> There is no legal form of performance art that destroys/takes other people's property without their consent. There are most certainly legal forms of performa

> There is no legal form of performance art that destroys/takes other people's property without their consent. There are most certainly legal forms of performance art that steal people's time without their consent [1]. How is stealing an hour of someone's time (e.g. by worsening traffic during their commute for a week) qualitatively different from stealing $2 from the same person? I mean in a moral/ethical sense; legally these are different because the law generally doesn't do a good job of treating time as a limited commodity people have and that can be taken away from them, as far as I can tell. That's a problem with our laws, I will grant that. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/californias-1970s-conceptual-art-comes-home-to-berkeley-museum-of-art.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/californias-1970s-conce... cites an example. If it's _too_ egregious as in http://hyperallergic.com/332844/why-did-the-tree-cross-the-road-because-performance-art/ http://hyperallergic.com/332844/why-did-the-tree-cross-the-r... it can in fact lead to legal charges, but note that if the tree had just stopped the performance at the first police request it would still have stolen time from people and gotten away with no consequences. Even as it was, I doubt the punishment will be what it would have been if the same person had stolen a few dollars each from dozens of people.