Abraham Obama - One Man's Art Becomes Another's Act Of Vandalism (Trees And Things)

port1080: Re: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:43:15 EST

No, it's not. It's a terrible point. He didn't do it

Didn't do it this time. And certainly hasn't condemned what his fans have done, at least as far as I can tell from the articles. In fact, the Boston Herald article says this

thefadd: Re: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:29:59 EST

No, it's not. It's a terrible point. He didn't do it. And if someone put posters of the Mona Lisa where they didn't belong, it certainly would devalue that property as well.

skeptic: Re: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:17:00 EST

Good point.

port1080: Re: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:07:22 EST

From the writeup: He established a name for himself by papering over corporate billboards with his own personal messages of scorn for corporate greed and war.

That suggests to me that even if he didn't tell his followers to put the posters up, it

skeptic: Re: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:44:03 EST

If someone has a poster bearing any other work of art, let us say, the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci (he of the Code), and if that poster were to be glued to a wall where it wasn't wanted by the owner of the wall, would this act thereby devalue the origina

port1080: "Art" isn't a license to be a dick

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:08:28 EST

I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to modern art - I appreciate attempts that are clever or original, even if they don't require any particular skill or don't fit the traditional mold. Piss Christ, elephant dung Virgin Mary - bring 'em on! I draw the lin