Seems like these Georgetown statues were sourced from Taiwan, but there is also this Wired story where someone was building (much larger ones apparently in Thailand) https://www.wired.com/2011/06/thai-sculptor-autobots/
> Dr. Howard did not apply for any kind of permit, despite Georgetown’s historic status and the fact that the sidewalk is public space.
Public land, the end. Should not have done it.
Moving past that, these places go for millions and are safer and have better schools because of the "historic status", but everyone wants those benefits but don't think the rules apply to them. Personally I like confronting sculptures, a graphic Jesus on the cross or Hitler. Do I get to do that, while everyone else has to be historic to keep my land value up?
I don't believe these have their own Wiki page, they are bulk made and basically props from the latest movies, not even the original series -
I would hazard a guess someone doesn't know the difference between Thailand and Taiwan. And the 'made from recycled parts' has always made me laugh even 20 years ago when I bought (a very small) one in Thailand. So many are sold they'd be using new stuff.
You appear to be shadowbanned. I have the setting turned on so I can see dead comments. I vouched for this comment, which I think will make others able to see it as well.
On topic - I think if someone put up a Nazi statue in the neighborhood, the community’s response would be a little more direct. The homeowner might be too busy repainting his brickwork and replacing all the windows to try putting up the statue a second time.
Sucks to be the neighbor who doesn't like it. That's the price of living in a free society putting up with annoying neighbors who may do things you don't like. But if it isn't actively hurting you they should be free to do it.
And no decreasing "property value" is not a harm, property value is an entirely imaginary number than anyone can make up and change for any reason it isn't real it is fake and it isn't actual real material harm it is theorized future harm that may be done to you at some point in the future.
Most people (Not just Americans, but especially them) are obsessed with the value of the home they own.
This is largely the result of the strong "you must own your own home" thinking [1], coupled with the pervasive argument that your home is an "investment".
It would be helpful if people understood that most buildings require (expensive) maintenence. Most buildings depreciate with age (materials, style, wear and tear etc) and so the idea of "property prices always go up" is either a myth, or based on increasing scarcity.
Naturally though since the investment idea is pervasive, scarcity is the obvious consequence. And by extension anything that affects value, in a downward direction, is by default a negative.
[1] the root idea is that people who own will be more stable, and less likely to indulge in anti-social behavior, like say revolution, since they have skin in the game, and "too much to loose". Prevent rebellion against land-owners by making the rabble into land-owners.
Which is solid thinking, and has resulted in very stable, socially-responsible populations. Who, it turns out, care mostly about property value to the exclusion of everything else.
The attraction of owning a home is your landlord is the bank, who has set a long term profit goal on you loan.
Not some landlord trying to extract futher value from your home.
Since purchasing my home, my stress has evaporated. The freedom and lack of harrassment is priceless.
Do I care about the future price of my home - no, because I don't intend to move in the mid-term, and my mortgage is just rent. I bought my home to live in, not to speculate with
> Most people (Not just Americans, but especially them) are obsessed with the value of the home they own.
Most people in Anglospheric countries.
It turns out that NIMBYism and housing crises are particularly bad in the USA especially but also the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ... because in the Anglosphere there is a culture of aspiring to be a freeholder with your own home on your own lot.
Continental Europeans don't mind living in small apartments in dense urban areas. And it's a fact of life for many millions of Asians.
Freestanding homes should join cars on the list of things we need to cut our cultural obsession with.
> This is achieved by a unification of cognitive and neural phenomena known as the Fundamental Code Unit (FCU), representing identifiable patterns of brain activity at the submolecular, molecular, and cellular levels (intra-brain communications), as well as their manifestations in thought and language (inter-brain communications).
Is this for real? I mean it’s a granted patent, but it reads like sci-fi
Can you get a patent for just ideas/concepts that you think might pan out in the future, but no one has put into practice, not even the applicant of the patent?
