Jump to content

Recommended Posts

val162 Wrote:

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

> Am I the only one who is depressed by the

> production of this sculpture, the absence of

> design research as relates to the area, the crude

> addition of wings once the sculptor discovered

> that Blake had seen angels on Peckham Rye (though

> this is such an old chestnut - lots of other

> interesting things happened on the Rye over the

> years including a race by Boudica!), lack of

> consutation with local community, lack of

> documentation on site......



I think theres some value to what you say, and i tend to agree, but its done now. Maybe you can contact the CGS to ensure future projects are given the due process.


Although i would be careful what you wish for, too much red tape and things like this may never happen or end up costing 10x as much. A similar project in another borough cost ?50k in artist fees alone.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> I think it's fantastic. I love every bit of it.


I'll second this. Sure the artist didn't cover costs and what a great way to use a tree stump.

Bah humbug to naysayers! Personally my kids and I are just going to enjoy looking at it as we pass.

CGS applications ARE given due process. It really annoys me how little people know about any funding schemes. Go to your community council meetings. It's easy to find out how these things work. Stop expecting everything to come to you.


At the end of the day, it's just a dead tree stump that would have been left to rot but for a local person having an idea to do something with it. Be thankful we have a local authority that gives money over for the public to spend on local projects like this.


Edited to add; crossed posts with HP but we are both saying the same thing.

There was a rather subtler carving done on Monclar road on the remains of the fallen monclar oak there.

Does anyone have any details about who did that, i wondered if it was the same chap, but on seeing the finished goods I'm doubting that?


PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> You miserable buncha - !

> It was a dead ugly stump of a tree and it's now a

> beautiful carved tree stump and go

> awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!


Sorry PeckhamRose but I'm afraid that you may have inadvertently caused some of the less positive responses. Your first post showed a photo of a tree sculpture in Malvern which, in my opinion, is a thing of great beauty and I was really looking forward to something similar. Unfortunately, what we've got is, in my opinion, extremely ugly. I would much rather see a dead tree stump.

That said, it wasn't much money and if someone got some enjoyment out of it then I am pleased. I just won't be going down to take a second look at it, and I avert my eyes when I pass it on the bus.

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> I have caused nothing. Your negativity and

> propensity for the same has caused you to thus see

> - and I'll have the other half luge of vodka

> please!



Ah, now I understand, it was the first half luge of vodka that makes you find it so attractive. (True of many things not just tree stumps.)

Sorry, but you are writing nonsense AdDabs. To feel the need to avert your eyes at something as innocuous as a tree stump is bewildering!!! And to belittle any poster by saying it must be vodka that makes them find it attractive is just rude.

The interesting point (Well to me that is) that something 100 years old appears

to of been replaced by something now a few weeks old.


Like it has just been plonked there.


DulwichFox.


P.S. I still like it though. :)

It's not particularly to my taste, but I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into it and the skill of the artist. Hopefully it will bring pleasure to lot's of people. It's certainly not offensive.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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