Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hope they don't make the same mistake as did those who produced the mural on the side of what is now the Lordship Pub and Kitchen - they used a really big cherry-picker that was so heavy it seriously damaged the pavement - must have been fairly costly to repair...

Bony Fido,


The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the artist's reputation from past works!?

Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery - be good to have something referencing 20th Century art for a change.


R. Mutt.

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Bony Fido,

>

> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub

> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a

> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the

> artist's reputation from past works!?

> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on

> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -

> be good to have something referencing 20th Century

> art for a change.

>

> R. Mutt.



I don't know anything about that artist's reputation or past works, I just really dislike that mural. I think the unlamented and short-lived Patch might have commissioned it?


Surely the whole point of many of the local murals are that they are based on pictures from Dulwich Picture Gallery? Because - we are in Dulwich! I think that was a brilliant idea. They are so varied, too.


I don't see why you would describe them as "pompous"?

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Bony Fido,

>

> The mistake with the mural on the Lordship pub

> that Sue commented on has nothing to do with a

> Cherry Picker, I think that it might be about the

> artist's reputation from past works!?

> Nice to see a mural that not pompously based on

> classical paintings in Dulwich Picture Gallery -

> be good to have something referencing 20th Century

> art for a change.

>

> R. Mutt.


I have no claim to being an art critic!! The mistake to which I was referring has nothing to do with the actual mural - it was about the fact that the pavement was damaged by the weight of the cherrypicker.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Great! I love (most of) our ED murals.

>

> Except the one on the side of what is now The

> Lordship ......


But NOT that ?love is a prison? one by The Artless Dodger


Please tell me he?s gone on to work in an estate agent, or something.


His work is absolute cark.

Lynne,


Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone that keeps up with what's going on it London! And good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has been producing street art for many years!


As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works, well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have our own identity here. We still have the local historical mural on Goose Green about William Blake, though, more like these maybe?


I rest my case.

i*Rate Wrote:

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

> Lynne,

>

> Good for you- well said, you are obviously someone

> that keeps up with what's going on it London! And

> good luck to The Artful Dodger, he's local and has

> been producing street art for many years!

>

> As for Dulwich Picture Gallery and all it's works,

> well it's a great place, but that's Dulwich

> Village not East Dulwich; we are supposed to have

> our own identity here. We still have the local

> historical mural on Goose Green about William

> Blake, though, more like these maybe?

>

> I rest my case.



Sadly, it's not a very good case :))

alice Wrote:

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

> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> horrible. I had thought I liked it.



It's a matter of personal taste.


I don't think anybody is saying the mural is objectively horrible (which would be an odd thing to say). They are just saying that they personally don't like it.


If you thought you liked it, you probably still do. Don't be swayed by what other people think about it!

alice Wrote:

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

> Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> horrible. I had thought I liked it.


Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.


Previously we had a large, featureless wall - composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the charm of a soviet era social housing block.


This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the community.


That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century design is BEYOND BELIEF.


I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be in keeping with at least some portions of the locality.

Lemming Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Could anyone clarify why mural by lordship is

> > horrible. I had thought I liked it.

>

> Let me explain - as clearly you lack the required

> 'eye' to appraise this catastrophic occurrence.

>

> Previously we had a large, featureless wall -

> composed with unpleasant beige bricks which were

> fired sixty years too late to be in keeping with

> 90% of the houses in the area - exuding all the

> charm of a soviet era social housing block.

>

> This wall was clearly a much-loved asset to the

> community.

>

> That someone could have the SHEER CHEEK to apply

> paint OF ANY SORT to this icon of mid-century

> design is BEYOND BELIEF.

>

> I haven't seen it yet, but personally I hope it's

> a giant cock and balls - which would definitely be

> in keeping with at least some portions of the

> locality.



I think you are confusing two murals ....


The one on the side of The Lordship has been there for some years.

Sue Wrote:

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


> I think you are confusing two murals ....

>

> The one on the side of The Lordship has been there

> for some years.



You're absolutely right! I blame red wine - and hereby withdraw my comment about cocks and balls.

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

    • Good advice Kipper!  The 1.0 early Ecoboost and 1.2 Puretech engines have wet cam belts that fail and failure with a cam belt invariably result in catastrophic  damage to valves and pistons. Later ones were changed to chains. Avoid at all costs!
    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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