 |
| Who's in charge here? The NYC Department of Parks abjures its role in overseeing the content of works of "art" appearing in the public realm: "NYC Parks is not responsible for - nor forms opinions of - the artistic content of the installations . . ." Just who's "turf" is this? A nebulous "artists' coalition" or the city taxpayers? |
 |
| A magnifying glass is needed to even notice the "artists' coalition'' alert to those offended by public pornography. |
 |
| Reading glasses may be required to further investigate the warning depicted on the easily-overlooked miniscule "alert". |
 |
| Seems to me, if it walks like a NYC Parks Department duck... |
 |
| ...talks like a NYC Parks Department duck... |
 |
| ...it must be a duck - a NYC Parks Department duck. No? |
I
 |
| In the interim, since my last posting, vandalism has been visited thereon. |
 |
| A disgusting display of "art" compounded by a disgusting display of utilitarian purpose. |
No comments:
Post a Comment