Art critics
 

Serious bidness.

Being told you can't have art on YOUR OWN PROPERTY in America.

What? You complied with the complaint by removing the "offending word"? [sic]

We'll just charge you with something else! Who the fuck do you think you are; a free citizen, living in a free country?

Ha!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5744040.story

Everyone's a fucking art critic...

Wait, what?

And from what I can see, that sure looks like public property to me. :shrug:

Zoning... The same reason I can't have a 100ft sign marking the coming of Christ in my front yard...

I'm as anti-'the man' as the next person, but this is retarded... it's not like this was some super secret law or anything... it's not like the local government has some sort of personal vendetta against this person...

Hard to say. Art is purely subjective - some people would consider the taking a shit on a sidewalk art (ever heard of a type of art called Dada?).

Not having a clear look at the entire compilation itself makes it hard to make a judgment. What I can see from the photo in the article really isn't an eyesore, in my opinion - that is, the abstraction works for me. And that is where subjectivity falls into play.

What the artists (or, more accurately, the woman commissioning the work) should have done is check into the rules about that sort of thing. Just like photographers in Texas have to abide by a law that covers "improper photography" (which, in some cases, has been enforced ridiculously), artists who want to paint in common/public areas (or anything in view of the public) need to make sure they do it the right way.. or risk exactly what happened.

Doesn't seem like it was her property. Need more facts

Just because I think it sucks, I wouldn't prevent anyone else from listening to it.

You can't have "good music" if there's no "bad music" to compare it to.

;)

What I think sucks may make you happy...art is personal.

I personally think that shit looks like fucking graffiti...but I'm a 50 year old fucking white guy.

Sure they did. Clearly they fucking did.

They charged her with one thing, she changed it, they charged her with something else.

Sounds like a vendetta to me....

Payed a little bit more attention to the article

Yep, her property.

If I were her, I'd get the kids to paint my fucking house. That'll teach the fucking cunts.

Let them try to find an ordinance to fuck her with then...(they will, but by then, public opinion will have taken away all their jobs).

Law means shit anymore. Battles are won in the press.

They charged her with one thing and asked her to remove it... she removed it and added something else... they came back around to check to see if she had complied... she hadn't and now was in violation of something else...

I'm pretty sure they didn't have a meeting and say, "you know that bitch with the colorful wall in the low income area? Let's make her life a living hell..."

http://theinsanityreport.com/home/wp...tinfoilhat.jpg

Cute cat, douchenozzle.

She had the same mural repainted without the single word that they took exception to, then they changed the game, and charged her with something else.

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks like fucking shit, and like fucking graffiti. If I lived across from it, I'd fucking hate it. I'd also know that it's someone else's fucking shit, and it's none of my fucking business.

Didn't it say they originally came out due to a neighbor's complaint?
Also why not just have the mural painted on "her" side of the wall, so she can enjoy it in peace?

Because then she couldn't impose her shitty tastes on everyone else and then play victim when she's found in violation of the law.

Wrong, douchenozzle.
 

I'm guessing that in an alley, large expanses of fence tend to get covered in graffiti, and she was just trying to make things look a bit nicer.

It's a common strategy. Hire the little spraycan wielding fucks that would otherwise randomly tag the fucking shit outta yer fence, and have them do a complete art mural.

At least then they tend to "respect" it, and don't make it fucking worse.

Exactly.

Her tastes? I don't recall reading that she painted it...

Try to think a little harder, and I think you'll realize it's just a woman's attempt at making things look a bit better. Do you REALLY think that the blank painted-over fence is gonna stay that way...in an alley in LA?

You're funny!

Hmmm:
Do you REALLY think that the mural is gonna stay that way...in an alley in LA?

Scroll up, I hate repeating myself.

She should paint her wall a fucking hideous plaid. It's not a mural or painting.

Stereotype much? I don't believe the article said anything about graffiti being a problem on that wall. All they say about it is in the sub-headline. The relevant part reads "A woman who commissioned young artists to create the mural on a bare wall beside her house".

