To many it represented nothing other than a revered lump of concrete - this in itself could not have justified its demise. However, its destruction arose because enough local people who had to live with it found it aesthetically very disagreeable. It angered me that Mr Graham-Dixon's patronising tone made the assumption that the meaning attached to the sculpture was lost on these east Londoners. Why should they give a monkey's about a two-storey block of concrete just because of its 'merits' as a piece of modern art?
Surely the problem lies not with the 'old tradition of iconoclasm that stretches back to the days of the Reformation' but with the elitism associated with contemporary visual art.
This piece of work was in its correct physical context and that is all. When Eric Flounders of the Bow Neighbourhood Council described the sculpture as 'a little entertainment for the gallery-going classes of Hampstead' he was, unfortunately, dead right.