this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
317 points (99.4% liked)

World News

50703 readers
2208 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago
  1. It was an obvious improvment.

  2. 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.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

It shouldn't be a crime if it's objectively hilarious.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 157 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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 33 points 2 days 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 89 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

May I inquire as to which oil you mean — canola? As the staple oil varies by region, so I can't be sure which one it is for you.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 1 day ago

It doesn't really matter, just whatever you have in your pantry. For some adhesives it does need to sit for a while, though.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago

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

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

So if anything, she deserves a bug bounty!

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Based on the blobs underneath the right eye, I'm wondering if they used contact adhesive.

It's likely the proper solvent would have let them come off with minimal damage.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Perhaps they shouldn't have used a paint chipper to remove the eyes.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 106 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MontyGommo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 86 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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

[–] towerful@programming.dev 59 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] tal@lemmy.today 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Right? The article even says that the cone thing has been going on since the eighties, but apparently the council still hasn't learned.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 12 points 2 days ago

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

[–] tal@lemmy.today 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[–] MrWildBunnycat@lemmy.world 41 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

unless the person who put on the googly eyes glued them so that it would hold better

[–] troed@fedia.io 57 points 2 days ago (3 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 31 points 2 days ago

Looks better with the eyes.

[–] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Like it better with the eyes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Punishmwnt is a high-5

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

I charge Amelia Vanderhorst with being a legend.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 21 points 2 days ago

That in itself is art.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days 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.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 15 points 2 days ago

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

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

A kid does something truly artistic and it gets called "defacing". 🤡

[–] kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

I look forward to this kid's next piece

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 10 points 2 days 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!"

[–] Gnugit@aussie.zone 11 points 2 days ago

Grumpy old prudes could have just laughed and left it.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Why is she punished for vastly improving it?

[–] dumbass@aussie.zone 10 points 2 days ago

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

We must googly eye EVERYTHING!

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 days ago

This is like a SimCity news ticker item.

load more comments
view more: next ›