If some wealthy person in the 1500's had put two replicas of the statue of David in front of their house they'd have had some angry neighbors as well. (especially if those neighbors were Catholics, which they most likely would have been)
That's not to say that these statues are quite on that level of masterpiece art, but certainly an argument could be made that they rise above the level of kitsch (still a valid if less well regarded genre) into the realm of "legitimate art". In fact a reasonable argument could be made that they exist at the cross section of modern & classically-inspired art. Cultural icons raised to the aesthetics & inspiration of classical masterpieces.
Of course I wouldn't read that precise intent into this owner's display. I mean only that, provided all laws are being followed, the aesthetic taste of one neighbor on their property probably shouldn't be abridge by the differing tastes of another neighbor. But if I was the owner, and trying to make a point about the legitimacy of my right to decorate as I'd like, I'd respond to neighbors' complaints with a few small fig leads satirically placed over the crotches of the robots.
However I'm also unclear on the land ownership here, which probably matters: The article references the sidewalks as a public space, but what is the specific ownership of the land underneath the statues? Where I live, there are defined statutes regarding ownership of areas of public usage like side walks that are, nonetheless, nominally owned by the homeowner & home attached. These things can vary by city and state. In my area, rights and responsibilities are split. I am not responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the sidewalk, but I am responsible for maintaining its usability in the form of snow or other debris removal.
That's not to say that these statues are quite on that level of masterpiece art, but certainly an argument could be made that they rise above the level of kitsch (still a valid if less well regarded genre) into the realm of "legitimate art". In fact a reasonable argument could be made that they exist at the cross section of modern & classically-inspired art. Cultural icons raised to the aesthetics & inspiration of classical masterpieces.
Of course I wouldn't read that precise intent into this owner's display. I mean only that, provided all laws are being followed, the aesthetic taste of one neighbor on their property probably shouldn't be abridge by the differing tastes of another neighbor. But if I was the owner, and trying to make a point about the legitimacy of my right to decorate as I'd like, I'd respond to neighbors' complaints with a few small fig leads satirically placed over the crotches of the robots.
However I'm also unclear on the land ownership here, which probably matters: The article references the sidewalks as a public space, but what is the specific ownership of the land underneath the statues? Where I live, there are defined statutes regarding ownership of areas of public usage like side walks that are, nonetheless, nominally owned by the homeowner & home attached. These things can vary by city and state. In my area, rights and responsibilities are split. I am not responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the sidewalk, but I am responsible for maintaining its usability in the form of snow or other debris removal.