As for whose property it was the article isn't clear at all. The part where it says " to Black's wooden alley fence" has already been mentioned but that is the only place where the article mentions a fence. The rest of the article is about a wall with no ownership mentioned. From the picture it looks like a short wall and then a taller fence on top, but without more information it is just guessing. With the poor state of reporting now it may not be her fence either.

Houndstooth. Even uglier.

Your ride, sir:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/...9b81a42a_z.jpg

Right?
 

Someone needs to do a houndstooth print with those. I'd rock that.

I think I might be warming up to that whole houndstooth thing after all...

http://www.lingeriesallure.com/image...hbikinired.jpg

Stereotyping?

Saying that LA has a graffiti problem, is tantamount to saying NYC has too many fucking people. It's not stereotyping, it's common knowledge.

I lived in LA for a long time, and I can assure you that you'd be hard pressed to find any untagged alleys in the poorer neighborhoods.

Oddly enough, aside from being repugnant bags of shit, gangbangers tend to not tag walls with murals on them. Apparently, even the lowest forms of life can develop a sense of communal pride.

JC

Must only be LA gang bangers then. They tag everything in their "territory" where I've been. Even a mural of MLK that was on my HS gym. If it isn't moving, it gets tagged.

Yes, stereotyping. Not only does the article not say the mural was done because of graffiti it seems to indicate it had nothing to do with graffiti. Assuming, despite a complete lack of facts, that because it is somewhere in Los Angeles there must be roving gangs of hood rats (of any color) who can't help but give every visible surface the Krylon touch is stereotyping.

Anyway, you seem to have disappeared for a while. Good to see you back.

Am I the only one that thinks that when a complaint is filed it should be public WITH the persons name?

Nope. That's EXACTLY how it should be.

You're right. That article says nothing about graffiti. However, the many years I spent in that city, (and a quick Google search) tells me otherwise.

"Barbara Black also commissioned the mural to defeat the constant tagging of this North Hollywood alley fence. In recent news articles, the City of Los Angeles complained about the millions the City spends in graffiti abatement. But they will fine a local woman who puts a mural on the fence to stop the constant tagging of her fence, to help save the City some money. The fence will be tagged continuously, calls will be made constantly to remove the tagging, and the City will spend much more money than it received in the fine it gave Barbara Black. This makes no common or financial sense. Will you be happy to have your tax dollars go to remove tagging when a commissioned piece of youth art could have stayed up on the fence, stopping potential tagging?"

LINKY: http://nohoartsdistrict.com/joomla/i...ort&Itemid=221

LA proper is 468 square miles, and home to an estimated 41,000 gang members. That's 87.6 gang members per square mile. That's not stereotyping, it's just basic math.

Thanks, I've been busy...

JC

If the research had been done before the statement was made it would be factual. If not it was stereotyping even though the facts ended up backing up the assertion.:shrug:

Busy is good.

I have nothing to add other than my step mom recently took up painting (in the last year.) She sold 2 pieces a few weeks ago for $200 a piece! :) How cool is that???

Yes, Little Red Riding Hood; you're very sweet, and very nice, BUT:

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK....


:db:

Good work, you stereotyped correctly.:dthumb:

Nope, just ahead of the curve, son. Maybe just paying a wee tad more attention than the next guy, that's all.

Nice try at making my point less effective, though, but you're gonna have to try a little bit harder next time.

Gee, I'd hate to be behind someone like you on the track. I prefer being around people who don't have to wait until shit actually fucking smacks them in the fucking head before reacting.

Try to keep up, sweety.

Again, good work stereotyping correctly.:dthumb:

Again, nice try!

;)

Awesome. :dvrofl:

Did you go to law school? If not, you should. :dthumb:

Yeah, bullshit like that usually only comes with a fucking law degree, right?

Actually it was a compliment. :lol:

Funny, from where I'm from, them's fightin' words.