The part where he says he wore a hard hat during the installation so that he wouldn't be hit by a car seems thin. He didn't dress up to be deceptive and not look like he was doing something he wasn't authorized to do?
I missed the part where he explains why he didn't come forward before the city hired a consultant to figure out how the piece is affixed. Anybody catch that?
I also missed the part about how we are suppose to act on the message. What actions are we suppose to take to save the ocean?
Save the Ocean!
ReplyDeleteGreat Message! Things you can do.
Drive less, don't pollute, don't put anything except rainwater in storm drains, use less plastic, don't use single use plastic bags, don't support gill net fishing products, support not overfishing the ocean, support the ban on offshore oil drilling off the CA coast, outlaw the use of bunker fuel by ships.....
Just a small start. The basic concept is lessen your footprint the most you can while on this earth. Everything comes from the oceans, everything flows back to the ocean. The ocean like sunlight is life.
It is a gift. Accept it with gratitude. Stocks and Bond should stop being so churlish. Do the job they were elected to do and come up with a face saving way of letting it be. But, that would take imagination and original thought which they lack. Only government approved art allowed -- isn't that a bit Stalinistic?
ReplyDeleteI actually support the city in the premise that it is appropriate to not allow anyone to just 'plant' art anywhere they wish.SAVE THE OCEAN could just as easily been ugly. It is not, in this case. It is a fine work with a good message.
ReplyDeletePutting it there is problemmatical. People view it in cars and it diverts attention from driving. And any art such as this should be allowed to be viewed up close and back from the image. We have all seem folks in the street taking pictures and viewing it in the street.
I trust it will find a good home and enjoyed by our community and our visitors, spreading the worthy message for many years to come.
The cardiff kook and the kitschy girl are to be viewed by moving automobiles. Approved by the council.
ReplyDeleteIf Phil Cotton and Glen Sabine had already been contacted by the artists attorney, why could it not have been agendized that night at the City Council meeting? I am sure he must have told the Council about it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, people who believe it can be preserved are wrong. What should happen instead is a simple wall be placed over the mural until at some point in time people with vision can remove it. It's the cheapest solution as well. But no, that would creep out the state too much knowing there's something religious lurking around! Instead however, I believe it will be destroyed forever. So better get your cameras down there now so you'll have a story for your grandkids.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Mark. And I'm glad you're a Leucadian! I knew it!
When Michaelangelo made the Pieta, there were rumors spreading right after it's completion that someone else had done it. It angered him so much, he snuck into the building where it was one night; chisel in hand; many towns away, and carved across the narrow banner on Mary's bossom: "I, Michaelgelo of Florence made this." A guerilla autograph. Oh my. Lucky Italy, they don't get their panties in a bunch about separating the state from good art.
It can and will be preserved and moved.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lorri,
ReplyDeleteNo attempt to keep the truth from the public?
How do you explain that you are now going to get documents from the city that were denied to the public and the press for months? Why doesn't that look like the initial attempt to keep documents secret was part of a cover up?
Why don't you think your friend Chief Muir was being misleading by not mentioning that the city had refused to comment or release documents after the misconduct was leaked?
So, when I drive by the Cardiff Kook and become distracted due to the disturbingly awkward body stance of the figure, thereby taking my eyes off the road and crashing into the traffic pole, I can sue the City?
ReplyDeleteStarman: don't leave out the Home Development Deconstructed project on Andrew St. in Leucadia by the conceptionalist art group, Barrett Homes. Truly an amazing piece of
ReplyDeleteanti-sculpture, done with the city's blessing. I can't take my eyes off it, either.
The city & the police should be consistent. Remember this story about the prolific 17 year old tagger?
ReplyDeleteFrom the story:
The boy ... was ... arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor vandalism ...
The District Attorney's office will review the case for prosecution ... the city will probably seek restitution from the boy and his family.
Mark Patterson should be arrested, charged with misdemeanor vandalism, and ordered to pay all costs involved in this, just like the kid in the story. If Patterson won't remove the mosaic himself, charge him for its destruction.
Re: "I also missed the part about how we are suppose to act on the message. What actions are we suppose to take to save the ocean?"
