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.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
306 points (99.4% liked)
World News
50919 readers
1617 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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?
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Would be hilarious if people just kept going and putting more eyes on it every time they removed them.
The local council said they could not remove the eyes without damaging the artwork
(emph. mine)
Ok, but why is their incompetence an argumen?
I was wondering that too. Just take some isopropyl alcohol and those stickers would fall right off. They really went out of their way to damage the paint during removal.
Because they are in charge.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Looks better with the eyes.
I charge Amelia Vanderhorst with being a legend.
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
That in itself is art.
the best kind of art is art you interact with. if this art is for the public, then allow the public to have it.
If they used more than about 2 coats of paint it prob wouldn't have been an issue.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I look forward to this kid's next piece
Grumpy old prudes could have just laughed and left it.
Does Australia not have vinegar and oil technology? Maybe Wd40?
At the end of the day, they will have had to pay whoever did the cleaning, regardless of how they did it. If the person charged simply has to pay a fine equal to that guys wage for the time spent cleaning, I'd call it about as fair as you could expect.
Paying for cleaning is fair.
However, judging from the single coat of paint. Either it was the artist intent that the artwork get damaged or it should not have been installed outdoors.
Well looks like sales of googly eyes are about to go through the roof.
We must googly eye EVERYTHING!
Someone needs to yarn-bomb this thing. Perhaps something like a headband that falls to googly-eye level maybe. Perhaps, you know, with eyes on it.
Either way, I'd be tempted to put up a sign next to it that says "Help! I've gone blind!"
-
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.
Why is she punished for vastly improving it?
This is like a SimCity news ticker item.
Costing A$136,000 ($89,000; £68,000), the artwork
A R T W O R K
Perhaps they shouldn't have used a paint chipper to remove the eyes.
So, charged with being cool and awesome? Cuz that shit's great.
A kid does something truly artistic and it gets called "defacing". 🤡
And yet Trump continues to get away with crimes against humanity
view more: next ›