"Man paints own building. Graffiti vandals devastated."
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
But that canvas isn't nearly as large and visible as what you can get on display by covering a huge brick wall.
Plus you're still not factoring in the cost of brushes and oil-or-arcrylic paints.
In any case, the main thing isn't the cost of supplies... it's the visibility. It's too difficult to get canvas art looked at.
Wow... you can get a lot of acylic and oil paints for $10.
And you can get a pretty good airbrush for just over $100.
I airbrush using enamels and acrylics. (And not on people's private property)
Perhaps we can stretch really far and call it art, just like the villainous building owner that dared to refer to his situation as 'vandalism'
As if everybody wanted to see impressionistic and abstract art when it first came out.
The difference is, if you go the canvas-and-oils route, you have to deal with pompous, navel-gazing gallary operators.
It's really just a form of abstract advertising. TV advertising gets thrown in your face all the time.
TV advertisers think of themselves as artists of a sort... they have awards ceremonies to pat each other on the back about their advertising... no different than if graphiti artists were to get organized and have awards ceremonies over their stuff.
But artists persisted.
Gallery operators who know what people will want to see.
That is where changing the channel comes in. I often exercise that option during ads.
Good ideas. Or volunteering with kids in an art program that doesn't involve spray painting private property.
One thing you seem to forget in your rant for artistic privileges.....
This was private property.....without permission...you dig?
By the way your music sucks....
now dig this..... 181.FM
*Sigh*... in the first place I haven't been "ranting for artistic privilege". Art just happens. When life is boiled down to its essentials, art is one of them, and you're never going to stop it without exterminating the human species.
What I *have* been talking about is better ways to handle the situation.
In the second place, I haven't been disputing that it was private property... re-read my posts. I've been saying that the owner had an opportunity, and for some dumb reason he took the Simian-Americanus approach, which was to start clobbering.
At first I didn't know the building was due for demolition, so I figured he could have quietly encouraged it to go further by "accidently" leaving the doors open so the rougue artists would do the interior too, whereupon he could have then enameled the walls, done some grounds work with turf and benches and interesting night-lights, then cleaned up the interior with interesting lighting and benches, plus set up some popcorn kiosks outside and a Starbucks with a gift-shop on the inside, and voila, he comes off looking a like a hero of the people's art while turning a derelect building into a money-maker. Duh.
Further, when the artists realize he's making money from their work, they'll start freaking about not getting royalties, and *that's* when the issue of spray-painting private property comes to the fore. Eleven judges out of twelve would say the artists surrendered their royalty rights when they chose to fizz their creations all over someone else's property without permision, and voila, a precedent is set making it clear to artists that if their work turns out to have value and if they ever expect to collect from it, then they'd better get some permision. Sure they're operating as rogues now, but wait until they find out their work might have economic value, and watch how fast they start clammoring for a cut.
Then I was told the building was due for demolition, which makes it seem kind'a petty that he'd whitewash it, unless he's got a lawyer telling him there might be a precedent somewhere saying he'd be destroying public art if people in the neighborhood have come to enjoy the view, but in any case, he *still* could have done something like hire some photographers to do a detailed photographic record of all the works, whereupon, after demolition, he could bind it all into a coffee-table book, and sell it under the pathos of the tragedy of development and how it destroys the people's art. It seems so obvious.
What music?By the way your music sucks....
It's a classic-rock station. What about it?now dig this..... 181.FM
Last edited:
*Sigh*...
Your statement is proof You didn't even try the link
That's what happens when you don't look at the other side of a situation.
Yes, I did. It's a subset of stuff you can get on Sirius Satellite, mostly geared towards nostalgia stuff sorted by decade.
And what's your point about "looking at the other side of the equation". Re-read my last post. Everything I've been saying has been about being able to stand back and look at the situation from all points.
Sounds like somebody left the door open in a recording studio and some hilbillies broke in.
Harsh, lol.
But I definitely don't think we'll be hearing any Zeppelin on that station.
Hmm... so I did a check, and there's more than one 181 FM stations.
181.FM - Your Lifestyle... Your Music! ~ Free Internet Radio ~
181.FM - Your Lifestyle... Your Music! ~ Free Internet Radio ~
Watch your mouth now, or I might hit you with my Banjo....Sounds like somebody left the door open in a recording studio and some hilbillies broke in.
