Michigan
Related: About this forumBlue duck can stay, thousands of other items in man's yard must go, judge rules
ST JOHNS A blue plastic duck.
Thats all that Clinton County District Court Judge Michael Clarizio says can be left of an outdoor art installation made from thousands of found objects at the home of a Bath Township artist.
Even as he praised the work of artist Robert Park, Clarizio gave him 45 days to remove the items along a pathway on his wooded lot. The duck was the only object that didnt fit the definition of junk under a townships ordinance, which prohibits outdoor storage of cast-off" and other items.
I have to follow what the law says, not what my heart says, Clarizio said. The judge called Park a talented artist and said he found Parks art installation interesting.
Park plans to appeal, and his attorney, William Metros, said they would press Bath Township officials to back off.
Read more: https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/columnists/judy-putnam/2018/11/01/bath-township-officials-win-court-case-take-down-art-installation/1806961002/
I wonder if some Republicans complained because they don't like blue?
Glamrock
(11,781 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,746 posts)People who hoard stuff haven't a clue that their behavior can adversely impact neighborhood values. It has NOTHING to do with the color blue.
Watch some of the hoarding shows and you'll get a clue.
2naSalit
(86,037 posts)but if it was not a temporary thing, that could get funky. It didn't look like a junk yard or hoarding, it was intentional art.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)I live near a town in NY state where there are a whole bunch of old toilets set up in a yard on a main road as part of a man's protest art. Do I particularly 'like' it? I find it amusing but I wouldn't say I 'like' it, HOWEVER like it or not, agree with it or not, I'll defend his 1st Amendment right to his artistic expression. The town and artist have fought for years over it and yet it's still there because as tacky as some see it, it's still ART and definitely covered under the 1st Amendment just like this one is.
I hope he keeps fighting and WINS. His 1st Amendment right to artistic expression trumps the towns rules since there's no real health threat.
safeinOhio
(32,525 posts)Perhaps the court can define art for us.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)You may as well try to nail warm jello to a tree or rope the morning mists as they roll off the river. Even if a work of art speaks only to the artist whose imagination gave birth to it, IMO it's still 'art'.