Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:26:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
377 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
I absolutely agree that major corporations more often than not are run for the
benefit of management and not the stockholders. They do it in a variety of
ways, too. Only recently have the stockholders started to question the huge
salaries and stock options given to top management that.
I also agree whole-heartedly about personal liablity (within reason).
Concealing a product flaw, reaping the rewards, and then letting the next guy
take the stock hit and the consumer take the physical loss is simply criminal in
my opinion.
> 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?
Yes, I agree.
> 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.
If the action truly is a crime, no warning needs to be given (though it is still
a wise course of action).
>
> > 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.
This is a slightly different complaint, inasmuch as it revolves around social
mores and becomes a matter of opinion. I would not go into a store and mess
with their merchandise as a matter of artistic statement without first getting
permission. I have great respect for Christo going out and persuading people to
cooperate in his projects - Running Fence was a masterpiece in getting people to
change their minds and allowing him to use their land, whether or not your
regard the actual work as art. He cleans up after documenting the work and
returns the land to its original state, too. Not asking for permission and not
cleaning up afterwards is not being a responsible artist.
> > 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.
I presume not, but I couldn't be certain. I don't think she was trying to make
any statement about Home Depot.
> 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.
It's usually expressed as the right to ask someone to leave if the property
owner wishes. If some salesman walks up to my door, I can ask him to leave.
But I have to ask him to leave.
But that's not really accurate, since my neighborhood is a gated community that
spscifically has posted that if you go through those gates, you understand that
soliciting in prohibited. I don't actually need to give further warning - it is
already given. In fact, I have had a few salesmen come up to the door, and I
give them a warning that they already had a warning (who knows, maybe they
didn't see it - I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
Then there is the matter of telephone solicitors. Had to go to a specific law
to stop them, but it was resolved by national registry (and the calls have
stopped)!!!
>
> > > > 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.
I repeated them because I felt you kinda ignored them and plowed on ahead with
the same charges. You presented it as my views against your views, and I
pointed out already that it would seem that it was also your views versus Home
Depot's view. The "Art Critic" comment was trying to get at the other level of
complaint that you seem to be expressing - well, actually two: the "art" itself.
and NPR.
>
> 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.
Since only one artist has been identified here, I presumed that any bandying of
the word "art" would be regarding her and her work and her actions, not NPR.
You complained about the artist's actions, and that's what I have addressed.
Complaints about NPR are something else. Personally, I don't see the article
you referenced as gushy or as anti-corporate, and I think you are reading more
into it than is there. But that's just my two cents worth/IMHO/opinionated
outlook/whatever.
>
> 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.
Now we are switching back to the art rather than NPR. Anyway, it depends on
your motivation - if it purely about the vandalism and not about the actual art,
then I agree with you. Perhaps I was mistaking your annoyance with NPR as
annoyance with the actual art of the woman in question (I got the impression
that you didn't like it).
>
> 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 we are not talking about a cut-and-dried crime, your example becomes
misleading.
>
> 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.
There's a lot of stuff that is art, and considered rather good or important art,
that I would not want to buy, or even hang on my wall for free. But I might
still find them interesting, or more interesting because of their setting.
>
> 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.
Ummmm, then you shouldn't have made the critique. :-)
Perhaps I should be separating the subject header ("Art?" right there at the
top) from your actual comments, which are more in line with your actual defense
of not being an "art critic".
>
> Finally, this is a tiny little issue compared to the manifold sins of John
> Ashcroft, el al, but it's a diversion.
Highly agreed.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
