this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
155 points (98.7% liked)

World News

50674 readers
2592 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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".

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 91 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

collapsed inline media

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.

[–] Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip 26 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 42 points 5 hours ago

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?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago

I wonder what pigeon shit is going to do to it? Seems too fragile to clean with pressure washers.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 69 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Can't deface what doesn't have a face. If anything she faced it.

[–] MontyGommo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

As an Aussie, I can confidently say we would have preferred the googlies left on

[–] towerful@programming.dev 31 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 7 points 5 hours ago

Would be hilarious if people just kept going and putting more eyes on it every time they removed them.

[–] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 36 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Like it better with the eyes.

[–] DaiDactylos@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago

Looks like the unholy outcome of breeding a Smurf with a Womble...

Which is to say that it looks much better with the eyes in place.

[–] troed@fedia.io 33 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Lembot_0005@lemy.lol 5 points 6 hours ago

Because they are in charge.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 18 points 5 hours ago

That in itself is art.

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 hours ago

Looks better with the eyes.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago

I charge Amelia Vanderhorst with being a legend.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 12 points 7 hours ago

If they used more than about 2 coats of paint it prob wouldn't have been an issue.

[–] kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago

I look forward to this kid's next piece

[–] Gnugit@aussie.zone 9 points 6 hours ago

Grumpy old prudes could have just laughed and left it.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

the best kind of art is art you interact with. if this art is for the public, then allow the public to have it.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 9 points 4 hours ago

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!"

[–] MrWildBunnycat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Does Australia not have vinegar and oil technology? Maybe Wd40?

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 11 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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.

[–] dumbass@aussie.zone 7 points 6 hours ago

Well looks like sales of googly eyes are about to go through the roof.

We must googly eye EVERYTHING!

[–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 hours ago

Costing A$136,000 ($89,000; £68,000), the artwork

A R T W O R K

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 hours ago

This is like a SimCity news ticker item.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Why is she punished for vastly improving it?

[–] HorikBrun@kbin.earth 3 points 5 hours ago

So, charged with being cool and awesome? Cuz that shit's great.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

%s/charged with/applauded for/