Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Deleted on Oct 17, 2020 22:03:57 GMT 1, You are a stinking thief, but if you can live with it so be it... the only issue is the lack of intelligence you have by bringing this to this forum
You are a stinking thief, but if you can live with it so be it... the only issue is the lack of intelligence you have by bringing this to this forum
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 0:02:33 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. Ok you seem hung up on the word "steal" which was mentioned once. He had permission to remove - he didn't steal it. Doesn't make it morally right to remove in my books.
But my subsequent and majority of my posts assert the following if you read back:
- street art is for the street and the masses - and for free. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - It was taken to be sold for profit - The widely held belief in the street art community is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold - COA's wont be issues for street pieces because they are not intended to be removed.
And the irony that in fact its fake it the icing on the cake.
He came on here trying to sell it for profit (point 3) without a COA (point 5) because it wasn't meant to be resold (points 2 and 5)
I stand by all of these points.
If you are supporting the OP you are supporting the selling of street art and the selling of fakes.
And if you aren't supporting him - you just like arguing with strangers on the internet
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. Ok you seem hung up on the word "steal" which was mentioned once. He had permission to remove - he didn't steal it. Doesn't make it morally right to remove in my books. But my subsequent and majority of my posts assert the following if you read back: - street art is for the street and the masses - and for free. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - It was taken to be sold for profit - The widely held belief in the street art community is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold - COA's wont be issues for street pieces because they are not intended to be removed. And the irony that in fact its fake it the icing on the cake. He came on here trying to sell it for profit (point 3) without a COA (point 5) because it wasn't meant to be resold (points 2 and 5) I stand by all of these points. If you are supporting the OP you are supporting the selling of street art and the selling of fakes. And if you aren't supporting him - you just like arguing with strangers on the internet
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 0:28:30 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.
And to be clear I was addressing your
“ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.”
Apart from peddling a fake invader.
It’s indefensible.
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. And to be clear I was addressing your “ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.” Apart from peddling a fake invader. It’s indefensible.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 18, 2020 0:43:03 GMT 1, 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. And to be clear I was addressing your “ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.” Apart from peddling a fake invader. It’s indefensible. so it's the fact that's it fake then... That wasnt in your original post. There's nothing morally wrong with acquiring property from the owner and then offering it for sale to other interested parties.
Furthermore the detail of when it was removed is a detail of the due diligence a buyer would have to perform to determine the level of authenticity they're comfortable with... All included in the original post.
The op was up front about what this is and where it came from, calling him a thief is just being shitty because clearly nothing was stolen.
And yeah I'll argue about it all day because you're fucking wrong. Save the criminal accusations for criminals.
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. And to be clear I was addressing your “ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.” Apart from peddling a fake invader. It’s indefensible. so it's the fact that's it fake then... That wasnt in your original post. There's nothing morally wrong with acquiring property from the owner and then offering it for sale to other interested parties. Furthermore the detail of when it was removed is a detail of the due diligence a buyer would have to perform to determine the level of authenticity they're comfortable with... All included in the original post. The op was up front about what this is and where it came from, calling him a thief is just being shitty because clearly nothing was stolen. And yeah I'll argue about it all day because you're fucking wrong. Save the criminal accusations for criminals.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 0:58:21 GMT 1, And to be clear I was addressing your “ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.” Apart from peddling a fake invader. It’s indefensible. so it's the fact that's it fake then... That wasnt in your original post. There's nothing morally wrong with acquiring property from the owner and then offering it for sale to other interested parties. Furthermore the detail of when it was removed is a detail of the due diligence a buyer would have to perform to determine the level of authenticity they're comfortable with... All included in the original post. The op was up front about what this is and where it came from, calling him a thief is just being shitty because clearly nothing was stolen. And yeah I'll argue about it all day because you're fucking wrong. Save the criminal accusations for criminals. Ok you STILL seem hung up on the word "steal" which was mentioned once and I already corrected.
I'll say it again.
He had permission to remove - he didn't steal it. Doesn't make it morally right to remove in my books.
But my subsequent and majority of my posts assert the following if you read back:
- street art is for the street and the masses - and for free. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - It was taken to be sold for profit - The widely held belief in the street art community is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold - COA's wont be issues for street pieces because they are not intended to be removed.
And the irony that in fact its fake it the icing on the cake.
He came on here trying to sell it for profit (point 3) without a COA (point 5) because it wasn't meant to be resold (points 2 and 5)
I stand by all of these points.
