McDonald's Coming Soon
Submitted by jarah on Fri, 12/29/2006 - 17:38.
There's a new mural on the side of the Pearl Building Downtown.
Read about the Marilyn mural that is no longer (and preceded Fresno Famous by a few years).
Advertisement
There's a new mural on the side of the Pearl Building Downtown.
Read about the Marilyn mural that is no longer (and preceded Fresno Famous by a few years).
Macdonald...
Macdonald...yucks
Theory: Original artist?
Except I've been told the original artist is in another country.
My theory: This is a statement against the Fresno Famous-Fresno Bee sale. Therefore, at least one Fresno Famous member (I've never been one of them) definitely knows who did this, or did it him or herself. They are someone who regularly visited this Web site but didn't have any real connection to the art in downtown Fresno, otherwise they would have known that the art preceded the Web site. Someone who cared enough to go to the trouble. To me, the vandalism does not have much artistic skill behind it, so my theory is that it isn't one of the artists (Josh Wigger, Mehran or others) we have seen paint murals.
Does the owner of the building plan to press charges if they find the culprit(s), or take it down anytime soon?
shitheal?
In 2006, McClatchy purchased Knight Ridder Inc. to become the second-largest newspaper publisher in the United States.
The talking car did it
As far as I am concerned,
As far as I am concerned, when I find the gaper that did this I am going to break his jaw. Enjoy the Mcdonalds milkshakes through the wired jaw you shitheal.
Bzzzz....bzzz..BEE....buzzzzzzzz
whisper whisper whisper whisper. Who was it? The artist? Do they hold a grudge? whisper whisper whisper whisper whisper whisper whisper whisper.
What it means is that it's a slow news day in Fresno when all we care about is the Bee buyout and mural politics.
This is all pure fluff, like footage of Paris Hilton on the evening news. Consciously get past it, and let's focus on Fresno again here. It's a new year for Fresno and a new era for Famous. If things fail, we have only ourselves and not McClatchy to blame. But we'll blame McClatchy of course.
ME: QUE VIVA FAMOUS IN 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU: QUE VIVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who cares.
who cares.
ohhhhhh, ed... you had to go and mention blf...
nothing worse than a battle of wits with a seriously armed person...
I am a huge fan of b.l.f., as well as Survival Research Labs...
(huge, huge, as in, '...now that I actually live on the left coast, I am going to catch a show... if they ever perform again....' type huge...
My personal feelings about the 'altering?'
(if done by the orig. artist, which would be interesting to say the least...)
-was it a sold piece?
-does it have a rider for revision and update?
-is it a progressive piece that includes regular paint to keep it from going downhill, (and/or) change with artist control???
(some pieces are like this, very fluid in their presentation, Picasso himself got into his 'tribal mask,' phase by reworking his earlier paintings...
(but he still owned them ----but wait, they were on comission... Not all comissioned works were well received by their backers,
(Ex: 'Drapers Guild'(Dutch Master's Cigars) by Rembrandt VanRijn really pissed off the Guild who comissioned it -because many of the guys were presented in shadows and such.... yet, it's huge.)
-Or the Diego Rivera Piece at Rock. Ctr. in NY... (which still exists in some forms, it's just been painted over by a tremendous Art Deco skyscene...
hmmm.
Okay, my personal feeling?
It was an icon to the town.
It was a fixture to a genre of Fresnans, (myself included.)
I think it sort of had a bit of sanctity, and (would hope,) that it wouldn't be changed, -simply because it represented a seminal effort, a monolithic cultural event in the town, (FresFam.) -and was the most obviously associated image with a groundbreaking and pivotal thing, (FresFam.) ----so, yah, it's sort of personal and sacred
(like being a skateboarder and seeing the last of the Vagabond neon sign hanging up in Broadway Studios...
---So I'd have rather it remained because it meant something to so many people.
-If it was just plain 'defacing,' than it was wrong, and a vicious and sensless act.
-Even the reasonings behind b.l.f. don't really apply,
-as b.l.f. goes after noted commercial advertisments, and (beautifully,) alters them so that you take the origional message---and make them something so much deeper...
-But-
Those billboards are just that:
Billboards
that are meant to be adverts and changed with great frequency.
-The side of the Pearl Building was not that,
and (to my knowledge,) it's the only one of it's type, -not meant to be changed.
It'd be one thing if someone made posters up of the mural, and then altered them, -hung them up around town... THAT would be BLF-grade stuff, (and would be a creative way of expressing one's views.)
I think defacing it was wrong.
It speaks poorly of something that we cared so much about, then (some,) got upset that it was sold, and then expressed our caring for it ---but destroying it...
This is not being stoked about something that is cool, and then (even,) seeking to preserve and laud it...
It's sort of like being in love with someone, and then being so crazy about them, that you kill them off, (so you never loose them, and no longer fear them changing or becoming different,)
---only it's a website, (now a mural,) and (hopefully not ever,) a person.
