1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Whelp...The world must be ending...

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by danmarino, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Judge awards graffiti artists $6.7M after works destroyed

    "A judge awarded $6.7 million Monday to graffiti artists who sued after dozens of spray paintings were destroyed on the walls of dilapidated warehouse buildings torn down to make room for high-rise luxury residences."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...m-after-works-destroyed/ar-BBJ3gZC?li=BBnbfcL


    So, you can spray paint the sides of buildings you don't own and then when the owner destroys the buildings in order to construct another, bigger, better building, you can sue him?

    Absurd...
     
    aesop and Fin-O like this.
  2. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    6,905
    5,237
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Gotta love the world we live in these day's.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  3. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Old Man Yells at Cloud
     
    Ohio Fanatic and ToddPhin like this.
  4. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    lol...Come on man! Some people who vandalized someone else's property got $7 million when the rightful owner tore down his own building that they vandalized. You don't find that absurd?
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  5. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    6,905
    5,237
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Hey! He didn’t identify it as vandalism.

    That’s racist of you.


    All your fault
     
  6. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Just a Guy Club Member

    15,833
    12,528
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Virginia
    It's insanity. If a person paints on something that doesn't belong to him, he has to right to what happens to it.

    And unless a building has been officially deemed a landmark, then the owner can tear it down if they want.
     
    aesop likes this.
  7. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Obviously this is not true or he would have lost the case.

    The owner had the opportunity to give the artist time to be able to retrieve his art from the building.
     
  8. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Just a Guy Club Member

    15,833
    12,528
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Virginia
    How is that even possible though. The pictures I saw were of a multi story wall.
     
  9. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    According to the article, by law the artist should have been given 10 months to figure it out.

    The problem with society is that people react before reading.
     
    Two Tacos and ToddPhin like this.
  10. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Club Member

    36,624
    17,306
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    The buildings werent vandalized. The bonafide artists were given permission to create their works, which in turn drew tourism, improved that community, and thus heavily increased the value of the property to $200 million and out of the artists' buying range who wanted to retain the works. They deserve the $7 million just for the increased value they generated for the property. That's what the owner gets for allowing the artists to spend an incredible amount of time and their own money on essentially turning those dilapidated walls into an art museum and then not allowing the artists the opportunity to rescue their works.
     
    Two Tacos and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  11. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Club Member

    36,624
    17,306
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    By reading DM's response, if I didn't know better I'd think he's talking about a bunch of street hoodlums running around tastelessly graffitiing up buildings while one of 'em watches out for the police or something.
     
    Two Tacos likes this.
  12. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    24,791
    23,836
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    The characterization in the initial post does not correspond with article. This wasn't vandalism. This was an agreed upon collaboration that created something of value for both parties. The art had value and was salvageable and the owner of the building saw their value increase substantially (I don't know how much of an increase, but the article said the value of the property soared to over $200 million). And it seems there was a specific law governing such collaborations that required notice that the owner failed to provide.
     
    Two Tacos, ToddPhin, Fin D and 2 others like this.
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Derp Sherpa Club Member

    70,471
    40,088
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ocala, FL
    Yeah, reading of the article clearly points out the paintings were not vandalism. They were agreed upon by the painters and building owner. The art even increased the value of the property that the owner cashed in on. They are owed the money.

    I hope some people who freaked out about this will change their tune now.
     
    Two Tacos and ToddPhin like this.
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    The other problem in the modern era. When people are shown information that contradicts their reality, they tend to double down instead of changing their minds.
     
    ToddPhin and Fin D like this.
  15. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I admit I skimmed the article and missed this part:

    "Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades..."

    He also said: "...but said they always knew they would be torn down someday."

    The property "soared" in value not because of the spray paintings, but because the entire crime riddled neighborhood had started to turn around and become prosperous.

    Bottom line. Even if he gave these guys permission to paint there, he shouldn't be punished when he decides to do with HIS property what he wants. The 1990 law, IMO, pertains to things like Picasso paintings or Michelangelo sculptures. Not spray 20 year old spray paintings. "On August 21, 2013, the New York City Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve plans to build condos on the property, while the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected a landmark status nomination by artists because the art was less than 30 years old at the time."

    Here is this art: lol

    upload_2018-2-14_8-46-2.png
     
    aesop likes this.
  16. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    [​IMG]
     
  17. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    You're probably right.

    The guy who owns the buildings is set to make 100's of millions of dollars. A measly $6-7M won't hurt him.
     
  18. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Could have saved himself a mess of trouble if he would have waited the 10 months he was legally obligated to wait. Do some good PR to help the artist get his stuff, might have even raised the value even more. Classic short sided fool. Probably got that building from his hard-working father.
     
  19. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Waiting 10 months may have cost him more than the $7M.

