• seitanic@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        70
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        It would have still been awesome with Alice being overtly sexual tbf. But then again people will always find something to complain about.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I don’t care for sexualized depictions of Alice, considering the original character was seven years old, but the other ⅔ of it is pretty cool.

  • GlockenGold@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • thonofpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I really detest dumbasses that put their stupid ass tag on legitimately good art. Nothing screams “desperate, talent-less hack” louder.

        • Sigh_Bafanada@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Thats hilarious. I like your style. I’ll also take an aesthetically pleasing cunt over that standard chicken scratch shit any day.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Theirs is the same impulse as a dog lifting his leg and doing a short piss on a wall to put their scent there.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Does it matter where they put their stupid ass tags on? Tags are just vandalism no matter where they’re put at

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

      • Buddahriffic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • thonofpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

        • thonofpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Art is what you think it is.”

        Never lost an argument with that one.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        But there are so many people who are so confident in saying things that easily fit the definition you propose are “not art”

        • thonofpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Just because there are many doesn’t mean they are right (I don’t mean to offend). Art, I believe, is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the thought of the creator.

    • Pheonixdown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      “Art is art because is is art and not because we say that it is art.” - Hoid, Words of Radiance, Brandon Sanderson

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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”)

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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?

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • thonofpy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.)

    • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • JokeDeity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        It would be honestly pretty great if all these had really neatly stenciled little signatures under them all.

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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!”

  • thonofpy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Petition to normalize painting vulvas on walls by learning to draw a vulva and putting it on walls.

  • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • NewAgeOldPerson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          I want this to be the standard, I love seeing artsy kids/teens making murals instead of shitty tags everywhere.

  • Grief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That was actually cool art too, not those shitty tags with letters you can’t even read

  • li10@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wouldn’t want the leftmost painted on the side of my house, the rest are okay tho

      • li10@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        tbh yeah

        It’s easier to explain to people than why I have some kinky sex game character painted there.

          • li10@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            The other people in the world??

            The fuck kinda question is that?

            • Spendrill@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              All due respect, if I saw that painting on the side of a house, or even a painting I don’t like come to that, I am not looking for an explanation.

              • li10@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                9 months ago

                Okay…

                I don’t know what to tell you, everyone I speak to who’s seen it would get an explanation that I hadn’t paid for a kinky childhood character to be painted on the side of my house and I don’t want it there…

                • Spendrill@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ahhh, I understand. It’s your choice to have whatever you want on your home.

        • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          9 months ago

          Drawing a child character as a sexualized adult is weird and I wouldn’t want it on my streets

          • reev@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I think it’s pretty harmless in this case. There are plenty of renditions of the Alice story with an older Alice and the story in general has become pretty synonymous with other adult topics (for example the general psychedelic aesthetic) that I don’t really connect it with the original character much.

            But I can see how some other people might see it differently, so I guess it’s a fair call to not want it publicly shown.

              • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Those might be the cocks of children, the cocks of men with severe mental disabilities unable to consent, or the cocks of the most hated warlords and dictators in the history. You’re displaying them for the world, you monster!

                • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Oh … so definitely not each their own sentient entity walking, waddling, and bouncing around exploring the world?

                  Look at them little cocks go, so bravely venturing into the unknown …

          • CosmicApe@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            It probably doesn’t make you feel any different about it, but I’m 99% sure it’s from an adult comic series that put a darker twist on a lot of fairy tales.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        which one of the 5 gazillion versions of the story? Pretty sure she isn’t seven in the tim burton version…

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Oh, I don’t know, maybe the Disney version which she is dressed the same as. Very similar design. Context clues and all.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I would only have the leftmost … the Goofy-Blinky hybrid with a chain kink is just weird/too random to make much sense (or probably it’s just me not getting something)

    • SpikesOtherDog
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      Two options

      1. The extreme angle difference and/or focal length difference in the cameras pushes it out of frame from the photographer’s perspective.

      2. Some chucklefuck stole it.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        You can see by the sidewalk lines the the angle is pretty drastically different. That plus a differing focal length would explain it, as well as the dramatically different visual size of the wall.

    • JokeDeity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sign probably came around the same time as the paint job during a little gentrification of the neighborhood.

    • DrPop@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Probably want there but if you zoom in you can see the pipes as well as the crack on the sidewalk line up.

  • IronVeil@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    My highschool did something like this. There was a massive memorial dedicated to a African charity event we did. New headmaster came and the fucker god rid of it.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is true every time there’s a change of hands of power. The new leader busy assert themselves about their role, and reorganize a system, even if it’s perfectly functional. What is good must go, for the zealot has need of your suffering.

    • VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      From someone who draws comics, general comedy\humor is quite difficult to make for the general audience. Different people find different things funny all around the world. To “hit one out of the park” is rare. And funny-all-the-time is virtually impossible. A universal oddity. 👍