so banksy now has two approved places to paint. I love how the people advocating for his skills are implying that they should have a choice over who gets to paint over their property as in banksy and others who they approve of......
hmmmmmm
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Really? I guess you missed the part where i was arguing for the relaxation of bylaws so that those who want banksy etc to paint on their property can do so.
No, I caught that. But you're missing an essential element that your relaxation of said bylaws hinges upon; the part where you've quite narrowly defined what constitutes art (when money has been exchanged betweent the artist and the indivudual who commissioned said art) and what constitutes graffiti (unlawful defacement of property). And so we come full circle to my points that a) you do indeed have control issues and b) that your so-called libertarian views are manufactured solely to conveniently serve Jayx1 and Jayx1 alone.
You keep tilting at those windmills, though - I'm sure all those kids from low-income families in Regent Park and other, similar areas of the city are hanging on your every word as to how to rectify this blight on our otherwise spotless metropolis.
GGM
quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
Weakest. argument. ever.
Just saying that when people are writing 15 posts about graffiti like it's one of the top problems plaguing society, you gotta step back and realize that it's spray paint on a commercial brick wall.
Dunno why a post about Banksy even turned into this debate. Find me a person who wouldn't want BANKSY to tag their property and I'll find you an idiot. He's sold millions of dollars in art and even if if you don't like his work, receiving it would be as good as printed money.
PivotTechno
Fruitless debate aside, "Exit Through The Gift Shop" is a hilarious take on the commodification of street art and points to the ridiculousness of the volume of money that gets thrown at something that - as the film also points out - any shmuck with a stencil, paint roller and a few cans of Krylon is capable of creating.
LightsOut
^^^
absolutely hilarious doc! def worth a watch.
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
No, I caught that. But you're missing an essential element that your relaxation of said bylaws hinges upon; the part where you've quite narrowly defined what constitutes art (when money has been exchanged betweent the artist and the indivudual who commissioned said art) and what constitutes graffiti (unlawful defacement of property). And so we come full circle to my points that a) you do indeed have control issues and b) that your so-called libertarian views are manufactured solely to conveniently serve Jayx1 and Jayx1 alone.
You keep tilting at those windmills, though - I'm sure all those kids from low-income families in Regent Park and other, similar areas of the city are hanging on your every word as to how to rectify this blight on our otherwise spotless metropolis.
where did i define art as simply being something where money has been exchanged? All i said was that in order for something to be considered art as opposed to vandalism, they must have permission to do it. Also i said that art is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.
Please dont put words in my mouth.
And if having control issues means that i dont think people should be allowed to deface someone else's private property then i stand guilty of that accusation :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A libertarian tends to believe that an individual has the right to enjoy their private property how they see fit. No different from what I am arguing here.
So what of the property owner who has worked hard to pay off their property by working for years? Or the small business owner trying to make a buck every day who is now out thousands because some idiot wrote all over the front of their building? Do you not think the selfishness here would be the idiot who has absolutely no responsibility to these properties, who did not work a day in their life to pay for this property, who does not pay tax for it, thinking that they have the right to do anything they want to it? Saying that they dont means you have control issues? LOL!
Another nice try though ;)
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
where did i define art as simply being something where money has been exchanged? All i said was that in order for something to be considered art as opposed to vandalism, they must have permission to do it. Also i said that art is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.
Please dont put words in my mouth.
I stand corrected. But your definition shows that you're still quite detached from the very nature of graffiti and the ethos behind it. You could enact such a bylaw and the majority of graff artists out there are still going to thumb their collective noses at you, as a good part of what they do involves working against established boundaries put in place by lawmakers, regardless of who they might be.
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
A libertarian tends to believe that an individual has the right to enjoy their private property how they see fit. No different from what I am arguing here.
And if this right to enjoyment includes protection from graffiti, who's going to enforce that right? The property owner? Hired security? Either way, you end up with a microcosmos of the very governance you protest.
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
So what of the property owner who has worked hard to pay off their property by working for years? Or the small business owner trying to make a buck every day who is now out thousands because some idiot wrote all over the front of their building? Do you not think the selfishness here would be the idiot who has absolutely no responsibility to these properties, who did not work a day in their life to pay for this property, who does not pay tax for it, thinking that they have the right to do anything they want to it? Saying that they dont means you have control issues? LOL!
Ownership of anything immediately implies risk of damage to or loss of whatever it is that is owned. To think that you will ever have anything even close to 100% control over anything you own is illusion in its highest form.
So again, how are you going to protect your property against those who wish to render control over it in some way, shape or form, without becoming the very entity you claim to despise?
Jayx1
Just because i dont agree with something doesnt mean i dont understand it. I understand it perfectly well.
As for enforcement. I am not against law per se. I am against over reaching law. Over reaching law is when the government dictates what you can do with your own property. Over reaching law is when the government decides what you can consume in your own body. Over reaching law is when the police beat and assault you.
Find me a an example of where i have said that laws protecting private property (meaning the owner has a choice as to who and what is on that property) should not exist.
If you look back at my complaints against authority, it usually involves their encroachment onto private property and your right to use it as you see fit. Absolutely no different than what I am stating here.
