All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for July 27, 2006 UPDATE July 30, 2006

Here is the updated picture of the actual "Triangle" sculpture on E 1st Street.  I received some pictures that are just too close for publication on the internet.  I didn't think I would agree with those angry about this sculpture but - really - it does go a little too far.  I don't know an easy way to comment on this in good taste but here it goes.  The live male model was either in a gravity free enviroment or a little too excited about modeling for the artist.  You really can't compare this to David since - well - I think you get the point.

Feel free to post your updated comments -

I received many requests to open a blog on this topic on - so here it is.  I feel this topic has been well covered by the press so please feel welcome to post any comments or reaction you may have to this recent acquisition by the City of Loveland.  Anyone serving with the Arts in Public Places Committee is welcome to post a message and please identify yourself.

2006-07-27 08:42:24 GMT
Comments (17 total)
Loveland has gained a great deal from having a vibrant arts community. The art galleries, shows, etc. bring millions in economic activity into the area, and they also serve as a big chunk of Loveland's appeal and draw. Basically art has put Loveland on the map. In fact I would argue it has had more to do with moving Loveland from it's perch as Colorado's kitchiest town to one of it's big-time up and comers.

Loveland is treading on dangerous ground with this brew ha-ha, prevent the placement of this fine piece of art at your peril Loveland. We might as well put Ashcroft in charge of the inquisition if it is to proceed.
2006-07-27 16:47:24 GMT
An immoral, undeniably realistic presentation of a threesome at McWhinneyville. No surprise here, given the McWhinneys have no morals or ethics.

What's next? Perhaps sexually molesting children at the Metroplex?
2006-07-27 17:54:32 GMT
I can't believe it! First some Loveland resident, who evidently becomes easily confused regarding what is real and what is not real, puts a "Tee" shirt on a nude sculpture located at Benson Park, and now an equally easily confused group of people is taking aim at the "Triangle" sculpture by trying to portray it as a "lewd threesome". Ladies and gentlemen, these are sculptures--they are not real. If they were real I might be against them as well. But they are not real. In case you haven't noticed, there is not a single sculpture in Loveland that is not cast in stone or bronze. These items won't hurt anyone should they happen to look at them, either intentionally or inadvertently. (No, you won't turn to stone.)
The people who find these items objectionable are the same people who would turn their heads in shame should they happen to see Michelangelo's David or The Venus Di Milo. And heaven forbid that these same poor misguided individuals should ever stumble into the sistine chapel and look up!
Of all the problems in the world today is this really, and I mean REALLY, something we need to worry ourselves sick over? So, the STATUES have NO CLOTHES! SO WHAT!!
2006-07-27 22:12:31 GMT
I find nothing wrong with the human body, 'Rudy". I find nothing offensive to Micheangelo's David. What I object to is the contextual placement. And, yes, it is a threesome, which brings a subtext of pornography with it. So what next? Bestiality in the high school, given the obvious sexual inspiration?

It comes as no surprise the Reporter-Herald such immorality, given the lack of morals one must have to work there.
2006-07-27 23:29:25 GMT
TO: Anonymous 2006-07-27 23:29:25 GMT (above)
So, tell me, what does the 'Reporter-Herald' have to do with the argument? I don't work for them; do you? You paint with an awfully broad brush when you imply that everyone who works there 'lacks morals'. I wonder, does this include the janitor. Does the person who sweeps the floors and cleans the johns at the Reporter-Herald 'lack morals'?
And what does your reference to 'bestiality' (sic) have to do with anything? Isn't your fear leading you to draw erroneous conclusions? What are you afraid of? Have you ever asked yourself what it is that you are really afraid of? Maybe you should before these irrational fears are passed on to unsuspecting offspring.
You remind me of the person who went to a Psychiatrist for treatment of a disorder. When the doctor asked, during the initial visit, what the problem might be the patient responded, "I cant get my mind off of sex! I think about it all of the time." "Really," said the doctor, "You do realize, don't you, that it is quite normal to think of sex from time to time. It is even considered normal to fantisize about sex once in a while." But the patient persisted, "Doctor, you don't understand, this is really bad! I can't get my mind off the subject." The doctor figured to get started that he would do a simple rorschach test, so he pulled out the pile of ink-stained cards and showed the first one to the patient. The doctor asked, "What do you see?"
After a few moments hesitation the patient responded, "Two people, you know, doing it." "Doing what?" asked the doctor. "You know, IT," replied the patient a bit agitated.
"You have to tell me what it is they are doing," replied the Psychiatrist calmly. "They're having sex," blurted the patient. The doctor looked at the card, and seeing nothing more than a shapeless blob of ink, raised his eyebrows slightly and went on to the next card. "What do you see?" he asked again. The patient answered, "There are two people, a man and a woman, having sex." "You're sure about that," came the reply from the doctor. "Positive," was the patient's response.
The Doctor took a look at this second card and upon seeing another shapeless blob stroked his chin and said, "Hmmm." He placed the card on his desk, picked up a third card, and showed it to the patient. "And this one," he said. "There's a group of people in a hot tub, and they're heving all different kinds of sex," responded the patient. The doctor shook his head and said, "Goodness, you are really a sick, sick person.' To which the patient replied, "Me?? Good golly, you're the one with all of the dirty pictures!"

