Photo by Stacie Joy
Photo ops outside 50 Avenue A between Third Street and Fourth Street ... previously
Wednesday, April 5, 2023
11 comments:
Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.
However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.
If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.
Maybe it's my GenX self talking (grew up with Henson and the Muppets), but I find this image ugly and offensive. Like KAWS, it is not really art to take someone else's beloved character and just add a random body part (or X's for eyes to indicate death) and then call it your "art". What does this even mean? It's not funny. It doesn't make sense. Why one breast? Why is he exposing it? What does it mean? It's not provocative. It's not enlightening. It's immature visual noise and need not be elevated.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. Children walk the streets of NYC. DO BETTER!!!!
DeleteVery disrespectful ugly and offensive. Especially near schools and house of worship.
ReplyDeleteI am a proud member of Gen X and find nothing offensive or ugly about this image. I took several art classes at The New School when I earned my BA. It was delightful to visit random galleries, exhibits, museums, and street installations such as this. Was there ever something I found strange or upsetting? Sure! But that is the whole point. Art is intended to provoke, to incite, and to be subjective. It's not for everyone, but we have freedom of expression to create what we want regardless if others dislike it. And this is downtown Manhattan; we're not exactly known for our repression and conservatism like southern and mid-western states. If this bothers you, keep walking, and ignore it.
ReplyDelete2:13:
ReplyDeleteYou can be as expressive as you want and as transgressive as you want WITH YOUR OWN CHARACTER, not a beloved well-known children's Sesame Street character with a 50-year+ history of educating and entertaining elementary school-age children.
I'm not conservative, far from it (and look at you with your self-important BA --- good for you), but not understanding that this purportedly "ironic" sentiment IS NOT ART and should not be considered art makes your BA a meaningless certificate. Also, it doesn't matter where this image is located; it would still be a bad graphic in poor taste that is indeed nonsense/lacks any meaning. I love art! I love galleries and agree that it is great to think, be offended and to disagree. BUT COME UP WITH YOUR OWN IMAGES, don't corrupt the images of other well-known artists for your own satisfaction. I'm including anyone who appropriates to this degree, including Cattelan, Koons, Warhol, KAWS, etc. Also, and here's the kicker: You can be self-educated about art. You BA line says so much.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that being offended by this is on account of being gen-x. I am gen-x through and through and can’t imagine many people I partied at raves with, went to arty movies with, dyed my hair Manic Panic colors with, etc., being wound up by this. I also don’t buy that this is corrupting in any way. If you want to look at good ol’ regular, official Bert there are countless places to do so!
ReplyDelete7:41: What's offensive to some, seems okay to you. That's fine. I'm offended because I grew up loving this childhood character (which just happens to coincide with my age), and I find it ugly and offensive to see ANY children's character sexualized. What's next? A flashing Oscar the Grouch sprouting a big old fuzzy dick?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it was a funny moment in the street ONCE when it was confined to the occasional sticker; to do a large-scale wall graphic is in poor taste. It's not this person's finest moment, and not a compelling addition to the real art in the 'hood. It's a total reach and a total fail, in my opinion, and a desperate attempt by Tozzi to get attention.
This is utterly puerile. I would expect this sort of exhibitionism from a nine-year-old boy. Is imagination and artistic skill so utterly lacking that we are reduced to *this.*? And if purported artists can do no better, must we all be subjected to it? We don't have to clap and heap praise on every absurd notion that pops into someone's head. And we shouldn't be giving this guy attention.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Not art.
DeleteHahaha offended!!! Who are all these stuffy uptight puritans? I can’t believe what has become of this neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteMy 5 and 7 year old asked me what that means when we walked by. Of course it’s attention-grabbing for children bc it’s a character they know. It is completely disgusting and unacceptable that this is considered art and is on public display in this neighborhood for innocent children to question. I’m for free speech but c’mon. Take this down.
ReplyDelete