Skip to content

Ice sculptures should have been left to die naturally: Walt Humphries

0604dumpO
0604dumpO photo courtesy of Walt Humphries The destruction of the ice sculptures a day after Long John Jamboree was closed, seems to have aroused a lot of passion among people. Columnist Walt Humphries wonders if it was done to protect organizers from potential liable should anyone get hurt by a melting sculpture? Or, he asks, was it a senseless and needless destruction of works of art?

I am sure most people have heard of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow where the dreaded Headless Horseman scares the daylights out of poor, meek and mild Ichabod Crane.

Well, it seems to me someone should write a horrifically horrifying tale about the Headless Ice Sculptures of Yellowknife Bay, who chase sledgehammer wielding hooligans who are attempting to destroy them.

After getting retribution against the vandals, they then scour the town looking for their heads and other bodily parts, which were pilfered by bystanders and onlookers to the massacre, who turned into looter and pillagers.

This tale has all the classical elements of being an epic ode of our times. One could weave in aspects of our transient throwaway society. The senseless destruction of assets, art and landmarks which started with a curse someone made when the Robertson Headframe was senselessly destroyed. It could raise important philosophical questions.

Going by the number of Facebook posts, the destruction of the ice sculptures a day after Long John Jamboree was closed, seems to have aroused a lot of passion among people. Was it a necessary evil done to protect the organizers from potential liable should anyone get hurt by a melting sculpture? Or was it a senseless and needless destruction of works of art that could have been enjoyed by many for weeks to come? That is the burning question.

The law society could have a televised debate on aspects of liability. Was there actually any liability involved? Would a simple fence and sign warning people not to get too close have been more than enough? If the ice carvings sitting out in the open are a liability, then why aren’t the ice caves over by the old Back Bay cemetery off limits to visitors and tourists alike? Who is liable for the smelly water causing overflow on Back Bay? Why aren’t there hearings about that and a multitude of voices protesting that?

If a person pays to be a vandal and destroys works of art with a sledgehammer, under the law, are they still considered vandals? If so, why were no charges laid? What is the police department's position on this? Who actually owned those ice sculptures? Were the artists or carvers informed that their creations would be destroyed in such a fashion and people would pay for the privilege? If the sculptures were a liability wasn’t it a liability to let untrained unskilled people with sledge hammers loose to destroy them with no workers compensation approval?

Why isn’t Alternatives North, Ecology North the premier and MLAs voicing their opinions? Are there no ice huggers in this territory? Shouldn’t there be an apology from someone and compensation for ice carving lovers? Did the Long John Jamboree have a city demolition permit to destroy them? Why wasn’t this wanton destruction shown on the national news?

So many questions and so few answers. Obviously, we would need a royal commission to answer all these questions.