Art vs. Trespassing and Vandalism

Nick_Comstock wrote: So at what point do you not own what you own?

When you live in North America. We don't really "own" property as much as we pay for the right to be there until the Gov decides we have to leave.

That or your renting it from the bank.

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

In no way am I defending it or agreeing with it.

I'm just saying, opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink. Nobody actually cares whether we think the laws should be different.

My opinion really doesn't matter, and nobody asked me if I like the law or not.

My opinion is that the guy's property is his property, and he should be able to do what he wants. If the property fell into disrepair for the last 40 years then shame on the property maintenance code enforcement officials for not doing their job.

But I am also a contractor of 40 years, and I have a pretty good understanding of the laws. I understand I do NOT own what I think I do, and I do NOT have the right to use it as I choose. We only have the right to think so. We are REQUIRED to protect works of art, historic places, handicapped access, property maintenance codes, and a whole lot of crap I don't care about, whether I like it or not.

Making the place look a different kind of E36 M3ty by spray painting it with whatever crap you want doesn't make it yours, and it doesn't make it better. It does, however, make it public domain.

Artists are not a better kind of person just because they know how to break the law and damage other people's property. They are just rebellious and disrespectful azzhats using laws to try to protect their own selfish desires. They are not improving communities (unless the community is part of the decision to advocate their art).

If artists want to paint a E36 M3ty old building, they should buy one and go for it. We have a very nice public art space in our town that is exactly that.

BTW, not that it matters, but I was an art major.

But, apparently NYers feel differently than I, and have passed laws that say differently. Too bad they didn't ask my opinion before they wrote a E36 M3ty law. I'm sure I could have set them straight (because everyone always cares when I say something).

In reply to SVreX:

I care

To be honest, I'd rather look at their art than some of the public "art" displays one of my local governments has spent tax dollars on.

This cost $100,000:

Lawsuit? Way to keep it real, gangsta.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/24600

That is my highschool. At least it says it was paid for by crazy people.

This monstrosity sits in front of the government building. I think it was paid for by some rich crazy people too.

Smarta$$ McPoopyPants wrote: Lawsuit? Way to keep it real, gangsta.

We will fight the inherent injustice in the system by.... utilizing the inherent injustice in the system!

Datsun1500 wrote: If I spray paint your car, it doesn't magically become my car.

Going by some peoples' theories, if the car has been sitting in his yard, decaying, for several years, yes, yes it does magically become your car. Which, in this crowd, wouldn't be hard to do.

Trans_Maro wrote: To be honest, I'd rather look at their art than some of the public "art" displays one of my local governments has spent tax dollars on. This cost $100,000:

I've never sculpted anything before, but I guarantee I would deliver a better dog on a pole for $100k.

t25torx wrote:

T.J. wrote: How were the artists supposed to retreive their art? This is silly. I expected an onion symbol at the end.

This was my thought.. It's not like it's a freaking canvas they can roll up and take with them. It's a brick wall. you can't roll up a brick wall.

I think if I recall the news article on it a year or two ago. The owner created the space to purposely create a productive space for artists. After the artist lost the battle to save the building they were trying to raise funds to remove sections of the building and transport them to a museum or other local. They now claim that the owner didn't let them do that.

So you proclaim you are awesome by giving to the city this artistic site then yank it away. Kind of sucky but yes the artists were using the space on his whim. They should have been very aggressive with working with a building contractor his demo contactor to figure out how to move the most critical sections of value.

Everyone lost something here. But this lawsuit is just picking at scabs.

RealMiniDriver wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: If I spray paint your car, it doesn't magically become my car.

Going by some peoples' theories, if the car has been sitting in his yard, decaying, for several years, yes, yes it does magically become your car. Which, in this crowd, wouldn't be hard to do.

If I invite you to spray paint my derilect car, encourage a foundation that funds the promotion of my art car and my being a nice guy. Accept praise for allowing you to spray paint my car and claim I want it to be painted again and again by people from all over the world.

Yes after many years, I may have every right to have it towed away some night and plant some nice trees. But why not let you take it at that point. Just come and take it. I highly suspect the artist dragged their feet hoping to seize control of the building. Bad call.

