Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 14:27:42 GMT 1, Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Consider the Banksy pieces removed with owners permission. They dont get COA's. Its not a question of whether it was stolen or granted permission to remove. No COA. The question was raised "I dont get he hostility" so I am explaining the widely held belief that the street art should stay on the street. except when the owner of the building that had been vandalized wants the art removed. Like the op said, would you rather it be in the bin or go to someone that may find joy in owning such a thing? That kind of person is to be found here. Some people would just like to have something like this and I would bet as long as the seller isn't asking for thousands that it's already gone. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - Removing it means the public won't "find joy" (which was intended) - He will be selling for thousands (assumption - but come on) - He wont be reimbursing the building owner (again assumption)
End of the day - the widely held belief is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold. Thats why they dont get COA's. To prevent it. Thats the artists intention and surely you need to respect the artist?
You clearly dont agree which is fine.
But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing.
Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Consider the Banksy pieces removed with owners permission. They dont get COA's. Its not a question of whether it was stolen or granted permission to remove. No COA. The question was raised "I dont get he hostility" so I am explaining the widely held belief that the street art should stay on the street. except when the owner of the building that had been vandalized wants the art removed. Like the op said, would you rather it be in the bin or go to someone that may find joy in owning such a thing? That kind of person is to be found here. Some people would just like to have something like this and I would bet as long as the seller isn't asking for thousands that it's already gone. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - Removing it means the public won't "find joy" (which was intended) - He will be selling for thousands (assumption - but come on) - He wont be reimbursing the building owner (again assumption) End of the day - the widely held belief is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold. Thats why they dont get COA's. To prevent it. Thats the artists intention and surely you need to respect the artist? You clearly dont agree which is fine. But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing.
|
|
MGK1
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,281
Likes โข 561
May 2010
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by MGK1 on Oct 17, 2020 14:30:47 GMT 1, I donโt get the hostility towards you for this. I think people forget that, at the end of the day, Invader is just vandalizing property. Most of us would be ecstatic to wake up and find a piece of his on the side of our house, but what if it was some neighborhood kid tagging our garage? Weโd be less excited then. And, for those that donโt like urban art like we do, there isnโt a meaningful distinction between a neighbor kid and his uninspired work and Invader or Banksy. If an owner of the building wants this stuff gone, I donโt see the harm in someone who actually appreciates it lawfully removing it. What is annoying, however, are the idiots that constantly try to deface art when the building owners really like it and go through great pains to protect it. If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history...
I donโt get the hostility towards you for this. I think people forget that, at the end of the day, Invader is just vandalizing property. Most of us would be ecstatic to wake up and find a piece of his on the side of our house, but what if it was some neighborhood kid tagging our garage? Weโd be less excited then. And, for those that donโt like urban art like we do, there isnโt a meaningful distinction between a neighbor kid and his uninspired work and Invader or Banksy. If an owner of the building wants this stuff gone, I donโt see the harm in someone who actually appreciates it lawfully removing it. What is annoying, however, are the idiots that constantly try to deface art when the building owners really like it and go through great pains to protect it. If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history...
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts โข 103
Likes โข 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 17, 2020 14:44:35 GMT 1, People understandably have an issue when something is stolen. Doesn't apply in this case though since there's no one stealing! Maybe you replied to the wrong thread? Guaranteed the OP found a buyer here. Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen.
Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner.
You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner.
The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point.
People understandably have an issue when something is stolen. Doesn't apply in this case though since there's no one stealing! Maybe you replied to the wrong thread? Guaranteed the OP found a buyer here. Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 14:53:39 GMT 1, Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. This isn't about law. Street art has never been about law.
Do you think Invader supports the removal and sale of his work?
As I said in my last post - you remove all the street art and we are left with nothing.
Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. This isn't about law. Street art has never been about law. Do you think Invader supports the removal and sale of his work? As I said in my last post - you remove all the street art and we are left with nothing.
