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. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Ditto.
     
  2. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,339
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Courts did not back up ditto.

    Also, I am not talking about my opinion. I am reading the facts on the case.
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,728
    42,341
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, not ditto. His stance is backed by precedent as it literally happened the way and for the reasons he said. Your stance is entirely your opinion and factually wrong.
     
  4. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I love Banksy. I'd be pissed if his **** was torn down. The point is these people were given a gift of being able to use this guys walls to promote their art. They didn't pay, he didn't pay. It just so happened to be mutually beneficial. They entered no agreement and I find it a little problematic when someone paints something in or on your property to then have the government step in and say you can't liquidate or profit from something you own.

    Who determines what is fine art and what is criminal graffiti? I think soccer sucks but the rest of the planet loves it. Who gets the crown to make these decisions about someome else's life?
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  5. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Courts also ruled OJ innocent. This isn't a supreme court ruling you're talking about.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  6. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Courts also ruled you could own slaves. Laws are made by people. It does not make them right.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  7. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,339
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is being unreasonable.
     
  8. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Do you 2 think pot should be legal?
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,728
    42,341
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Your thoughts aren't relevant. This isn't about what is or what isn't fine art. This is about what has monetary value. They proved in court, the art had monetary value. If you don't think it does, then feel free counter their evidence and show why. But everything you've done so far, hasn't done that in the least.

    And, the btich of it is, you actually agree, because you say it was mutually beneficial. That means you understand the building owner financially benefitted from the art. If you understand that, then it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that in the absence of a contract, both parties should monetarily benefit. Both parties didn't...until the court ruled in favor of the artists.
     
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,728
    42,341
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes. Why?
     
  11. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,339
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Of course I do.
     
  12. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I am LeBron's high school basketball coach. Am I entitled to LeBron's future earnings?
     
  13. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Well the court has ruled it isn't. I'm just going by the "facts".
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,728
    42,341
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You aren't making an accurate analogy.
     
  15. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,339
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    They were able to show within reason that this art increased the value of the land.

    I do not understand art at all. I have no idea why someone would pay millions of dollars for paintings. I do not get it. However, I did understand what they were talking about in this article, and the art on the wall was shown to be part of the reason the value of the property increased. Showing that this art has value.

    I have no idea why someone would pay for a painting of Campbells tomato soup. It doesn't mean I think it should be legal to burn it if it was on my wall if I did not pay for it, or sell the wall with the painting because the painting increased the value of the wall.
     
    aesop likes this.
  16. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree I drink your milkshake! Club Member

    33,339
    23,220
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is a stretch.
     
  17. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Listen, I like / respect both of you guys as posters. No one is going to change anyone's mind here. Respectfully I am signing off of this thread.
     
  18. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,627
    7,375
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I just saw an updated ruling on that today with more artists qualifying for a payout- and I have to say that I agree with it. The property owner gave these guys permission to paint graffiti as much as they wanted, and many of the images were seen as iconic to the area. Whether it was good art or not, the property owner did not have the right to destroy their works of art without their express permission.

    Why does this matter? With the world turning anti-everything these days, I think this is an important landmark to keep people destroying works of art and then say, "Well, I didn't like it" or "I found it offensive and it needed to be destroyed." In my opinion, that's not for us to decide- an artist has the right to express himself in any way that he wants (as long as it doesn't break existing laws).
     
    Fin D likes this.
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,728
    42,341
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Agreed, but this case isn't about art. It is about the (sort of) opposite of art...monetary value.
     
    KeyFin likes this.

Share This Page