An Australian teenager has faced court for allegedly defacing a large blue sculpture of a mythical creature by sticking googly eyes on it.
Amelia Vanderhorst, 19, appeared via phone at Mount Gambier Magistrates Court in South Australia on Tuesday charged with one count of property damage.
In a statement at the time of the September incident, the local council said CCTV footage showed a person putting artificial eyes on the artwork which locals have nicknamed the “Blue Blob”.
Punishmwnt is a high-5
-
It was an obvious improvment.
-
There was an unfortunate choice in adhesive or removal technique.
Involve her in the repair. look into wth it was so hard to remove them and make the knowledge public so future ‘pranks’ won’t be as bad.
-
It shouldn’t be a crime if it’s objectively hilarious.
Perhaps they shouldn’t have used a paint chipper to remove the eyes.
19 so they’re an adult.
Fuck the teen line off.
I don’t care beyond the stupid headline.
Sure 19 is ending in teen but in Australia 18 you become an adult
19 is a teenager, mate. Thats why we have “teen porn” and no one bats an eye. Because teenagers can, and often are, adults as well. Teenager doesnt mean child by default.
I’m torn.
I love the googly eyes. Everything is better with googly eyes but I do know the pain of going through the council process to get stuff like this installed to make the area more interesting and engaging local artists.
I suppose getting the teen’s family to cough up the repair money is fair. I hope they got lots of photos of it with the eyes before it was taken down.
deleted by creator
I’m kind of sympathetic to the idea that there should be some sort of fine associated with petty vandalism, but I’ve also seen a number of comments here and elsewhere that it’s unlikely that whatever she did actually required causing this much damage to remove it, and that if it did, the sculpture was poorly designed in the first place. One user on Reddit asked whether, if the city had decided to use dynamite to remove the eyes, she should be liable for all the damage caused by the dynamite. I think that that’s probably a fair point to make. The blame doesn’t need to be entirely on any one party here.
I could see fining her for whatever one might reasonably expect a competent removal to run from a properly-designed artwork, but not dumping costs on her from failures in those other areas.
If i’d paid £68,000 for a statue to be installed outdoors and the coating on it was so thin that the glue on the back of a pair of googly eyes ruined the entire statue, I’d definitely be asking for my money back from the artist
We treat art, especially old art, with far too much reverence.
It’s largely just collection trophies for rich people or rich countries.
Most of the historical data, if any, could be collected through scans and downloaded, but we insist on treating these with a weird reverence that makes no sense, often takes up space, and takes money to upkeep.
I honestly don’t support this use of taxpayer funds.
Philistine
And that’s why, kids, you should never cheap out and skip primer. This piece won’t last two years of Australian weather before it start chipping, and this kid proof it.
So if anything, she deserves a bug bounty!
Based on the blobs underneath the right eye, I’m wondering if they used contact adhesive.
It’s likely the proper solvent would have let them come off with minimal damage.
This story was cute until I saw this, if removing the eyes didn’t damage the art it would be harmless but that’s really unfortunate…
That’s shit art is what it is, if you can’t handle googly eyes you weren’t gonna survive the elements
This is on whoever removed the eyes.
There are like two dozen ways to completely dissolve most adhesives.
Or what, did she epoxy them on there?
Unless the blobs are some gel solvent they used for removal before prying them off with a shovel, i’d say it’s some form of contact cement.
A little patience and some isopropyl, maybe a heat gun would have likely let them remove it without harm. Whoever did the removal wasn’t trying to be careful, they gauged it as someone else’s problem.
Cooking oil does a great job for a lot of adhesives, and won’t damage surfaces like many solvents will. It’s also a great way to get animals unstuck from glue traps.
May I inquire as to which oil you mean — canola? As the staple oil varies by region, so I can’t be sure which one it is for you.
It doesn’t really matter, just whatever you have in your pantry. For some adhesives it does need to sit for a while, though.
I wonder what pigeon shit is going to do to it? Seems too fragile to clean with pressure washers.
the kid might have glued the eyes
Looking at the “damage” - it seems whoever removed them used a hard scraper and some sort of aggressive solvent. This is not damage from the googly eyes, but from the hands of the remover, who probably had too much caffeine and enthusiasm that day.
unless the person who put on the googly eyes glued them so that it would hold better
Can’t deface what doesn’t have a face. If anything she faced it.
She.
As an Aussie, I can confidently say we would have preferred the googlies left on
There is a statue in Glasgow that always has a traffic cone on its head.
The council regularly removes it, and its always replaced.
It’s had different variations over the years, from pride to independence to EU flags.
The council proposed a renovation of the statue including raising the plinth to make it harder to replace the cone. It was shot down with massive public outcry.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_the_Duke_of_Wellington,_Glasgow
There’s on in Perth (Australia) where people regularly put clothes on it. Like, it’s more often than not, dressed in something with a seasonal, political, or humorous tone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_(sculpture)
I like the extra challenge that it’s over water!
In 2013, Glasgow City Council put forward plans for a £65,000 restoration project, which included a proposal to double the height of its plinth and raise it to more than six feet (1.8 metres) in height to “deter all but the most determined of vandals”.[12] Their planning application contained an estimate that the cost of removing traffic cones from the statue was £100 per callout, and that this could amount to £10,000 per year.
If the police are taking it down 100 times per year and people are putting a new one up 100 times per year, I’m kind of impressed with the determination on both sides.
Right? The article even says that the cone thing has been going on since the eighties, but apparently the council still hasn’t learned.
Theres also an elk made of straw somehwere in Sweden that gets burned down every year, no matter what kind of security measure they put up. Not sure if I can find it now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gävle_goat It’s a goat?
deleted by creator
Would be hilarious if people just kept going and putting more eyes on it every time they removed them.
And yet Trump continues to get away with crimes against humanity
A kid does something truly artistic and it gets called “defacing”. 🤡
Looks better with the eyes.
