Bring Back the King

When it comes to art Andy Munro knows what he likes.…

There was a recent article in the Mail revealing that part of Ray Egan’s (Birmingham’s John Bull) mayoral manifesto is to bring King Kong back to Brum. This is, of course, something that as a child of the sixties I’ve always wanted to see. After all, the statue was originally commissioned specifically for our city.

However, this topic set me thinking, particularly as I’m involved with the development of the proposed ‘iconic’ Golden Square in the Jewellery Quarter. In this connection a debate has been raging on the public art aspect, between a body of opinion (who shall remain nameless) that want something ‘subtle’ and preferably abstract, with the opposing view (myself and others) in the ‘Obvious Art ‘ camp.

Those decrying the ‘obvious’, i.e. a recognisable object, describe the approach in a derisory fashion as ‘plonk’ art but I would argue that, as long as it has a context to its location, it cannot be so described. In fact, one of the reasons for public art, particularly in the Jewellery Quarter context, is to be strong enough to pull people to that location for a photo opportunity.

The pseuds camp even argue that ‘Bully’ is plonk art and shouldn’t be there whilst I would argue that it gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure and it is classic (not cheesy) because of the artist’s classy interpretation of the bull and the materials used – although there’s no mistaking that it’s a bull and where is the crime in that, I would ask?

All this reminds me of the sixties era and the trend for abstract paintings when a splodge of pink and orange could be described as ‘Brighton at Sunset’ and if you didn’t get it, the artistic pseuds scornfully said, “You couldn’t have been there.” Emperor’s new clothes spring to mind with this approach and I wonder if I’m alone in preferring recognisable art.

PS. By the way, I should admit that I’ve no architect or planning qualifications and like most people I failed my art exams.