xer0s wrote:
They destroyed the natural formation of the bedrock. Defacing public natural areas for the sake of art and mystery is not cool...
ok karen.
xer0s wrote:
They destroyed the natural formation of the bedrock. Defacing public natural areas for the sake of art and mystery is not cool...
What if I took a can of spray paint and tagged those rock walls around the monolith? Would that still be ok?Κracus wrote:Ultimately people just want to be able to tell someone else what to do. For whatever sad reason, they feel like they have a reason to whine and other people should accept and do their bidding. I find this outraged type of attitude stems from unrealistic expectations of others. There's reasonable expectations like don't murder me but then there's others... This art piece for example is well crafted and otherwise a neat piece out in the middle of nowhere. They didn't deface or destroy anything, they added to the overall appeal of that location. This is a net gain type of deal. Now, placing an obelisk in the middle of a traffic intersection of course would be not so great. Being able to differentiate the two is something you need to be mature enough to understand. As long as you're rigid in your expectations of others you'll never really be happy because you'll forever be let down when those expectations aren't met.
Clever, did you see that on a t-shirt at thinkgeek?Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
So clever... :rolleyes:Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
I heard it first from George Takei but I'm sure it's existed before he said it.Transient wrote:Clever, did you see that on a t-shirt at thinkgeek?Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
You're literally asking me to explain common sense to you. I'm doing you a favor by not replying and treating you like an adult and assuming you know exactly what I'm talking about.xer0s wrote:So clever... :rolleyes:Κracus wrote:there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.
And yet you can’t respond...
But I’m not arguing the quality of the “art”. Like I said, it’s not even that well done. Pretty simple really. But if a MS13 had sprayed the rock, or if Banksy had tagged it, it’s irrelevant. You are defacing a natural structure. A piece of public land. Why should anyone get to decide what is worthy of violating a public space?seremtan wrote:nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration
i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here
No you’re not, you fucking idiot... :olo:Κracus wrote: You're literally asking me to explain common sense to you.
Good question, why should anyone get to decide that? Including the people that decided you can't.xer0s wrote: Why should anyone get to decide what is worthy of violating a public space?
LOL if someone did that out in the middle of nowhere, I would have to call that number....seremtan wrote:nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration
i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here
I love you, Jerry, and I want you to know that I am not being bellend when I reply to these. Intelligent debate is good and helps us broaden our horizons <3Eraser wrote:Exactly because Banksy is widely recognized and successful, I'd say he's being cherry picked. It's hard to argue that Banksy's art isn't meaningful, thought provoking or doesn't lead to discussion. His art is appreciated and seen by many as a net plus to whatever the artwork was placed on. I certainly wouldn't want to argue about the (non-monetary) value of Banksy's art nor would I argue that he needs permission to place his artwork. But since art is such a subjective thing, the local neighborhood hoodlum who spraypaints his initials on every surface he can find could use the same argumentation. If I were to draw huge penises on the walls of buildings to "provoke thought", people wouldn't be as appreciative of it. Would my argument of being thought provoking and the topic of discussion be enough to warrant the drawing of penises everywhere? I doubt it'd stick. The trouble here is that it's hard to define a hard line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Such is the nature of art I guess.Don Carlos wrote: I'd argue that Banksy is the most most well known artist that regularly bypasses laws in the name of his/her art and therefore is entirely on point.
Art, at times, is meant to be rebellious. Artists use rebellion as a way to empower and inspire individuals to overcome adversity and create a positive impact in communities. Or it's done to inspire wonder, provoke thought and thus, discussion.
I interpreted Whiskey's statement about needing permission first to spring from the idea of the latter type of art rather than what Banksy does. For me, a blanket "but art is meant to be rebellious (just look at Banksy)" statement is too wide a definition of what's acceptable. It also puts you on a slippery slope where actually harmful things could be done in the name of art. What if I tortured an animal in the name of art? Would that be OK, because there's some sort of deeper meaning behind it? So yeah, I think Banksy is a very safe example to come up with.
Let me first say I don't have a problem with this particular piece but I don't appreciate it as art very much either. It's also not hard to recognize the intention behind it. I think it's too simple, actually. I'm sure something similar could've been done by a few drunk teenagers and people would call it vandalism, not art. There we're right back at the "art" label not being a get-out-of-jail-free card.Don Carlos wrote:So far, this is exactly what has been done with this piece. If you fail to recognise it's intensions then more of this kind of thing is needed, to ensure that next time you do recognise what is going on.
As I write this I find myself tempted by writing things like "if a piece of art is damaging, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable" but truth is, it's hard to make general sweeping statements like that. Dangerous is pretty self-explanatory, but what's damaging or otherwise unacceptbale? A butt-ugly spraypainted tag on a building wall is, IMO, unacceptable (despite this particular example being a homage to lost kin), but it might not be for someone else. A colorful artistic work right next to it is something I'm fine with. Would either "artist" need permission for their works? Hard to say. But IMO one of these two gets to call themselves an artist and the other is a vandal.
So tl;dr: I'm not arguing artists like Banksy should ask permission to do something, but the "but it's art" argument can't be applied to everything.