Comments on Time for Irwin, Part II

Wow. A flat glory hole.

just saw a disc with the spotlights and shadows at MoMA nyc. fantastic. the one at the top of the post looks more arresting however. thanks jen.

@#1, my thoughts exactly. =)

"...it’s a solid sphere attached to the wall by a thick arm and sticking out several feet into the room."

No, it's not. It's a section of a hollow sphere. AKA a convex disk. And it's attached to the wall by a post, made from a hollow tube.

Glad you liked it though.

Schoolmarm:

The disc is in no way "hollow," nor is it a "section" of a larger sphere. It is a single, solid, curved plane of acrylic. Irwin did not create his discs by cutting segments from already formed whole spheres (it took much, much, much more labor than that); in addition, "convex" and "hollow" are not synonymous.

I'm not sure whether the tube is hollow, but I have a call in to the curator to see. I'll let you know.

Schoolmarmishly,
Jen

Yay, modern art that's actually interesting to look at.

This just in: The post is hollow. Big around, and hollow.

Wow. I just reread what I wrote and realized that all of this Schoolmarmishness extends from my misuse of the word sphere. I apologize, Schoolmarm, for insinuating that you do not know the difference between "convex" and "hollow." I see completely what you were trying to say, and I'm fixing the wording on the original post. Oy. Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed.

Dunce-Capped,
Jen

Uh, help us out here. Is it a disc (i.e., a flat round thing), or more like a dish?

I happen to be one of the formost art critics in the country. Take it form me, it is crap>

It's a convex curved disc, quite like a dish with its base turned outward.

Can you get HBO on that thing? [badda boom].

It's true: We all do make mistakes from time to time. Thank you for the simple correction and display of humility, a rare but always lovely thing to see.