jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner

There might be a few good pieces but it's mostly garbage. And there's no point having good pieces surrounded by garbage anyway. The only kind of street art that really looks good is when a business commissions an artist to draw something cleanly on a wall.

4007.jpg
 
Ridiculous ruling. The guy has a right to paint his own property.
 
this wasn't some random street crap. this was an entire building complex with huge masterpieces & elaborate artwork projects always going up outside for decades, where there where hundreds of art studios inside. it was actually pretty cool & contributed to an awesome scenic subway commute to & from work.

Repeat, fuck these "artists". They dont own their medium.
 
So, VARA in this case.
The concept of not being able to alter something you "own" isn't new. But this specific law is, understandably, way out of left field for most people. I also suspect it would be less contentious on here if we weren't talking about "graffiti".
 
So vara is basically heritage listed. If thats the case then the property owner is a numbskull.

Doesn’t seem to be the same exactly but similar. Imo it was the property owners responsibility to know this when entering into an agreement with the artists, or buying the building after the fact.
 
So vara is basically heritage listed. If thats the case then the property owner is a numbskull.
It's a similar sort of base concept, but very different in practice as the artist's rights are assumed, not registered. The fundamental purpose is to keep people from misrepresenting an artist by altering their work. This basic idea has lead to a variety of applications and challenges.
 
The concept of not being able to alter something you "own" isn't new. But this specific law is, understandably, way out of left field for most people. I also suspect it would be less contentious on here if we weren't talking about "graffiti".

I was unaware of it (VARA) entirely until this thread. But even the larger issue has been talked about in the recent Jalama ranch thread. The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with your property doesn’t really exist afaik. You can’t even build a second story on to your home without having permits (or even some detached structures).
 
I was unaware of it (VARA) entirely until this thread. But even the larger issue has been talked about in the recent Jalama ranch thread. The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with your property doesn’t really exist afaik. You can’t even build a second story on to your home without having permits (or even some detached structures).
I think it would help if people more clearly understood that the art on those walls was a business. Those artists used their paintings to make a living. Altering them could therefore (and I still think it's a stretch in this case) be construed as a misrepresentation of their work. It's a pretty serious concern for professional muralists in particular, and public artists in general.
 
lol, you don't even own your own property anymore, fuck this.
 
lol, you don't even own your own property anymore, fuck this.

It’s been a really long time since you could knock down your house and build a store (assuming you aren’t zoned for it). There’s no reason for a property owner to expect to be able to do whatever they want. You still have to work within the law.
 
Back
Top