On 10 Feb, 13:53, M Platting wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:32:17 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

I'm sure people will scoff, but my take on it is 'why not?'. The Angel
of the North was widely regarded as an extravagant indulgence when it
was being planned and built, but it has since won over a great many of
the sceptics and has become a genuine landmark.

Not 'scoff' exactly - it just looks a bit dull. It merely appears to
be an anatomically accurate sculpture of a horse, albeit a bit bigger.
You could get the same effect by giving everyone arriving on Eurostar
a small plastic model horse and telling them to hold it close to them
and look at it with the passing fields in the background *(yes, it's
that 'Father Ted' moment again!)

So why the big horse? Big'orse that's what the general public seem to
want!


Yeah, I can certainly see the argument that a big'orse is not that
imaginative, indeed similar thoughts crossed my mind too - but that
doesn't mean it the finished thing won't be striking.

The BBC News article says "[...] a sculpture of the Invicta, supported
by Kent County Council in response to Mr Wallinger's entry, was
rejected by judges last year." I take it that means a sculpture of a
white horse on its hind legs as depicted on the 'Invicta' Flag of Kent
as shown here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kent_flag.svg
I suppose that such a design might well have necessitated it being
smaller.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong and it is actually going to be
offensively ugly!