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts โข 103
Likes โข 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 17, 2020 14:56:24 GMT 1, Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. This isn't about law. Street art has never been about law. Do you think Invader supports the removal and sale of his work? As I said in my last post - you remove all the street art and we are left with nothing.
Selling somthing or contesting a sale is about the law.
I frankly agree with adhere to what you write, but I do not own any building...
Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. This isn't about law. Street art has never been about law. Do you think Invader supports the removal and sale of his work? As I said in my last post - you remove all the street art and we are left with nothing. Selling somthing or contesting a sale is about the law. I frankly agree with adhere to what you write, but I do not own any building...
|
|
Lazarus II
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,799
Likes โข 2,426
August 2019
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Lazarus II on Oct 17, 2020 15:01:50 GMT 1, Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. Naughty Invader, sent to bed without his dinner !
Thanks for heads up - but it was the correct thread. My point still stands. The art was meant for the masses and for free. The owner of the property wasn't deliberately picked as the recipient of the piece by invader. Its outdoor for the people - not in the guys kitchen. Yes but this outdoor is owned by someone, and some law, as the Spanish or French ones consider that if an item is integrated to a building, it becomes the ownership of the building owner. You can consider this as unfair, unlegit, etc. But invader has chosen this building with no consideration to its owner. The fact that the piece is from invader shall not change this point. Naughty Invader, sent to bed without his dinner !
|
|
|
bestdj777
New Member
Posts โข 439
Likes โข 335
January 2019
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by bestdj777 on Oct 17, 2020 15:41:21 GMT 1, I donโt get the hostility towards you for this. I think people forget that, at the end of the day, Invader is just vandalizing property. Most of us would be ecstatic to wake up and find a piece of his on the side of our house, but what if it was some neighborhood kid tagging our garage? Weโd be less excited then. And, for those that donโt like urban art like we do, there isnโt a meaningful distinction between a neighbor kid and his uninspired work and Invader or Banksy. If an owner of the building wants this stuff gone, I donโt see the harm in someone who actually appreciates it lawfully removing it. What is annoying, however, are the idiots that constantly try to deface art when the building owners really like it and go through great pains to protect it. If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history...
You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism.
I donโt get the hostility towards you for this. I think people forget that, at the end of the day, Invader is just vandalizing property. Most of us would be ecstatic to wake up and find a piece of his on the side of our house, but what if it was some neighborhood kid tagging our garage? Weโd be less excited then. And, for those that donโt like urban art like we do, there isnโt a meaningful distinction between a neighbor kid and his uninspired work and Invader or Banksy. If an owner of the building wants this stuff gone, I donโt see the harm in someone who actually appreciates it lawfully removing it. What is annoying, however, are the idiots that constantly try to deface art when the building owners really like it and go through great pains to protect it. If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history... You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism.
|
|
MGK1
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,281
Likes โข 561
May 2010
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by MGK1 on Oct 17, 2020 16:46:40 GMT 1, If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history... You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism.
I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association.
If you're going to get upset about a neighbourhood kid tagging your garage you shouldn't be on this forum...know the history... You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism. I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association.
|
|
bestdj777
New Member
Posts โข 439
Likes โข 335
January 2019
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by bestdj777 on Oct 17, 2020 16:50:42 GMT 1, You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism. I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association.
Well, we can agree to disagree then It would be nice if there were more places readily available for the neighborhood kids.... Art education in the schools is incredibly lacking .
You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism. I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association. Well, we can agree to disagree then It would be nice if there were more places readily available for the neighborhood kids.... Art education in the schools is incredibly lacking .
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 17:00:40 GMT 1, You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism. I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association.
