According to the BBC this Giant Axe Head "...a 1.5 tonne sculpture which overlooks Loch Dee - is one of seven stone sculptures installed near cycling and walking paths in the south of Scotland to encourage forest visitors."
What is it about 'artists' that they think that spoiling the fabulous view with examples of their 'art' benefits anybody? Who, in their right mind, would be encouraged to cycle or walk along these paths just because some self absorbed eedjit plants one of their misshapen heads there?
How often do we see the wonders of nature around us spoiled but such misjudgements? There is a great view here, not the best in Scotland, but well worth the trip, and dumped by some well paid 'fly tipper' is this lump or stone that would have looked far better back home in its hillside. I'm sorry, but too often we see a variety of contorted materials blemishing the world in the name of 'art.' Who benefits? The artist gets a name, and far too much cash. The council or authority folk involved can keep in with the 'chattering classes' but rarely, if ever, consider the public's opinion on 'public art.' Not long ago Radio 4 had a short programme debating 'Public Art' and it was clear councils and other responsible took no notice or concern for the public's opinion. They may well pay the money, and how much money is wasted this way, but their opinion is ignored by the 'experts.' Edinburgh Council once placed a 'Kinetic Sculpture' at the top of Leith Walk. This comprised about thirty feet of scaffolding with coloured tubular lighting attached. The lights switched on and off in an irregular pattern. Around 1972 this cost £12,000! Who benefited apart from the con artist who got the money? Art can be a fantastic benefit to any area, urban or not. 'Art,' has however, to be 'art,' and not just an opportunity for a few to burden the rest of us with their 'taste!'