What reading the article really reminded me, is that it sucks to live among people. I mean, one weirdo thinking he's cool puts transformer statues on what's essentially a public street in a lively neighborhood just because it's technically his property, some other dude cuts down some old trees in his actual own backyard, and gets harassed by his neighbors, because they apparently thought these trees are their family…
Also, considering the length of the article (which includes mentioning the shape of Dr. Howard's glasses) the whole argument sounds oddly unclear about what is or isn't his property and what are the regulations. In place where I'm living rules are pretty explicit (and, apparently, much more restrictive — both with regards to what can be done within my own actual backyard, let alone on the public street). I always thought of these rules being quite annoying, but somehow assumed that they would be much more strict in, say, Seattle.
Anyway, the only way to live a good life is to avoid people at all costs. Also, driving 15 minutes to say hi to your neighbor sounds fun.
In the last year or so two very big, very old trees were cut down in our circle. Both were unfortunately a risk that the property owners didn’t want to deal with (one an issue with possible falling limbs, the other was threatening a sewage line.)
While I understand that, the loss of both trees can have an impact on how the neighborhood is seen, and reduce property value.
Likewise, I think transformer statues are cool. If I lived on the street, I wouldn’t be surprised if it affected my property value, and potential buyers. I would be annoyed, though.
This is why people formed HOAs, and why people like them.
This is also why other people resolutely refuse to buy in an area under the control of an HOA.
I’m in that camp, but I understand the other camp and I’m glad that both arrangements exist and help people sort themselves into more compatible neighbor pairings.
Me too. I'm really glad that we don't have an HOA. I have to say though, I've not heard anyone talk about how awesome their HOA is, and how the neighborhood is better for it.
Don't misunderstand me. I get why they did it. I would've done the same thing in their place. I have no ill-will toward them at all. It just sucks. A big old tree takes 30-50 years to grow. People come through the neighborhood and they see a beautiful big tree. No one sees the sewer lines maintained responsibly.
That's true, but it's also beside the point. I don't care enough about transformers to put statues of them in my yard, either. But he does. They're not hurting anyone, and he went to presumably significant effort and expense to do something different and express himself. Good on him. He can be cool whether one likes the statues or not.
If that is the case I should be allowed to remix it, repaint and re-sculpt it into something better, it is a public space and we have options after all?
Well in that case, I'm sure I can depend on some anonymous friendly neighborhood vandals to deal with these crimes against taste and art.
The thing with graffiti is it is not protected, if someone makes an awful piece someone can just go paint over it unlike this tasteless man that is forcing his bad taste upon the world with no way to "respond".
Like I said, freedom is scary. Can't hardly count the number of people who say they are all about free expression, until it is something they don't like.
Factor all those dislikes in, and call those people selfish and if we were to actually entertain that (badly) broken reasoning, the resulting set of permissible expression would likely be more constrained than it currently is in regions of the world controlled by fundemental religious theocrats.
And the vast majority of those people would easily say the people living under fundamentalism deserve better!
That's bat shit. Full on, hot, fresh bat shit cray, cray.
I get it. You just don't like the art. Join the club. We all see stuff every day we don't like. And someone here mentioned the cool Flintstone house in California. That is totally relevant!
You see, people, who appear to align well with the opinion you have put here, have tried repeatedly to have it taken down. And their reason was the same as the one you are putting here; namely, they just don't like it and somehow that must mean the world needs to respond and GET RID OF THAT SHIT because?
[ insert it here ]
And they failed.
As they should!
We have a First Amendment for good reason.
This discussion is the reason.
Heck, you basically said crime for hire was an acceptable response! Good grief!
And then you try and call selfish somehow? You flat out lost me.
Seems like a botch to me, like the kind of botch others point to and proclaim their basic joy that they were not the one who botched it that badly.
How would it hurt you? The American Heritage Dictionary gives three definitions of hurt:
> 1. To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.
> 2. To experience injury or pain to or in (an individual or a body part).
> 3. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
Does looking at them cause you mental or emotional suffering?
What if I said that it caused me the same mental or emotional suffering anytime anybody wore a tshirt? Would you also say people should only wear tshirts inside?