('My Delilah' by Tom Jones -anyone?)
-or maybe it was just an inside 'buzz' job???
if it's true
fine, an artist has the right to cover her/his own work. although, if said work was sold, then it's not really her/his right anymore.
now, i don't know if it was the artist that painted over the mural. nor do i know if it was "sold" to the owner of the building.
those would be good questions to know the answer to.
as for care taken to deface the mural as proof that it was the artist, that's not much proof at all. the blf in san francisco takes great care to alter billboards to make statements. they do not own any of their intended "canvasses."
I think I know...
I think I know who it is that defaced his own mural.
Fact:
The guy that painted the mural originally already wanted the mural to be painted over and changed. (im not mentioning the name of the artist, well just call him marylin.)
Marylin could have been pissed that Jarah sold fresno famous, and figured that it should be painted over because "marylin's" mural does not and will not belong to the fresno bee, and the one good way to ensure that it doesn't get copywrited to the wrong people would be to deface it.
So basically the motives for doing this would be:
Covering marylin's ass.
A possible slap in the face to Jarah for selling FF
A funny joke.
Furthermore. The most obvious reason to believe it was marylin is the care that was taken to deface the mural. The person that did this took the time to go find black roller paint, the person took the time to cleanly cut out a stencil that says coming soon, and make a very clean mc'donalds arch, and then took the time to roll over most of the marylin and spray the stencil. Looking at the time and care that marylin puts into his projects matches directly with this. Supposedly marylin is quite short, so that explains him not getting all the way to the top of the mural too. although the only thing that throws this off is the foot prints in the paint on the ground. They are giant. kinda like ronald mc'donald. lol
So yeah. I think it was marylin.
the mural
At first I thought this was a photoshop thing and a sort of 'taking it to a ridiculous level' to make a humorous/thought-provoking post.
But I'm assuming from the comments that it is real.
I think this sort of destructive communication is
just plain mean.
If one felt the real need to make statements like this, amazingly,
Fresno Famous itself is a forum where such things can be said
---and said without destroying anyone elses art/communications.
Total Inside Job
This was a great way to get some buzz going. Kudos!
when what to my wandering (current NJ) eyes doth appear
.this raises a lot of questions.
-was it done as a statement against FresFam going to the Bee?
-was it done to deface something that someone else created and was really liked by a community?
-do we look at such things and say: 'yeah, free speech, defacing something that is cool and means something (now) means more -so the issue of something being 'sacred,' no longer exists.
(Which can translate into: -'It's more important to have the right to express onesself publically, (than) to have one's private property, -or a publically appreciated mural ----defaced.)
it very quickly slides into the issue of rights, doesn't it.
What's more important? Something's rights to exist, as it is, on it's own terms, (and to be defended as being worthwhile, -just standing there...)
OR
-the right to deface and express onesself ---even at the expense of something, -or some ONE else... (and who determines what has a right to be protected, --and what should have it's vulnerability exploited...?)
What's kind of weird?
Nobody saying '...this is right or this is wrong.' on any real scale.
-considering some of the comments made a couple of weeks ago, about how the town (not only,) is so disliking of the Bee,
---rolled into how folks go about expressing... (like is there a socially right and wrong way of going about doing things,)
-that along with the attacks on things that change and move as being traitorous, and people who move to another section, or choose one section over another being ascribed nefarious intent...
There was this old biker T Shirt I used to see...
'...-If you love something, set it free, if it comes back to you, it's yours, if it doesn't -hunt it down and kill it...'
(dark humor regarding the possessive nature of some folks...)
-I'm just wondering why this was done?
-If it was not done with the owner/artist's permission, I'm wondering if this is seen by anyone else as wrong?
I also sincerely hope that the other muralists in town don't have their stuff defaced, -no matter how old it may be, no matter whether it's good or bad, or whether I like or dislike the design and message.
Scarey, Scarey thing.
bummer...
New Mural
It was time for a change anyway. The original artist had wanted a new mural on the wall for some time. I believe work starts today on the new addition.
Famous Statements
Can I like it and not like it at the same time?
Walt Disney's "Bee" 1943
They can always put a "Bee" in Marilyn's place...
"The "Bee" - drawn by Walt Disney for McClatchy Broadcasting 1943"
wtf
:(
I really liked that picture too. Do you know what they're going to do now?
ugh
that sucks.
really, that sucks.
for an "artist" to deface another artist's work really is reprehensible.
i am sad that someone decided that making fresno uglier was the proper voice for their displeasure with ff selling to the bee.
Hm.
I'm not sure what to think about this.
Is it a joke, or some sort of metaphor/parallel for the many that think that the selling of Fresno Famous to McClatchey is its debut into the mainstream world of commercialism?
I'm confused. And maybe over-analyzing the situation.
Post new comment