Rogue Art of the Day

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012

Spotted this morning by neighbor Antonio outside of Connecticut Muffin on Cortelyou.

- Mary

Tags: , ,
See All: Images

  • Anonymous

    I love this!! I hope the artist is inspired to add more work around the neighborhood. Maybe some businesses would be willing to give him/her some mural space.

  • Megans

    so what were the signs that were covered up?

    Were they important?

  • Royal

    There are plenty of places to put ones art that don’t involve destroying property or covering up important information on a sign.

    It doesn’t matter if you like this art or not, this kind of behavior should not be encouraged.

  • Roy

    I find it rather interesting that two minor but very similar illegal acts within days of each other are reported on in two completely different ways on this blog.

    The minor offense of posting of a flyer on a tree is met with scorn and condemnation while the also minor offense of the vandalizing of two signs or attachment of two pieces of art is met with praise in terms of “Rogue art of the day!”

    Yes, I understand one involves ‘hurting the tree’ with staples, and the other isn’t hurting the metal pole, but beyond that, they are both illegal activity, and this blog should not be celebrating one act in the name of ‘art’ while condemning the other in terms of nature.

  • Ty

     Roy — You said it yourself.  This is an example of (easily rectified) vandalism.  It’s also on a parking sign, facing the sidewalk, so you can’t even use the argument that it is distracting/confusing to drivers moving at speed.   The stapling and nailing to trees actually causes HARM to something that can only be rectified by planting and growing a tree for 30+ years.

    There’s also a difference between hanging the SAME advertisement on the tree using packing tape and using nails. 

    If you don’t see the difference in these… well, you can keep thinking it’s interesting. 

  • Ty

    What property was destroyed?  What information was covered up?  Umm… none.  These were *attached* to a sign post, through the existing holes in the post, using a bolt — the same type of bolt the parking sign above uses.  You need a wrench to attach it and you need a wrench to remove it.  Do you have a wrench?

  • Mary3

    Those look like signs that may have been there for pedestrians, not cars… like curb your dog signs, etc.

    And if they were not signs that were defaced, and they were put there by the artist, there is law against bolting your art to public places.

    In either case it’s wrong.

    And you don’t have to re-plant a tree and wait 30 years for it to grow if the one you have has four staples in it. That’s just ridiculous

  • Helle

    The same people that will praise this pretentious art as ‘Rogue art’ will also condemn any act of graffiti in the neighborhood.

    I guess if it’s hipster art of a stupid 20 something woman in vintage clothes and it rises to the sensibilities of hipster taste it’s ‘rogue art’ but if it’s down and dirty old school NYC ghetto grafitti style art that the hipsters can’t relate to it’s considered vandalism.

    This is just the kind of nonsense that we don’t need around here.

    Hang your crap in a gallery. There are plenty of them in NYC.

  • Dtroche

    Oh my, such anger over an inoffensive piece of art.

  • Amberala

    I like the art

  • Ty

     So, Mary, bolting a small sign to a post sounds like it’s worse than potentially harming a tree… yes, 4 staples doesn’t kill a tree.  But 4 staples for every sign, multiple times… yes.  It can damage the bark and create a “wound” for disease… then you have a much higher chance of a dead tree.  Umm, which takes 20-30 years to grow to a proper size.

  • Ty

     Also, pretty impressive painting *exactly* around the heads of the bolts… oh wait, no. The person hung the signs.  They didn’t paint over something that was there.  Silly.

  • Obdurate98989

    Objectively speaking, would you rather live in a place with interesting, unobtrusive, easily removable anonymous art, or a place where one’s private property, a historic tree, can be covered with commercial fliers, the staples of which (in great enough numbers) would cause the tree to die?

    Do you really think spray painting someone’s private property is the same as these small pieces of art, which can be removed in a moment and which aren’t on private property? (The goal of the graffiti, of course, being to claim one’s turf so other criminals know it’s yours.)

    I’d prefer to live in a place where people are trying to make things a little better, a little more interesting, not a place where trees are used as free billboards and spray painting one’s moniker on a storefront is considered A-Okay. I don’t know, maybe that’s not Ditmas Park. But then let’s not hear complaints about why things are so hard and terrible and crime-ridden, okay? If that’s how you like to live your life, then don’t complain when you live in squalor and apathy.

  • Rudy

    Actually, people live above that store where the inoffensive art was bolted and have to look at it every time they walk out of their house.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder right?  

    Why does the person that lives there have to look at this everyday?

    To you, it’s commercial property, so you can go get your coffee and when you glance at this ‘art’ coming out of the store  you can either like it or dismiss it but then you go on your merry way. To the people that live there they have to deal with it just the same way someone with a private house has to deal with someone’s ‘tag’.  Why should someone that lives there be forced to look at someone’s artistic expression just because their front door is across from a pole?  To the people who live on the commercial strip of Cortelyou Road, this is their front yard.

    It may be a little better or more interesting to someone like you who doesn’t have to stare at it each day when going in and out of your home.  I’d like to know if you’d be just as happy if this ‘rogue artist’ put the exact same two ‘signs’ up directly in front of your house on a private street.  Why is it okay since it’s on a  commercial street? People still live there.  I don’t think this would be tolerated as much if this was attached to a lampost in front of a private Victorian home on one of the side streets. The owner of said home would probably have it removed immediately.

    And before you make any assumptions, no I don’t live there.  Just making a point.

  • Nathan

    so if this is condoned and one hundred neighborhood artists decided they wanted to hang their art along Cortelyou road indefinitely, you would be okay with it all?
    Or is it only interesting and nifty since it’s one person’s art?

  • Art Vandelay

    I’m utterly astounded that someone hasn’t gotten bent out of shape over the fact that this painting depicts a woman SMOKING. Not that I care, but in this Sissy Age people have “heightened sensitivities” and all that. So, I’m surprised that no one said anything. Pleased, but surprised. 

  • Jenni4eva

    Everyone in this comment thread is racist.

  • Art Vandelay

    That would include you, then. 

  • Art Vandelay

    Turn that frown upside down!

  • Jenni4eva

    Nah.

  • Lorimer

    I agree that this is pretentious, especially since it’s placed right in front of a coffee shop.  

  • Razzamataz

    Free Art!   All you need is a wrench!

  • Andrew Weakland

    I volunteer that they may put them in front of my house.

  • Anonymous

     I volunteer my house too.

  • Frank Lee Madir

    It’s refreshing and reassuring that even art as innocuous as this has the power to provoke.

    Though I have to wonder about the stability of people who get their knickers in a twist over this.