Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:42:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> The original post I made sort of took as a given (because it was stunningly
> obvious to me, anyway) that what she's doing is morally wrong, and was talking
> about the fact that NPR didn't even touch on that in its puff piece (review the
> subject line, it does try to show what I'm getting at...).
It seemed stunningly obvious to me that in large part you decided that the
artist and NPR were indulging in some sort of anti-corporate crusade in regards
to this particular case, evidence that I simply did not see. You've repeated
the charge numerous times, but I still don't see the evidence of such.
Is it morally wrong? *I* wouldn't do things the way she did, so on some level I
must view it as against my morals and artistic principals. However, the
"wronged" party is Home Depot, and they don't seem terribly upset, so why get
all huffy on their behalf? Stockholder? Write 'em a letter.
>
> What I was getting at is a larger (and to me more worrisome than some pedestrian
> artist's pavers) trend in society, not the simple mechanics of this particular
> person's activities which are just one example.
>
> We've subsequently been bogged in minute detail about whether what she did WAS
> wrong or not. If we can move beyond that (and I think I see you your summation a
> glimmering of acknowledgement that it was wrong) then the social mores stuff and
> the swipes at NPR that follow IS/ARE on point.
>
> In fact they ARE the point, once the premise is established.
NPR notes that she is asked on at least some occassions to not take photographs,
and/or to disassemble her sculpture and put the items back. They do not fault
the company in any way for those requests - they simply have reported the
actions rather than write an editorial.
>
> Again color me black and white but I didn't (when I first posted) even think
> that it was a matter of dispute that she was doing something wrong... (after
> all, "guerilla art" carries the connotation that the artist knows what they are
> doing is wrong or at least illegal (there's a distinction), or at least in my
> view it does carry it anyway).
You have mistaken the point: you are carrying on about how aggrieved Home Depot
is while at the same time Home Depot is giving a basic shrug. The behaviour
itself is dubious, but I don't see where it is criminal ("theft" implies
criminal). If they don't like her actions, Home Depot is free to ask her to
leave or desist, or both, and even make it clear that that applies to all
stores. If she doesn't comply, then it is criminal (trespass). I challenge the
details because I disagree with your assessment.
>
> But then I'm often surprised at what premises get questioned here and which get
> blithely accepted.
As do I. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