And to be clear I was addressing your “ The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term.” Apart from peddling a fake invader. It’s indefensible. so it's the fact that's it fake then... That wasnt in your original post. There's nothing morally wrong with acquiring property from the owner and then offering it for sale to other interested parties. Furthermore the detail of when it was removed is a detail of the due diligence a buyer would have to perform to determine the level of authenticity they're comfortable with... All included in the original post. The op was up front about what this is and where it came from, calling him a thief is just being shitty because clearly nothing was stolen. And yeah I'll argue about it all day because you're fucking wrong. Save the criminal accusations for criminals. Ok you STILL seem hung up on the word "steal" which was mentioned once and I already corrected.I'll say it again. He had permission to remove - he didn't steal it. Doesn't make it morally right to remove in my books. But my subsequent and majority of my posts assert the following if you read back: - street art is for the street and the masses - and for free. - The artist didn't intend it to be sold - It was taken to be sold for profit - The widely held belief in the street art community is that street pieces shouldn't be removed or resold - COA's wont be issues for street pieces because they are not intended to be removed. And the irony that in fact its fake it the icing on the cake. He came on here trying to sell it for profit (point 3) without a COA (point 5) because it wasn't meant to be resold (points 2 and 5) I stand by all of these points.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 18, 2020 1:35:11 GMT 1, Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
|
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts • 103
Likes • 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 18, 2020 1:55:12 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.
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, if he is professional, he may have to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale if the piece has been sold for more than 750 € as Invader is French, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
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.
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, if he is professional, he may have to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale if the piece has been sold for more than 750 € as Invader is French, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 2:01:05 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.
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, he has to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale as Invader is French if the piece has been sold for more than 750 €, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
All interesting points.
Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything.
It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
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.
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, he has to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale as Invader is French if the piece has been sold for more than 750 €, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
All interesting points. Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything. It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts • 103
Likes • 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 18, 2020 2:08:00 GMT 1,
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, he has to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale as Invader is French if the piece has been sold for more than 750 €, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
All interesting points. Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything. It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles..
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
It is a bit over-interpreted as no one wrote this...
Yes, it is shocking that a piece of art is removed to be sold, especially when this person has no right to remove, appropriate and sell this piece. As an invidual take and appropriate for its own profit a common good.
However, it is different when the one who removes the piece owns it legally and has the right to do so. To my opinion, it is idiot as this piece only increase the value of this bulding and art is an important thing to protect. But he can do what he wants with its own property. He can even buy building to remove art on it (a case of law is interesting in Germany as it may have ruled the contrary)
Concerning the OP, it is a bit clumsy to come here and propose this piece to a public which put a great importance to art value/artist will. But if a buyer buys it and everything is legit in the transacation, this is their problem... To my opinion, it has no value at all on the market and the buyer should not buy it but try to buy the legit one...
Concerning the permission thing, again this is over-interpreted... Of course the street art has not to be priorly authorized. This is just contradictory to the essence of this art.
But if the artist wants to control what can be done with its piece once it is set up, he/she makes a contract with the owner of the building. This is silly and never happen when the piece is not commissioned but law is not always appropriate.
Otherwise, the artist knows and should accept that the owner of the building can do anything he/she want with it unless it infringes IP rights of the artist. And removing a piece from a building you own and preserving it by giving/selling it to a third party (aka the OP here), does not infringe Invader's IP right to my opinion.
Concerning the selling of this piece by the OP, he has to give to Invader some money equal to a % of the sale as Invader is French if the piece has been sold for more than 750 €, in application to the resale right ("droit de suite" in France).
All interesting points. Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything. It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles..
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 2:17:12 GMT 1, All interesting points. Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything. It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles...
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
I agree.
However I think saying you are approaching Phillips and Christie’s to sell it strongly suggests it’s real.
All interesting points. Only one I strongly think may be incorrect is that Invader is owed anything. It’s not an invader. A fan bought tiles and replaced the invader.
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles...
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
I agree. However I think saying you are approaching Phillips and Christie’s to sell it strongly suggests it’s real.
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts • 103
Likes • 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 18, 2020 2:19:31 GMT 1,
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles...
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
I agree. However I think saying you are approaching Sotheby’s and Christie’s to sell it strongly suggests it’s real.
(I am editing while you are quoting
Yep and btw he may be selling a copy so may infringe Invader IP rights by the sole act of proposing it for sale.
Yes, this is what of course completly change the equation.
As this piece is a copy, the OP presents it as genuine work which is not, he is infringing (willingly or not) Invader's IP rights. - Edit : he never presented it as genuine so it is the buyer responsability to spend money in random tiles...
And, the piece should just have been destroyed by its owner if he wanted to.
I agree. However I think saying you are approaching Sotheby’s and Christie’s to sell it strongly suggests it’s real.
