'The Haunting Soldier' sculpture vandalised

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd say it was targeted myself.

Pity it didn't have cctv around it, given the potential for this kind of sh!t from a certain cohort.

Awful stuff.

Republicans are getting less and less relevant and just use opportunities like this to try and keep the hate going

Go to your nearest Garda station and report who you state did it.

BBFAN wrote: »

In what world am I categorically wrong? Only yours. You admit yourself above that it could be a Canadian symbol.

I know because I've listened to the artist that it was deliberately made to be any soldier who suffered in a pointless war simply because they needed to make a living and what's worse they couldn't even discuss their suffering.

Your hatred is really colouring your view of young lads who suffered unbearable pain.

It could be a Canadian symbol, could be ANZAC too. In reality though, those are not the most likely explanations.

In any case, that and a few other aspects makes it very clearly a one-sided representation of the conflict.

So at very best, we can say that the artist failed in his brief.

Making it a very silly decision to plonk it where it was. An invitation to the type of vandalism which happened, and which I have already condemned.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Whilst wearing English soccer kits.

Years ago whilst on holiday in Spain, a drunken Irishman was bellowing out a selection of 'songs', mostly Wolfe Tone material. An English family were sitting having a meal nearby, and he purposely drowned out their conversation with these tunes. Finally they got up to leave, and just as they passed him, the father (I presume) stopped, and said to the guy... "We really enjoyed your singing, but especially it's the support you give to my favourite football club that I will remember the most".. Only then did I notice that both of the guys arms were covered in Liverpool Football Club tattoo's...

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

If you had performed the basic courtesy of reading the thread from the beginning, you'd know that it represents a British soldier.

Tells me to read the thread and I'd know it represents a British soldier. Then tells me to "LOOK" at the statue because it's definitely a British soldier.
Sculptor claims it represents a soldier.

Somebody is wrong.

Must be the sculptor.

Whatever your views are it must be agreed it was a wanton act of vandalism. Disgusting to do something like that...no different than defacing a monument remembering unionism, republicanism etc.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It could be a Canadian symbol, could be ANZAC too. In reality though, those are not the most likely explanations.

In any case, that and a few other aspects makes it very clearly a one-sided representation of the conflict.

So at very best, we can say that the artist failed in his brief.

Making it a very silly decision to plonk it where it was. An invitation to the type of vandalism which happened, and which I have already condemned.

So you agree, it could be any soldier. Including a poor Irish young lad who went simply to make a few bob to send home.

That's grand, all I need to know. Not a British soldier like you categorically stated it was. So all of your hate is sadly misplaced.

mfceiling wrote: »

Tells me to read the thread and I'd know it represents a British soldier. Then tells me to "LOOK" at the statue because it's definitely a British soldier.
Sculptor claims it represents a soldier.

Somebody is wrong.

Must be the sculptor.

Whatever your views are it must be agreed it was a wanton act of vandalism. Disgusting to do something like that...no different than defacing a monument remembering unionism, republicanism etc.

Odd that a Central European sculptor would lean so heavily towards such recognisable-to-us emblems, though. You'd think his vision would be informed elsewhere.

Although, based in Britain and working for (probably) British clients...

Artists and their patrons. It's an old story.

Whatever he intended, the piece is not ambiguous enough for what he claims it to be.

Reckless to put it where they did.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

His sculpture speaks for itself. Very clearly.

You’re right, it does. Just not in the way you want it to.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You’re right, it does. Just not in the way you want it to.

Well then, he failed in his intention.

Aegir wrote: »

You really do pluck this stuff out of your arse don’t you?

There’s no white washing, no glorification, just remembrance. It’s a shame people like you want to use it to continue the hate.

But I guess for some, hate us all they have.

Says the poster who is ALWAYS here to defend the British. :D:D

I'll leave you to your usual antics. You are just embarrassing and boring now Aegir.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Very disconcerting that some have to watch for anything that might be WRONG with this placement.

TBH there should be nothing out there that can be vandalised anymore. Unless it is guarded 24/7.

The drunks, the drugged up, the haters of Britain (well the haven't gone away and are just on sleeping pills ATM) will just do this kind of thing.

To me, the kindest thing to say is that the placement was great, but the ideology of those who might deface it wasn't.

It is a privately owned piece of property, and who put it there had a responsibility to take care of it.

Too deluded with demonstrating their 'we are mature' narrative to get their heads out of the clouds,.

BBFAN wrote: »

I'm not a man an I wasn't wrong. Really don't know you're ranting about now son.

The artist is talking out of his hoop if he is trying to suggest that he made the piece to be ambiguous.

It is very clearly a representation of one side that fought in the war.

The British side.

When you look at it, does it seem in any way to you to represent French, or on the other hand, German, Austro-Hungarian, or Turk ?

Tell me what you see when you look at it, not what the artist says he intended.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I agree that the structure should have been monitored for vandalism from those who know no better. Knee jerk reaction from many. But there we are.

But the reality is, we have moved on and those of us with ancestors who died in WW1 should be remembered for that. Do you agree?

As I said earlier - I had an ancestor who died in france in '17.

I do remember him from time to time. I do it quietly, and I don't require any prompting from the state, artists, or do-gooders to do so publicly.

Virtue-signalling BS, a lot of it.

BBFAN wrote: »

I see a soldier who has returned from war, a shell of the man he was beforehand who doesn't even see the point of said war which is what it's supposed to depict.

You see different because you're coming from a place of hatred.

I'm really not.

I'm coming from a place of recognising the thing for what it is.

You can tell me it represents something universal, but as a piece of work it is actually very identifiable with one side.