point here is that whenever there's public objection to
public art (like over Snowy Farr) we get some councillor
writing into CEN saying that they are obliged to spend
the money on public art. That's technically true (in the
sense that the money is ring-fenced) but it's a truth so
partial as to be misleading.

[Duncan Wood]

Well you could always paint it black & use it as a trip hazard.

[tony sayer]

In article <a75e3f4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, Mike
Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> scribeth thus

>In message <kQ26qmBp...@bancom.co.uk>
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Seeing that Obesity is becoming a national problem should not we be
>> doing all we can to encourage people to get of their backsides and
>> practise -some- type of sporting activity?..
>>
>
>So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
>for recreational activity.
>
>Mike

Well whilst I agree that the proposed statue is inappropriate and very
tacky that something better that does not use up any useful playing
space is warranted....
--
Tony Sayer

[Patrick Gosling]

In article <av2kvh...@mid.individual.net>,

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>For an on-site example (three, actually) see the Sainsbury Laboratory.
>Someone did compile a catalogue a few years back of public art in
>Cambridge, but I can't immediately find it. Everything from statues,
>through the Cavendish crocodile, to decorative gateposts.

My colleague Tim Love :

<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mariella.gregori/tim/cambridgesculpture/>

-patrick.

[Sarah Cooper]

In article <f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com>,

jcg.s...@gmail.com (John Sturdy) wrote:

> If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque,
> shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716
>

> Or does "The �88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions"
> actually mean "The �88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?
Isn't it traditional to use a couple of jumpers or a schoolbag as
goalposts - if so, why not have a couple made out of bronze, set at a
distance 12 inches less than they should be, just to piss off the pedants.

So public art, something useful for kids to play with, not big enough for
paedophiles and rapists to hide behind, not tall enough to be used as a
urinal, and not too intrusive.

--
SCoop

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 10/05/2013 09:50, Sarah Cooper wrote:
> In article <f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com>,
> jcg.s...@gmail.com (John Sturdy) wrote:
>
>> If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque,
>> shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716
>>
>> Or does "The £88,000 artwork, paid for by developer contributions"
>> actually mean "The £88,000 artwork, sponsored by Hasbro"?

> Isn't it traditional to use a couple of jumpers or a schoolbag as
> goalposts - if so, why not have a couple made out of bronze,

Hmmm, I think there's the risk of a "bronze ruffled school jumper"
looking rather like a large cow pat!

Michael

[John Sturdy]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:09:13 PM UTC+1, Mike Clark wrote:

> So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
> for recreational activity.

And, if that really is the part of PP where the first match under the Cambridge Rules was played, ensuring that there'll `never' be another match on that spot!

__John

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <yVRvbDFy...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
wrote:

> In article <a75e3f4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, Mike
> Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
> >In message <kQ26qmBp...@bancom.co.uk> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> Seeing that Obesity is becoming a national problem should not we be
> >> doing all we can to encourage people to get of their backsides and
> >> practise -some- type of sporting activity?..
> >
> >So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
> >for recreational activity.
>

> Well whilst I agree that the proposed statue is inappropriate and very
> tacky that something better that does not use up any useful playing
> space is warranted....

The proposals don't use up any space that is played on.

Colin Rosenstiel

[Mike Clark]

In message <pr-dnXHX5o3CWxHM...@giganews.com>

It's green space at the moment. That it's not part of any
officially marked out area for organised sports is irrelevant to the
issue that it's currently another piece of green space that the Council
are now proposing to remove.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Cris Galletly]

In article <av13en...@mid.individual.net>,

Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Except that according to the FA, the arbiters of football in this
>country, it wasn't.

If the FA are half as obstructive, bloody-minded, and unable to see sense
as the LFP are in France, I'd take _that_ with a pinch of salt!
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +

[RobertL]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:32:28 PM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <a75e3f4953....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
>
> 19:09:13 on Thu, 9 May 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>
> >So what we shouldn't be doing is removing green space that can be used
> >for recreational activity.
>
>

> The obvious solution is for the 'monument' to be a set of goalposts
> which people can use to kick footballs towards (and if really good,
> between).

Perhaps with a small plaque pointing out why the trees on PP are the same separation as the goal posts.

Robert

[Patrick Gosling]

In article <o7CdnUh59pDDJBHM...@brightview.co.uk>,

Michael Kilpatrick <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:
>Hmmm, I think there's the risk of a "bronze ruffled school jumper"
>looking rather like a large cow pat!

Which would fit in very well with the brass monkey droppings on Bridge St.

-patrick.

[Roland Perry]

>the brass monkey droppings on Bridge St.

I was wondering when those would be introduced into the debate.
--
Roland Perry

[Michael Kilpatrick]

Clearly I don't frequent Bridge St often enough, as I have absolutely no
idea what you are talking about!

