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.
Fact: The art was not vandalism, it was painted on the building with permission from the owner
The OWNER. Who can do with HIS property as he wishes.
Fact: The murals have become quite famous, drawing tourists and the like. It has become a landmark.
WAS a landmark. So what?
Fact: The law doesn't say you can't remove art, just that you give advance notice. That's all.
Uh, OK
Fact: The removal of the art overnight in cover of darkness by the owner is what broke the law.
Dumb law
Fact: If the owner had given notices and warnings of the art's removal; allowing it to be photographed and preserved; nothing would have come of it.
Again it was HIS property.
.
[/quote]
Unlikely. The owner had the new artwork (polar bear in a blizzard) applied on his property at night due to fears of violence and interference by the graffitists.
Attacking a poster for mentioning a lease while the analysis is clearly spelled out for you is like tilting at windmills. If it gives you a sense of superiority to pounce upon semantics, all the more power to you. Maybe try pouncing upon the OP with his BS claims of vandalism while you're at it.
But here, in the real world, the opinion is well-reasoned and your hysterics aren't.
Attacking a poster for mentioning a lease while the analysis is clearly spelled out for you is like tilting at windmills. If it gives you a sense of superiority to pounce upon semantics, all the more power to you. Maybe try pouncing upon the OP with his BS claims of vandalism while you're at it.
But here, in the real world, the opinion is well-reasoned and your hysterics aren't.
Lease has nothing to do with it, if that is semantics than perhaps you don’t understand the analysis... how many plaintiffs are there? And these were the original group of people that dealt with the owner? The OP is correct that some of these plaintiffs were in fact, vandals.... I am pretty sure that some of the murals were done by vandals and were also plaintiffs...
Lease has nothing to do with it, if that is semantics than perhaps you don’t understand the analysis... how many plaintiffs are there? And these were the original group of people that dealt with the owner? The OP is correct that some of these plaintiffs were in fact, vandals....
You're not a vandal if you're granted a license to use the space, as a matter of definition. I know you think underlying facts are malleable like your synapses, but they aren't.
You're not a vandal if you're granted a license to use the space, as a matter of definition. I know you think underlying facts are malleable like your synapses, but they aren't.
Granted a license? Did this license also imply that anyone at any time could also put up a “mural”!
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.
