4 ms·

Why does it need to be removed? I understand not wanting to set a precedent, but I wish more organizations adopted a mindset that the original can stay, but no

Why does it need to be removed? I understand not wanting to set a precedent, but I wish more organizations adopted a mindset that the original can stay, but no others are allowed. That leaves space for a little bit of whimsy.

mindfulplay 6y ago
This is a federally protected land, there are no special rules for art unless it was before when such laws were made. FWIW, I find this piece of trash to be a showoff moment for some wannabe 'artist'. Mimicking a movie prop to me sounds like a low-effort, untalented mindset.
- ericmay 6y ago
  The feds say that it's illegal to install structures or art as in this case.
function_seven 6y ago
Just thinking the same thing. There's no rule the you must clamp down the the first instance of a violation. Leave it be, and leave the rule in place. If there's an epidemic of monoliths being planted on federal land, then you uproot them all and say "this is why we can't have nice things." Until or unless that happens, just leave it alone.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Eh, it's not good enough to get that kind of treatment.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    What isn't good to get that kind of treatment. The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. Nothing wrong with changing the law to further that goal. Just give the monolith a permit to make it legit.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? Maybe we can set up a Starbucks next to it and some bathrooms too. It's the famous monolith! Come one come all! > The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. I don't see how litter in my national parks is improving my quality of life.
      - xboxnolifes 6y ago
        > You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? On the other hand, you didn't know it existed until 2 hours ago and now you want it removed.
        ericmay 6y ago
        Yep, you're exactly right. I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, however.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Simply put, I think it is cool and would like to to stick around. For what it is worth, here are a few points to consider. There already is art Throughout the wilderness and I think it is great. Sometimes the art is as simple as a statue or plaque commemorating a historic location, other times it is DIY art like this. The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Also, as far as I can tell, this isn’t in a national park, but on federal BLM land Used for hunting and off-roading.
        cowboysauce 6y ago
        > The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. The national parks service philosophy is very preservationist. They advise people to follow guidelines that are literally called “leave no trace”. Their mission statement uses the word preserve in the first sentence. Hell, part of the reason why Big Bend national park never became an international park (among many others) was because the parks service disagreed with the laxer, conservationist approach that Mexican authorities favored. >The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Those modifications are done carefully to have as little impact on the environment and a lot of types of recreation are completed banned in national parks, hunting being the obvious one. The use of vehicles (including bicycles) is completely banned in federally designated wilderness. What steps did whoever installed this take to make sure that this thing isn’t going to leech metals into an ephemeral watering hole used by wildlife?
- ajharrison 6y ago
  We don’t live in a reasonable world. The world we live in is increasingly more black and white.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  There is a rule for the first instance of the violation. The law applies to all instances of the violation, first, last and everything in between. The thing is the reason why a lot of people are ok with this art thing is because it's not just the first instance of it, but because it's currently quite interesting and tasteful. These are vague qualitative aspects that are hard to define with law and will change over time. Better to have a simple law everyone can understand and agree on then to find some perfect law that fits with our complicated, blurry and inconsistent definition of morality. The more complicated a set of laws are the more likely people will be able to find loop holes to exploit.
cybralx 6y ago
From the article: >The department has not disclosed the exact location of the monolith, fearing explorers may try to seek it out and "become stranded". The big horn sheep wildlife officials were counting are native to many parts of southern Utah, where the terrain is rugged.
- matt-attack 6y ago
  Too late it's been found [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'35.2%22N+109°39'58.5%22W/@38.3430714,-109.6662613,55m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.3431111!4d-109.66625 https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'35.2%22N+109°39'58.5...
  - cybralx 6y ago
    The point still stands, it shouldn't be allowed. It's a natural area for animals and it is a dangerous location. Those well trained/equipped who would normally explore areas like this would be fine -- but this could encourage people with less experience to venture into these areas unprepared for what they will face. That terrain in Utah is no joke and many people have gone missing in those areas.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      That’s a poor justification. The scenery there is already attractive enough that stupid people will already hike there.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      It’s not a natural location for animals. It is federally managed land for camping, hunting, and 4 wheeling. Inexperienced people die venturing into nature all the time. The solution is to warn and educate people, not discourage them from enjoying the outdoors.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Its a big place, and only a few busy Rangers. I imagine folks can just drive in unnoticed. And die of exhaustion or dehydration once they've had a breakdown, lost their way, run out of gas or whatever. Where in that process do we have an opportunity for education? Other than the Darwin sort.
tssva 6y ago
What counts as an original in this context? Would another unauthorized art piece of a different type in the same protected land be an original? Would a metal monolith in a different park count as an original for that park? Would a unauthorized art piece of a different type in a different park be an original? What if one of these originals was 100' high? If you allow the original but remove a 2nd and it is goverment land, are you opening yourself up to legal issues regarding the 1st amendment.
johnflan 6y ago
Happened in Dublin, Ireland a couple of years back - a joke plaque was installed a bridge, the council removed it and after public outcry they reinstalled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Pat_Noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Pat_Noise
balls187 6y ago
Why? Because it was installed illegally. Change the law, and/or file an injunction to stop it's removal if that is your wish. But I firmly believe that The Rule of Law matters in our country. Specific to this case, it's not an organization, it's a federal law. And whimsy might bring cheer to you and I, but it does not really belong in federal law.

