Talk:Apollo Pavilion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Depressing[edit]
Seeing hideous rubbish like this restored with public money is so depressing. Western culture has lost any sense of beauty. It is a horrible irony that this work that represents an era of delusional and tasteless future-worshipping, a philosophy that despised the past, is now able to benefit from the ability of its supporters to take advantage of the innately conservative British ability to become sentimental about anything old, no matter how awful. Postlebury (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- thank you for the aesthetic comment. i take it you would prefer your lottery money to go to pre-modern art (Western art history). Slowking4 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an otherwise disinterested party gratefully separated from said ouvre by an ocean, I must agree with the OP's 13-year-old observations (which, sadly, means the local residents have had to look at it that much longer now). I don't see how even contemporary art fans could care much for this lunking, out-of-scale, out-of-context, cluelessly provincial go at modern expression. It looks like the town's builders had a bunch of extra cement and rebar and had an urge to be "artsy-crafty", or perhaps just didn't want to bother hauling everything back where it came from. I assume this "work" was foisted upon the townspeople without their approval, rather than being subjected to any sort of referendum? I'd never condone vandalism, but I can understand why people defaced this: They were simply carrying on the "blighted landscape" theme. I'm sorry we don't get to see these enhancements, as their quality was doubtlessly superior to the structure itself (practically anything would be). Whoever got this thing listed must've had impressive political pull, or perhaps anyone with a bit of taste was off that day. Just saying. Right then. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Afterthought: Considering that one can't fault art for trying to be what it actually is, an easy, low-cost solution would be to rename it "Appalling Pavilion". – AndyFielding (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- As an otherwise disinterested party gratefully separated from said ouvre by an ocean, I must agree with the OP's 13-year-old observations (which, sadly, means the local residents have had to look at it that much longer now). I don't see how even contemporary art fans could care much for this lunking, out-of-scale, out-of-context, cluelessly provincial go at modern expression. It looks like the town's builders had a bunch of extra cement and rebar and had an urge to be "artsy-crafty", or perhaps just didn't want to bother hauling everything back where it came from. I assume this "work" was foisted upon the townspeople without their approval, rather than being subjected to any sort of referendum? I'd never condone vandalism, but I can understand why people defaced this: They were simply carrying on the "blighted landscape" theme. I'm sorry we don't get to see these enhancements, as their quality was doubtlessly superior to the structure itself (practically anything would be). Whoever got this thing listed must've had impressive political pull, or perhaps anyone with a bit of taste was off that day. Just saying. Right then. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Apollo Pavilion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090404113542/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/tees/content/image_galleries/apollo_pavillion_gallery.shtml? to http://www.bbc.co.uk/tees/content/image_galleries/apollo_pavillion_gallery.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)