๐ฏ
You can know the history and not like uninspired crap. Our neighborhood kids have no artistic ability. You can appreciate quality art and dislike vandalism. I couldnโt disagree more, without those neighbourhood kids with โno artistic abilityโ there would be no Invader, there would be no Banksy and there would be no Urban Art Association. ๐ฏ
|
|
qwerty
New Member
Posts โข 312
Likes โข 906
July 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by qwerty on Oct 17, 2020 17:09:18 GMT 1, Christie's and Sotheby's will tell you no. Most people here will say you are a thief, worse than the rags they use to clean cum off prostitutes. If you consign it to lesser known, unscrupulous auction houses like Julien's in Los Angeles you will probably get 8000-12000 usd (minus any fees). An authentic Alias of this size will fetch 35-40k (signed, titled, dated with certificate). You will also get offers from lurkers here in the range of $100-3000...depending on how much of a scum they think you are (lower the offer the higher they are on the scum scale?) side note: not cool to degrade sex workers
Christie's and Sotheby's will tell you no. Most people here will say you are a thief, worse than the rags they use to clean cum off prostitutes. If you consign it to lesser known, unscrupulous auction houses like Julien's in Los Angeles you will probably get 8000-12000 usd (minus any fees). An authentic Alias of this size will fetch 35-40k (signed, titled, dated with certificate). You will also get offers from lurkers here in the range of $100-3000...depending on how much of a scum they think you are (lower the offer the higher they are on the scum scale?) side note: not cool to degrade sex workers
|
|
Atelier
New Member
Posts โข 165
Likes โข 123
June 2014
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Atelier on Oct 17, 2020 17:32:35 GMT 1, It's just plain wrong to remove Invader (or any other artists) pieces from the street. LA is full of invader pieces and it's always fun to spot them, which is the appeal of his work. It's even worse your plan was to sell ...ahemm flip from your "art collection" a year later. If you went to all that effort for your "collection" surely you'd just keep it? Basically the removal it seems was purely money motivated. Taking from others to enjoy straight into your pocket.
Street art is called street art for a reason, so everyday people can enjoy art on the street. This long winded legal goose chase enabling you to remove this piece is just crushing. Since the birth of graffiti most building owners did not "want" pieces on their walls but that's part of the point and beauty of both graffiti and street art.
It's just plain wrong to remove Invader (or any other artists) pieces from the street. LA is full of invader pieces and it's always fun to spot them, which is the appeal of his work. It's even worse your plan was to sell ...ahemm flip from your "art collection" a year later. If you went to all that effort for your "collection" surely you'd just keep it? Basically the removal it seems was purely money motivated. Taking from others to enjoy straight into your pocket.
Street art is called street art for a reason, so everyday people can enjoy art on the street. This long winded legal goose chase enabling you to remove this piece is just crushing. Since the birth of graffiti most building owners did not "want" pieces on their walls but that's part of the point and beauty of both graffiti and street art.
|
|
jluhiex
New Member
Posts โข 402
Likes โข 223
December 2016
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by jluhiex on Oct 17, 2020 17:40:33 GMT 1, Christie's and Sotheby's will tell you no. Most people here will say you are a thief, worse than the rags they use to clean cum off prostitutes. If you consign it to lesser known, unscrupulous auction houses like Julien's in Los Angeles you will probably get 8000-12000 usd (minus any fees). An authentic Alias of this size will fetch 35-40k (signed, titled, dated with certificate). You will also get offers from lurkers here in the range of $100-3000...depending on how much of a scum they think you are (lower the offer the higher they are on the scum scale?) side note: not cool to degrade sex workers
The rags not the profession. Sex work is a noble profession.
Christie's and Sotheby's will tell you no. Most people here will say you are a thief, worse than the rags they use to clean cum off prostitutes. If you consign it to lesser known, unscrupulous auction houses like Julien's in Los Angeles you will probably get 8000-12000 usd (minus any fees). An authentic Alias of this size will fetch 35-40k (signed, titled, dated with certificate). You will also get offers from lurkers here in the range of $100-3000...depending on how much of a scum they think you are (lower the offer the higher they are on the scum scale?) side note: not cool to degrade sex workers The rags not the profession. Sex work is a noble profession.
