if this was boston, the cops would have blowed this up right now. 'dunno bout you, but this looks like it could be terorizm to me.

More retarded hipster crap. Don't they have anything better to do? How stupid looking is that thing?

How exactly is the piece attached/secured?

This might be the biggest development in NYC bridge graffiti since Sane/Smith tagged the outside of the Brooklyn Bridge in the late-1980s!

Defacing a 100 year old landmark. What an asshole.

re: #5 and #7--I don't think its pretentious to complain about coverage of graffiti. This blog is indeed about goings-on, etc in NYC, and many people just happen to agree that graffiti simply doesn't merit coverage compared to the hosts of more important/interesting things happening in the city. If anything is pretentious, its these vandals who pose as artists and force feed their ugly crap on the rest of us.

#5 & #7,

So I'm not allowed to make a comment that differs from yours? Wow you must really have some great discussions with your group of sychophants ... er I mean friends. To paraphrase #7:

"y'all need to stop [telling me I don't have a right to air my opinion in a F*%^ING COMMENT column] or don't [post here]"

There fixed that for you.

Sheesh, and you're probably someone who would fight to defend your right to free speech. Hyprocrite.

Personally, I think that it's a fun news item, and I guess it is a part of what makes NYC, NYC. But that saaid, I think the event itself a stupid exercise, a not particularly creative effort, and a silly way to try and get attention. If the artist is that talented let them work their way into the Chelsea galleries without resorting to such inane (and illegal) tactics.

This blog is about the happenings & going ons in NYC. This event fits into that catagory, so y'all need to stop hatin' or dont't read it to begin with

Yes, it is a New York blog but there are 8 million people here and about 8 million other more interesting things going on besides lame "art". How about Hillary Clinton's saying that taking lobbyist money is ok because they're just people too.

Meanwhile, in other news, the Dragon Boat Festival was in Queens this weekend, and hundreds of people attended.

Graffiti is one of the many things that happens in New York. But so what? There are events every weekend that attract hundreds of people, and most of them get ignored here because they aren't run by white hipsters who take pictures of their own antics. There are entire galleries filled with art that appeals to people willing to show the love by visiting it, as opposed to being forced to see some ugly thing flung over the side of a bridge- and those galleries are in all five boroughs. Many of those artists are people of color. Is the work of artists who are doing truly innovative work in a variety of media less newsworthy than something that is obviously a publicity stunt?

I'll believe that Gothamist is really about Gotham when I see extensive photos of the Caribbean Day parade, the Brooklyn Cherry Blossom Festival, Gay Pride events, the JVC Jazz Festival, and so on. When I see events at the Museum of Chinese in America or the The Studio Museum in Harlem being posted, I'll be impressed. Even an interview with the Latino ballfield vendors who are in danger of being kicked out would be great. Because this supposedly classless, non-racist world that hipsters have created has precious few people of color in it. I'd even say it has precious few real Gothamists (native New Yorkers) in it.

Why do I read Gothamist? Because sometimes there are good reviews of restaurants. Sometimes there are stories like the one about the steampipe explosion. Occasionally an interesting museum exhibit or lecture will be mentioned. But to my mind, most of it is bollocks, considering that every kind of music and art can be found in this city, and pretty much all of them are ignored in favor of crap produced by twits.

Comparing this to Smith/Sane's work is the most laughable thing I've read in a while. This coulden't hold a caddle to their work!

that "art" piece is fucking retarded. It's ugly and looks like it was drawn in a highschool art class.

It makes me happy that their are people doing this type of shit. Seems like an idea someone had while stoned and actually followed through with. Who is Sane Smith?

this works, and is interesting enough for the quick read. as far as all the other new york news. isn't that what, ny1, and the local rags are for? seems weird to complain about what's free imo.

It's not a 'private blog'. Private blogs don't take large-scale advertising from major corporations. They aren't part of chains.

Not liking stocks in a newspaper is simply a matter of not being interested, but stock info gives information about other things in the paper. If a newspaper only printed things about the people it knew, however, it would have no buyers.

If I make a blog called 'Graffiti Central', people know what to expect. The same with real private blogs like 'Cute Overload'. But this blog is called 'Gothamist'. New York City is made up of more than white graffiti artists, the tiny section of Brooklyn called Williamsburg, the small number of clubbers on the Lower East Side, and artists whose work is shown mostly by being splattered on buildings. I actually don't have any objection to such articles. I have an objection to there not being much more than that, particularly on a site that is claiming to highlight what may be the most ethnically diverse, arts-oriented city on the face of the earth. Do you honestly think that the only people who produce edgy art in NYC live in Williamsburg? Do you really think that the only musicians playing interesting music are in alternative bands that play the Hiro Ballroom? Last year when the Drop Dead Festival (which was three days long, had acts from all over the US, and had gothabilly, neo-punk and guests who flew in from Europe to attend) was at the Knitting Factory, there was nary a mention. There's no mention of colleges (NYC is a major college town) other than Columbia and NYU- do you really think those are the only schools where something is happening? And as for Columbia, the papers have mentioned how Harlem residents are not happy with the Columbia expansion- but here there's almost nothing but cheerleading for Columbia, which is destroying an historic community so that kids from West Buttfuck can come here and see themselves as cool and edgy.

