<sup>Everyone's seen it now, so what does everyone think?

An important piece of Art or literally a blot on the landscape?

Discuss.</sup>


Personally, I would go for neither.

I'm thinking more an important piece of the landscape, or perhaps literally a blot on Art.

Maybe both.

Or maybe its just a skeleton sunbathing - a deep and meaningful signfier symbolizing that he was, say, kinda bored.

If it had been done on to a rock then I would say it was a blot on the landscape

But it appears to have been painted onto a piece of concrete So really he has just added a piece of art to something that is man made and should not really be there in the first place

To me it looks as if it's been done on to rock, not concrete, and I'm not sure the tide would come up that high (check out the plantlife).

But compare the plant growth on the painted bit to that around and on the other rocks... That particular piece looks like a natural sunbathing spot/picnic area and any lichens, weeds, etc wouldn't get a chance to take hold due to being repeatedly walked across or laid on. He's also possibly sited it there because if the picture of a 'sunbather' wasn't there the real thing probably would be.

But to answer my own question: I'm not sure either

(if none of that makes sense blame too much prescription medication and not enough sleep)

How is it now, Retrocanvas?

I stuck it on imageshack and edited the link in the top post.

Hope that helps