I never tire of castle pictures, especially since we don't have them over here.
I was in mid morning so I took Jessy a different, and far longer route which took me to a different anglt on the castle.
I like the artwork in the arch--nice photo and interesting art. Your castle is nice, I assume you have spare rooms for visitors, right? :)
I was blinking amazed at the graffiti. I'd not heard a word of it. Yes there'd be rooms, but oddly not anywhere near as many as you'd think. 80% of it is build along the lines of a crusader fortress so you could double or even triple the space today with thin walls. And even I, who knows darn well it's history, forget that it's not as big as you'd think.
I agree with Ed... castle photos never get old. You couldn't have asked for a better backdrop than those clouds.
I didn't notice the people until just now. But they give a good feel as to the size of the thing.We have a good few castles round about. They were built to steal land from my people :-). That one is a Butler( De Buitléar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_dynasty.
That's a clear beautiful shot of the castle. Did you do something different to it, different settings? Maybe it's the beautiful sky, but it is so crisp, striking.I had to open the larger arch photo to get a better look at the art work. From the first photo I thought it was a snail (of course I'm not wearing glasses this early in the am). What is the significance of the child coloring? There is what looks to be tagging on the bottom portion, is that part of the piece,like graffiti art, or did someone get their hands on it. I noticed there's a name on the crayon box, the artist perhaps. I'll have to look it up. Street art is so interesting, there's so much symbolism in it...there's a lot to look at in this one.
This makes me feel better (a snail) because when I first looked at it on my phone, I thought it was an octopus! (and I did have on my glasses)
No, the settings are pretty much the same. But it's one of those buildings that you need to be a good distance to get a good shot. And I was in that shot, perhaps, 150 yards away. I saw the graffiti through trees as I approached the underside of the bridge. The footbridge in the photos is under the carriageway. But I didn't know what it was at first either. I had to stand before it to see that it was a kid playing with crayons or chalk. And not a clue of the significance, nor the why's of the kid being black. You know I'd not seen the name until you mentioned it :-D.
Had a half day at school today due to a night parent meeting so took a little free time to look him up. It's a neat story. http://www.mickminogue.com/#!ossory-youth/c14ql
Yes, I tend to worry when I read/hear about such initiatives. This one worked. How do I know, well the mural hasn't been defaced. People, meaning kids, think it's good. But in general when a town tried to 'engage with disaffected youth' it's code for keeping the next generation of jail fodder busy and if they could legally put them on a treadmill for months to break them they would. Amazing all the same you could find out more than I could, even though I got to his site. Still you had to get even for me telling you about the statues up i the Getty (every time I spell that name I put in an 'h'. And I sure as shootin don't write ghetto often enough that it becomes muscle memory :-). )
I was thinking that when I read the story. It sounded good, but whether it was all happening and if the kids even cared is not something that was addressed. But, if you look at the photo on his site and your photo, the "tagging" at the bottom of yours isn't there. So they are using it, and as you said, respecting the main image. Yep, now we are even! ;) No, not at all. The internet sure makes it easy. The idea of art (street art in this case) used to beautify or as outreach is something that is really powerful. I like to read about those programs. Kids in art aren't something cities usually commission (it's usually some public figure). It had to have significance.