What you call art, MIT calls Hacks. This falls right in line with their "impressive" displays.

This should be a "pitch" photo for a Nintendo-land... along with koopa turtles you ride on from the parking lot to the park.

some jackass didn't agree

Those who say humanity is barely one step above feral are giving humanity too much credit.

holy shit i saw this other day. this was on my block right next to my apt!

Imagine a 50ft tall statue of Mario made entirely of pixels. I'd like to see that.

This is the street art type I'd love to see everyday.
The other one from the flickr album though, is the one I'd like to see the "artist" in jail everyday.

They should make a pixelated street. Pixelated village. Pixelated something.

This reminds me to by that pixel tie I saw the other day. I also must feed my Dogcow.

i was gonna take a picture of that when i was walking home the other night, but when i brought my camera with me it was already gone...

In the Flickr photos, you can see where some of the single pixels had been pried up/off, too.

Why is it so hard to leave things be?

i like how people see the tagger as "bad" and person who made the street art as "good"

they're doin the same thing

@chillarmadillo: Well, some art is "good" and some "art" is "bad."

Portable version: make a bunch of varying fleshtone pixels and affix them to the front of your pants. It would be 10x more effective if someone then took a photo of you in public.

@Jango: Wow, you are awesome. Thanks for the idea for my next halloween costume.

This is wicked. Huge props to the person who saw the pipe and decided that this needed to be done to it.

irritating to hear so many double standards about defacing property.

@chillarmadillo: Are you serious? the fucking tagger, tagged his name in the MIDDLE of the other guys street art. How bout a little respect?

@chillarmadillo: One takes vision, artistic skill, and forethought. The other is a douche bag with a sharpie.

@chillarmadillo: How about a little perspective, dingus. One actually had a little thought and delightful whimsy to it, which makes it, made it, pleasing to the eye. The other was a mindless scribble of some stupid street name which is all too common, chemically etched in glass on the subway and furtively scratched up on to movie posters at train stations.

Yeah, the same they are NOT.

If it's all gonzo art, then it's all subject to the same rules.

Sure it sucks that they scribbled on there, but who's scribble is THAT art piece sitting on top of?

Don't stick something on the street and then cry when cars run over it.
It's silly, and damned unrealistic.

If anything I think it makes a VERY interesting counter-point.
If nothing else makes one think MORE about the art's intent!

@strider_mt2k:

This. Sure, the "pixel art" is more valuable to me, but it references culture and concepts that are not exactly mainstream. They invested a lot of time and money in an ironic artistic project that communicates nothing of its intent to the average person on the street. So it was "appropriated" into someone else's statement. Now it means something. It's an artistic car jacking.

art is like porn, I can't exactly define it, but I'll know it when I see it, the flickr looks like it would fall under the 'not art' category, but that's just my $.02

pure genius!

@ParJoe: I have to disagree. Duchamp was consciously making a statement with that piece. The tagger is exhibiting territory-marking behavior equivalent to dogs and cats peeing on everything, and is probably about as evolved.

things like this make me want to leave in the east village.

some jackass didn't agree

Really? Are you sure? They left the thing in tact, afterall. It seems somewhat inconsistent to say "hey, it's cool! street art out in the world, unconventional!" and at the same time, hold onto the old idea of THY ART SHALL BE PRISTINE AND UNTOUCHED BY THE HANDS OF OTHERS. The fallacy that it is static and pristine, a moment in time unaffected by the world around it.

The whole point of street art is that it is a part of it's environment, rather than just a framed picture on a wall hermetically sealed from the world. I'd be pissed if someone sprayed it black or something, but even that would be all part of the process.

The only statement Duchamp ever made was one of "anti-art". It was iconoclastic and irreverent towards established views of art. (He drew a goatee on the mona lisa and writes "she has a hot ass" for gooness sake). So frankly, this fits right in.

Ironic though you say... "equivalent to dogs and cats peeing on everything", and view an overturned urinal signed "R. Mutt" as somehow above that.

Crap....forgot the @gregly:

@gregly: My turn to disagree. You're right, Duchamp was making a conscious statement with "Fountain", and a crucial one in the development of 20th c. art.
His ready-made could only be considered an objet d'art if it were tagged with an artist's name... "R. Mutt". Authorship and that it was selected by a "Art Jury" was what made it art in 1917. The resulting birth of "conceptual art", meant that thereafter art was all over.
Another tagging piece I consider seminal is Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", 1929.
The artist subverts his own representational illusion to state what art isn't. Very cool.
[www.seespotruninc.com]

@ANoel: "Art Jury" is not quite accurate in that it gives the impression of a group selecting which pieces to show off. Actually the group putting on the exhibition stated that they would not act as a jury: all work that was submitted would be exhibited. So Duchamp, under the pseudonym R. Mutt, said here you go, this is my submission. Would they really show it? Naturally it provoked quite a debate about whether or not it's art, and the nature of art, which was the point.

I cannot believe people are taking the taggers side on this. But I guess your entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

@ANoel: Totally agree about "Ceci..." but these were planned tags, an artist's commentary within the construct of the piece which is what made it so effective/subversive. Someone signing something that isn't their work, with the artistic aesthetic of signing a bank check is a different story, no?

@HuckNPluck: I'm personally a fan of both distinct art styles, and also contribute to Cleveland Public Art on a regular basis.

That being said, I believe that the tag on the pixelart was unneccessary, since it leaves an impression as if they were laying claim to the pixelart shown. It seems evident, since it were centralized on the piece, and even still, detracts from the impression that the pixelartist were giving.

There are good taggers, and good pixelartists, but please, let's not defend the tagger for what most would reasonably assume to be laying claim to the art that he/she most likely didn't create.

Tag art has different rules from pixelart in that taggers can pretty much tag over other taggers, but they should realize that the pixelart does NOT follow those rules, and that in itself should be respected.

Again, I support both styles, but also believes that both styles should be respectful towards each other. The tagger, IMHO did not seem to get this, as it is obtrusive and didn't require a written message on top of the pixelart. Maybe make a tag wall all around it, maybe?

@Soldier_CLE: Hell, maybe even glyph all around it?

@graffiksguru:

That's what you think. That's what you all think. You're only entitled to the opinions we give you. All dissention will be eliminated in the name of freedom of speech. ;-)