Who says vandalism doesn't pay!!

[rladner]

True, but they didn't even have the option to photograph or video, he painted over the art in the middle of the night.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but that building has been photographed more times than we know. More video clips than we know about. These artists have no problem finding pictures or videos of it.

To be clear, I'm not calling this Vandalism and I actually like the idea of it. If I was a building owner I could pay someone to keep up the paint of the exterior of my building or I could let some "rattle can artist" paint it for free (if it isn't in bad taste). I prefer the art to the ugly side of a building. But.....His building, his right to do as he pleases. When these guys agreed to paint the building they knew they didn't own the "canvas" and therefore never controlled the situation. Giving these guys millions of dollars because the building owner decided he wanted to paint HIS building just seems wrong to me. I would argue these guys already benefited for all the tourism and name recognition they got over the years by this building owner allowing them to showcase their work to the world. He shouldn't owe them a dime. They owe him a "Thanks" for the exposure.

[rebelbow]

Someone should go paint the judges house.

x2

[Bigdaddy]

new york new york. The town so nice they named it twice.

I hate going there. Both coast's are nuts.

totally agree

[donpablo]

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but that building has been photographed more times than we know. More video clips than we know about. These artists have no problem finding pictures or videos of it.

To be clear, I'm not calling this Vandalism and I actually like the idea of it. If I was a building owner I could pay someone to keep up the paint of the exterior of my building or I could let some "rattle can artist" paint it for free (if it isn't in bad taste). I prefer the art to the ugly side of a building. But.....His building, his right to do as he pleases. When these guys agreed to paint the building they knew they didn't own the "canvas" and therefore never controlled the situation. Giving these guys millions of dollars because the building owner decided he wanted to paint HIS building just seems wrong to me. I would argue these guys already benefited for all the tourism and name recognition they got over the years by this building owner allowing them to showcase their work to the world. He shouldn't owe them a dime. They owe him a "Thanks" for the exposure.

I agree. While the building owner probably did not pay for the, "art" I see it the same as buying a painting and deciding to torch it.

[Tejas Wildlife]

Yeah yeah yeah. It is neat looking and took WAY more skill than I will EVER have but.......It was still HIS FRICKIN PROPERTY!!! The graffiti vandals that painted there can come paint whatever the hades they want on YOUR WALLS?!?!? Right ?!?! Because that is exactly what almost everyone is saying.

The USA is becoming more Socialist with ever day.

[BigDraw]

If you own the building, upon which said artwork adorns, then you own the artwork itself and can do with as you wish

[Snowflake Killa]

Yes. Took those pics in New York this summer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That crazy good

[CaptainDave]

If you own the building, upon which said artwork adorns, then you own the artwork itself and can do with as you wish

X2

If the artist thought their work was worth money, then they should have charged the building owner for painting on the building, for which, owner consent was provided to paint on.

Heck, the building owner could argue he provided value to the artist for allowing them to show off their work/talent for free.

[Still Hunter]

Judge was appointed to office by Bill Clinton. Need we say more, yes,
utterly ridiculous.

[Pushbutton2]

True, but they didn't even have the option to photograph or video, he painted over the art in the middle of the night.

So no ever ever photographed them ever ever.
Hmmm

None of them was ever posted to the internet....
HMMMM....

I agree that what the Building OWNER did was unfortunate.
I personally would like to think I would have have it differently.

We never got to hear his reasoning for having handled it the way he did.
Maybe investors threw a last second fit about them....

[Pushbutton2]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are awesome murals and pics.
How did you determine the right angle for the shots?

[breadman]

if he owns the building and he paid them to do it then he owns the stupi-- I mean ARTwork to . democrat leftist libs wish they would all drink the coolaid.

[mikemorvan]

1. I don't see where vandalism was ever mentioned in the article.
2. There is a law, right or wrong / agree or disagree with it, on the books at least in New York that governs the issue.
3. The property owner allowed the artist to his buildings.

When the property owner allowed the artists to do their deal, he put himself in the scope of the boundaries of the law. He put himself in this position. If he had never allowed the art, he never would have had the issue. Don't put yourself in the position and you don't have to worry about.

Same as a land owner not wanting to have to deal with deer lease issues. If they don't lease the land they don't have to worry about lease stuff. Lease the land, deal with the 'stuff".