Mural or drawing?
patsufredo-PGO
Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hello, I've trying to ask this long ago, until this one popped out in review:
Yeah, it's a street art of Pikachu (I don't understand why the submitter wrote that into "pikacu" instead..., but let's move on), either it is categorized as a drawing or a mural. The art itself is drawn on the surrounding walls of a residential complex. The submitter said in the description it was created by local residents, but only that Pikachu art was drawn on that wall, judging from the supporting image. Supporting description isn't much informative too, just saying "included as mural category".
I'm not understanding street arts as well, so my questions:
1) How do we differentiate street murals from just a drawing drawn on the wall?
2) If the art was actually drawn by submitter, should a nomination considered to be elligible (assuming that nomination has public access), even it's Pokemon-related? Or, should the submitters nominate their own street art, provided they're permitted to draw their art by land owner or local authorities?
Thank you.
Best Answers
-
grsmhiker-ING
Posts: 159 ✭✭✭✭
My thoughts on the original two questions:
1) I'd evaluate the quality, visual appearance, etc of the artwork to decide whether it actually stands out as a mural or is just poorly conceived graffiti. Many examples of street art are truly breathtaking and are a form of art in themselves... this looks like something I could have done with chalk and I might rate it a 2 for visually unique or culturally relevant. The overall submission might get a 2 from me, 3 is a stretch. I regularly pass right by countless examples of poorly conceived graffiti scribbles and tags that I'd never consider nominating, as they are extremely low quality at best and vandalism at worst.
2) I'll play devils advocate here, and argue that I'd be careful about writing off a candidate just because a player created the object. Instead, focus more on the merits and permanency of the object itself. As an example, several of us were responsible for building and placement of little free libraries that we submitted to OPR and which became portals accessible from nearby hangouts. Likewise, a comic store in my town commissioned a huge mural on a retaining wall, partially for purposes of creating a stop and attracting Pogo players. In both cases, the work was permanent and the community benefitted in some way.
Now, if it's clear that an object was placed by a player just to attempt game the system, that would definitely be a cause for rejection.
-
NianticCasey-ING
Posts: 538 admin
This is a tricky one, and one we've seen come up before. This Pikachu in particular, has been associated with a number of duplicate or falsified Wayspots, which makes this discussion particularly difficult.
When it comes to street art, there's a fine line, and it is reliant on the quality and originality of the art itself which is definitely very subjective on the opinion of the reviewer. You need to consider each piece individually.
In my opinion, something low quality like this is more likely to be "fixed" or painted over by the local municipality and removed, whereas a mural is likely done in collaboration with the local government, property owner or some combination therein.
Looking at the guidelines, while this isn't initials, I would still consider it graffiti due to the low quality of the art and therefore ineligible.
Answers
That almost looks like it was drawn with chalk or crayon or something. Something that would make it very temporary (washed away in the rain for example).
You mentioned that it's on residential property, so that's immediate worth rejecting for.
However, ignoring that for a moment and going back to the image. Submissions of drawn Pokemon are almost always a case of the submitter trying to cheat the system and gain their own personal Pokestop, not to mention the fact that it's a poor drawn rendition of Pikachu.
If you search for "mural" on Google Images, you will find a countless number of aesthetically pleasing murals. You will not find a picture of a single thing that is by itself in the manner of that Pikachu, as drawings that are drawn like that are often just graffiti and are not interesting or aesthetically pleasing to look at.
1) Murals are usually done are generally more artistic and aesthetically pleasing to the eye, whereas drawings and graffiti look terrible.
2) Niantic would be better to answer that question, however, I would strongly advise that submitters avoid subbing any Pokemon related artworks as they could get rejected for "in game references". In this instance, it definitely appears that someone is attempting to cheat the system to get a couchie.
I would call that a drawing.
Anybody else notice that mural is not one of the options form the suggested categories when "What is it?" is required?
@NicoSolheim-ING I believe that well done, permanent murals in non-single family residential settings that are Pokemon or Harry Potter or Ingress related should be fine and not be called an in-game reference. That being said, I agree that this nomination does appear to be not only poorly executed artwork, but also an attempt at a couch portal.
@JSteve0-ING I personally have nothing against a well done Ingress/PoGo/HPWU mhral being submitted but I know how some reviewers can be, so I wouldn't want anyone wasting their submissions because a handful of reviewers decided to 1* something just because it was a pikachu or a Lapras in it, as an example
Actually guidance from @NianticCasey-ING is needed. I was told this would be an instant rejection from Ingress players because it has to do specifically with an actual game content with a Pokemon. If these types of Murals are allowed, than it needs to be decided by Niantic as I am stuck on these currently. I typically vote 3 stars on these for unsure as Wayfarer help suggests. I see both sides on these. Yes and no...
