I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, one way or the other, except for the fact that if you're in Miami, might as well Miami it up as much as possible.

Phrased differently, there is no other city in the U.S. or Canada that would have countenanced a statue such as this. But it was part for the course for Miami (or more accurately, SE Florida).

Does art you can (generally) only view after buying an expensive baseball ticket count as "public art"? Or do we just call any art with some public funding as public art?

Not that I've had any reason to think about this before but I suppose given a stadium is usually owned by some public or quasi-public entity, the team doesn't really have final say over things like a HR sculpture unless that's been written into the lease. So ... can the Brewers get rid of Bernie Brewer or is that a city/county decision? In this case, was it really Jeter's call or did this have to be approved by some public board that runs the stadium?

That should be enough to kick him out of the HOF, in my book.

Did anyone else approach this with the assumption that they were going to disagree with absolutely anything that Loria had/has to say?

Does art you can (generally) only view after buying an expensive baseball ticket count as "public art"?

I don't think Marlins tickets are expensive! But your point stands.

<i<Did anyone else approach this with the assumption that they were going to disagree with absolutely anything that Loria had/has to say?</i>

Heresy v anathema, irresistible force v unmovable object, Trump v DeSantis, Musk v Zuckerburg.

I don't think Marlins tickets are expensive! But your point stands.

But they have to hit a HR or win which happens, what, 10 times a year?

My recollection is that the damn thing was almost universally panned here when it debuted.

If anyone other than Jeter was behind its removal, it would be receiving acclaim.

In my last company, the CEO as one of his last acts moved the company into a brand, spanking new high rise. I didn't like the place but many people did . In the entrance way, he had a quote of his carved into the marble for everyone to see.

The new CEO's first act was to remove the offending piece of marble and put some other quote up (at a massive cost )

This is the way of the world and egos of the elite.

#8 ... really? Huh. That doesn't seem like us. Maybe we should get the opinions of David Samson, Steve Garvey, Bud Selig, Joe West, Angel Harnandez, Murray Chass, Pete Rose and Chris Berman to help us sort it all out.

Edit in response to #9 ... in "seriousness" there is a difference between a piece of "architectural art" and a self-aggrandizing quote from your predecessor. I'm not familiar with his work but Red Grooms meets the qualifications of "renowned artist." Now if this sculpture by a renowned artist got moved someplace else, that's one thing. If it was just removed that's another. Anyway, if the first CEO had a Damien Hirst portrait of himself in the lobby that would still be huge ego but, if the new CEO tried to remove it ... well, works by Hirst should be preserved and it would be a bigger deal and about more than the egos of the elite. Loria, for all his faults and possibly questionable taste, does give a #### about art.

Your recollection is faulty. Many of us thought it was great.

My recollection is that few, here or elsewhere, appreciated the spinny marlins sculpture, finding it too frivolous for a MLB ballpark. In any event, moving the sculpture hardly seems like the most important aspect of Jeter’s tenure. The farm system improved considerably, and they even made the playoffs in 2020. Not bad, although Jeter’s short tenure makes evaluation somewhat incomplete.

previous thread

first one

Given Loria destroyed baseball in Montreal I have no problem with something he loved being destroyed.

I thought the original gif I saw was comically awful.

But the actual implementation was comically wonderful.

In a photograph or video, the Home Run Sculpture looked pretty naff. But in the ballpark, looking at the whole installation in the round, with downtown Miami as a backdrop... it had a spellbinding effect and made Marlins Park genuinely special. If they redid the opening credits for the Miami Vice television series, it would have featured in that along with jai-alai and women in bikinis.

It was a stupid decision to remove it, whoever took it. There really should have been more protest on the part of local government.

I asked an usher about it on one of my occasional visits to the ballpark (suspended since Covid), and she had no idea where it had gone.

A lot of people disliked the home run sculpture when it was announced but I have been all the way back in on weird ballpark stuff for a while now. Put Tal's Hill back up, I'm ready.

A tasteful sculpture would be a fine addition to any gift basket.

The “sculpture” was a terrible idea that was implemented poorly. However, it did/does have a cult following because it is “so bad it’s good”.

I'm not familiar with his work but Red Grooms meets the qualifications of "renowned artist.

I mean he's pretty well known but renowned like a Peter Max or Robert Indiana he's not. I come across his art occasionally and I find it schlocky but it does always sell at good prices. Having said that, the dolphin looks is a bit over the top but in a fun way. I like it.

Red Grooms is pretty cool, but his stuff seems more at home in a mai-tai bar or fish taco shop. Should've got something more abstract for outfield so it doesn't distract from the game.

For who the hell knows what reason, I've come to kind of like the Marlins and have watched a bunch of their games this year. They showed the sculpture a few days ago just outside the stadium; it's still fully intact and fully awesome and they should just restore it to its rightful place inside the stadium. It's awesome and has been from inception. A bunch of us said so in the initial thread.

could we do a reverse boycott to bring back Dolphin?