7 Billion people wearing t-shirts vs 2 statues, not the same, sorry. There are laws for offensive shirts though so yes, specific t-shirts can cause emotional suffering and could land the person wearing it in a lot of trouble based on hate speech and obscenity laws.
It is even more ridiculous when there are about 3 months of the year when people decorate their front lawn with giant snow men with blinking lights, giant skulls and witches that blink off and on or giant Easter Bunnies and eggs on the front lawn, corn stalks...
Surely, even some of the people complaining about this have a giant inflatable reindeer in storage that they look forward to putting on their lawn.
We are fine with decorations as long as it is only 25% of the year. More than 25%? What are you crazy and a deviant?
Thank you! This has been bugging me and the references I found online to Newton Howard all seem to refer to the blue robot as "Optimus Prime". I know Howard is not necessarily a fan of the toys/shows/movies. But c'mon, if you're gonna troll the neighborhood, at least know the names of the robots you're using. Also, Optimus is the most well-known of all the Transformers. How could he (and the news media) get this so wrong?
Reminds me of Kenny Irwin[1], who wasn't allowed to show people his giant robot sculptures because too many of his neighbors complained about how visitors parked along the street, littered, and lowered property values
I think they're ugly as hell and in poor taste but I also think people should have the right to do what they want with their homes as long as it's not dangerous.
Although since they're on a sidewalk it's a problem if they're blocking public spaces.
Yea, if they were original piece of art it would be cool but I would hate to be forced to stare at soulless corporate crap trying to masquerade as "art". I too would want them removed if I was forced to look at that garbage everyday.
What? Clearly this man receives a great deal of value(>$50k) in having these statues in front of his home. Just because in theory, he's creating value for the franchise that he isn't capturing, doesn't mean he's being exploited. He's no more an idiot than a Disney fan wearing a Mickey Mouse hat or shirt.
Yes, he's paying more than 50k to advertise a franchise. Sounds a bit idiot-ish to me. But hey, it's his money so it's not like I'll argue too much about it.
Regarding the t-shirt, at least you get actual use out of wearing branded clothes, even though to me the same logic applies to an extent.
When you buy property somewhere -- you agree to abide by the all of the existing codes and statues of that municipality / jurisdiction. Full stop.
In the case of this guy -- he's no just being an asshole, and guilty of poor taste. He's intentionally violating the law. Because he thinks he knows better.
Someone knowing the arbitrary law of primates is just thinking “they know better.” They know it’s illegal! It’s not a divine mandate; it’s projection of non-existent power of their own. They’ll lean on appeals to hallucinated political power!
No one questions the value of the law. What a sad little police state of NIMBY narcissists.
thats unfortunately how it is, ANYTHING can be rationalized when you rationalize theft(so called "taxes") from people. Soon after you begin to think you can decide what other people do since "i pay for it". Along the same levels of logic you also go create insane zoning laws and crap that extends into other peoples property, and is NOT just based on non-harrasment, but more like "you cant paint your house red, only green/blue pastel colors in THIS neighborhood", or "grass is maximum 1 inch long" and such insane shit
If some wealthy person in the 1500's had put two replicas of the statue of David in front of their house they'd have had some angry neighbors as well. (especially if those neighbors were Catholics, which they most likely would have been)
That's not to say that these statues are quite on that level of masterpiece art, but certainly an argument could be made that they rise above the level of kitsch (still a valid if less well regarded genre) into the realm of "legitimate art". In fact a reasonable argument could be made that they exist at the cross section of modern & classically-inspired art. Cultural icons raised to the aesthetics & inspiration of classical masterpieces.
Of course I wouldn't read that precise intent into this owner's display. I mean only that, provided all laws are being followed, the aesthetic taste of one neighbor on their property probably shouldn't be abridge by the differing tastes of another neighbor. But if I was the owner, and trying to make a point about the legitimacy of my right to decorate as I'd like, I'd respond to neighbors' complaints with a few small fig leads satirically placed over the crotches of the robots.
