meditations on illegal vandalization and other perils of the varmint laden world we live in

[nomeus]

Throwing in my 2 cents.... im totally against vandalizing private property and I always say the same thing....how would you feel if I came to your (graffiti artist) house and sprayed my name all over it? What if it was your parents house or maybe the business thats been in the family for generations? Would you care if I painted a big penis and/or swastika all over it? I say penis and swastika because believe me, thats what ive seen the most of when im out shooting in these abandoned buildings. Think about that for a minute.

*steps off soapbox*

[Ocklawaha]

Throwing in my 2 cents.... im totally against vandalizing private property and I always say the same thing....how would you feel if I came to your (graffiti artist) house and sprayed my name all over it? What if it was your parents house or maybe the business thats been in the family for generations? Would you care if I painted a big penis and/or swastika all over it? I say penis and swastika because believe me, thats what ive seen the most of when im out shooting in these abandoned buildings. Think about that for a minute.

*steps off soapbox*

I DEMAND equal 'exposure' for vagina's!

OCK

[JaxNative68]

^ +1

[Dog Walker]

The only "street art" in Jacksonville is on the side of CoRK, the Sean Thurston mural on the side of Fans and Stoves in 5 Points and that really neat fish made of old records on the side of a building on Forsyth Street.  All the rest is just really crude tags and initials.  It is the visual version of pee on posts.

And if you don't have permission to put it there, it's just vandalism, no matter how skillfully executed.

[Adam W]

I have no problem with art. But a street artist has no more right to make a unilateral decision to decorate public property than I do to go into his room and hang up posters of Celine Dion.

[Dog Walker]

A street artist gets permission or paid for his/her work.  All the rest are graffiti vandals.  It's a very important difference.

[Adam W]

A street artist gets permission or paid for his/her work.  All the rest are graffiti vandals.  It's a very important difference.

If that's true, then some of the pictures in the story were pictures of vandalism.

[Dog Walker]

A street artist gets permission or paid for his/her work.  All the rest are graffiti vandals.  It's a very important difference.

If that's true, then some of the pictures in the story were pictures of vandalism.

You are absolutely correct!

[Adam W]

A street artist gets permission or paid for his/her work.  All the rest are graffiti vandals.  It's a very important difference.

If that's true, then some of the pictures in the story were pictures of vandalism.

You are absolutely correct!

I totally agree with you, btw.

[Dog Walker]

I was wondering how long it would take before Stephen jumped in.  LOL!  He has a real sore toe about this whole area of discussion.

Just rattling your cage, Stephen.   

[Adam W]

Gentlemen, please don't hijack the conversation about street art with your objections to illegal graffiti.

If you cannot be bothered to read the actual article, then sounding ignorant on the subject is the natural outcome

I DID read the article Stephen and there are pictures in the article of illegal wheat pasting. I'm not hijacking the thread and I'm not the only one in this thread to offer a similar sentiment in my comments.

Edit: If I misconstrued what you meant by 'street art,' perhaps you weren't clear enough in your article. And you also mention well-known vandals, such as Banksy. I didn't read a sentence in your article that specified that street artists, when utilising a public space, always obtain permission first.

[Adam W]

I was wondering how long it would take before Stephen jumped in.  LOL!  He has a real sore toe about this whole area of discussion.

Just rattling your cage, Stephen.   

It just sounds dumb.

It's like assuming that all photography is either child pornography or an invasion of privacy.

Would you assume that anyone identified as a Christian is automatically likely to murder a Jewish person that won't convert?

This sounds just the same

Hey Stephen - come on, man. Surely you could've worked Hitler into that comment. Try harder next time 

[Adam W]

I was wondering how long it would take before Stephen jumped in.  LOL!  He has a real sore toe about this whole area of discussion.

Just rattling your cage, Stephen.   

It just sounds dumb.

It's like assuming that all photography is either child pornography or an invasion of privacy.

Would you assume that anyone identified as a Christian is automatically likely to murder a Jewish person that won't convert?

This sounds just the same

Hey Stephen - come on, man. Surely you could've worked Hitler into that comment. Try harder next time 

I guess I was afraid that my comment would be illegal graffiti

[groan]