Of course this is over simplified opinion.

Advan046 wrote: So you proclaim you are awesome by giving to the city this artistic site then yank it away.

GIVING??

I seriously doubt the owner gave this to this city. Loaned, maybe.

More likely he simply postponed condemnation orders from the city by getting some of his political cronies a photo op in the newspaper for their "love of art".

They were just too chickenE36 M3 to do their job.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Nick_Comstock: That's not the way historic registries work. People assume there is some amount of architectural significance or style to be preserved. In actuality, registires pick a moment in time, and work toward preservation of the structure or neighborhood at that moment. 1965 is old enough to be on a National Historic Registry. So, you can have a neighborhood of split levels that had graffiti on all of the garages in 1975, that has remained essentially unchanged since, except for the deterioration of time. This neighborhood could qualify, and the graffiti would officially be historic. It would be offered all of the protections of a 200 year old Victorian.

not doubting what you posted … but that's a crock of E36 M3 …..

In reply to SVreX:

I guess that is the key to the debate. The way the news article edited there interviews made the owner out to originally be this guy that wanted to give something "special" to the city, a unique space. Yes he did not legally give the property but was claiming to be "giving" the experience of public art to the city.

wbjones wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to Nick_Comstock: That's not the way historic registries work. People assume there is some amount of architectural significance or style to be preserved. In actuality, registires pick a moment in time, and work toward preservation of the structure or neighborhood at that moment. 1965 is old enough to be on a National Historic Registry. So, you can have a neighborhood of split levels that had graffiti on all of the garages in 1975, that has remained essentially unchanged since, except for the deterioration of time. This neighborhood could qualify, and the graffiti would officially be historic. It would be offered all of the protections of a 200 year old Victorian.

not doubting what you posted … but that's a crock of E36 M3 …..

Well, maybe, but you are showing your prejudices.

You are suggesting that certain styles are better/ have more historic value than others.

Victorians get a pass. So do Georgians and French Provincials. And anything in Williamsburg, VA.

How about '50's vintage cubist modern? They are all eligible now.

Harlem brownstones were once considered E36 M3. Now they are historical, and beautifully redone.

There are shotgun shacks in my town that are on the registry. That's a 10' wide 2 room house laid out like a mobile home- LR front, BR rear, door at front and rear. They are called "shotgun houses" because you could walk in the front door with a shotgun, and shoot out the back door as someone is running out.

11 more years and Habitat for Humanity houses will begin being eligible.

"Historic" does not mean expensive, pretty, or a particular style. It doesn't even really mean desirable.

I'm surprised a bunch of graffiti artists didn't see this coming...beware real estate moguls bearing gifts.

Advan046 wrote: In reply to SVreX: I guess that is the key to the debate. The way the news article edited there interviews made the owner out to originally be this guy that wanted to give something "special" to the city, a unique space. Yes he did not legally give the property but was claiming to be "giving" the experience of public art to the city.

Right. And it might backfire on him.

If the property is found to have "recognized stature", he will loose the court battle, and be paying the artists for the destruction of the public art.

It would have been much easier if he gave it to the city.

peter wrote: Incidentally, what we're talking about is this: Not this:

I agree with Nick, I don't like either of those. Around here we have stuff like this:

And this:

BTW: all of that is paint including the man and the ladder. The second pic is of a plain old concrete bridge: the stone, door, and even the ivy is all paint.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Nick_Comstock: That's not the way historic registries work. People assume there is some amount of architectural significance or style to be preserved. In actuality, registires pick a moment in time, and work toward preservation of the structure or neighborhood at that moment.

Absolutely correct. Here in Frederick, MD the entire center of the city is a historical district. Which is understandable since many of the buildings date back to the early 1800's. If you want to do any work on a building in the historical district in addition to the usual permits, etc. the plans must be approved by the "hysterical commission".

This can lead to some interesting battles like when the County Government wanted to change the front door on their building to allow for handicapped access. That one took a year to hash out and even had the Fed's involved at one point.