much improved

Not going to throw any shade at the artists. I can kind of see where they were coming from.

The real crime is the rich tradition of regional councils awkwardly plonking expensive modern public artwork in places it doesn't belong because that's more fun than fixing potholes or making sure the rubbish bins are emptied.

I mean, geez, at least put it somewhere other than the middle of a featureless paved courtyard.

I dunno, I like it.

I also like the googly eyes on it.

I'm not going to criticize the art, nor the eyes. Both appear to be valid artistic statements whether we like them or not.

I will criticize the city and original artist for both ignoring a pretty basic requirement of public art: it should withstand a bit of abuse. It appears this was not designed to withstand even being glared at sideways.

It's cute! With or without eyes.

In my scale of public art the best possible score is zero (doesn't detract from natural surroundings). It's all down hill from there.

@homerj exactly. this public art wouldn't last 35 seconds in a childrens' museum.

if you are making public art, it had better be hella durable.