mindfulplay 6y ago

This is a federally protected land, there are no special rules for art unless it was before when such laws were made. FWIW, I find this piece of trash to be a showoff moment for some wannabe 'artist'. Mimicking a movie prop to me sounds like a low-effort, untalented mindset.

ericmay 6y ago
The feds say that it's illegal to install structures or art as in this case.

function_seven 6y ago

Just thinking the same thing. There's no rule the you must clamp down the the first instance of a violation. Leave it be, and leave the rule in place. If there's an epidemic of monoliths being planted on federal land, then you uproot them all and say "this is why we can't have nice things." Until or unless that happens, just leave it alone.

ericmay 6y ago
Eh, it's not good enough to get that kind of treatment.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  What isn't good to get that kind of treatment. The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. Nothing wrong with changing the law to further that goal. Just give the monolith a permit to make it legit.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? Maybe we can set up a Starbucks next to it and some bathrooms too. It's the famous monolith! Come one come all! > The purpose of the law is to improve the quality of life. I don't see how litter in my national parks is improving my quality of life.
    - xboxnolifes 6y ago
      > You didn't know that this thing existed like 2 hours ago and now you want to change the laws in our national parks to allow art installations across our parks? Why even have national parks and try to preserve wilderness? On the other hand, you didn't know it existed until 2 hours ago and now you want it removed.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        Yep, you're exactly right. I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, however.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Simply put, I think it is cool and would like to to stick around. For what it is worth, here are a few points to consider. There already is art Throughout the wilderness and I think it is great. Sometimes the art is as simple as a statue or plaque commemorating a historic location, other times it is DIY art like this. The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Also, as far as I can tell, this isn’t in a national park, but on federal BLM land Used for hunting and off-roading.
      - cowboysauce 6y ago
        > The point of national parks isn’t to preserve wilderness for the sake of preservation. The point is recreation. The national parks service philosophy is very preservationist. They advise people to follow guidelines that are literally called “leave no trace”. Their mission statement uses the word preserve in the first sentence. Hell, part of the reason why Big Bend national park never became an international park (among many others) was because the parks service disagreed with the laxer, conservationist approach that Mexican authorities favored. >The point is recreation. This is why they are full of artificial modifications like roads, trails, and sometimes attractions with shops and bathrooms. Those modifications are done carefully to have as little impact on the environment and a lot of types of recreation are completed banned in national parks, hunting being the obvious one. The use of vehicles (including bicycles) is completely banned in federally designated wilderness. What steps did whoever installed this take to make sure that this thing isn’t going to leech metals into an ephemeral watering hole used by wildlife?
ajharrison 6y ago
We don’t live in a reasonable world. The world we live in is increasingly more black and white.
Geminidog 6y ago
There is a rule for the first instance of the violation. The law applies to all instances of the violation, first, last and everything in between. The thing is the reason why a lot of people are ok with this art thing is because it's not just the first instance of it, but because it's currently quite interesting and tasteful. These are vague qualitative aspects that are hard to define with law and will change over time. Better to have a simple law everyone can understand and agree on then to find some perfect law that fits with our complicated, blurry and inconsistent definition of morality. The more complicated a set of laws are the more likely people will be able to find loop holes to exploit.

cybralx 6y ago

From the article: >The department has not disclosed the exact location of the monolith, fearing explorers may try to seek it out and "become stranded". The big horn sheep wildlife officials were counting are native to many parts of southern Utah, where the terrain is rugged.

matt-attack 6y ago
Too late it's been found [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'35.2%22N+109°39'58.5%22W/@38.3430714,-109.6662613,55m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.3431111!4d-109.66625 https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°20'35.2%22N+109°39'58.5...
- cybralx 6y ago
  The point still stands, it shouldn't be allowed. It's a natural area for animals and it is a dangerous location. Those well trained/equipped who would normally explore areas like this would be fine -- but this could encourage people with less experience to venture into these areas unprepared for what they will face. That terrain in Utah is no joke and many people have gone missing in those areas.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    That’s a poor justification. The scenery there is already attractive enough that stupid people will already hike there.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    It’s not a natural location for animals. It is federally managed land for camping, hunting, and 4 wheeling. Inexperienced people die venturing into nature all the time. The solution is to warn and educate people, not discourage them from enjoying the outdoors.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Its a big place, and only a few busy Rangers. I imagine folks can just drive in unnoticed. And die of exhaustion or dehydration once they've had a breakdown, lost their way, run out of gas or whatever. Where in that process do we have an opportunity for education? Other than the Darwin sort.

tssva 6y ago

What counts as an original in this context? Would another unauthorized art piece of a different type in the same protected land be an original? Would a metal monolith in a different park count as an original for that park? Would a unauthorized art piece of a different type in a different park be an original? What if one of these originals was 100' high? If you allow the original but remove a 2nd and it is goverment land, are you opening yourself up to legal issues regarding the 1st amendment.

johnflan 6y ago

Happened in Dublin, Ireland a couple of years back - a joke plaque was installed a bridge, the council removed it and after public outcry they reinstalled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Pat_Noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Pat_Noise

balls187 6y ago

Why? Because it was installed illegally. Change the law, and/or file an injunction to stop it's removal if that is your wish. But I firmly believe that The Rule of Law matters in our country. Specific to this case, it's not an organization, it's a federal law. And whimsy might bring cheer to you and I, but it does not really belong in federal law.