Unutterably Silly One Froggy Evening

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Please read the original post (which I "own" thanks to the proclamation of a certain ProfJulie.

What'd I miss??

And to keep on topic () some-one in the Govt or EH thought this monstrosity (although it doesn't look quite so grim in that pic) was worth listing (Grade II: buildings of special architectural or historic interest.):

[Wetdogeared]

*deleted

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

What'd I miss??

And to keep on topic () some-one in the Govt or EH thought this monstrosity (although it doesn't look quite so grim in that pic) was worth listing (Grade II: buildings of special architectural or historic interest.):

Ummm, well, I'm not sure a building can qualify as "silly" .... ugly as hell, yes, but silly??

Oh, what you missed was ProfJulie stating that the original poster "owns" the thread (that was the word she used, I believe) that they start, and that it is disrespectful (again, her word) for anyone to post off topic or to post something "silly" in the thread.

So, since I "own" this thread, according to ProfJulie anyway, I decided to put the ownership "rule" to the test. Also, I was curious to see if any countries other than the US had serious organizations (such as the Library of Congress) who had recognized things that were decidedly silly as being of cultural significance.

As for architecture, while I do think much of what came out of the 60s was in really poor taste, I'm just not sure it was "silly" .... I would think of a silly building as maybe being something sort of whimsical .... you know, like a giant dinosaur diner or something like that.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Ummm, well, I'm not sure a building can qualify as "silly" .... ugly as hell, yes, but silly??

The decision to list it was silly, rather than the building - it may have been the first skyscraper in London, but it's an ugly monstrosity utterly out of keeping with it's environs.

Oh, what you missed was ProfJulie stating that the original poster "owns" the thread (that was the word she used, I believe) that they start, and that it is disrespectful (again, her word) for anyone to post off topic or to post something "silly" in the thread.

Oh good grief.

So, since I "own" this thread, according to ProfJulie anyway, I decided to put the ownership "rule" to the test.

So are most people sticking to the topic just be perverse?

Also, I was curious to see if any countries other than the US had serious organizations (such as the Library of Congress) who had recognized things that were decidedly silly as being of cultural significance.

I'm sure there are some art-type examples in the UK. Maybe not that silly, though...

As for architecture, while I do think much of what came out of the 60s was in really poor taste, I'm just not sure it was "silly" ....

OK, maybe not silly. Just downright stupid, ill thought-out and conceived by people who haven't a clue and too sodding arrogant to court the views of the people who will live in what they've designed. Not to mention poorly built and planned. Such as high rises intended for poorer families, built outside of the main city areas, with no local shops, and little to no public transport.

Um, how'd I get on this soap box?

I would think of a silly building as maybe being something sort of whimsical .... you know, like a giant dinosaur diner or something like that.

Something like this, maybe:

Actually, the English have a tradition of building silly buildings, if you count buildings whose main purpose is to be decorative and not much else as silly. Many country houses have a folly. And follies aren't even decorative, either... (sticking with my concrete theme, here) The Sway Concrete Tower, or Peterson's Folly (in Sway, Hampshire), built in the later 1800s:


Erm, I'll stop derailing the topic now

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

The decision to list it was silly, rather than the building - it may have been the first skyscraper in London, but it's an ugly monstrosity utterly out of keeping with it's environs.



Oh good grief.



So are most people sticking to the topic just be perverse?



I'm sure there are some art-type examples in the UK. Maybe not that silly, though...



OK, maybe not silly. Just downright stupid, ill thought-out and conceived by people who haven't a clue and too sodding arrogant to court the views of the people who will live in what they've designed. Not to mention poorly built and planned. Such as high rises intended for poorer families, built outside of the main city areas, with no local shops, and little to no public transport.

Um, how'd I get on this soap box?



Something like this, maybe:

Actually, the English have a tradition of building silly buildings, if you count buildings whose main purpose is to be decorative and not much else as silly. Many country houses have a folly. And follies aren't even decorative, either... (sticking with my concrete theme, here) The Sway Concrete Tower, or Peterson's Folly (in Sway, Hampshire), built in the later 1800s:


Erm, I'll stop derailing the topic now

I was threatened with thread hijacking of my own experiment.

