Vandalism categorized as art and building owners can’t remove it and have to pay the vandals $6,000,000+? Who would have thought something like this could even be true.
i don’t always agree with everything you post but I definitely do in this case. It’s not art…it’s vandalism. You want to express yourself? Fine,.. spray paint your own property.
Allowing someone to paint walls is one thing. It still seems a bit absurd that he didn’t own the “art” on his own building. My estimate is that no graffiti is art, but what do I know?
Who would have imagined that he would need to protect himself contractually for this kind of thing?
Vandalism categorized as art and building owners can’t remove it and have to pay the vandals $6,000,000+? Who would have thought something like this could even be true.
i don’t always agree with everything you post but I definitely do in this case. It’s not art…it’s vandalism. You want to express yourself? Fine,.. spray paint your own property.
It’s not vandalism. The building owner allowed the graffiti artists to create art on the walls of his building.
I stand corrected and admittedly didn’t read as carefully as I should have. My objection is to graffiti in general, not where it’s been pre-approved.
Yup, and the artists might never have brought suit if the new owners would have let them retrieve their work.
Allowing someone to paint walls is one thing. It still seems a bit absurd that he didn’t own the “art” on his own building. My estimate is that no graffiti is art, but what do I know?
Who would have imagined that he would need to protect himself contractually for this kind of thing?