Paul Thomas: To this beholder, Wellywood fails the Angelina Jolie test

Wellington Airport may own the land, but the rest of us should be entitled to have some say on its lame, unoriginal, self-important and try-hard sign plan. Picture / Mark Mitchell

One of the most frequently quoted and widely accepted axioms in the English language is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's a blanket explanation for the quirks and mysteries of physical attraction, but the reality is that not many people have unlimited choice in relationships or assignations.

If a bloke has the choice between, say, Angelina Jolie and an obtuse, overweight supermarket check-out girl with a bad attitude and bad skin and chooses the shop assistant, then fair enough. By all means nod sagely and declare that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

But that happens rarely, if ever. Our choices are restricted by a range of factors, most of them negatives, and don't necessarily or accurately reflect our notion of the beau ideal. In most societies there is quite widespread agreement on what is and isn't beautiful.

Humour, on the other hand, is a genuinely subjective area.

There's a movie on TV at the moment called Hot Tub Time Machine which is every bit as puerile and contrived as the title suggests. However, it contains one short scene featuring projectile vomiting and a squirrel that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time which left me helpless with laughter.

Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Fitzgerald's claim that the proposed Wellywood sign will help put Wellington "on everyone's bucket list" had a similar effect.

And when I realised he wasn't joking, that this was his idea of a serious argument in favour of the sign, it set me off all over again.

Humour, or the lack of it, has loomed large in this controversy. Its proponents insist the sign is humorous, irreverent and edgy. It follows, therefore, that its opponents are either too thick to get it or don't have a sense of humour.

To former Wellington mayor Sir Michael Fowler, the sign is "clever, witty and relevant and its critics dumb, humourless, totally irrelevant and probably Irish".

Members of the Irish community would like to know where Fowler's coming from with that last bit.

One could question whether local body politicians and big businessmen - the Wellington City Council owns 34 per cent of the airport; the rest belongs to investment company Infratil - are the best arbiters of edginess and irreverence, but they're entitled to their opinion.

More disturbing is Fowler's view that opponents of the plan are "totally irrelevant".

So who is relevant? Well, we don't know their names because they live in other countries. As Fitzgerald explained: "The audience for this are potential international tourists whose interest we are trying to spark. The audience isn't locals."

In other words, the sign will be erected to titillate, underwhelm or otherwise briefly engage people who don't have to live with it. Those who do - Wellingtonians who drive past it on their way to and from work or the airport - are irrelevant.

So for that matter is the rest of the country. Wellington is, after all, our capital, so one would have thought all New Zealanders have a stake in how it presents itself. Apparently not.

Another argument on behalf of the sign is that it's Wellington Airport's land, therefore it can do what it likes on it. This will come as a surprise to the many New Zealanders who have been forced into the hoop-jumping and expense of negotiating the resource consent process to do things to their homes or properties.

It's hard to believe Wellington City Council planning officers attached so little weight to the public interest component of a commercial proposal with such obvious ramifications for the community that they granted consent without public consultation.

I say commercial because, notwithstanding all the airy talk of branding and international positioning, the primary aim of the exercise is to enable Wellington Airport to make more money.

In the eye of this beholder, the Wellywood sign is lame, unoriginal, self-important and try-hard, none of which seem a good fit with the city's aspirations to be regarded as a cultural and creative centre, let alone the coolest little capital in the world.

But if Fitzgerald is right and Wellington really is about to be inundated by people silly enough to believe that their lives will be incomplete unless they fly halfway around the world to stare at a rip-off, then I suppose I'll have to find somewhere less edgy to live.