This particular nomination isn't a mural though, you can tell by the quality of the artistry
My thoughts on the original two questions:
1) I'd evaluate the quality, visual appearance, etc of the artwork to decide whether it actually stands out as a mural or is just poorly conceived graffiti. Many examples of street art are truly breathtaking and are a form of art in themselves... this looks like something I could have done with chalk and I might rate it a 2 for visually unique or culturally relevant. The overall submission might get a 2 from me, 3 is a stretch. I regularly pass right by countless examples of poorly conceived graffiti scribbles and tags that I'd never consider nominating, as they are extremely low quality at best and vandalism at worst.
2) I'll play devils advocate here, and argue that I'd be careful about writing off a candidate just because a player created the object. Instead, focus more on the merits and permanency of the object itself. As an example, several of us were responsible for building and placement of little free libraries that we submitted to OPR and which became portals accessible from nearby hangouts. Likewise, a comic store in my town commissioned a huge mural on a retaining wall, partially for purposes of creating a stop and attracting Pogo players. In both cases, the work was permanent and the community benefitted in some way.
Now, if it's clear that an object was placed by a player just to attempt game the system, that would definitely be a cause for rejection.
Meaning graffiti, which isn't acceptable. I've seen proper street murals, subbed a few myself, and this is definitely not one. It's a clear attempt at cheating the system to get a couchie.
It's not street art though, and even if it was, it's of poor quality anyway and wouldn't get through with good reviewers.
I'm not sure how a Pikachu is significant to the local community except for a handful of Pokemon players that DO NOT represent the community, ergo, it is not locally significant.
Local significance would be more if it related to a cultural event for the community or a piece of that community's history.
Like the signs I posted earlier in the thread, they have significance to their communities as a whole, not a small portion.
Where I live there's a street artist painting electric boxes, he has been given permission from the local authorities and the owners of the boxes for this, and his artwork is locally and culturally relevant, often referring to the local football team for example. That would be an acceptable example of street art.
Someone painting an unofficial Pikachu on a fence that will likely be painted over and seen as graffiti? Not street art.
Thank you! This is precisely what I've been trying to say
Examples of street art:
Not street art:
It's definitely "art." Art takes many forms. The eligibility remains in question. It looks temporary and holds low cultural value.
I'd also suggest people looking at this thread see that the supporting photo fails to help verify location. It is not outright rejectable due to that, but the supporting photo should help support the location of the candidate, especially if satellite and/or Street views are unclear.
Actually, you bring up a very good point!
Re-examining that "mural pikacu," I would consider it to more closely resemble a "sidewalk stencil" (albeit in a wall).
Sidewalk stencils - Ineligible, as they are not permanent.
It doesn’t look like it will be around long since it’s not culturally or visually interesting enough. That’s a 1* for temporary and move on, If you want a couchie then do a better drawing on the wall
What your opinion versus what criteria actually says are 2 different things.... Please keep it to niantic opinions because we are on the Niantic Forum.
"This piece of street art, other informal artworks, and works created with spray paint are eligible so long as they represent cool pieces of art."
Yes it would be considered art.
Why do you think a Pikachu stencil represents a “cool piece of art”?
Because the submitter submitted it. It is the submitters responsibility to submit things that are interesting to their community. Not the reviewers responsibility to say oh this is eligible to be street art, but that is not. Everything that is suggested as street art is street art and allowed. Because it all uses spray paint to create pieces of art.
And it’s our job as reviewers to make sure submitting low quality wayspots just because they want a wayspot they can reach from their house or for an extra poi to make a gym etc.
this isn’t a good example of visually impressive or culturally important artwork and should be rejected which I’m assuming the local community did which is why the submitter is on here complaining that it got rejected
Art is not a low quality wayspot.
You are stuck between 2 issues.
First, your opinion for others is everyone is submitting on their house or for an extra poi to make gym. (This is wrong. We are all in wayfarer for adding portals no matter what. That is the point of wayfarer. If you don't want others to have wayspots you should all honestly just stop reviewing because your opinion will never change. Density is not a reviewers responsibility per the wayfarer FAQ. You shouldn't be mad other areas have more than you. They started their areas before you. Pokemon players are still learning.)
Second, you opinion of art is wrong. (All art has various forums of art. It is your job as a reviewer to decide if it is art. Well it is. Doesn't mean it isn't allowed to be a portal. Your vote on Visually should be where you rate differently on art for opinion because that is where it matters to you. Not should this be a portal.)
"We are all in wayfarer for adding portals no matter what."
That might sum up your position quite nicely, but I assure you that the rest of us care about the quality of the submissions we rate and are actually apt to reject candidates that don't meet criteria.
Quality of art is subjective, yes, and most of those who reviewed this one judged that it was not of high enough quality to become a wayspot.