Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hope they don't make the same mistake as did those who produced the mural on the side of what is now the Lordship Pub and Kitchen - they used a really big cherry-picker that was so heavy it seriously damaged the pavement - must have been fairly costly to repair...

Bony Fido,


The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the artist's reputation from past works!?

Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery - be good to have something referencing 20th Century art for a change.


R. Mutt.

i*Rate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bony Fido,

>

> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub

> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a

> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the

> artist's reputation from past works!?

> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on

> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -

> be good to have something referencing 20th Century

> art for a change.

>

> R. Mutt.



I don't know anything about that artist's reputation or past works, I just really dislike that mural. I think the unlamented and short-lived Patch might have commissioned it?


Surely the whole point of many of the local murals are that they are based on pictures from Dulwich Picture Gallery? Because - we are in Dulwich! I think that was a brilliant idea. They are so varied, too.


I don't see why you would describe them as "pompous"?

i*Rate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bony Fido,

>

> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub

> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a

> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the

> artist's reputation from past works!?

> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on

> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -

> be good to have something referencing 20th Century

> art for a change.

>

> R. Mutt.


I have no claim to being an art critic!! The mistake to which I was referring has nothing to do with the actual mural - it was about the fact that the pavement was damaged by the weight of the cherrypicker.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Great! I love (most of) our ED murals.

>

> Except the one on the side of what is now The

> Lordship ......


But NOT that ?love is a prison? one by The Artless Dodger


Please tell me he?s gone on to work in an estate agent, or something.


His work is absolute cark.

Lynne,


Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone that keeps up with what's going on it London! And good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has been producing street art for many years!


As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works, well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have our own identity here. We still have the local historical mural on Goose Green about William Blake, though, more like these maybe?


I rest my case.

i*Rate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lynne,

>

> Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone

> that keeps up with what's going on it London! And

> good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has

> been producing street art for many years!

>

> As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works,

> well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich

> Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have

> our own identity here. We still have the local

> historical mural on Goose Green about William

> Blake, though, more like these maybe?

>

> I rest my case.



Sadly, it's not a very good case :))

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> horrible. I had thought I liked it.



It's a matter of personal taste.


I don't think anybody is saying the mural is objectively horrible (which would be an odd thing to say). They are just saying that they personally don't like it.


If you thought you liked it, you probably still do. Don't be swayed by what other people think about it!

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> horrible. I had thought I liked it.


Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.


Previously we had a large, featureless wall - composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the charm of a soviet era social housing block.


This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the community.


That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century design is BEYOND BELIEF.


I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be in keeping with at least some portions of the locality.

Lemming Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> > horrible. I had thought I liked it.

>

> Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required

> 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.

>

> Previously we had a large, featureless wall -

> composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were

> fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with

> 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the

> charm of a soviet era social housing block.

>

> This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the

> community.

>

> That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply

> paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century

> design is BEYOND BELIEF.

>

> I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's

> a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be

> in keeping with at least some portions of the

> locality.



I think you are confusing two murals ....


The one on the side of The Lordship has been there for some years.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I think you are confusing two murals ....

>

> The one on the side of The Lordship has been there

> for some years.



You're absolutely right! I blame red wine - and hereby withdraw my comment about cocks and balls.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...