Michael

[Fevric J. Glandules]

RobertL wrote:

> Perhaps with a small plaque pointing out why the trees on PP are the same separation as the goal posts.

They are?

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

> Clearly I don't frequent Bridge St often enough, as I have absolutely no
> idea what you are talking about!

And if you do, you're probably looking at the river, the architecture,
etc., rather than peering at the pavement and asking yourself "what
in hell are *they*?".

[Duncan Wood]

Unless somebody wearing heels steps on near you & swears loudly.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

They're not.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_dimensions_of_a_soccer_goal says
eight yards.

A quick play with Google Earth indicates ten yards spacing for the trees
along the cop shop side. So maybe nine yards between the trees...

[Jon Anderson]

On 9/5/2013 1:14 AM, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <av01c1...@mid.individual.net>, pj...@cam.ac.uk (Peter Ellis)
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/2013 22:44, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>> Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>>> For heaven's sake, do we have to have bloody sculptures celebrating
>>>> something as banal as the game of football? I bet there are a million
>>>> other things of more noteworthiness that originated in Cambridge.
>>>
>>> It's only the world's most popular sport.
>>
>> So put something up at the bloody football ground then.
>
> People on Usenet can be so ignorant! The reason for a memorial on Parker's
> Piece is because it was exactly there that modern day football rules were
> invented!
>
> Philistines!

The memorial only has two problem with it:

1. who cares?
2. it looks utter shit

Jon

[Brian Watson]

"Jon Anderson" <j...@durge.org> wrote in message
news:518d50d9$0$1110$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...

> The memorial only has two problem with it:
>
> 1. who cares?
> 2. it looks utter shit

Yes, but APART from that?
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

[Plum]

"Duncan Wood" <nnt...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op.wwvt7...@duncan-tosh.lan...

Presumably "paid for by developers" means developers' taste. We see too
much of that all around us.

[Cris Galletly]

In article <op.wwvt7...@duncan-tosh.lan>,

Or, more worryingly, an elderly person with osteoporosis slips on them when
it's raining or icy. If it hasn't happened yet, it's surely only a matter of
time.

[Cris Galletly]

In article <f3d3fbdb-60f9-4e63...@googlegroups.com>,
John Sturdy <jcg.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque, shouldn't =

>it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716

I can't imagine anything much less appropriate than an ad for Subbuteo.

Given 5 minutes, the fans of my club could come up with something 100
times better (and if you don't know which my club is, my rantings about
the LFP yesterday could give you a clue :-)

[Alan]

It's public art, so it must be controversial so that the Council gets the
publicity.

--
Alan

To Reply, use e-s.news AT ourmailbox.org.uk in a sensible manner....

[Cris Galletly]

In article <op.www2v...@sepura800.sepura.co.uk>,

Could be *relevant* and excellent, but still controversial, though.

Suppose I should be grateful they haven't decided to put up a life-size
statue of Joey Barton or Vinnie Jones :-)

[Jon Green]

On 08/05/2013 15:27, John Sturdy wrote:
> There's hope yet. Remember the "Golden Ball on a stick" plan for the Market Square to be desecrated into a "piazza"? That was eventually chased off, although ISTR the council being very keen on it.

Market Hill is sacred? That's a new one to me...

> I suspect a football-related statue would get spray-painted in a variety of team colours in rapid succession, vandalized in various other ways (some of them possibly mildly entertaining) and eventually removed with the explanation "It was only meant to be temporary, honest!"

Funily enough, the exact same thing occurred to me, too.

Jon
--
WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK!
Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

[Jon Green]

On 08/05/2013 14:51, John Sturdy wrote:
> If they're going to have something less dignified than a plaque, shouldn't it at least avoid free advertising for a commercial product?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22446716

It is...utterly hideous, a parody of art, and a total waste of s.106
money that could and should be put to far better use. Whoever proposed
it was either laughing behind their hand, or should have been disallowed
from the process due to their prior surgical taste-ectomy.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

Well, despite a conviction for assault (an air age incident) at least
Vinnie Jones has done some good for society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILxjxfB4zNk

The result of which appears to be that 15 people claim to have saved
someone's life after remembering what they saw, even though there is
some controversy over whether "hands-only CPR" should be promoted over
"mouth-to-mouth".

So, on the basis of that, as a football-hater myself, I'd be quite happy
to see a statue of Vinnie Jones somewhere appropriate, but perhaps not
in Cambridge with which he has no link I'm aware of?

By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
at school that the head should be titled back, yet they never show this.
They just lie them flat on the ground and blow, which is rubbish.
Film-makers also seem incapable of getting actors to use inhalers
correctly as well. You would have thought that actors would make the
effort to get it right.

Michael

[Jon Green]

On 11/05/2013 13:07, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
> By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
> etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
> mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
> at school that the head should be titled back

No, the head should be titled "Head".* But it should be tilted back,
yes - and the airway checked and cleared before resps are started.

