According to the Deputy Mayor, this is supposed to be a tohora (whale), but to several of those who have seen this newly unveiled installation in Te Uruhi/Maclean Park of Paraparaumu Beach, it simply looks like a set of squiggly steps.
There’s nothing wrong with a concrete decoration of this nature — except for two things:
1. The purported cost of $145,000
2. The creator wasn’t a local, but Bay of Plenty artist Kareama Taepa.
This sculpture is supposed to symbolise “The journey of whales and other travellers through the Te Rau o te Rangi waters — the strait between Kapiti Island and the mainland” and apparently reflects “the history and prehistory of Te Uruhi/Maclean Park and the local waters and will be a wonderful asset not just for Kapiti but New Zealand.”
Further comment seems superfluous.
Another example of total waste from this council.
I don’t mind it as a thing, although concrete would not have been my choice and I cannot see any connection to whales. I’m glad you explained it 🙂
What the hell is Te Uruhi Park?
Te Uruhi = The Force : probably not a reference to Star Wars though; perhaps to the council: “we tell you what to do and if you don’t, watch out!”
Having just looked at this, it is as well that it is signposted as an art installation, as it could just as easily be overlooked as among the other bits of concrete in the park, along with the bits of wood serving as fences, borders and seats. If one were to signpost all such edifices in the park with a pretentious name and explanation, then the whole park could become a worldwide tourist attraction as an outside art gallery. Why bother with the Taj Mahal or Colosseum?
A mix of Western modernist utilitarianism with Maori motifs, this is a fine example of the type of formless banality one gets when trying to portray the ‘multi-cultural’ or in this instance, ‘bi-cultural’. The outcome is too bastardised to be representative of anything specific.
Claiming art is intrinsically subjective is a piece of meaningless sophistry used to rationalise the marketing of junk. What then isn’t ‘art’? The claim that ‘Art’ is by definition ‘controversial’ is another such cliche. In that case, next time my dog excretes in public I’ll leave it in place as an ‘art installation’, as the presence of dog dung seems to create a great deal of controversy, and it could be labeled ‘Canine tribute to Kapiti at dusk’, or some such.
I assume that the rendering of the word ‘experiance’ (sic) on the explanatory sign is intended to convey a contempt for the English language, as part of the increasing campaign to denigrate anything European in general, and British in particular? Proppa English might reflect neo-imperialism in Kapiti.