(I am editing while you are quoting
Yep and btw he may be selling a copy so may infringe Invader IP rights by the sole act of proposing it for sale.
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by That Print Guy on Oct 18, 2020 2:20:19 GMT 1, Certainly whether or not the op knows that this is a recharge would come into play. Knowing it as such and presenting it as otherwise, yes I'd agree that's morally dubious. I doubt they would admit to as much if that was the case but is it widely known that fans recharge pieces in their former homes after they've partially or fully left them? I've been buying invader since 2007, I've followed the map and scored the points but it wasn't until just a few months ago that I heard fans were even doing something like this. Perhaps it's news to them as well?
Certainly whether or not the op knows that this is a recharge would come into play. Knowing it as such and presenting it as otherwise, yes I'd agree that's morally dubious. I doubt they would admit to as much if that was the case but is it widely known that fans recharge pieces in their former homes after they've partially or fully left them? I've been buying invader since 2007, I've followed the map and scored the points but it wasn't until just a few months ago that I heard fans were even doing something like this. Perhaps it's news to them as well?
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Pipes on Oct 18, 2020 2:43:44 GMT 1, The OP may not have realised it was not real.
But that highlights yet another problem when removing street pieces (aside from moral issues, artists intention, profiteering etc..)
If you dont remove street pieces - you dont find yourself unwittingly peddling fan art.
Peter Bengtsen quote from a book sums it up far better than I can articulate !
"It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that street art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of street art and urban art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
The OP may not have realised it was not real. But that highlights yet another problem when removing street pieces (aside from moral issues, artists intention, profiteering etc..) If you dont remove street pieces - you dont find yourself unwittingly peddling fan art. Peter Bengtsen quote from a book sums it up far better than I can articulate ! "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that street art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of street art and urban art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
|
|
buffin
New Member
Posts • 209
Likes • 248
September 2015
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by buffin on Oct 18, 2020 6:28:10 GMT 1, Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
Thank you Peter.
Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition." Thank you Peter.
|
|
|
Atelier
New Member
Posts • 165
Likes • 123
June 2014
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Atelier on Oct 18, 2020 6:58:33 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 don’t. 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. Some very odd arguments going on here that make little sense.
"The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term...." ??
Op stole street art from the people be it real or not. Op apparently acquired a replica fake, thinking it was real. Op tried to flip said replica fake assuming it to be real to the UAA community for a high number. Op deleted post and failed to defend his highly dubious position.
On the contrary, the op has done everything wrong by any definition of the term, in my opinion.
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 don’t. 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. Some very odd arguments going on here that make little sense. "The op has done nothing wrong by any definition of the term...." ?? Op stole street art from the people be it real or not. Op apparently acquired a replica fake, thinking it was real. Op tried to flip said replica fake assuming it to be real to the UAA community for a high number. Op deleted post and failed to defend his highly dubious position. On the contrary, the op has done everything wrong by any definition of the term, in my opinion.
|
|
GMA
Junior Member
Posts • 1,962
Likes • 2,994
October 2015
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by GMA on Oct 18, 2020 7:04:41 GMT 1, Maybe Invader should consider burying razor blades between the tiles. That'd soon stop anyone from trying to remove them 🤣
Maybe Invader should consider burying razor blades between the tiles. That'd soon stop anyone from trying to remove them 🤣
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 18, 2020 9:42:38 GMT 1, Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition." Thank you Peter.
You're very welcome. In case it wasn't clear, the bold text in my previous post is a link to the full book chapter (free to access): www.academia.edu/20899358/
Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition." Thank you Peter. You're very welcome. In case it wasn't clear, the bold text in my previous post is a link to the full book chapter (free to access): www.academia.edu/20899358/
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Lroy on Oct 18, 2020 11:41:32 GMT 1, You are a stinking thief, but if you can live with it so be it... the only issue is the lack of intelligence you have by bringing this to this forum I know some Thieves galeries too putting invader artworks on catawiki .. ( read my previous post ).., they sold it 6K€
It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader.
Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics )
You are a stinking thief, but if you can live with it so be it... the only issue is the lack of intelligence you have by bringing this to this forum I know some Thieves galeries too putting invader artworks on catawiki .. ( read my previous post ).., they sold it 6K€ It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader. Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics )
|
|
Raph
New Member
Posts • 103
Likes • 95
August 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Raph on Oct 18, 2020 13:49:49 GMT 1, I know some Thieves galeries too putting invader artworks on catawiki .. ( read my previous post ).., they sold it 6K€ It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader. Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics )
There is a database from Interpol for stolen art piece: www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/Stolen-Works-of-Art-Database
Not sure it is freely accessible nor it is relevant for street art pieces.
