there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.

there are two kinds of people. those who can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete data.

Clever, did you see that on a t-shirt at thinkgeek?

So clever...

And yet you can’t respond...

nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration

i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here

You're literally asking me to explain common sense to you.

Why should anyone get to decide what is worthy of violating a public space?

nerd0s, your point about the quality of the alteration is taken - it's just that this is a pretty tasteful and aesthetically pleasing alteration

i'd agree with you if someone had spraypainted CALL 0800 555 4756 FOR GREAT HEAD on the rock, but that's not what happened here

Exactly because Banksy is widely recognized and successful, I'd say he's being cherry picked. It's hard to argue that Banksy's art isn't meaningful, thought provoking or doesn't lead to discussion. His art is appreciated and seen by many as a net plus to whatever the artwork was placed on. I certainly wouldn't want to argue about the (non-monetary) value of Banksy's art nor would I argue that he needs permission to place his artwork. But since art is such a subjective thing, the local neighborhood hoodlum who spraypaints his initials on every surface he can find could use the same argumentation. If I were to draw huge penises on the walls of buildings to "provoke thought", people wouldn't be as appreciative of it. Would my argument of being thought provoking and the topic of discussion be enough to warrant the drawing of penises everywhere? I doubt it'd stick. The trouble here is that it's hard to define a hard line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Such is the nature of art I guess.

I interpreted Whiskey's statement about needing permission first to spring from the idea of the latter type of art rather than what Banksy does. For me, a blanket "but art is meant to be rebellious (just look at Banksy)" statement is too wide a definition of what's acceptable. It also puts you on a slippery slope where actually harmful things could be done in the name of art. What if I tortured an animal in the name of art? Would that be OK, because there's some sort of deeper meaning behind it? So yeah, I think Banksy is a very safe example to come up with.



Let me first say I don't have a problem with this particular piece but I don't appreciate it as art very much either. It's also not hard to recognize the intention behind it. I think it's too simple, actually. I'm sure something similar could've been done by a few drunk teenagers and people would call it vandalism, not art. There we're right back at the "art" label not being a get-out-of-jail-free card.

As I write this I find myself tempted by writing things like "if a piece of art is damaging, dangerous or otherwise unacceptable" but truth is, it's hard to make general sweeping statements like that. Dangerous is pretty self-explanatory, but what's damaging or otherwise unacceptbale? A butt-ugly spraypainted tag on a building wall is, IMO, unacceptable (despite this particular example being a homage to lost kin), but it might not be for someone else. A colorful artistic work right next to it is something I'm fine with. Would either "artist" need permission for their works? Hard to say. But IMO one of these two gets to call themselves an artist and the other is a vandal.

So tl;dr: I'm not arguing artists like Banksy should ask permission to do something, but the "but it's art" argument can't be applied to everything.

Now it's mysteriously missing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/us/monolith-utah-disappeared.html

.....

As for where I stand with the monolith art; it's in the middle of know where and has seemingly been there for quite a while. It's discovery has sparked conversation and wonder..."what if" moments for a lot of people. Based on 2001 A Space Odyssey, which many people regard as one of the finest pieces of forward thinking art the world has ever seen, by a director in Kubric that people see as a geniuses artist.

Blurred lines everywhere

The plot thickens...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Utah.html

Some observers also pointed out the object's resemblance to the avant-garde work of John McCracken (left) an American artist who lived for a time in nearby New Mexico, and died in 2011. He was known for his freestanding sculptures in the shape of pyramids, cubes, or sleek slabs (right)

On Wednesday morning, a similar monument appeared at the top of Atascadero’s Pine Mountain, and sparked similar patronage. Dozens of local hikers made the trek to the top of Pine Mountain to view the object.

In the video, a group of three men are seen pushing the statue over and chanting "America First" and "Christ is King." The men, one of whom was wearing a "Make Donald Drumpf Again" headband, called part of the monolith's construction "gay" then replaced it monolith with a wooden cross.

It really wasn't though, the whole fragile ecosystem line is complete bullshit. There's literally a road leading there less than a mile away! All this shows is that I was right, someone figured they could do it because the law was on their side so they did it. It wasn't about the ecosystem it was about imposing their will over others. It wasn't bothering anyone and it wasn't impacting some fragile ecosystem. Those are just excuses, really fucking lame excuses coming from fucking climbers of all people. You know, people that routinely drill holes in rocks to climb shit. Fucking hypocrites. This goes back to what I said previously, people that get upset this was put up to the point where they go there to take it down don't give two shits about it. If they didn't know it was there it would still be there today and the reason it would is because it's not fucking affecting anything being there. They just saw an opportunity to impose their will on others and decided since they wouldn't get any pushback that they'd go ahead and do it because they can. That's it, it's exactly the type of person who goes power crazy when given any kind of authority over others. The worst kind of people.

“People arrived by car, by bus, by van, helicopter, planes, trains, motorcycles and E-bikes and there isn’t even a parking lot. There aren’t bathrooms — and yes, pooping in the desert is a misdemeanor. There was a lot of that. There are no marked trails, no trash cans, and it’s not a user group area. There are no designated campsites. Each and every user on public land is supposed to be aware of the importance and relevance of this information and the laws associated with them,” he said.

Since the monolith’s discovery, the BLM — which owns the land where it was planted — pleaded with the public to avoid the area due to its remote location and hostile but fragile terrain.

But people began showing up in large crowds to see it.

The result, according to BLM spokeswoman Kimberly Finch, was resource degradation of vegetation flattened by vehicles, toilet paper tossed around and human feces on the ground. Several passenger vehicles had to be towed as well because of the high clearance required on the rugged roads.