5 ms·

Banksy is talking about moral right, not legal right. This is obvious unless you're being intentionally dense. He is saying that you have cosmic permission to p

by ouid 5y ago

Banksy is talking about moral right, not legal right. This is obvious unless you're being intentionally dense. He is saying that you have cosmic permission to perform acts of vandalism to advertisements. As long as you don't get caught, you're alright with your chosen deity or whatever. It's a pretty strong philosophical argument in that direction, in my opinion. If you're disagreeing with that point, you should be explicit. You're arguing that these companies are paying for the advertising, but they aren't paying you to throw the rocks at your head, they're paying the building from which they obtain their vantage point. I don't think that actually qualifies as "paying for it", morally.

boneitis 5y ago
> moral right, not legal right Thank you, this pretty neatly covers what I would have liked to add but couldn't find words for. I find it pleasing to approach his approach as works and displays of art. Are they explicit calls to aggressive, rebellious arms? Maybe. Is he selling out from commercializing on his art? Perhaps. I don't really care to respond directly to either of those questions here. Mainly want to give a shoutout to his Barcode stencil, which made a really big impression on me so far (I haven't finished the Banksy book that I found it in) and that I think is pretty fitting here. Looking around on the web, it seems there are variants, but the one with the leopard is great.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blackhaz 5y ago
I am afraid extending personal "moral rights" to the domain of property damage is a risky avenue to pursue. Who defines what's moral? I also don't agree with that the failure of enforcement by the society automatically grants anybody a moral right to break the law. What about all uncaught murderers? Actually, it is interesting we transverse to physical damage here. I wouldn't equate seeing outdoor ads to receiving bodily harm, to a theft of a piece of "consciousness" or attention - eh, maybe... I don't know much about philosophy, but what if we can assume that legal rights end and moral rights begin only when we deal with someone's natural rights, is this tenable? If we take the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, as long as there is no danger to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should not deem ourselves as being in the power to judge what property we can damage ourselves. Sounds like something I could live with.
- ouid 5y ago
  You are not arguing the point. Billboard advertisers do not transact with you for your attention. They are trampling all over your property without consent. The argument is that you have a right to prevent that from happening. That doesn't extend to a moral right to burn the building down, I obviously have no moral right to go no further than what is necessary to reverse that.

by ouid 5y ago

boneitis 5y ago

> moral right, not legal right Thank you, this pretty neatly covers what I would have liked to add but couldn't find words for. I find it pleasing to approach his approach as works and displays of art. Are they explicit calls to aggressive, rebellious arms? Maybe. Is he selling out from commercializing on his art? Perhaps. I don't really care to respond directly to either of those questions here. Mainly want to give a shoutout to his Barcode stencil, which made a really big impression on me so far (I haven't finished the Banksy book that I found it in) and that I think is pretty fitting here. Looking around on the web, it seems there are variants, but the one with the leopard is great.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blackhaz 5y ago

I am afraid extending personal "moral rights" to the domain of property damage is a risky avenue to pursue. Who defines what's moral? I also don't agree with that the failure of enforcement by the society automatically grants anybody a moral right to break the law. What about all uncaught murderers? Actually, it is interesting we transverse to physical damage here. I wouldn't equate seeing outdoor ads to receiving bodily harm, to a theft of a piece of "consciousness" or attention - eh, maybe... I don't know much about philosophy, but what if we can assume that legal rights end and moral rights begin only when we deal with someone's natural rights, is this tenable? If we take the Declaration of Independence as a starting point, as long as there is no danger to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should not deem ourselves as being in the power to judge what property we can damage ourselves. Sounds like something I could live with.

ouid 5y ago
You are not arguing the point. Billboard advertisers do not transact with you for your attention. They are trampling all over your property without consent. The argument is that you have a right to prevent that from happening. That doesn't extend to a moral right to burn the building down, I obviously have no moral right to go no further than what is necessary to reverse that.