Meanwhile, In Merrion Square


970856_575363822507713_1146146866_nTo commemorate our presidency of the EU.

It was up for two days.

John Beatty writes:

‘Gulliver’s hankerchief’ no longer in Merrion Square…removed earlier today due to vandalism


Previously: Gulliver’s Hanky

36 thoughts on “Meanwhile, In Merrion Square

    1. Fred

      This post is completely untrue, the piece disintegrated due to the weight of the heavy rains of the last few days. Broadsheet need to get their facts right and post an update.

  1. Jesustonight

    Gullivers hankerchief…It was up for two days.

    It’s fer the wash then,

    last seen using the inside of his cuff.

  2. MW7

    As soon as I saw the previous post with it going up I knew it’s be ripped to shreds. Terrible that it happened but inevitable in modern Ireland.

    Surprised it wasn’t being watched by security 24/7.

  3. Jonathan Lynn

    If it was vandalised its clear the artist didn’t make something fit for purpose. Outdoor works have to exists within the urban environment
    This was another waste of money by OPW/DCC/Art Council

    It must have looked good on paper

    Silly boys

    1. Pierce

      Almost no material is unvandalisable. It’s really weird to put the onus on the artist to make something indestructible when anti-social behaviour is involved.

      Of course, if the piece just tore itself to bits, then perhaps it wasn’t “fit for purpose”. Which it might actually have done, given the wind today.

  4. Tarara

    I hope it was the wind and not vandals that did this. Very sad for the artists either way.

      1. Pierce

        Yes. Of course. What else would we call art, but art? Do you need a primer or something?

      2. Ahjayzis

        Auld birrah cloth over a tree isn’t art? Well then I don’t know art!

        *removes roll of lace from traffic bollard*

        Art is whatever old shit you can persuade some idiot to pay for and accept your waffle about.

  5. jk

    Good, “installation” art is usually meaningless crap anyway. In a way, by vandalising Gulliver’s handkerchief they were foregrounding the phallogocentric mesenterecism of the underlying dialectic, and rejecting the neoliberal consensus of the late-bourgeois art-as-Art paradigm.

    1. Frilly Keane, Probably

      Ah here. Far be it from me to remark on the condition of someone’s prose. But “foregrounding the phallogocentric mesenterecism” is just as much sense as jgsdhhlkvjdjdhfjfnc hdhdhdhdjfjf hfjfigigogohoh jfjfufifohpjlpyusuazgdyfig.

      On the otherhand, now that I look back over the above, both expressions, if presented opposite each other in an installation type format, might get away with being called art.

    2. Ahjayzis

      This has turned the vandalism into art through premier league grade waffle.

      Just as a stretch of flannel over a tree was turned into art by same.

  6. moddy

    I work right beside Merrion Square and saw this at least three times a day since it was up (in the morning, at lunch and after work on both days). It wasn’t vandals. It was the weather. Within the first few hours the wind had helped the branches rip through the flimsy lace sections of the tama (what it’s called) and once this had happened the tears kept getting bigger and bigger while the wind blew it down to one side so it almost touched the ground. This had happened by 5pm on the first day it was up and was definitely due to weather only. It was only once the condition of the tama got to this stage that vandalism would even have been possible as it wasn’t reachable until that stage. Also, I never saw anyone touching it or pulling at it. Saw plenty of nice folks taking pictures and reading the information signs posted in front of it. I really don’t think vandals had anything to do with this. It is sad for the artist but the piece clearly wasn’t made robustly enough to withstand bad weather. But yeah, change the “due to vandalism” bit — it really was no such thing.

Comments are closed.