The disrespect turns my stomach.

[CDNSushi]

Meh... Unfortunately, art has a way of being art for some and rubbish for others. I also cringe when I see sculptures of twisted, rusty iron all over my alma mater's campus... What the **** are those supposed to signify, anyway? (Doesn't help that my wife's cousin is one of the artists responsible for erecting that crap either).

But whether it's crucifixes dipped in urine, or paint expelled from the artist's posterior onto a canvas, artists always seem to try and find new ways to shock and disturb others. In fact, I would say that the castle graffiti is less shocking and disturbing than the examples I mentioned above...

Let the earl have his fun... As others have mentioned, it won't last forever. I can understand from those who are really into historical preservation, this just rubs the wrong way... But that's the way things go.

For those who must have historicity at all costs, I recommend not coming to Japan then, where most medieval castles have been retrofitted with modern interiors, elevators, electricity and running water, much like any other modern building. Sure it's a bit disappointing, but I'm not the one who has to pay the bills on the building and clearly someone figured that making a museum with elevators, drywall and a gift shop would get the tourists to drop more money than preserving the interior like it was in the 1600s.

[KiltedDixon]

A matter of taste...hum...looks like something out of Disneyland.

[Lyle1]

I don't share or appreciate the Earl's taste, but I don't see that he has been disrespectful. It is his castle, and it seems that he did have permission from the appropriate commissions to alter the appearance of an historic building for three years. That said, the commissions could deny his request for an extension.

[RAF]

As long as no damage has been done to the surface material, and the project is not permanent (once it starts to wear away, it will quickly become very shabby,) I think it's entertaining (although not really my taste.) No harm no foul.
Being that the building is an active residence, and undoubtedly permission was granted for the project, it seems the Earl was within his rights. Eccentric nobility stirring the pot? Probably. Am I offended? Not really.
I am a bit conflicted however, and am want to play the devil's advocate. Presumably the building has historic landmark status? As such, even though privately owned, does the Earl not also have an obligation to maintain and preserve the buildings "historically correct" facade? I have to say it's VERY unlikely that permission would be granted for such a project on an historic/landmark U.S. building. (i.e. Paul Revere's house or Hurst's San Simeon "Castle".) Granted, our histories are different and historical value can be subjective.

[RAF]

A matter of taste...hum...looks like something out of Disneyland.

I agree, I expected to see Snow White or one of the dwarves.

[Mickey]

Yeah, not my cup of tea. I certainly wouldn't have done it. I like old buildings and like to see them as they should be. I don't like murals anyway, no matter where they are or how well they are done. But to each his own.

The flag thing however, is rather uncool, IMO.

[piperdbh]

If the mural were something having to do with Scotland, it would be bad enough. To have all those images interposed higgledy-piggledy looks to me like somebody was "less than lucid" and somehow remembered it all, then started painting.

[Bugbear]

If the mural were something having to do with Scotland, it would be bad enough. To have all those images interposed higgledy-piggledy looks to me like somebody was "less than lucid" and somehow remembered it all, then started painting.

Reminds me of the ways of some artists I've known.

"higgledy-piggledy" I like that phrase.

[piperdbh]

"higgledy-piggledy" I like that phrase.

I think Jock wrote it here a day or three ago.

[Cygnus]

It's the man's home - and I don't think there's any doubt that tourism needs a boost during the current economic woes. There are guidelines for historical sites, but the earl seems to have gone through all the proper channels to make this happen. He also seems to be going through those same channels to request that it be permanent.

I also highly doubt that the exterior covering on the castle is the original, especially given how often modern stucco has to be patched or redone, so the "damage" is hardly irreversible.