Visual Centre for Contemporary Art, Carlow

That also got a favourable review in the October issue of Wallpaper*. And its the Centre for Contemporary Art, not Visual.

Can’t locate a link to an online version of the article.

Sorry, made a balls of name.. Visual Centre for Contemporary Art it is indeed.

Its all a bit of a fudge now alright: Visual Centre for Contemporary Art and The George Bernard Shaw Theatre

http://www.mauramcdonnell.com/carlow-arts/visual-centre-for-contemporary-art-and-the-george-bernard-shaw-theatre-carlow/

Here’s another article about this building & a link to more photo’s

Here’s a profile from BD a year or two ago. It’s got drawings!

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=428&storycode=3103340

Is it just me or is this building’s name a bit of a disaster?

In today’s Irish Times an article reviewing the year in arts refers to it as the “Visual National Centre for Contemporary Art”.

When I first began this thread I also got the name wrong, referring to it as the National Centre for Visual Art.

It’s full proper title appears to be; VISUAL – Centre for Contemporary Art & The George Bernard Shaw Theatre, Carlow.

I have yet to visit this building but it looks great and the reviews of it have been overwhelmingly positive so far but I’ve really got a hangup about its name.
The name seems like a bit of a camel, you know- a horse designed by a committee.

Does anyone agree with me on this?
I know I’m being pedantic but I really enjoy naming projects and the title of this building irks me greatly.

@foremanjoe wrote:

Does anyone agree with me on this?
I know I’m being pedantic but I really enjoy naming projects and the title of this building irks me greatly.

i agree. i also question why a national centre for visual art is not in the capital city. or one of the other cities.

@Quillber wrote:

i agree. i also question why a national centre for visual art is not in the capital city. or one of the other cities.

Oh dear, now you’ve gone and done it.

Why couldn’t you just have left it at ‘I agree’?

I fear you may have opened up a whole other can of worms here Quillber.

@Quillber wrote:

i agree. i also question why a national centre for visual art is not in the capital city. or one of the other cities.

because it should be readily accessible to all the country… ?!?!????

just throwing that one out there……

@henno wrote:

because it should be readily accessible to all the country… ?!?!????

just throwing that one out there……

when you travel to a city (not famous for visual art) for a weekend, ambling about, do you think ‘yea, ill hop on a train for 2 hours to check out that gallery’. if this place was in Malahide or Greystones id question its ability to survive. its not that i dont like the idea but this isn’t Germany in terms of a smaller art towns like Kassel or cities like Leipzig where the population and artistic reputation are so grand that its guaranteed success. and to be possibly crass about it, they are showing a panto version of Cinderella in the theatre part for Christmas. ill say no more. i care a lot, therefore i am critical about it.

@Quillber wrote:

when you travel to a city (not famous for visual art) for a weekend, ambling about, do you think ‘yea, ill hop on a train for 2 hours to check out that gallery’. if this place was in Malahide or Greystones id question its ability to survive. its not that i dont like the idea but this isn’t Germany in terms of a smaller art towns like Kassel or cities like Leipzig where the population and artistic reputation are so grand that its guaranteed success. and to be possibly crass about it, they are showing a panto version of Cinderella in the theatre part for Christmas. ill say no more. i care a lot, therefore i am critical about it.

surely a ‘national centre for visual arts’ primary purpose is for the enjoyment of the citizens of that country….

any argument that its primary function should be as a means of attracting tourists to a city is insular.

@henno wrote:

surely a ‘national centre for visual arts’ primary purpose is for the enjoyment of the citizens of that country….

any argument that its primary function should be as a means of attracting tourists to a city is insular.

im not saying it should be about increasing tourist numbers, just numbers of visitors to the centre, tourist or national. its fine though, i realise its not a wise thing to bring up at this stage. i actually like the idea of having more excuses to leave the city myself and i look forward to visiting.

@henno wrote:

surely a ‘national centre for visual arts’ primary purpose is for the enjoyment of the citizens of that country….

any argument that its primary function should be as a means of attracting tourists to a city is insular.

Ah for crying out loud, this is exactly why I wished Quillber hadn’t taken things off course.

You’ve just referred to it as the ‘national centre for visual arts’.

Which it isn’t, at least going by its title.

It’s called VISUAL- Centre for Contemporary Arts, Carlow.

Does this mean my point about the name is valid?

@foremanjoe wrote:

Ah for crying out loud, this is exactly why I wished Quillber hadn’t taken things off course.

You’ve just referred to it as the ‘national centre for visual arts’.

Which it isn’t, at least going by its title.

It’s called VISUAL- Centre for Contemporary Arts, Carlow.

Does this mean my point about the name is valid?

😀

i agree….

totally convoluted title.