Star Wars yarn bomb

December 31st, 2012 | By | 2 Comments »

Yarn-bombing-R2D2-in-in-Bellingham-Washington-USA-2

The last time I wrote about yarn bombing, I criticized the lack of differentiation in the craft and was skeptical of it being classified as “street art”. Even with that bias, I find this R2D2 yarn bomb absolutely brilliant. The piece was up in Bellingham, Washington and created by Sarah Rudder for International Yarn Bombing Day. As cool as it is, the piece was only left up for the day before the artist took it back home to reuse it and improve it for next year (expect speakers and legs). That’s fair, I would probably want to hold on to something that looked that awesome too. “Even if I had left it out to weather the elements, R2D2 is made out of an acrylic yarn that wouldn’t bleed, fade, or stretch for quite some time,” the artist says on her blog. It’s great that she put that in that consideration, but the piece wasn’t left up so it doesn’t make too much of a difference. As incredible as it looks, this supports the criticism that yarn bombing is a “do it for the photo” method of street art.

Yarn-bombing-R2D2-in-in-Bellingham-Washington-USA-1

Yarn-bombing-R2D2-in-in-Bellingham-Washington-USA-3

Photos by Sarah Rudder

Via Street Art Utopia


Category: Photos | Tags: , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770978057 Hieronymus Thatsme

    Thank you for calling it for what it is: a photo op. There are many examples too, beyond “yard bombing”, as I’m sure many of your readers can think of or are guilty of creating. I think of a work by Mark Jenkins, which though is one of my favorites examples of his work, and has a great little story behind it, was in fact a faux installation for the purpose of a photograph. I’m not ratting the artist out here, or the museum that set it up. They had all the best intentions of creating a more permanent installation but due to issues with the city the project was non-permanent. Very non-permanent. I dig Jenkins concepts regardless. But the fact remains the work can not be defined as public art work, let alone “street”, “graffiti” or anything of that nature. In this work the image result only exists at the time of the photographing of it, but you have the impression of something more. But hey, photographs can be worth their weight and be something in themselves that have more power than the original thing it attempted to document in the first place. Banksy comes to mind in this regard too. His graffiti is an example of how one photograph of a new work can and will hit the world stage via the internet. Making the work larger than the thing itself. But then what happens with his works? Stolen, auctioned, vandalized, left to be, or whatever insane process thereafter. The bottom line is: outdoor public engagement with art as a part of our daily living is much more interesting than commenting on it here, in the virtual world of the internet. Like I just did.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jessiehemmons Jessie Hemmons

    Public art isn’t permanent so it’s great when someone can catch it in a photo. It’s great when it lasts, but because it isn’t paint, it probably won’t. Doesn’t make it any less credible to me.