However I'm also unclear on the land ownership here, which probably matters: The article references the sidewalks as a public space, but what is the specific ownership of the land underneath the statues? Where I live, there are defined statutes regarding ownership of areas of public usage like side walks that are, nonetheless, nominally owned by the homeowner & home attached. These things can vary by city and state. In my area, rights and responsibilities are split. I am not responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the sidewalk, but I am responsible for maintaining its usability in the form of snow or other debris removal.
Those "pedestals" that they are on look as old as the building, and I suspect they're "outside the sidewalk easement" - they look like originally they may have had large flowerpots or trees in a pot or something similar.
Later on in the article they call them "filled in planters" so that fits.
> David was originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, but was instead placed in the public square in front of the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504.
[…]
> On January 25, 1504, when the sculpture was nearing completion, Florentine authorities had to acknowledge there would be little possibility of raising the 5.17 metre high statue approximately weighing more than six tons to the roof of the cathedral.
So, no, that naked man statue was going to be placed in a Catholic Cathedral (but the statue weighed too much).
So, Yes. You need to read beyond a portion of a Wikipedia page and more about the general response and backlash against works of art subsequent to the very early days of the 16th century. It
Initial acceptance gave way to offended sensibilities as as those sensibilities changed. Censorship and fig leaves resulted. If such things interest you, search out information about about the history of art and its reception after the early days of the 1500’s, much of which was directly influenced by the Church’s views on aesthetic propriety.
You certainly cannot just cite its initial commission and placement and stop there, not without being wrong in a way that is easily avoidable.
As such my original claim stands: the statue was censored shortly after its creation. It was the beginning of a movement that formally culminated in a decree by the a few decades earlier that codified the that common practice of censorship into mandated Church procedures. So I’m just a few years after it’s creation, the statue of David placed as-is in front a a home would have been the subject of local outrage.
If the statue had been censured, it would have been removed from the public eye. There was no separation between Church and state during that time, so…
In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising and children wouldn't really become a target for advertising until the 1900s.
The flush toilet and bottled beer were both new in the 1500s, though, so you might imagine someone installing a giant beer bottle and toilet to guard their front door and tell the world to buy cool products.
I get that, I am making the comparison for how it could work today. Since i am assuming there was david coffee mugs, tshirts, key chains, etc. Art could also be advertising for the establishment that currently holds the piece as well.
Advertising for what? The owner had not displayed them as part marketing marketing and advertising campaigns, he's a private own. They are recreations of fictional characters that have been around for decades and, yes, happen to have movies made about them. (Movies which themselves fall into some category of art as well).
Otherwise:
> In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising
This is simply wrong and requires only a LMGTFY and I will leave that to you. Advertisements extend back to ancient civilizations. Being wrong, and given the presence of public advertising through the centuries, the argument that these robots are, as advertisements (even if I agreed on that), verboten for public display, that argument is invalid.
As for aiming it at children, that is irrelevant because, again, what the person in this article did was not advertising.
Flush Toilets and bottled beer: You've chosen two things that, like the statue of David, would undoubtedly have garnered neighborly ire. So I am claiming that statues of David would not have been well regarded, and your counter claim is something like "Well here are other items that would have also been disapproved of". That sounds much more like agreement than a valid counterclaim.
Further, you've chosen two items that in modern times do actually have examples of their being used as art. Finding
examples is again a very simple matter of LMGTFY.
Next, actual advertisement including bear bottles (sometimes just their labels and advertisement, sometimes the objects themselves) and many other mundane objects and products-- including jumbo formats, are regarded by many and collected as art. In general they are frequently collected as a form of nostalgia art, sometimes regarded as kitsch, or for its illuminating of a small cross section of modern life.
In many cases these are also desirable for the true thoughtful care and artistry that went into their design. You'd find very few designers of logos etc. that do not in some way regard what they do as a form of art, even if it doesn't rise to the level (highly subjective) of "high art".
