Urban Art Association

I hooked a duck,  Then asked if I'd won a fish finger he just stared me out looked me up and down and turned his back on me

I pocketed that duck 

images upload


I had this little fella thrown at me for having so many goes and being too happy  ...

Did have one somewhere let me see if I can find it

Now secured, thanks for all the PM's wouldn't mind another if I could work a deal, cheers.

Rationalising dishonest behaviour is a pretty simple exercise. The self-serving justifications won't always be convincing, but there are certainly plenty to choose from. All that's required is a bit of imagination. Raskolnikov himself came up with arguably credible reasons for murdering and stealing from Alyona Ivanovna.

However, the mental gymnastics become trickier in some situations. This is the case if we've previously made ethics-based comments which leave us exposed to accusations of applying double standards when it suits us, i.e. whenever it's in our selfish interest. Being amoral is more comfortable than being a hypocrite — because the latter places us in an unpleasant state of cognitive dissonance.

_________


So the following question is especially for members and moderators who've criticised the removal and sale of street pieces in the past, and who are remaining silent in this 'In search of' thread:

Consider the activity openly taking place here. What we have is trade in stolen goods being facilitated by the Urban Art Association.

Now, in what way is this scenario any more defensible than posts by chancing thieves advertising the sale of stolen street art?

Dice you old charmer you xx 😘

That position can indeed be argued, although from my perspective it raises two difficulties:


1.  A "no rules" stance is only credible when there's some consensus between the relevant parties.

Dismaland could for example have announced it had an "anything goes" policy. That each visitor could do exactly as they pleased. Like vandalising the installations, assaulting the staff, or stealing the artwork and parts of the attractions.

But this wasn't the case — at least not with respect to the ducks, which were in constant use and required for the Hook-A-Duck game. That hand-painted sign offers express confirmation. It pretty much says, "Please do not be a selfish prat by stealing from us. Because it fucks things up for other visitors who wish to participate."

[The fact there was an actual need to display the sign is rather tragic in itself. It brings to mind notices on buses or the tube which state the bleeding obvious — where people have to be told to give up their seats for elderly or pregnant passengers.]


2.  Yes, we could in theory try to defend a "no rules" stance in relation to what was clearly private property at Dismaland. It would help legitimise the selling on this forum of random items (including the ducks) nicked from the organisers of that remarkable exhibition.

However, if we do embrace such a position, then it can also be used (and perhaps more convincingly) regarding street art pieces. To illustrate, if I were ripping down works in East London and selling them here, I'd be throwing your argument straight back at you: "The streets have no rules. And even if they did, there'd be fewer rules in public streets than at a ticketed event like Dismaland."


So my original question remains: In what way is advertising to buy stolen private property any more defensible than posts by chancing thieves advertising the sale of stolen street art?