Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So any slop artist (and one uses that second word loosely) can simply paint something onto property they do not own, and without consent and suddenly it is protected "art"? I've never heard anything so stupid in my entire life.
My money is on an appeal and damage awards being reduced if not thrown out all together.
This is what happens when federal and or local governments write laws governing property they do not own. Began with landmark legislation and has been on a downward slope ever since.
So any slop artist (and one uses that term loosely) can simply paint something onto property they do not own, and without consent and suddenly it is protected "art"? I've never heard anything so stupid in my entire life.
My money is on an appeal and damage awards being reduced if not thrown out all together.
This is what happens when federal and or local governments write laws governing property they do not own. Began with landmark legislation and has been on a downward slope ever since.
I'm kinda wit you on this one
They shouldn't have to pay the $5
Damn gentry, it's all they fault!
Lottery MoD
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
So any slop artist (and one uses that second word loosely)
While I don't agree with this settlement, I think it's wrong to refer to artists who painted at 5 Pointz as 'slop artists'. I realize graffiti isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the pieces on the building were most certainly not slop by any measure. It takes a lot of skill to produce the kind of intricate works , this isn't the same thing as tags scrawled on the streets.
At 5pointz the artists had permission and were assigned space.
It drew graffiti artists from around the world to put their work up.
The guy certainly benefited from the brand that was 5pointz. 6.7M worth of compensation is too high however, unless they are paying a whole ton of artists $10,000.
While I don't agree with this settlement, I think it's wrong to refer to artists who painted at 5 Pointz as 'slop artists'. I realize graffiti isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the pieces on the building were most certainly not slop by any measure. It takes a lot of skill to produce the kind of intricate works , this isn't the same thing as tags scrawled on the streets.
Well that's all fine and good but unless they were given explicit permission to do what they did, to me it's the same as tags scrawled on the streets.
While I don't agree with this settlement, I think it's wrong to refer to artists who painted at 5 Pointz as 'slop artists'. I realize graffiti isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the pieces on the building were most certainly not slop by any measure. It takes a lot of skill to produce the kind of intricate works , this isn't the same thing as tags scrawled on the streets.
True. But it's not on their property. Graffiti (some of it) is a form of art, I'll give you that. But if it's not on their property, it's vandalism. No matter how "great" it looks.
I find that ""art"" painful to my eyes. Can i sue them for damages? I was subjected to the ""art"' against my will. #metoo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
