3 ms·
It actually robs some of the ephemeral mystique of graffiti. It's really gutsy to put effort into art you know someone can destroy the next day. I consider it
by menacingly 9y ago
It actually robs some of the ephemeral mystique of graffiti. It's really gutsy to put effort into art you know someone can destroy the next day.
I consider it one of the unique constraints of the form.
Of course, in this instance, there was an inviting space for it. As laws go, 90 days to come and preserve the art is pretty reasonable to the property owner, but I can also see that given the unique form, he assumed it could be destroyed.
- alistairSH 9y agoYeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Can the artist force the reconstruction of the wall? If so, that's completely bonkers. I'm with you... the ephemeral quality of graffiti is a defining attribute. Without that, it's not graffiti any more. Not sure that invalidates the legal argument - it could still be art. Thinking locally... there's a ton of redevelopment in my area (Reston, VA). If I were a NIMBY, could I doodle on a few walls, throw paper at the courthouse, and bring it all to a stop?
- icebraining 9y agoYeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Well, you could make arrangements with the owner to cut the section of the wall. I think some Banksi works have already been sold like that.
- ChoGGi 9y agoYeah, how do you preserve art that's painted on a wall owned by another party? Assuming you want to keep art on both side of the wall: attach some sort of steel support to one side of the wall, then cut out the section with a concrete saw, I've seen blade diameters go up to four feet. You'd just need to have the blade on rails.