|
|
Morfx
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,687
Likes โข 2,797
May 2013
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Morfx on Oct 17, 2020 17:43:19 GMT 1, You have the tiles, stick it up on the front of your house for all to enjoy.. ๐
You have the tiles, stick it up on the front of your house for all to enjoy.. ๐
|
|
|
jesustheba
New Member
Posts โข 301
Likes โข 132
July 2008
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by jesustheba on Oct 17, 2020 17:43:43 GMT 1, Quite a few years ago I was offered a bast hand grenade piece on a metal door from the street, I really liked it but didn't feel great buying a street piece so I asked bast if he minded. He couldn't care less was his answer. Not justifying anything and not sure what my point is but there it is anyway
Quite a few years ago I was offered a bast hand grenade piece on a metal door from the street, I really liked it but didn't feel great buying a street piece so I asked bast if he minded. He couldn't care less was his answer. Not justifying anything and not sure what my point is but there it is anyway
|
|
.dappy
Full Member
Posts โข 9,835
Likes โข 9,443
December 2010
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by .dappy on Oct 17, 2020 17:47:49 GMT 1, Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq ... reactivated piece ... not even original ... brilliant ...
Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq ... reactivated piece ... not even original ... brilliant ...
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 18:19:25 GMT 1, Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq ... reactivated piece ... not even original ... brilliant ... So after all these posts justifying the removal - itโs not even by Invader.
Classic.
Nice backstory. Itโs just a bunch of tiles by a fan.
Worthless - if only there was some kind of certificate that could be produced to guarantee authenticity
Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq ... reactivated piece ... not even original ... brilliant ... So after all these posts justifying the removal - itโs not even by Invader. Classic. Nice backstory. Itโs just a bunch of tiles by a fan. Worthless - if only there was some kind of certificate that could be produced to guarantee authenticity
|
|
Cool User Name
New Member
Posts โข 556
Likes โข 754
Member is Online
November 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Cool User Name on Oct 17, 2020 18:25:10 GMT 1, I wonder how much he paid the building owner for the replica
I wonder how much he paid the building owner for the replica
|
|
qwerty
New Member
Posts โข 312
Likes โข 906
July 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by qwerty on Oct 17, 2020 19:04:00 GMT 1, side note: not cool to degrade sex workers The rags not the profession. Sex work is a noble profession. fair enough just sounded a bit...
side note: not cool to degrade sex workers The rags not the profession. Sex work is a noble profession. fair enough just sounded a bit...
|
|
GMA
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 2,994
October 2015
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by GMA on Oct 17, 2020 19:35:54 GMT 1, Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq
Oh mate, ๐คฃ๐คฃ now I'm really curious how much the op paid. Is the No Longer Available still valid? Did someone buy it? Was it bollocks? If someone bought it, will they now refuse...We need to know.
Selling removed streetart is never cool, no matter what spin or backstory you put on it. It was made by an artist, meant for everybody. Besides, it's not even the real deal, it's a reactivation (see last slide). Not worth the price of the tiles and glue.. http://instagr.am/p/BYJkSPEA7Rq Oh mate, ๐คฃ๐คฃ now I'm really curious how much the op paid. Is the No Longer Available still valid? Did someone buy it? Was it bollocks? If someone bought it, will they now refuse...We need to know.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 17, 2020 19:54:58 GMT 1, But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing.
Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking?
But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing. Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking?
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 19:56:28 GMT 1, But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing. Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking?
My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left.
But if you remove all the street art from the streets and sell it, what's left? Nothing. Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking? My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left.
|
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Lord Lucas Roham on Oct 17, 2020 20:01:42 GMT 1, This thread is comedy gold. Hilarious.
This thread is comedy gold. Hilarious.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 17, 2020 20:10:15 GMT 1, Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking? My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left.
Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were.
Surely no one here had suggested this should take place, is there a need to defend a position no one is taking? My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left. Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 20:27:20 GMT 1, My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left. Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were.
My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point.
I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine.
My point was if everyone decided to remove an invader there would be none left. Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were. My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point. I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts โข 9,188
Likes โข 8,537
May 2011
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by iamzero on Oct 17, 2020 20:31:30 GMT 1, So is the building owner now on the blower to the SAS Reactivation Team to replace it so he can sell it to another mug?
