Honestly top is fucking awesome to look at.
I guarantee some Karen complained about the sexy Alice and that’s why it was removed
Notice the “For Lease” sign in the bottom picture. Probably what happened was the tenant who had commissioned the artwork moved out.
I saw something similar to this happen in my hometown. An artist collective had a space they were renting, and they had painted a huge mural on the wall outside. When they moved, a church took over the space, and they painted over the mural.
My home town in Sweden has started commissioning artists to paint murals like those in the top image on a lot of otherwise boring and ugly buildings, and I couldn’t be more proud. Really makes the town beautiful and unique.
One major reason cities do this is because most fellow spray can wielders will respect the existing work, thus resulting in a nicely painted instead of randomly tagged building.
I really detest dumbasses that put their stupid ass tag on legitimately good art. Nothing screams “desperate, talent-less hack” louder.
Some guy recently graffitied my mate’s warehouse with the word “CUNT”. However, he did it using some outlines and shading, so we couldn’t even be mad. Way better than somebody writing their signature in black
Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That’s the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.
Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what’s there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled “art”. Not all art is equal, and I’d much rather have nice looking art than art that says “this used to look nice but now it’s just dicks”. But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I’d rather have that “fuck you” than to see it left blank.
I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don’t get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.
I find that it makes most sense to me to answer “is this and that art”-questions with a yes by default. Is it made by a human with the intent to convey a message? Art. Any other approach always seems to end in questions of taste.
So is marketing material art? Is it art if the message is “give me money” or “buy this product?”
While I don’t like that particular art form and choose not to look at it whenever possible, I’d say yes. A lot of art tries to get you to think, feel or do something and I don’t see how this is fundamentally different, even though it seems a little sick at first. From the perspective of, say, the graphic designer for the ad campaign, it might very well be art.
But there are so many people who are so confident in saying things that easily fit the definition you propose are “not art”
It’s art as long as the one who draws them has a message to deliver (besides “hehe, I’m drawing cocks on a wall”)
what makes “hehe I’m drawing cocks on the wall” invalid? let’s examine a situation where the person who painted the cocks didn’t know that there used to be traditional art there, but I do. I see the cocks, think about what used to be there before someone “fixed” it, and I receive a message even if none was intended. Is it art in that case? If it is, did the person who just wanted to doodle some dongs create it, or did I?
The clueless case is invalid because it’s strictly a descriptive/self-apparent exercise – lest every single act become art, thus depriving art of meaning. I don’t have an authoritative answer to your second question, but I’d argue you’ve created an ephemeral, individual piece of art.
Exactly. The message here is more along the lines of “pity this was painted over so boringly, this is what you get”. It is not just a wall, it is the wall with the original artwork still underneath a thin layer of paint. I call art. Even with just the “hehe”, I’d say it still has the old meaning of any mark made on purpose anywhere: “I was here.” (That seems to be the main point of tagging.)
Oh it’s just “stuff you should know” on postmodernism.
https://podcastaddict.com/stuff-you-should-know/episode/138840530
To me, what would make it art is a little statement on the side for the viewer to discern who the cock artist was, when it was painted and materials used, and the vision behind it.
This is just as modern art works today.
The funny thing is that it all began as a revolt against old art for being too elitist, but now regular folks cannot enjoy todays art because they are esthetically awful and would need a full book collection to understand why that piece of rotten banana is art, so just the elite can enjoy it. The rest just pretend to look fancy
It’s the Duchamp problem. He said “You guys are so far up your own asses that you’ll piss in a urinal if it’s in the bathroom but you’ll praise me as a genius if I move that same urinal to the gallery” and the art world was like “Joke’s on you, fucker, I’ll start the bidding at $1.2 million for the pisser!”
Petition to normalize painting vulvas on walls by learning to draw a vulva and putting it on walls.
In my neighborhood for a while someone (probably a group of people) were sticking vulva drawings everywhere. Building walls, lamp post, mail box, etc. They were all unique and hand drawn too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Much like the term balls, which are only on the inside, has come to be colloquially used as a synecdoche for “testicles and scrotum”, vagina gets used the same way to encompass “vagina and vulva”. Besides, the clinical definition of vulva includes the vaginal opening, so it’s not exactly a huge leap to the colloquialism.
I was going to “ackshually” and post a (disclaimered) medical image poking fun at the word “hole” but, as it turns, porn has completely superseded medical images of the vagina on most search engines. An internal view of penetrative sex isn’t my kink but it’s apparently a common one.
After a first attempt, I must admit you are right. They also really don’t look the same from person to person.
Neither do dicks, really. You just need a stylized symbol that everyone can recognize.
Yeah we had some legend turn one of our sewage aeration pipe outlets into a Mario flower, whole city went nuts over it.
Removed within 48hrs because it “wasn’t authorized”
Fucking joke.
It’s BS. They converted several city owned buildings in the last city I lived in to open face “mural invites.” Best thing ever. Every city should try it. Beautiful art all over.
My city has a huge bridge which is designated as graffiti area. Government even gives them paint sometimes. We use to have yearly competitions on it. These days every now and then new work shows up, but it’s mostly inactive. That said, people are still allowed to paint there. It looks great what otherwise would be boring gray slab of concrete.