Could you share the link of the catawiki sale you mention, in order to identify the gallery at issue ?
I know some Thieves galeries too putting invader artworks on catawiki .. ( read my previous post ).., they sold it 6K€ It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader. Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics ) There is a database from Interpol for stolen art piece: www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/Stolen-Works-of-Art-DatabaseNot sure it is freely accessible nor it is relevant for street art pieces. Could you share the link of the catawiki sale you mention, in order to identify the gallery at issue ?
|
|
asparago
New Member
Posts • 2
Likes • 0
October 2020
|
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Lroy on Oct 18, 2020 16:49:47 GMT 1, It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader. Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics ) There is a database from Interpol for stolen art piece: www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/Stolen-Works-of-Art-DatabaseNot sure it is freely accessible nor it is relevant for street art pieces. Could you share the link of the catawiki sale you mention, in order to identify the gallery at issue ? I can’t, I did not subscribed to Catawiki And I don’t know anyway if they archive old sales. I tried to type keywords etc but impossible. Maybe If you are on Catawiki you can see the artwork. It was before June, I know that it’s a gallery in the 6 th arrondissent, anyway the close person ( I can’t and I don’t want to give him trouble, anyway he does not said clearly where this piece was located, he was evasive with the gallery’s name, the Coa - what is a COA of a stolen piece ?! Anyway it mentions “ Space Invader » ... I be tried to type in google “ Alias stolen invader etc.. “ but did not find anything. I don’t want to post the photo too, but it’s one as this one ( maybe a fake so : 6 k was the last bid on Cata, his bid ) .. I just asked because there are here unofficial official fans and restorers of Invader pieces, maybe they know.. Anyway it belongs to him now, legally .. Thr town could be everywhere .. or it’s a fake ! It Looks like this one in Clermont/Ferrand with another colors ... kinda ..
It’s not an isolated case : galeries Too : located at Paris and sold via Catawiki for 6 K Euros this year, an alias, a bat, on a large bit of concrete ! The piece is heavy as I read ( and saw on the picture ) and I don’t know if it’s a fake or real one or no. Maybe he has been swindled or not ! It exists a kind of COA from this gallery - Not seen it, as it’s not mine, so don’t know the gallery, just it’s written Space invader alias - and I did not know where the location was for this stolen invader. Well, is anybody has a link here to know the name of the stolen pieces, where and when they have been stolen etc ? Invader and mates should archive these stolen pieces, with Name, location and pics ) There is a database from Interpol for stolen art piece: www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cultural-heritage-crime/Stolen-Works-of-Art-DatabaseNot sure it is freely accessible nor it is relevant for street art pieces. Could you share the link of the catawiki sale you mention, in order to identify the gallery at issue ? I can’t, I did not subscribed to Catawiki And I don’t know anyway if they archive old sales. I tried to type keywords etc but impossible. Maybe If you are on Catawiki you can see the artwork. It was before June, I know that it’s a gallery in the 6 th arrondissent, anyway the close person ( I can’t and I don’t want to give him trouble, anyway he does not said clearly where this piece was located, he was evasive with the gallery’s name, the Coa - what is a COA of a stolen piece ?! Anyway it mentions “ Space Invader » ... I be tried to type in google “ Alias stolen invader etc.. “ but did not find anything. I don’t want to post the photo too, but it’s one as this one ( maybe a fake so : 6 k was the last bid on Cata, his bid ) .. I just asked because there are here unofficial official fans and restorers of Invader pieces, maybe they know.. Anyway it belongs to him now, legally .. Thr town could be everywhere .. or it’s a fake ! It Looks like this one in Clermont/Ferrand with another colors ... kinda ..
|
|
|
|
bitola
New Member
Posts • 79
Likes • 107
July 2020
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by bitola on Oct 24, 2020 8:02:19 GMT 1, All this talk over the mosaic and not one mention of the cracking jumper. Let me know if that’s for sale.
Jumper is 🔥 can we please get a full photo of it?
Also, can you please put it back where it rightfully belongs? I’m happy to pay you to put it back.
Thank you.
All this talk over the mosaic and not one mention of the cracking jumper. Let me know if that’s for sale. Jumper is 🔥 can we please get a full photo of it? Also, can you please put it back where it rightfully belongs? I’m happy to pay you to put it back. Thank you.
|
|
DAVE
New Member
Posts • 236
Likes • 251
October 2019
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by DAVE on Oct 24, 2020 8:35:09 GMT 1, WANTED
RKTEAMSPAIN reactivation tiles (pictures needed)
DM.
WANTED
RKTEAMSPAIN reactivation tiles (pictures needed)
DM.
|
|