This patient might be you.
2006-07-28 06:57:48 GMT
These blogs are not censored so read at your own risk of being offended. However, only three rules apply. 1. Stay on topic 2. Avoid libelous comments toward private citizens and any speech/image that is considered pornographic or illegal for minors.

I have selected the "non-adult" site limit by YAHOO which means these types of things may be removed by the server operator automatically.

None of the discussion, so far, on the sculpture named Triangle has been a problem. However, the last post was removed for violating two of the three rules.

You are welcome to post House 51 race comments on the blog string below this one that is meant for those comments - I will not remove any critical comments so long as you consider the three simple rules above.

Great dialogue on the sculpture - please feel welcome to continue posting reactions to the recent City Council decision to proceed.

2006-07-29 06:16:32 GMT
Thanks for having this forum available.
I don't care that the statue is a nude. That doesn't bother me but I haven't heard any discussion about the future value of the art. Back in the 70's some cities invested in "modern" pieces that they couldn't get anyone to take for free in the 1990's.

How does the art community in Loveland appraise a piece like this (serious question because I don't know) and how do we know it will retain a value comparable to the price the City of Loveland paid?

(By the way - great site, I love the open dialogue).
--Nancy K.
2006-07-30 14:06:13 GMT
I have a question. Will the city pay somone to care for the sculpture or how does this work. It just seems like it would be ugly if people painted on it or other things so how does the city care for these things?
2006-07-30 17:06:15 GMT
I hope someone from Arts in Public Places can answer your question here because I am not sure.

Please send me any new photos you have of the sculpture ( I can post it here. I haven't had the chance to get one but if you can take a good picture I will be happy to highlight it on this site. Thanks
2006-07-30 17:15:39 GMT
Wow! Are you sure this is proper posting a picture like this on the internet?

I am no prude but this certainly merits a second look by the City Council.
--Dale Hart
2006-07-31 05:33:07 GMT
I think it is a fine sculpture that adds to the asetic quality of Loveland. You need to speak with the artist but I believe the male is jumping or something (in motion) so his weewee is not down as you implied as a result of gravity. At least that is what I will tell my 5 year old if she asks.
--Don Y.
2006-07-31 18:01:54 GMT
I have a question maybe someone can answer.

If the male or female statues were real people, they would have been cited by the Loveland Police for a sex crime and be required to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders. Is this not true?

Maybe Loveland PD should put the statue on their sex offender registration list with the location so parents who don't want their children flashed can avoid the intersection.
--Concerned Parent
2006-08-01 15:03:28 GMT
OOOO-K, well aren't we special. I am sorry your parents didn't talk to you with grown-up words, maybe that is why you are soooo silly.

Look people, public nudity is not a bad thing and if others are willing, I would be happy to appear nude in protest in front of the statue one weekend for 1 hour. I think the other guy meant McWhineyville because that is what you are.

How 'bout it? What if all us art lovers showed up one day naked at the sculpture? In fact, lets organize it right here - any takers?
--Carol H.
2006-08-02 05:33:07 GMT
If you are the person I think you are, no thank you. People over 50 (40 for that matter) have no business going naked in public. Have you ever thought that decency laws were made to protect the rest of us from people like you!
UUUUK!!! At least the artist made them young.
--Jimmy E
2006-08-03 18:59:47 GMT
Kalplas and Silverman talked about this statue yesterday and said no one put a close-up picture on the internet. I heard the interview with "Liam?" who owns this site.

You did the right thing refusing them a more detailed pic - it isn't appropriate for the internet or a public place.

Now, if that nude artist will really go stand by the statue, just make sure its not after lunch because I really will not be able to keep it down.

2006-08-04 16:02:36 GMT
Liam you are having too much fun with a very serious issue.

It is porn given what the largest radio station in Denver called a "semi state of arousal"

It is time a RECALL be organized against everyone on City Council responsible for making Loveland the laughing stock of the nation!!!!!!!
2006-08-04 16:41:15 GMT
"Triangle" was named at first by the artist
Playfull Togetherness, according to the Denver
Post. She was thinking what most of us think
when we view this piece. When multiple members
of both sexes get together, and get playful,
and get naked--the next thing is not a group
discussion of world peace and unity. It looks
like foreplay to group sex. When nearly $70,000
of the people's money was spent on this porno-
graphic sculpture, Community Standards were
given no thought. City Hall kow towed to the
Visual Arts Commission--whom they appointed and
should be able to control or override. Five
members of the VAC decided a couple of weeks ago
what 60,000 residents will have to accept as
public art. Give us our money back! Let Kokkin
go sell her erotica in Stockholm--it would be
readily accepted there.
--Bob Garner
2006-08-12 16:11:48 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS