11 years ago
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Copyright © 2009 Yummy Scrumptious. All Rights Reserved.
"So here are my thoughts on the idea of "copying" each other... If I post a photo from Domino, Elle Decor or anything else like that - unless I dug it up from 100 years ago or something- no need to source back to me! BUT if I post my projects, my office, my client's house, my house, my friends house... you can and should leave a link! Cool?"
I jacked this verbiage from Sketch42 Blog, because it was pretty right on. Oh, and if you are ever able to credit a photographer for your images, you should.
6 comments:
Clearly, someone loved these and equally clearly someone doesn't - your friend, I think. Context is all!
I know this building. I don't think this is particularly good for resale, but some of these artist folks just can't help themselves. I'd prefer graffiti from Hense or Sever, more in keeping with a modern building and the urban landscape. Can you imagine graffiti on the outside of those walls? I'm afraid I can.
There is nothing wrong with loving these, I was just surprised. That is not at all what I expected to see. I removed the text because I don't want to comment one way or another.
These actually photograph better than they look in real life. I do hope he keeps them!
If these are kept the place will look like a carnival. I saw them when the place was for sale and found them intrusive. But, I suspect this dicussion is moot.
Gasp. Despite my aesthetic preferences, my rebel spirit says, well, if the guy owns it- he can & should do what he wants to do and he can certainly paint! I do, however, also agree with Terry in that I do imagine this action was not good for resale. Anyone else think its ironic that the images are (mostly) all related to classical architecture, given the building (am I trying to hard to be pithy)?
Post a Comment