281–290 of 428 posts
I lived until recently in Florianópolis, one of the state capitals of Brazil. It is a naturally beautiful island city, and it has an iconic bridge leading into it ("Ponte Hercilio Luz" if you want to search for photos). For some god forsaken reason, someone got away with building a gigantic - and I mean GIGANTIC - screen billboard right in line of sight of this historic postcard. I don't recall when it was installed,…
I went to Prague before Communism fell and I was truly amazed at how beautiful the city looked without an ad to be seen anywhere. It was like being in a time warp back to the 18th Century.
I believe I wasn't alone in having this view because I'm told the movie Amadeus (about Mozart) was made there, as Vienna, where the movie was set, had too many ads.
Tragically, when I went back a few years after Communism fell ads were rampant everywhere.
Damn shame really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> these are distinct forms of street art Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought a mural was just a type of graffiti?
Graffiti is done without permission, by definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to believe that the people who made some of the best ancient statues had an artistic sense of a 5-year old when it came to color... Obviously ancient status were colored but probably in a much nicer way. No way something like: https://static.frieze.com/files/inline-images/web-cg-h-102-a... could be even close to the original ( considering that the Romans generally managed to somehow get skin tones more or le…
Maybe you should reevaluate where your own aesthetic comes from https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/04/27/whitewas... I think the reproductions suffer a bit because the distance these statues were from a viewer varied -- but just like murals
No, I don’t think so.
The way some of these “reconstructions” look is just plain awful. And based on the surviving examples of frescoes and paintings they would look as just awful the the Romans.
> I think the reproductions suffer a bit because
They suffer because there is no shading for one thing. The skin and hair especially just look awful. It has nothing to do with the bright colors (I get that part).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it is the opposite, it is a scream from those who don't really have a voice in the city. Really recommend watching the documentary PIXO, you can find the full doc in YouTube with english subtitles. [edit: suggesting the documentary]
> Actually it is the opposite, it is a scream from those who don't really have a voice in the city. It is most certainly not. This romanticizing of criminals and vandals is not any kind of compassion. Who would like their neighborhood or home turned into a hell scape? Edit: To those who downvoted my comment, go look up some pictures of how these neighborhoods look when they are all covered in tags. Ask yourself if yo…
Great, I've not been to Sao Paulo but can understand what it's like without ads. I went to Prague before Communism fell and I was truly amazed at how beautiful the city looked without an ad to be seen anywhere. It was like being in a time warp back to the 18th Century. I believe I wasn't alone in having this view because I'm told the movie Amadeus (about Mozart) was made there, as Vienna, where the movie was set, had…
The architecture of pre 20-th century was as flashy and kitschy as the people of the day could make it with the technology at their disposal. Look at the façade ornamentation and ostentatious spires of the old churches. Or the imposing architecture of 19th century government buildings, with the government often being the king or a bunch of wealthy landowners.
Anyway, I prefer the architecture reflecting the hustle of today’s commerce to the one made to glorify the past authorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be cool if these spaces (or some of them) were given to local artists to use.
Today they actually are, São Paulo is famous for it's street art. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/world/americas/brazil-sao...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing ag…
Unpopular opinion, but Boston City Hall is an objectively VERY beautiful building. Brutalism is absolutely an acquired taste, but it is, by all measures, an objective style that can be measured against, in the same way classical or say, Spanish Mission architecture style is. In fact, some would even go so far as to argue that most Victorian/neo-classical architecture is just a chintzy facade with no real architectura…
I have a very hard time reconciling these two (consecutive) statements. If the vast majority of people say they find something to be ugly, I would say that that makes it ugly. Imagine everyone in the world - except you - said "Boston City Hall is ugly." Claiming that it is not ugly, and that everyone's statement is subjective, seems wrong (since you've admitted that it is possible for things to be objectively ugly.)
> Seven years on, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and South America’s most important city remains free of visual clutter and eye sore that plagues the majority of cities around the world. Unfortunately it suffers greatly - to a ridiculous level, in some places - from that ugliest kind of grafitti, convoluted "tags" made in single-stroke black ink I'm not sure if that is the case everywhere but in Brazil people…
I absolutely abhor advertising that pollutes outdoor spaces. So I guess it depends on your values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d take ugly street art over ugly advertisement. At least it’s not trying to manipulate you.
at least advertisement is not made on the wall of your house without your consent