This look a lot nicer than the Marvel Universe statues dotting Thailand. I swear every market needs a 10-foot Hulk statue or its status will get revoked.
I'm surprised someone hasn't gone after him over copyright or trademark infringement. I suspect no one asked the toy companies that own the rights for permission. But I'm only guessing.
> But that was “The Exorcist.” A film. (Maybe?) An old movie, at least. The “Transformers” franchise, which has grossed more than $5 billion across six films, was more like … I.P. (Michael Bay, the “Transformers” producer, declined to comment on Dr. Howard’s decorating choices or the neighbors’ reaction.)
I imagine at USD 25k a pop, he has the whole IP thing squared away.
It's not as if the guy is staging Transformers porn, somehow damaging the children's toy brand. What would Mattel say to him? "Cease and desist advertising the Transformers for us for free unless you also pay for the privilege?"
Let's see what the objecting neighbors say when the Decepticons alighting from triangle-shaped UAP/UFOs start ripping up their quaint neighborhood, and Barricade, Optimums Prime, and Bumble Bee are banned from the neighborhood!
79 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadPublic land, the end. Should not have done it.
Moving past that, these places go for millions and are safer and have better schools because of the "historic status", but everyone wants those benefits but don't think the rules apply to them. Personally I like confronting sculptures, a graphic Jesus on the cross or Hitler. Do I get to do that, while everyone else has to be historic to keep my land value up?
I don't believe these have their own Wiki page, they are bulk made and basically props from the latest movies, not even the original series -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(sculptures)
I would hazard a guess someone doesn't know the difference between Thailand and Taiwan. And the 'made from recycled parts' has always made me laugh even 20 years ago when I bought (a very small) one in Thailand. So many are sold they'd be using new stuff.
On topic - I think if someone put up a Nazi statue in the neighborhood, the community’s response would be a little more direct. The homeowner might be too busy repainting his brickwork and replacing all the windows to try putting up the statue a second time.
And no decreasing "property value" is not a harm, property value is an entirely imaginary number than anyone can make up and change for any reason it isn't real it is fake and it isn't actual real material harm it is theorized future harm that may be done to you at some point in the future.
This is largely the result of the strong "you must own your own home" thinking [1], coupled with the pervasive argument that your home is an "investment".
It would be helpful if people understood that most buildings require (expensive) maintenence. Most buildings depreciate with age (materials, style, wear and tear etc) and so the idea of "property prices always go up" is either a myth, or based on increasing scarcity.
Naturally though since the investment idea is pervasive, scarcity is the obvious consequence. And by extension anything that affects value, in a downward direction, is by default a negative.
[1] the root idea is that people who own will be more stable, and less likely to indulge in anti-social behavior, like say revolution, since they have skin in the game, and "too much to loose". Prevent rebellion against land-owners by making the rabble into land-owners.
Which is solid thinking, and has resulted in very stable, socially-responsible populations. Who, it turns out, care mostly about property value to the exclusion of everything else.
Not some landlord trying to extract futher value from your home.
Since purchasing my home, my stress has evaporated. The freedom and lack of harrassment is priceless.
Do I care about the future price of my home - no, because I don't intend to move in the mid-term, and my mortgage is just rent. I bought my home to live in, not to speculate with
Most people in Anglospheric countries.
It turns out that NIMBYism and housing crises are particularly bad in the USA especially but also the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ... because in the Anglosphere there is a culture of aspiring to be a freeholder with your own home on your own lot.
Continental Europeans don't mind living in small apartments in dense urban areas. And it's a fact of life for many millions of Asians.
Freestanding homes should join cars on the list of things we need to cut our cultural obsession with.
Is this for real? I mean it’s a granted patent, but it reads like sci-fi
Can you get a patent for just ideas/concepts that you think might pan out in the future, but no one has put into practice, not even the applicant of the patent?
I know a few very successful professors and they're rich but I don't think this rich?
