After the original scene picturing the St. George and The Dragon has been painted-over, I blamed the Romanian Church and the authorities who (curiously) lend an ear to Church’s useless opinions. Later after, I’ve found out that none of these two gave the order to destroy the artifact, but the actual creators erased it in order to prevent any kind of bad responses from them. The article I’ve read on this theme seemed pretty convincing and well documented, so that I kind of bought every word of it.
Anyway, I tried not to find guilty the artists who unusually censored their own creation; that was just sad. Some could say their decision was actually a wise, mature one. Who needs a conflict, right? The actual bad thing they did was letting all the media believing that Church had actually something to say about everything. This way, they became famous over night, they gain their sweet short-lived popularity, and even though they came up a little tousled at the end after admitting their decision of deleting the graffiti, we all know now about the three street-artists.
After quick-viewing the new replica, designed this time in the city Timisoara (Romania) by Irlo (one of the three “knights”) I noticed the weird turn of situation. This time, the Dragon is riding the Pony (not even a horse; a dark joke who might be translated to “don’t take it so serious guys, like you did with the first one!”) and uses his gun (that’s right, no sword for the Dragon!) to give the pale, child-rapist robot St. George a beautiful headshot.
Now, this could mean anything. The Dragon is the Censorship, while St. George represents the artists, and the scene could easily reflect the recent events that led to the first graffiti paint-over. Or, the Dragon represents the artists and shooting St. George is an illustration of slapping St. George (Censorship) on the face by re-making the second scene on other wall.
Either way, the new St. George and The Dragon graffiti replica is confusing. It’s either a subtle irony to the idea that society is not ready to digest hardcore meaningful art (a true fact, actually), or it’s another poor attempt to attract some popularity on behalf of the other way more brilliant (and damaged) masterpiece, in which case it would be a shameful comeback .
Photos via EVZ
You Might Want To Check These Out:
Latest posts by Daniel Alexander (see all)
- (Interview) Jonathan Bree: “Art is healthier when it is in the shadows” - September 29, 2018
- Get High Watching Nic Cage Slashing Religious Freaks in ‘Mandy’ (2018) - September 23, 2018
- Lucky Girls Are The Ones Caught on Film Smiling – Eliot Michl - September 16, 2018