So is the building owner now on the blower to the SAS Reactivation Team to replace it so he can sell it to another mug?
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 17, 2020 21:19:21 GMT 1, Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were. My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point. I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine. are you actually reading the words? Did anyone in this thread say that pieces shouldn't remain on the street? Nope. And I am included in that group. That's just a crazy conclusion that you to came to. Please stop putting words in my mouth!
Let me clarify, again, a piece removed with the building owners consent by a person for their own possession becomes the property of that person that removed it. From there they can do anything they want with it, it doesn't matter what the artist wants. They gave up their ownership rights when they affixed their artwork to someone else's property.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about this or why you would continue to argue, in this case, that street art belongs in the street. I generally agree with that sentiment, fwiw, but in this *particular* case that's not what's in question. The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.
Literally no one is saying that should happen. Nor does it apply to the topic at hand. If we were talking about people that remove invaders without the permission of the building owner then sure. But I didn't think we were. My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point. I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine. are you actually reading the words? Did anyone in this thread say that pieces shouldn't remain on the street? Nope. And I am included in that group. That's just a crazy conclusion that you to came to. Please stop putting words in my mouth! Let me clarify, again, a piece removed with the building owners consent by a person for their own possession becomes the property of that person that removed it. From there they can do anything they want with it, it doesn't matter what the artist wants. They gave up their ownership rights when they affixed their artwork to someone else's property. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this or why you would continue to argue, in this case, that street art belongs in the street. I generally agree with that sentiment, fwiw, but in this *particular* case that's not what's in question. The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.
|
|
buffin
New Member
Posts โข 209
Likes โข 248
September 2015
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by buffin on Oct 17, 2020 21:23:55 GMT 1, Amazed that some people on this forum see no problem in a street piece being removed for financial gain. Also that artists should seek permission prior to installing work.
This forum used to be a weird and wonderful place. Now itโs just weird. Carry on.
Amazed that some people on this forum see no problem in a street piece being removed for financial gain. Also that artists should seek permission prior to installing work.
This forum used to be a weird and wonderful place. Now itโs just weird. Carry on.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,430
Likes โข 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 17, 2020 21:34:46 GMT 1, My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point. I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine. are you actually reading the words? Did anyone in this thread say that pieces shouldn't remain on the street? Nope. And I am included in that group. That's just a crazy conclusion that you to came to. Please stop putting words in my mouth! Let me clarify, again, a piece removed with the building owners consent by a person for their own possession becomes the property of that person that removed it. From there they can do anything they want with it, it doesn't matter what the artist wants. They gave up their ownership rights when they affixed their artwork to someone else's property. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this or why you would continue to argue, in this case, that street art belongs in the street. I generally agree with that sentiment, fwiw, but in this *particular* case that's not what's in question. The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.
OP is selling a fake invader.
My discussion was about why street pieces should not be removed of which this is another point. I think pieces should remain on the street. You donโt. Fine. are you actually reading the words? Did anyone in this thread say that pieces shouldn't remain on the street? Nope. And I am included in that group. That's just a crazy conclusion that you to came to. Please stop putting words in my mouth! Let me clarify, again, a piece removed with the building owners consent by a person for their own possession becomes the property of that person that removed it. From there they can do anything they want with it, it doesn't matter what the artist wants. They gave up their ownership rights when they affixed their artwork to someone else's property. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this or why you would continue to argue, in this case, that street art belongs in the street. I generally agree with that sentiment, fwiw, but in this *particular* case that's not what's in question. The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term. OP is selling a fake invader.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 17, 2020 21:48:08 GMT 1, OP is selling a fake invader.
Typical, don't address your original position but make up a new one when confronted on it.
Let's return to your original assertion that the piece was stolen: no. You're telling people that the op is a thief. That's just not true.
OP is selling a fake invader. Typical, don't address your original position but make up a new one when confronted on it. Let's return to your original assertion that the piece was stolen: no. You're telling people that the op is a thief. That's just not true.
|
|