Also, considering the length of the article (which includes mentioning the shape of Dr. Howard's glasses) the whole argument sounds oddly unclear about what is or isn't his property and what are the regulations. In place where I'm living rules are pretty explicit (and, apparently, much more restrictive — both with regards to what can be done within my own actual backyard, let alone on the public street). I always thought of these rules being quite annoying, but somehow assumed that they would be much more strict in, say, Seattle.
Anyway, the only way to live a good life is to avoid people at all costs. Also, driving 15 minutes to say hi to your neighbor sounds fun.
While I understand that, the loss of both trees can have an impact on how the neighborhood is seen, and reduce property value.
Likewise, I think transformer statues are cool. If I lived on the street, I wouldn’t be surprised if it affected my property value, and potential buyers. I would be annoyed, though.
This is why people formed HOAs, and why people like them.
I’m in that camp, but I understand the other camp and I’m glad that both arrangements exist and help people sort themselves into more compatible neighbor pairings.
Your property values would take a hit if sewer lines were bursting too.
I get it and find various things unpleasant myself, but the public spaces are public. And that had to mean something or we all lose.
We all have options too.
Don't look, travel a different route, move, etc...
You can do you, on your public facing property same and they do them.
Now, true street art works as you say and many call that graffiti.
The thing with graffiti is it is not protected, if someone makes an awful piece someone can just go paint over it unlike this tasteless man that is forcing his bad taste upon the world with no way to "respond".
Fact is, that art is as offensive as you think it is. True for everyone.
Responding with crime is profoundly selfish.
Factor all those dislikes in, and call those people selfish and if we were to actually entertain that (badly) broken reasoning, the resulting set of permissible expression would likely be more constrained than it currently is in regions of the world controlled by fundemental religious theocrats.
And the vast majority of those people would easily say the people living under fundamentalism deserve better!
That's bat shit. Full on, hot, fresh bat shit cray, cray.
I get it. You just don't like the art. Join the club. We all see stuff every day we don't like. And someone here mentioned the cool Flintstone house in California. That is totally relevant!
You see, people, who appear to align well with the opinion you have put here, have tried repeatedly to have it taken down. And their reason was the same as the one you are putting here; namely, they just don't like it and somehow that must mean the world needs to respond and GET RID OF THAT SHIT because?
[ insert it here ]
And they failed.
As they should!
We have a First Amendment for good reason.
This discussion is the reason.
Heck, you basically said crime for hire was an acceptable response! Good grief!
And then you try and call selfish somehow? You flat out lost me.
Seems like a botch to me, like the kind of botch others point to and proclaim their basic joy that they were not the one who botched it that badly.
No Joke!
> 1. To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.
> 2. To experience injury or pain to or in (an individual or a body part).
> 3. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
Does looking at them cause you mental or emotional suffering?
What if I said that it caused me the same mental or emotional suffering anytime anybody wore a tshirt? Would you also say people should only wear tshirts inside?
Surely, even some of the people complaining about this have a giant inflatable reindeer in storage that they look forward to putting on their lawn.
We are fine with decorations as long as it is only 25% of the year. More than 25%? What are you crazy and a deviant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Absolutely_Remarkable_Thing
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/garden/pink-robots-at-the...
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/29/inside-the-famed-flin...
She won her legal battle. Now, she added even more dinosaurs to her backyard
Although since they're on a sidewalk it's a problem if they're blocking public spaces.
Regarding the t-shirt, at least you get actual use out of wearing branded clothes, even though to me the same logic applies to an extent.
When you buy property somewhere -- you agree to abide by the all of the existing codes and statues of that municipality / jurisdiction. Full stop.
In the case of this guy -- he's no just being an asshole, and guilty of poor taste. He's intentionally violating the law. Because he thinks he knows better.
Someone knowing the arbitrary law of primates is just thinking “they know better.” They know it’s illegal! It’s not a divine mandate; it’s projection of non-existent power of their own. They’ll lean on appeals to hallucinated political power!
No one questions the value of the law. What a sad little police state of NIMBY narcissists.