Jon
(* I'll catch flack for not punctuating as if it were a quote...)

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 11/05/2013 15:36, Jon Green wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 13:07, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
>> etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
>> mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
>> at school that the head should be titled back
>
> No, the head should be titled "Head".*

Ugh, etc.

> But it should be tilted back,
> yes - and the airway checked and cleared before resps are started.
>
> Jon
> (* I'll catch flack for not punctuating as if it were a quote...)

Maybe, but you get points for "as if it were a..." instead of "like it
was a..."


Michael

[Peter Ellis]

On 11/05/2013 15:36, Jon Green wrote:

> On 11/05/2013 13:07, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
>> etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
>> mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
>> at school that the head should be titled back
>
> No, the head should be titled "Head".* But it should be tilted back,
> yes - and the airway checked and cleared before resps are started.
>
> Jon
> (* I'll catch flack for not punctuating as if it were a quote...)

* flak

Peter

[Stewart Brodie]

Michael Kilpatrick <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:

> By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
> etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
> mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
> at school that the head should be titled back, yet they never show this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAqYTTf-Gn8



--
Stewart Brodie

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

> They just lie them flat on the ground and blow, which is rubbish.
> Film-makers also seem incapable of getting actors to use inhalers
> correctly as well. You would have thought that actors would make the
> effort to get it right.

Well, not any more. I have long since got used to the idea that
if you know anything about X, then when X is written about by
jobbing journalists (hell, even specialist journalists) it's
going to be wrong, and if depicted in film, it's going to be
wrong, and blah blah.

There are some exceptions.

The "Making of" of "Apollo 13" showed Hanks asking a Real Apollo
Astronaut exactly how he should press the talk button on his suit
(OSLT), and also IIRC went into detail about exactly where they
took artistic liberties in the name of entertainment.

Another, possibly closer to your interests, that struck me was
"The Talented Mr. Ripley". The (anti-)hero was playing an alto
sax that was AFAICWO an American sax, him being American, and
the Italians he was playing with were AFAICWO playing European
ones, appropriate for the time (late 50s). The difference being
that at that time, Conn etc. were still putting the bell toneholes
on the left, and Selmer etc. had moved on to the new-fangled
balanced action with the toneholes on the right. (ICBVW).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.saxophone/tree/browse_frm/month/2000-01/507e15c1eefcc674?rnum=151&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.music.saxophone%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2000-01%3F#doc_67756d01a8255115

has a bunch of obsessives IDing Ripley's sax as a Conn 6M, and
quibbling that some of the others were anachronistic.

However, as pointed out in that thread, it's all about expense.

[Jon Anderson]

These are those weird metallic things embedded in the pavement?

Were they put there as some sort of aesthetic addition...??

Jon

[John Ionides]

I can't imagine any other reason.

Although I happen to quite like them (certainly more than the metal pole at the junction of Magdalene St and Chesterton Lane).

J

[Alan]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:36:13 +0100, Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:

> On 11/05/2013 13:07, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> By the way, on the subject of CPR appearing on television/films/adverts
>> etc, it's quite clear to me that most fictional depictions of
>> mouth-to-mouth CPR are incorrect, as I remember distinctly being taught
>> at school that the head should be titled back
>
> No, the head should be titled "Head".* But it should be tilted back,
> yes - and the airway checked and cleared before resps are started.
>

They don't get you to even check that the airway is clear these days.
Just tilt and blow. Not rootling around for dentures or the like...

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 11/05/2013 22:36, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:

> There are some exceptions.
>
> The "Making of" of "Apollo 13" showed Hanks asking a Real Apollo
> Astronaut exactly how he should press the talk button on his suit
> (OSLT), and also IIRC went into detail about exactly where they
> took artistic liberties in the name of entertainment.
>
> Another, possibly closer to your interests, that struck me was
> "The Talented Mr. Ripley". The (anti-)hero was playing an alto
> sax that was AFAICWO an American sax, him being American, and
> the Italians he was playing with were AFAICWO playing European
> ones, appropriate for the time (late 50s).

In some films they clearly make the effort to employ musicians to
portray musicians, rather than employing shitty actors to wiggle their
fingers about not in time to the music (which is the most offensive
thing in the world).

One example is the film "I Capture The Castle" in which Pete Long, who
runs an orchestra called "Echoes of Ellington" among other things (and
uses a few of my transcriptions) can be seen briefly in a small band, in
a dance scene. I can't recall getting a clear enough view of the
saxophone to see what make it was, but you can bet that Pete and the
group he was with made the effort to get the period right.

Michael

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Jon Anderson wrote:

> These are those weird metallic things embedded in the pavement?
>
> Were they put there as some sort of aesthetic addition...??

Yes, there's nothing to look at and they were hoping to encourage
tourism. As if anybody's ever going to visit Bridge Street!