ReplyDeleteArt comes from inspiration and is meant to inspire. With didactic art, I feel like the simpler the message the better. You don't want your surfing Madonna to come off like a preachy vegan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRob:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to the tagger story about the kid who vandalized our city 241 times. I had never read it before and agree with it completely. But after I thought about it a moment, and your comparison to Mark Patterson, I tried to imagine WHAT Leucadia would look like if Mark Patterson "tagged" it 241 times with his art. (OH YEAH!!!).
The only parallels I could draw between the kid and Patterson are that they're both local dudes and shared temporary anonymity. They differ because one has talent, love and inspiration while the other angst, anger and no direction. Rather than penalty, Patterson deserves honor and thanks for his beautiful and historical surprise gift to Encinitas.
Fortunately, so far, there are very few people that wake up each morning, reach deep into their hearts and ask "What would the Antichrist do?"
They differ because one has talent, love and inspiration while the other angst, anger and no direction.
ReplyDeleteThe law should be consistent, regardless of what the graffiti looks like. Art is subjective, and not restricted to what you like. One man's trash, etc., etc.
Rather than penalty, Patterson deserves honor and thanks
Rather than penalty, the 17 year old kid deserved honor and thanks.
his beautiful and historical surprise gift to Encinitas.
Historical? Please, I'm getting verklempt.
Fortunately, so far, there are very few people that wake up each morning, reach deep into their hearts and ask "What would the Antichrist do?"
Good grief. Setting your mythology aside, calling for equal justice is hardly evil.
The Surfing Madona is the best random act of kindness and senseless acts of beauty that I have ever experienced. With mark steping foward, it may be possible to safely remove it if it has to go.
ReplyDeleteRob:
ReplyDeleteNo. They'd have to change that old cliche to "One man's trash is 42 men's treasure" - if you've calculated the latest ratio of the Surfing Madonna pro and con votes today on this blog. The city tries to spin opinions "equally" (if not skewed the wrong way) too. "there are some who like the work and others who are offended by it's presence" as though it's an equal toss up between two groups. A good portion of the minority "group" is from out of state.
According to the law, the city wouldn't have a case against the artist anyway. Happily, they're not pretending they could have one, and for all appearances are conciliatory toward the artist.
Yes, "historic" is a little soon, and sorry to get you a little verklempt (tork amongst yourselves)... But you have to admit, it is at least an Instant Classic. All the news stations aren't coming here because it's ugly, but phenomenal. And it takes a great picture. With all the reflecitons, it's never the same twice.
There is no consistency between the vandal and the artist. I believe in equal justice, but you gotta be careful when you're talking absolutes. One act is constructive and the other 241 destructive. I think we agree, the 17 year old kid needs his little ass spanked.
lastly, I have one question. Since when is being anti-christ, mythological? Hmmm?
Winston, clearly you'll never be able to understand the simple concept that popularity is irrelevant, so I'll stop trying to explain it to you.
ReplyDeleteNo, we disagree completely. If the kid doesn't get your fawning orgasmic Oprah treatment, neither should Patterson. Instant Classic? No. Stations come here because it's an unusually well-crafted piece of guerilla art on public property, and Christians flock to stuff like this be it on a bridge wall or a grilled cheese sandwich.
Patterson broke the law. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Being anti-christ is not mythological -- it's rational. Originally you cited the Antichrist, which is a character in your favorite fairy tale. Do you understand the difference?
Keep it where it is. Those who remove it are evil. Its that simple.
ReplyDelete#1. The mural is not on public property. No public property law was broken. You've pre-misjudged him.
ReplyDelete#2. The idea that Christians flock to it is ridiculous.
#3. So you're saying that being an anti-christ is rational. That explains everything. Thank you, and have a nice life.
#1: Whose property is it? Why is the city involved?
ReplyDelete#2: Aaaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
#3: Of course it's rational. He's a fictional cosmic zombie who is his own father (who is a genocidal slavery-approving rape-indifferent blood-thirsty unethical tyrant). You didn't know this? Weird.
Rob:
ReplyDeleteI know you are, but what am I? Infinity!