Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lounge' started by danmarino, Feb 13, 2018.
Courts did not back up ditto.
Also, I am not talking about my opinion. I am reading the facts on the case.
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.
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?
Courts also ruled OJ innocent. This isn't a supreme court ruling you're talking about.
Courts also ruled you could own slaves. Laws are made by people. It does not make them right.
That is being unreasonable.
Do you 2 think pot should be legal?
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.
Of course I do.
I am LeBron's high school basketball coach. Am I entitled to LeBron's future earnings?
Well the court has ruled it isn't. I'm just going by the "facts".
You aren't making an accurate analogy.
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.
That is a stretch.
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.
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).
Agreed, but this case isn't about art. It is about the (sort of) opposite of art...monetary value.