Ted Bates Statue is Remembered...

He also has Stretch Armstrong's right arm.

 

No, this is in-correct, the sculpter was fairly experienced [believe it or not?] and would have taken contraction into account. As a Mechanical Engineer I've never actually done any casting, but I know the technology behind it and the bronze would skrink by a very, very small percentage equally all over the model.
I think what I am trying to say, is that he was crap?

 

Indeed. I have seen some of the work that the original sculptor was experienced at and he is/was very good indeed. What he majored in was nothing like real life statues. Basically, the fans picked the wrong sculptor, and because he is a Saints fan himself he took the job on, in an over emotional acceptance. He should have taken a step back and told the comissioners that he wasn't experienced in that area of sculpture, and to look elsewhere.
I have wondered in the past whether he was cajoled into making the wrong decision to accept.

 

So he can't do sculptures that look like things then? Bit of a drawback for an artist, that. Even in the Tate Modern, the ability to make something look like what it's meant to look like is pretty much a requirement of the job.

 

The original was hideous.....it did not in any way look like Ted Bates. I had the impression the original artist had been on the piss all the time he was making /designing the original. I was also surprised by a few official comments at the time of how life like the original was!!!! All I can say is that they no idea who the hell Ted Bates was and what he was to this club!!
The second one is much, much better......probably as near to a likeness as you would get in Bronze.

 

I really like the current one and it will be nice to see an MLT and a Terry Paine one near it soon.

 

Never hurt Tracey Emin as far as I can see

 

No, I'll assume you're being sarcastic, but just in case you're aren't, there are plenty of sculptural areas where real life or lifelike sculpturing doesn't come into it. These artists will design and manufacturer symbolic shields or coats or arms, or generic figurines, or any number of subjects that don't have to be an absolute exact copy.

And no, art [including sculptures] isn't about trying to make things look the way they do, otherwise painting, for example, would have gone out the door as soon as photography came on the scene. And even photography has the ability to lie. It's more often about looking at things in different and original way.

 

The original, with no information given, if shown to random panel of people from across the south, would have got more votes for Milan than people who thought, **** me, that looks just like Ted Bates. I thought it was hilarious. Like the new one though.

 

Heard many similar arguements from my Brother-in-law who many years ago attended the London school of Art, his speciality seemed to be tormented souls, or just a load of black blobs depending on his mood, I always argued that my 4 year old [at the time] could have churned out equally good, or bad creations, depending on how you view it.
Perhaps I'm just not the arty type?

 

It's very easy to place all the blame on the sculptor. Personally, I place a lot of it on him because he accepted the commission knowing full well that it was something he'd never quite done before. But I place a significant proprtion of the blame on those who commissioned the artist. If they had done a little research they wouold have realised that this wasn't the guy to ask.

Some information on the whole episode: http://www.bbc.co.uk/hampshire/content/articles/2007/03/20/ted_bates_statue_feature.shtml
and about the sculptor himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Brennan_(sculptor)
and: http://www.heraldicsculptor.com/woodcarver-ian-brennan.htm

As you can see, he's perfectly capable in his area of expertise.

 

And in order to do that, you need basic technique. Picasso, for example, mastered the art of figurative painting before moving on to abstraction. So did Tracey Emin btw. The bloke who did the original Ted Bates is the sculpture equivalent of a painter who can't bloody paint. As much use as a chocolate tea pot.

 

I would suggest that I'm not they arty type either, in the widest sense.
For example, I will find myself watching an expert dancer and suddenly the person is no longer making artistic shapes, or being athletic in movement and timing, but merely throwing themselves around pointlessly. That's my life conditioning doing that to me.
In a sense, art is in the expression. It is there whether I can appreciate or not.

 

Look at my post above yours. You may change your mind.

 

I'd like to have seen someone telling Henry Moore or Barbara Hepworth that their sculptures didn't look particularly like anything! Whether a work of art is "great" or not doesn't depend on it being lifelike, or resembling visually whatever concept it is based on. However, if the artist intends it to be a lifelike representation, then it should be one, and clearly the original statue of Ted was anything but, unlike the excellent replacement.