What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “we see an indictment of gentrification, not a call to arms”

    That’s what it seems like the intent must be, but the imagery itself suggests the opposite to me. That’s why it seems so odd (again, to me, not nesc. everyone. Which is, as you say, part of the point of art).

  2. Interesting take. when we look at this, we see an indictment of gentrification, not a call to arms. but everyone’s entitled to look at a piece of art and interpret in his own way. that’s kind of the point of art. it makes you think.

  3. art can glorify, sensationalize, denigrate, etc.
    It is still offensive …besides the fact who ever put this up vandalized either public or private property.
    Which I’m sure you don’t condone (unless perhaps if you call it ‘art’).
    Still giving it publicity and legitimacy and validation.

  4. Um, it’s art. Don’t think this is supposed to be taken literally. Rather than glorifying violence, it’s more likely, in our view, to be an expression of one person’s feelings about the attitude and effect of gentrifiers as a group.

1 2 3