Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:38:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
347 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > > This seems to be your opinion more than the management of Home Depot, which seem
> > > to view it as a mild annoyance at the worst.
> >
> > Meaning that they're not doing their job... we have an endemic problem in the US
> > with management tending to ignore the actual owners of the company, and this is
> > just one more example, albeit minor.
>
> No, as in meaning that your opinion that there is a problem that needs to be
> dealt with is not shared (currently) by the various managers involved.
OK. Fair enough.
And as a most minor among minor shareholders my opinion doesn't count for much.
(to management, speaking as a shareholder). However (since this tiny thing is
veering off in many different directions) would you agree or disagree with the
assertion that major corps more often than not seem to be run more for the
benefit of management than for the benefit of the stockholders? That's properly
the topic of another thread, but I've said before I think big corps have too
much power today, power which the Founders didn't intend, and I'd reintroduce
personal liability and make other changes to dilute their power.
> > > > (remember, conversion of stolen property doesn't have to be *permanent*. If you
> > > > steal my car, take a joy ride, and then give it back, you've still stolen my
> > > > car... even if you topped off the gastank before you returned it)
> > >
> > > You are comparing a prosecutable crime with a non-crime. They are free to toss
> > > her from the store if they find her activity inappropriate,
> >
> > Or prosecute. Which I think you're conceding. (or if not, please show why it's
> > not a crime to convert property to use the owner doesn't intend or interfere
> > with the flow of commerce on private property)
>
> Prosecute: no, I'm not conceding that, except as a consequence of the artist not
> bowing to requests that they may make.
OK, fair enough. But I think you have agreed, at least, that people in stores do
not have carte blanche to do with store property as they wish, right?
If not, please show why it's not a crime to convert property to use the owner
doesn't intend or interfere with the flow of commerce on private property.
Further, I'm not sure why it's necessary that management request anything, if
the activities in question are in violation of law. If a crime is being
committed it's not strictly necessary that you request that it cease before you
take action, is it? Requesting that it cease, where practicable, may bolster
your case, granted.
> Prosecuting someone for rearranging but
> not actually harming stock would be laughed out of court.
Today. Hence my criticism of social mores. A certain level of vandalism seems to
be acceptable in today's society, apparently.
> If Home Depot
> actually felt that there was a problem (my bet is that it will percolate around
> for a while and then some company lawyer will whine about liablity) all they
> need to do is ask her to cease and desist, and then ask her to leave if she
> doesn't desist. THEN they could do some prosecuting if she refused the request
> to leave.
> They are perfectly within their rights to ask her to desist, and ask
> her to leave whether or not they ask her to desist.
Great. And I agree that (at least from the info given in the NPR article, which
is scanty, since it's a puff piece full of breathless admiration for the artist
sticking it to the vast corporate machine) one has no idea whether any such
request(s) have or have not been made.
> > That they choose not to prosecute doesn't make it a non crime.
> That's quite true, but at the same time, just because it violates Libertarian
> philosophy (or just the Larry philosophy, if I mistake the source), doesn't mean
> it's in the civil codes. I mean, is it? (Really! As in I'm curious, not
> mocking)
I'm not enough of an expert on UCC to know if that specific activity is or isn't
specifically prohibited, but it doesn't have to be. Laws are better when they
are more general and more principled, at least in my view.
It follows from general priniciples.
Property that you have not purchased is not yours to do with as you see fit, and
to do so is (technically) conversion of stolen property. Not a LOT of conversion
compared to joyriding but we are talking of a difference of degree, not of kind.
Further, you are not free to comport yourself as you wish while you are an
(implicitly) invited guest on private property. You are bound not to make a
nuisance of yourself and not to interfere with the flow of commerce (in the
judgement of those managing the property on behalf of the owners) and to do
otherwise is trespass. It may not be a LOT of trespass but we are talking of a
difference of degree, not of kind.
> > > so it seems a non-issue.
> >
> > To you. To me, it's symptomatic of something bigger.
>
> Again, no. It's not a non-issue to me so much as it is a non-issue (again the
> qualifier: currently) to Home Depot, and it seems to be in part because you are
> being an Art Critic
You repeat this assertion as if repeating it makes it true.
Is NPR reporting art? I don't think it is art. (fabrication may be an art but
that's not the sort of art I mean) That's what my original post is critical
of... the gushy, breathless way they laud an "artist" who is no more than a
vandal, really, for reasons not known to me, but I speculate that the reasons
include their fondness for anti-corporatism.
If I spot a grafitti artist vandalising a subway car and say "that's vandalism,
but no one cares" does that make me an art critic? No, it makes me a critic of
social mores.
If I find an article lauding that grafitti artist and overlooking the fact that
he's violating the law and say "that article shows that the originating media
organization is broken" does that make me an art critic? No, it makes me a
critic of the media and of social mores.
But since you persist in labeling me an art critic even though I have made no
statement about her work so far, I guess I might as well. I looked at several of
her works that use paving stones and I confess, I found them rather, um,
pedestrian. (ouch!) They were not something that I would pay for were I offered
the opportunity to buy them.
That has nothing to do with my point, which would stand even if I found the work
itself terrifically sublime. Please desist from calling me an Art Critic,
thanks.
Finally, this is a tiny little issue compared to the manifold sins of John
Ashcroft, el al, but it's a diversion.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
