Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Noted



There goes the Russo's mural on East 11th Street at First Avenue. (Not sure exactly when this happened.) The most recent Russo's mural arrived in September 2011.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

RUDE!

Anonymous said...

Really.

Bucket of Chunder said...

F*ckhead.

Anonymous said...

That's against the rules of a good tag artist. That said...Russo's should get Chico to paint it new and it won't be messed with again.

Patrick... said...

Bastards...

Anonymous said...

what a dick.

Anonymous said...

This is why "street art" is idiotic. Whether or not you classify this as "art" is subjective, but you can't deny that we as a society have embraced/worshipped "street art" way too much. There's nothing cool about destroying someone else's property, I don't care what kind of East Village or "downtown youth against establishment" vibe it purports to be. How would these "artists" like it if someone walked by and threw paint on their grandmother wearing her new jacket? It's completely analogous.

#sorryfortherant

Matt Rosen said...

Motherfuckers.

Renowned Art Critic Finally Publishes on EVG! said...

@Anon 2:18 : I think that the celebration of "street art" harkens back to when murals were made in areas that were so blighted that a bit of color was welcome even if the artist was not particularly talented. And then some of the artists actually were talented and did some amazing work.

What you're looking at here is a "tag" and although this type of thing has been used to deface specific walls as a protest of sorts, in this case it looks like the person who wrote it was just being an asshole (or a "dick", in the words of Anon 1:10). For the most part though, nobody really "embraces" or "worships" tags, they are just graffiti, sometimes clever, often not.

VH McKenzie said...

What a total dick. No honor among artists?

I'm curious, @Anon 10:36am, does Chico have some kind of organized "protection" against his murals? Personally, I'm not a big Chico fan - something about his portraits is always a bit "off", -but I respect the effort he puts into his work.

Why is he untouched?

fortuneOH said...

This ugly bullshit appears in the wee morning hours when cowards who really don't want their ass kicked do their best work. The "art" is lousy and I would like to start a campaign "Piss on your own damn house" to be painted over to cover the "art" left by night crawlers.

Anonymous said...

Always get the standard laugh when the regular suspects call these jerkoffs with a spray can "artists". Yeah I am an ignoramus, a racist, whatever, I am also the guy who has had to scrub this dirt off buildings, vans, sidewalks, etc., over and over again. Quite a hard job, by the way. So screw you too.

Anonymous said...


So Chico's Princess Diana looked a lot like Wayne Gretzky--is that such a problem? He's improved his technique, a little, since those days...

Anonymous said...

It's against graffiti artist law to write over or on a memorial of any sort. A lot of Chico's art is in memorandum so it doesn't get touched. And if you see it get tagged, it's from a newbie who doesn't know that's one of the biggest no no's in graffiti culture. It's the highest form of disrespect and the people who do it get found out very quickly.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, the advertisement is ugly, and the grafitti though, not very high quality, is at least better than having to constantly look away.to void being subliminally marketed at against your will. Ads are real vandalism, because the.psychology of creating needless want for said product, actually has psychological consequences in the.long term. Every ad is designed to make your life feel empty without the.product. The condition necessary to create that.unreasonable material desire is dextructive.