6:21, Gothamist is privately owned. That it takes advertisements and has sites in several cities doesn't alter that fact.

While your point that Gothamist could write about a more diverse set of activities is valid (I would love to see more coverage of classical music and opera, for example), there's only a finite number of people writing for Gothamist and they are going to write about what they know.

If you want Gothamist to cover other activities, by all means leave a tip, link or photo in the Gothamist Contribute section. I've done so and they have sometimes mentioned those stories. Press releases or insider info is probably also welcome if sent to the correct editor. Finally, if you've got some insight into underrepresented stories, or a unique perspective on the NY art/music scene why not see if you can become a Gothamist writer?

Finally, your implication that Gothamist appeals to a tiny slice of New York is prima facie ridiculous. Look at today's stories: weddings in the Times, Coney Island redevelopment, sushi bar on 49th St., review of an off-broadway play, story about breastfeeding, carbon monoxide poisoning in Jamaica Bay, Mayor B. getting jury duty, Queens bus driver beating rude passenger, drunk driver in Queens, disappearing marshlands, and, yes, one story on a graffiti artist -the first graffiti-related post in days, if not weeks.

this is definitely newsworthy

everybody knows that Gothamist is just a big incestous group of hipsters that circle Jerk. This Judith Supine is obviously butt buddies with Jake Dobkin. It's like 'YO! Jake, I'm gonna do some attention whoring street art that talks to my inner being YO!" and Jake's like "alright Yo! Take some pictures Yo! and I'll put them up on gothamist Yo! They'll be blogging about this for days Yo!"

On second thought, maybe Gothamist should keep reporting on things like this. I'll tell you now, the next time something like this is reported, I'll go out there as soon as I can and cut it down myself. And what's wrong with that? If a member of the so-called "street art" movement believes he has the God-given right to impress his "artistic" sensibilities upon us, then I have the same right, except my sensibility is to get rid of it. It's a free country, right? So go ahead, Jake, tell me where the next one is as soon as it's put up! Hey, when it splashes down in the river, would that make me a splasher? And maybe I'll get somebody to take pictures of me cutting it down then obscure my face. Would Gothamist be willing to publish those action shots even though it's "newsworthy" and happened in NYC? I doubt it.

Sweet! Nice bomb.

lame

#36, why are you defending gothamist?

yo I heard that mother fucker has a 15 teen foot penis

Peace Love the pedro

@ #36: LMFAO!!!

Looking good! This is a great example of guerilla-style public art.

It says I love NY on the shirt.

Haha loving this.
Thanks for the laugh/smile.
Also a thanks to those that had a whinge about it.. amusing read. =]

TC from Aust.

The reason people get so annoyed at hipsters is because they sit around in their ironic outfits with their ironic haircuts and ironic moustaches, drinking PBR and pretending to be doing something cool and dangerous, while Mom & Dad pick up the tab.

This guy has actually done something creative, and done it in an intentionally non-destructive way. It can obviously be hauled up and disposed of in minutes, showing that the guy is not only creative, but thoughtful, two things we do not normally associate with hipsters. Notice also that he is not surrounded by a horde of snickering hipsters, but is trying to be somewhat discreet.

I don't personally like the piece of art, but I think this sort of act, which is planned to be temporary, non-destructive, and easily undone by whoever will be forced to take it down, is the best kind of public art. Graffitists, on the other hand, run the gamut from truly brilliant to jerks tagging their name dozens of times in a 10 foot section of wall. Or subway window. Or Schoolyard.

So tell me, graffiti lovers, given that the worlds of both street artists and graffitists can contain the gifted and the stupid, what's so much more "real" about graffiti? Is it just that it's done by people who you'd like to imagine yourself to be?

And to the poster above who suggested that if this guy wants to be an artist he should go through a Chelsea gallery; believe it or not, you don't need some gallerist's permission to make art.

'Street Art' is not graf. Bombing trains with wildstyle is graf. 'Street Art' is the art school privileged kiddie co-opted version of something that the hood called its own.

FAIL.

it would have been far better if the artist made the figure look like a real person. think about that for a minute, a fifty foot person hanging from the manhattan bridge. the artist clearly doesn't know what he/she is doing and clearly doesn't think about his/her art. brains help. next time get some schooling before you fart in the public wind. it's the difference between garbage and something worth talking about. Grade: D-