undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgreggman34y ago0 comments

Objecting to unapproved grafitti is not about "is it art". it's about property destruction. If you disagree then I'll be happy to come over to your house and paint whatever "I want" on your house, your car, and TV, your computer, your sofa. If you'd be upset that I painted your stuff then you agree with the people who see it as property destruction. If you'd be upset for your own stuff but not when that stuff belongs to someone else then you're just being hypocritical.

0 comments

jakear4y ago

Did you read the linked article? [1] The only thing that matters is if the property owner likes it. If the property owner likes it, it stays up, if they don't, they file a vandalism case with the city.

Banksy is a vandal, as I'm sure anyone would admit, himself included. I am equally sure that there have been times when property owners haven't liked his work and have tried to report him for vandalism. But given he doesn't make a habit of posting videos of his actions online and bragging about them, he doesn't get caught/attributed.

https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/02/banksy-david-william-noll-ric...

rolph4y ago

there is a difference between public banksyification, and home invasion.

advertizers invade our homes, our bodies and our souls, the most sinister social engineering campaign yet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse