+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/23/2018 04:33 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.902 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/18/2007 09:03 PM ID: 61909 Permalink   

Authorities Say Mural of Murdered Teen Must Go


The mural of murder victim Billy Cox has some London residents fuming, as the debate begins whether or not to keep the 18 ft high memorial to the slain teen.

Cox was shot and killed in south London in February at the age of 15, and many residents in favor of the removal say they don't want to be reminded of the tragic events every time they walk by the wall and go on with their daily lives.

A statement that was made, said the mural is a temporary agreement, enabling people to leave messages on the wall which is in Willington Road Youth Play Area. Counselors are currently meeting with residents to discuss the mural.

    WebReporter: leparsdon Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
But I think thats the awnry part of myself saying that. After looking at the mural I could see why they would not want to have that image next to a childrens area. Now if it was a real 'mural' and not just a GIANTIC portrait of the unfortunate teen then I believe it would be entirely more appropriate both religiously and socially.
  by: kuhl   04/19/2007 02:10 AM     
I think it's beautiful.
  by: mcdumpster   04/19/2007 03:19 AM     
yeh i dont think theres anything wrong with it ether.
they should leave it alone
  by: stonedwookie   04/19/2007 05:38 AM     
it's a memorial to a slain kid. if they don't want to be reminded of murdered children then they should put some money behind preventing more of the same rather than ignoring the reality of it all.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/19/2007 06:07 AM     
This is a sad reflection of UK society, attempting to gloss over things so we don't see them and don't have to think about them.

Banning of unsettling images on TV news is another great example. Censoring reality is leading to detatchment and ignorance in *parts* of society.
  by: Maxx20     04/19/2007 11:40 AM     
  Its not a mural  
Its graffiti.

I came and painted a "mural" on the side of your house, would you be happy?
  by: Gogevandire   04/19/2007 11:57 AM     
That's really pretty, also come on they should just leave it alone. When a girl from our school had passed the entire school created a memorial in her memory that the school officials just left alone. Four of us started it on a Saturday without permission, at least the authorities knew that was going to be there, and it's beautiful!
  by: B Wicked   04/19/2007 03:01 PM     
  @goge the art critic  
that would be illegal, this mural is not. also, the condescending manner in which you referred to graffiti is just plain ignorant. though i suppose a bean counter knows far more about what constitutes art than the rest of us.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/19/2007 03:25 PM     
Why is it not illegal?

The council said they could TEMPORARILY leave messages.
It wasnt designated a shrine.

I'd say I do, I'm sensible enough to know arts a joke and always will be, we can discuss further if you like.
  by: Gogevandire   04/19/2007 03:51 PM     
"I came and painted a "mural" on the side of your house, would you be happy?"

depends, what's it of? is it artfully done, as in, did it take talent? graffiti or not, if it looks good, yeah, come on over.
  by: warchylde010176   04/19/2007 08:09 PM     
you do know what illegal means right? it means the mural would not have been allowed to be put up in the first place if it was illegal.

"I'd say I do, I'm sensible enough to know arts a joke and always will be, we can discuss further if you like."

well of course. if it doesn't fit into flow charts and spreadsheets then what's its purpose? and here i thought a kid in the basement who lives in a fantasy world would appreciate the work put into the games he lives vicariously through a bit more. yes, art is no more than a joke while repetitious labor done better by a robot is truly respectable.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/19/2007 11:06 PM     

As a hobby, I collect and paint citadel miniatures, am I an artist?

Morew or less so than someone who takes apart a shed, turnas it into a boat, rows it down a river, then rebuilds it as a shed?

Who gets to pick which is "art" and why?

I'm older than you are boy.
  by: GogeVandire   04/19/2007 11:24 PM     
now you're trying to turn this into a debate over what art is rather than whether it's "a joke and always will be" as you originally stated. perhaps you're backpedalling because you realized you're a hypocrite, or perhaps you just talk out of your ass to get a rise out of people.

as far as age goes, i was refering to your mental maturity.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/20/2007 02:35 AM     
  So its not a joke  
But you dont know what it is?

Perhaps you missed my point.

How many people painted landscapes and family portraights when cubism was "art"?

How many people painted cubism when impressionism was fashionable?
Were they still artists?

I'll ask again, who gets to pick?

It is because of that, that I think "art" is a joke.
  by: Gogevandire   04/20/2007 10:14 AM     
actually, your question is a joke because it's an oversimplification of what art is. i can similarly ask how many groups played polka when grunge was in fashion, or how many played heavy metal when teen pop ruled the airwaves. just because a certain form of art defines an era does not mean that other forms are not also art. they're simply not the dominant force. if you examine art, you see that trends evolve based on the social or technological advances at the time. abstract art for example, developed after the invention of the camera made realistic paintings obsolete, so arts went the opposite way and painted visual representations of ideas that a camera could not capture. who gets to pick what art is? just like anything else in the market place, the consumer picks.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/20/2007 11:12 AM     
not great, but thats actualy a reasonable answer.

However, in this case, the consumer doesnt want it.
  by: Gogevandire   04/20/2007 11:18 AM     
no, the thing about graff art (and the reason why many graff artists see their art as the only pure form) is that there is no consumer for it.
  by: ManilaRyce     04/20/2007 02:08 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: