![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 12th, 2004 10:56 am( excitement and adventure and slightly wild things )
I should cancel my subscription to the new internationalist. They've got an article about how bad it is living in eastern europe, which is fair enough, however the picture above it is obviously faked.
The picture is an old apartment building, which at first glance appears to have an extremely large piece of graffiti - a gun pointing to a circle with "welcome to hell" written inside and flames around the top - on the side. The caption reads "graffiti protest against a soulless highrise existence".
There are a number of problems here. The graffiti is drawn around bends on the building, over windows and possibly open gaps, over peoples washing, and over a tree in the foreground.
So, the only way this could be graffiti is if it were drawn on an advertising poster or brochure, rather than on the building itself. The problem there is that it doesn't look like an advertising picture - the sun is not shining, and it's of the back of the building rather than the front. Most advertisers aren't keen to show you vents and laundry.
The only conclusion then is that it's a fake, and not even a very good one. I could do better than this with photoshop! blue_jez or astatine210 certainly could. NI are guilty of incompetance at best, deliberate lying at worst.
I should cancel my subscription to the new internationalist. They've got an article about how bad it is living in eastern europe, which is fair enough, however the picture above it is obviously faked.
The picture is an old apartment building, which at first glance appears to have an extremely large piece of graffiti - a gun pointing to a circle with "welcome to hell" written inside and flames around the top - on the side. The caption reads "graffiti protest against a soulless highrise existence".
There are a number of problems here. The graffiti is drawn around bends on the building, over windows and possibly open gaps, over peoples washing, and over a tree in the foreground.
So, the only way this could be graffiti is if it were drawn on an advertising poster or brochure, rather than on the building itself. The problem there is that it doesn't look like an advertising picture - the sun is not shining, and it's of the back of the building rather than the front. Most advertisers aren't keen to show you vents and laundry.
The only conclusion then is that it's a fake, and not even a very good one. I could do better than this with photoshop! blue_jez or astatine210 certainly could. NI are guilty of incompetance at best, deliberate lying at worst.
