Jump to content

Mural in North Cross Road?

nxjen

By nxjen
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bony Fido

Bony Fido

Posted
Posted
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...
i*Rate

i*Rate

Posted
Posted

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.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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"?

Bony Fido

Bony Fido

Posted
Posted

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.

Seabag

Seabag

Posted
Posted

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.

i*Rate

i*Rate

Posted
Posted

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.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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 :))

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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!

Lemming

Lemming

Posted
Posted

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.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

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.

Lemming

Lemming

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • DulwichParker
      Local plumber and gas engineer - Jafar - Portrait Plumbing

      By DulwichParker · Posted

      Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • Sue Klein
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Sue Klein · Posted

      I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
    • Jenijenjen
      The Chapel of Rest

      By Jenijenjen · Posted

      Robert Redford

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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