In reply to Liam Brown:
Two interesting comments from Welsh creatives..renowned photographer Glyn Davies and John Redhead re-posted here.
http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/slate-of-art.html
Glyn Davies
Man it's a difficult scenario this one, for all the reasons you state, but the biggest point you raise, that so unopposed by many climbers and artists, is the issue of imposition upon others. One turbine in itself is not necessarily ugly but literally every hillside, valley and ocean horizon being covered with them as planned, is both ugly and horrific. It's the fact that no matter how varied the viewpoints, everyone will be forced to see them like it or not.
So it is with 'artwork' good or bad, painted in a permanent way in a public place. Let's just say that the majority find this guys work just plain poor, and visually offensive, why should we all be forced to see it just because he feels he has the right to do it ? If he is just painting one art work, then maybe there is a place within this huge man made scar (which sort of has an awesome historical, even epic beauty of it's own, surprisingly) but if he intends to paint across every rock face, visible not just within the quarry but also from the hillsides opposite, then I'd argue that it is simply not on. It's almost an arrogance for him to assume that his work even has calibre that everyone will appreciate, and in the HUGE difference between him and Nash & Goldsworthy, is that the latter two artists produce work that is temporary, subtle and muted, recorded often using photography, for others to see, as the works will disintegrate over time.
Let's just say that another artist decides to throw a ton of red & white paint over Crib Goch, to make a 'statement' about English visitors over-running Welsh hills (or whatever artist statement they concoct) would THAT be acceptable in the name of art ?
Most artists have to fight hard to find gallery space and representation for their work, many will get turned down simply because it's rubbish, so there is a sense that for some,the lack of gallery representation doesn't mean they can choose the outdoors as a gallery for their weakness as artists, and in the meantime negatively influence the surroundings enjoyed by so many (man made or not)
In conclusion, much as I respect the idea of artists using different ways to put messages and ideas across, when in a public arena, the art HAS to be temporary OR voted upon by the people, not simply imposed by one person on many.
john Redhead
No different really to when Stevie Haston drew a huge cock n balls on the Dervish slab - or is it? Had Stevie 'earned' the right by his ascent of The Dervish? My 'art' left no imprint, it recreated the landscape and posed questions and the sounds from the quarry inspired folk to go there and drum up their own banshee! One has to determine the integrity (often ego) for such endeavour in a public space - if the dialogue is just reactionary or f*** you why not, then it sucks and nobody wins... My acrylic on the Indian Face had been 'paid for' and was temporary (it would wash off in the first winter). I am all for the individual confronting the corporate oppressors - and the quarry is owned by a foreign corporate that sells electricity, ice creams and a range of souvenirs and the bulls**t should be challenged- so what is your message Jack?
Saying all that, my exhibition at the Electric Mountain in Llanberis (poetry, sketches and sounds) brought outcry from the local councillors who wanted it banned because their romantic view of the 'quarry historical' was questioned...(it was later argued to be a significant work of art) - it would be interesting to see what the local councillors think the same of the 'graffiti' by Jack Murray - just the flip side to Colonists Out graffiti! If the Snowdon Park object because it can be seen from Snowdon - then - I say, you can see the Snowdon train garbage and the outrage of the summit restaurant from the quarries...! It's all a mess!