On topic - How about human silliness? In La Crosse we have a thirty foot statue of an Indian made by a white guy in the fifties because he just wanted to fart around with concrete molds. When it dried, he painted it in totally outrageous non-authentic colors and donated it to the city. (Silly Human Behavior #1) The city then put it up in the brand new Riverside Park that had just been made when a new levee was built for flood control. (SHB #2) Many years went by and the Indian started to fall apart. The son of the original maniac repaired it in the early eighties, repainting it in even more outrageously anachronistic colrs and the city let him put it back. (SHB # 3) The concrete did, in fact, do as concrete will and continued to deteriorate. Three years ago, the condition of the Indian had once again become a joke and the City Council was considering taking it down. The Ho Chunk Tribe (of one Hiawatha in earlier history) asked quite politely to have it removed, since it is, in fact, very insulting to them. Enter Grandson of Original Maniac. He got a petition drive going to save "Hiawatha" the concrete Indian, that had all of a sudden sprouted a name of "historical significance." (SHB #4) The council caved in when about thirty pot bellied and belligerent rednecks showed up at the meeting and loudly demanded that the "Historical Tribute to Hiawatha" be repaired and left int he park. (SHB #5 & #6). Grandson of Original Maniac then slaps some concrete on the Indian and repaints it. So, there it stands, one Butt Ugly Insult to Native Americans, now labelled as culturally significant by the City of La Crosse.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I was threatened with thread hijacking of my own experiment.

On topic - How about human silliness? In La Crosse we have a thirty foot statue of an Indian made by a white guy in the fifties because he just wanted to fart around with concrete molds. When it dried, he painted it in totally outrageous non-authentic colors and donated it to the city. (Silly Human Behavior #1) The city then put it up in the brand new Riverside Park that had just been made when a new levee was built for flood control. (SHB #2) Many years went by and the Indian started to fall apart. The son of the original maniac repaired it in the early eighties, repainting it in even more outrageously anachronistic colrs and the city let him put it back. (SHB # 3) The concrete did, in fact, do as concrete will and continued to deteriorate. Three years ago, the condition of the Indian had once again become a joke and the City Council was considering taking it down. The Ho Chunk Tribe (of one Hiawatha in earlier history) asked quite politely to have it removed, since it is, in fact, very insulting to them. Enter Grandson of Original Maniac. He got a petition drive going to save "Hiawatha" the concrete Indian, that had all of a sudden sprouted a name of "historical significance." (SHB #4) The council caved in when about thirty pot bellied and belligerent rednecks showed up at the meeting and loudly demanded that the "Historical Tribute to Hiawatha" be repaired and left int he park. (SHB #5 & #6). Grandson of Original Maniac then slaps some concrete on the Indian and repaints it. So, there it stands, one Butt Ugly Insult to Native Americans, now labelled as culturally significant by the City of La Crosse.

Is there anywhere we could view a picture of said historically and culturally significant Butt Ugly concrete Indian monstrosity, so that we may, if any of us are of the potbellied and belligerent redneck persuasion, judge for ourselves the merit of the City's decision? Or must we travel there to view it up close and personal?

[Greg Anos]

At least he's not wearing a painted on Spurs uniform (San Antonio pro basketball team).

[pshrynk]

Well, if you look at the pictures below, the one with the bridges is taken right in front of the Indian and the one with the buildings has the Indian waaaaaay over on the left side. The small white upright blob. The Chamber was appropriately embarrassed enough to not include it in their website.

If you can manage to listen to the song on this site, without jamming an ice pick into your ear drums to make it stop, you'll hear a brief phrase showing SHB #7: Everyone bought into the naming of the stupid thing.

[Wetdogeared]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Is there anywhere we could view a picture of said historically and culturally significant Butt Ugly concrete Indian monstrosity, so that we may, if any of us are of the potbellied and belligerent redneck persuasion, judge for ourselves the merit of the City's decision? Or must we travel there to view it up close and personal?

Is this the one? Giant Indian Sculpture, known as The Big Indian or Hiawatha in Riverside Park, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Wetdogeared

Is this the one?

That's it! How'd you find that? I looked all over for it!

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by Wetdogeared

Is this the one? Giant Indian Sculpture, known as The Big Indian or Hiawatha in Riverside Park, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Are you sure you didn't take this snapshot outside a truckstop diner somewhere?

[DiesOutHere]

You know, Stephen Colbert, who hosts a fake political news show, has won three Peabody awards for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Are you sure you didn't take this snapshot outside a truckstop diner somewhere?

Unfortunately, no.

Originally Posted by DiesOutHere

You know, Stephen Colbert, who hosts a fake political news show, has won three Peabody awards for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.

And an Emmy or two. As has the Daily Show.

[outofbreath]

How about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Sorry it requires some reading... However the first section summarizes it, but you should still read the wikipedia pages:

The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most famous attempts to establish scientific truth by legislative fiat. Despite that name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, rather than to establish a certain value for π, although the bill does contain text that appears to dictate various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2.

The bill never became law, thanks to the intervention of a mathematics professor who was incidentally present in the legislature.