    He's actually a pretty big philanthropist and gives a lot to the community he lives in and around. And actually, he has promised to purposely build large, empty walls for the graffiti artists to come back and paint a again.

    Here's a pretty good article:

    https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/5pointz-unvarnished-the-developers-side/


    According to the Wolkoffs, the new 5Pointz will function more as “community” than a traditional residential building, with 50,000 square feet of retail, 12,000 square feet of artist studios, graffiti space on the concrete walls, tennis and basketball courts, a swimming pool, a gym, media and party rooms, a 250-space parking garage and a new public park.

    While the project is still in the planning stages, the Wolkoffs said that the vast majority of the units will be studios and one bedrooms, with some two and three bedroom units. Apartments at the project, which is scheduled for completion in 2016, will range in size from 500 to 1,200 square feet. Rents have not yet been set.

    And area brokers, even those who are graffiti art collectors, are on board.
     
    aesop likes this.
  20. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It cost him that anyway. Should have waited. Dummy.
     
  21. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,428
    5,771
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    In development deals of this size delays can run into the 1,000's or even hundreds of 1,000's of lost money each day. This guy seems to be pretty business savvy. I'm sure he'll end up ahead when it's all said and done. And the artists get a free place to paint...again.
     
  22. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Tide pods, mcdonalds fries curing baldness, this #metoo movement... It feels like Idiocracy.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  23. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    The point is it shouldn't have costed him that much. He didn't knock down the Guggenheim to put up condos. This is a ludicrous overreach of government.

    His investors surely would not have appreciated the project standing still for months because of artwork. Regardless if it was well done.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and danmarino like this.
  24. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    the point is, you are wrong. I have even seen that graffiti, it was a tourist location. He, in a way, did knock down the Guggenheim to put up condos. This is government protecting the artists rights. If you don't like rights, you should move to North Korea.
     
  25. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    If I buy the Mona Lisa and there are no clauses or contract.. Who has the right to tell me I can't take a dump on it and set it on fire? These people benefited from having their paintings displayed. If you come to paint my living room I'm not calling you to inform you I decided on new wallpaper.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  26. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Move to North Korea? You sound very reasonable.

    It was not the Guggenheim. Where exactly would these monstrosities be able to be relocated to? And at what cost?
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  27. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Says the person who said "this is government overreach" and "He did not knock down the Guggenheim" and then called them monstrosities.

    If you are going to act ridiculous you should expect ridiculous responses.

    That is not your concern.
     
  28. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    And neither is it a concern of the owner of said property to preserve it. It is not a landmark. Art is worth what someone will pay for it. If it was logical and profitable to sell he surely would have done it.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  29. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    it was a landmark. That is why he had to pay out.

    Did you not read?
     
  30. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    It was recognized which is not the same as a landmark as far as I'm aware. Did you look at the pictures? Will you address any other points I made or just opt for your single liners as usual?
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  31. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    You clearly consider the garbage that was painted on those walls to be equivalent to a Picasso. I've seen these in person many times. It is garbage. Go to MOMA or a real museum you want to see art preserved. These hunks of **** would not be relocated and the ground they stood on is lucrative. You would do the same if you owned it.
     
  32. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Dude, grow up.
     
  33. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    You did not make any points. you just spouted words and wasted my time. you did not read. You are just saying stuff because you hate the government or whatever your baggage is.

    Why don't you complain about stuff that actually matters and stop worrying about stuff that doesn't concern you in the slightest. move on with your life and actually do something instead of complaining about some guy breaking the law and getting caught and having to pay out.
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Derp Sherpa Club Member

    70,471
    40,088
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ocala, FL
    He didn't buy the graffiti.

    See the problem?
     
  35. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    All this tells me is that you didn't read the article and just read the headline.
     
  36. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I wasted your time posting about a subject that this thread is solely dedicated for? I did read. You didn't like my reaction and told me to move to North Korea like a 12 year old.
     
  37. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I read it. He didnt sign a contract with these people. This is not a Banksy. It's ****ty dime a dozen street art which you can see anywhere in NYC.
     
  38. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    1,972
    1,123
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    No? He allowed them to present their art, which he had no idea if it would be received well. They didn't pay him rent for the space. Why can't he do what he pleases with his own property?
     
  39. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    31,409
    20,113
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is your opinion. Obviously, it is wrong.
     
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Derp Sherpa Club Member

    70,471
    40,088
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ocala, FL
    That's on him for not charging them then.

    If I asked to display the Mona Lisa in your house, and you say yes, you aren't then allowed to tear down your house with my painting still in it....unless there's a contract. Without a contract, the court will find in favor of the party that lost property. The simple fact of the matter, is that the guy can appeal too. This is another example of the system working as intended.

    You're basing your stance entirely on the fact you don't like the art form.
     

Share This Page