That's not to say that these statues are quite on that level of masterpiece art, but certainly an argument could be made that they rise above the level of kitsch (still a valid if less well regarded genre) into the realm of "legitimate art". In fact a reasonable argument could be made that they exist at the cross section of modern & classically-inspired art. Cultural icons raised to the aesthetics & inspiration of classical masterpieces.
Of course I wouldn't read that precise intent into this owner's display. I mean only that, provided all laws are being followed, the aesthetic taste of one neighbor on their property probably shouldn't be abridge by the differing tastes of another neighbor. But if I was the owner, and trying to make a point about the legitimacy of my right to decorate as I'd like, I'd respond to neighbors' complaints with a few small fig leads satirically placed over the crotches of the robots.
However I'm also unclear on the land ownership here, which probably matters: The article references the sidewalks as a public space, but what is the specific ownership of the land underneath the statues? Where I live, there are defined statutes regarding ownership of areas of public usage like side walks that are, nonetheless, nominally owned by the homeowner & home attached. These things can vary by city and state. In my area, rights and responsibilities are split. I am not responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the sidewalk, but I am responsible for maintaining its usability in the form of snow or other debris removal.
Later on in the article they call them "filled in planters" so that fits.
[…]
> On January 25, 1504, when the sculpture was nearing completion, Florentine authorities had to acknowledge there would be little possibility of raising the 5.17 metre high statue approximately weighing more than six tons to the roof of the cathedral.
So, no, that naked man statue was going to be placed in a Catholic Cathedral (but the statue weighed too much).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
Initial acceptance gave way to offended sensibilities as as those sensibilities changed. Censorship and fig leaves resulted. If such things interest you, search out information about about the history of art and its reception after the early days of the 1500’s, much of which was directly influenced by the Church’s views on aesthetic propriety.
You certainly cannot just cite its initial commission and placement and stop there, not without being wrong in a way that is easily avoidable.
As such my original claim stands: the statue was censored shortly after its creation. It was the beginning of a movement that formally culminated in a decree by the a few decades earlier that codified the that common practice of censorship into mandated Church procedures. So I’m just a few years after it’s creation, the statue of David placed as-is in front a a home would have been the subject of local outrage.
In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising and children wouldn't really become a target for advertising until the 1900s.
The flush toilet and bottled beer were both new in the 1500s, though, so you might imagine someone installing a giant beer bottle and toilet to guard their front door and tell the world to buy cool products.
Otherwise:
> In the 1500s there wasn't really advertising
This is simply wrong and requires only a LMGTFY and I will leave that to you. Advertisements extend back to ancient civilizations. Being wrong, and given the presence of public advertising through the centuries, the argument that these robots are, as advertisements (even if I agreed on that), verboten for public display, that argument is invalid.
As for aiming it at children, that is irrelevant because, again, what the person in this article did was not advertising.
Flush Toilets and bottled beer: You've chosen two things that, like the statue of David, would undoubtedly have garnered neighborly ire. So I am claiming that statues of David would not have been well regarded, and your counter claim is something like "Well here are other items that would have also been disapproved of". That sounds much more like agreement than a valid counterclaim.
Further, you've chosen two items that in modern times do actually have examples of their being used as art. Finding examples is again a very simple matter of LMGTFY.
Next, actual advertisement including bear bottles (sometimes just their labels and advertisement, sometimes the objects themselves) and many other mundane objects and products-- including jumbo formats, are regarded by many and collected as art. In general they are frequently collected as a form of nostalgia art, sometimes regarded as kitsch, or for its illuminating of a small cross section of modern life.
In many cases these are also desirable for the true thoughtful care and artistry that went into their design. You'd find very few designers of logos etc. that do not in some way regard what they do as a form of art, even if it doesn't rise to the level (highly subjective) of "high art".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPQO8F3RpE
I imagine at USD 25k a pop, he has the whole IP thing squared away.
http://elprimerpaso.es/2012/10/la-estatua-gigante-de-mazinge...