Art

Street Art 'Shouldn't be Privatized,' Say Protesters Who White-Out Famous Graffiti

|

brendanlim

Atlanta, Georgia woke up today to find Krog Street Tunnel, perhaps the city's most famous location for graffiti, painted over with a dull gray. Was it censorship by the man, a crack-down on people's self-expression? Nope, it was anti-profit protesters.

This weekend is a masquerade ball that's open to the public, but tickets cost $50-$100 dollars. Graffiti artists "staged the protest because they said they were offended by how the party planners were using their art as a backdrop," according to a local news station.

"We're not going to give away this art for free to somebody who is trying to make money off of it. Street art, public art, should be free for all. it shouldn't be privatized," an unnamed organizer told another local station.

An street artist who goes by "Catlanta" wrote a snarky Facebook post:

The Krog Masquerade hopes to bring out the art loving residents of Atlanta to the Krog Street Tunnel on Saturday. We had a similar takeover of the tunnel last night with impassioned Atlanta arts lovers, and all of the sudden, their whole crew is throwing shade our way. What gives, brah? You love our art, but don't want to listen to our opinions?

twitter, @MaxBlau

To what extent Catlanta, who sometimes uses copyrighted characters in his art, is opposed to private enterprise is questionable. He gives away some art for free, but he sells some, too. And he's leveraged the public display of his art for enough fame to work with the Ted Talk organization.

One of the only pieces of writing on the wall this morning was "#KrogIsNotForSale."

However, It's not clear why this particular event irked activists. The art-covered tunnel has been in movies, music videos, and even inspired a symphony – all profit-driven ventures.

Also the organizers of the Krog Masquerade state on their website:

A portion of proceeds will be donated to the Georgia Lawyers for the Arts – a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance and educational programming to artists, arts organizations and the Georgia Foundation for Public Spaces. This enables us to provide financial scholarships, awards, educational programs, tools for artists as well as maintain sponsorships for our various events.

Residents and fans of the iconic tunnel have taken to social media to express their thoughts. Some think the act was empowering to the artist-protesters, others think they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

145 responses to “Street Art 'Shouldn't be Privatized,' Say Protesters Who White-Out Famous Graffiti

  1. We’re not going to give away this art for free to somebody who is trying it [sic] make money off of it

    I…I…what? Isn’t that saying that there is a cost, however esoteric, to enjoying their art, which means they own it, which means it is privatized?

    These people are functionally retarded.

    1. Easily my favorite prog derp line this year. The march to become a complete parody of themselves continues apace.

    2. These people want a cut of the take.

      1. Yeah, but their own “philosophy” and politics are against that, so they twist themselves into pretzels to say that while trying to still sound anti-profit. It’s interesting to watch.

    3. If you don’t want to give your art away for free to whoever wants to use it, you probably shouldn’t put it in a public place.

      1. See my comment further down about their “private property for me, not thee” attitudes.

      2. Forcibly. Put it in a public place, forcibly.

        “How dare you try to profit from our vandalism?!?”

    4. Too much huffing will do that.

  2. I hope some similarly minded people bulldoze the entire neighborhood of Williamsburg under the same thesis

    1. I was thinking the same thing about Oakland City, also in Atlanta. It looks like a fucking war zone.

      1. My point was that Bburg was covered in graffiti, which resulted in hundreds of coffee shops and bars opening up and everyone turning the area into ‘hipster SoHo’

        It was “authentic” for about a hot minute. If only the graf guys could pick up ‘their’ walls and scram to Bushwick to retain their artistic integrity. Vain hope.

        1. Isn’t ‘Shwick also a hipster nightmare? And Green Point? And I hear even Gowanus is hipsterizing.

          1. Oh, yes to all.

            Gowanus is a different scene and it was going in that direction concurrent w/ Bburg. Buswick and Gpoint are ‘phase 2’ of the Great Millenial Brooklyn invasion

            Gpoint less so because the poles are steadfastly territorial and aren’t selling off their properties to developers as fast as the abandoned warehouses in Bushwick.

            My point was that it would be nice if the gentrification phase were speeded up to where none of the Bedford Ave stroller-and-$5 latte crowd were under the illusion that they were still ‘cool’

            1. Gowanus, where art meets heavy metal poisoning.

              1. Don’t forget it also used to be a swamp. That’s cosmically relevant here.

                1. When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that’s what you’re going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

                  1. And HUGE tracts of land!

                2. So when their precious environment reclaims the area as a swamp (without a government program to do the reclaiming, think “Sandy the Sequel”), we’ll be bailing out these people with a government program.

    2. Isn’t Willimaburg still mostly Hasidic Jews?

      1. That would be more Flatbush if I recall correctly.

        1. No – 2 different communities.

          “South” williamsburg (south of the bridge) is a giant Satmar Hasidic enclave, which is Hungarian in origin

          Flatbush/Crown-Heights Park is largely a Lubavitch hasidic community, which is Russian.

          You can tell the difference because Satmar have the curlycue sideburns and the round hats, while lubavitch have the santa-claus beards and the Fedoras.

          They both smell terrible

          1. Sorry, meant to insert ‘boro park’ in there. which is sort of an overlap between bobov and lubavitch. probably more information than necessary.

            The other key feature of the Lubavitch which distinguishes them from all others – they actually talk to people! they’re the ones who drive around in their “Mitzva Tanks” and try and convert regular jews (or at least get them to do a little praying to help expedite the end of the world, and the return of the Mossiach).

            Shades of Crazy, i know

            1. But which ones own B&H?

              1. I thought B&H closed. My dad always said you could get a discount there if you paid in shekels

                1. They close on Friday afternoons and Saturdays. I think it’s only been a couple of weeks since I heard any of their ads on the radio.

                  1. They close on those days because of the Jewish Sabbath. I actually went down after work on a Friday, not thinking, and got there around 6PM, and they were closed (even though the sun was still out). I never forgot about the Sabbath when I was deciding to go there from then on.

                    Also, inside they have this trolley/track system for bringing the items you want to the pay counter, which is actually very cool.

                2. It’s still there. I get the catalog. It is a strangely run business, but they do a good job.

              2. Satmar, apprarently

                “The business is owned by Herman Schreiber. Schreiber and many of the store’s employees are observant Satmar Hasidic Jews who close the store on Shabbat and Jewish holidays except for Hanukkah (Jewish law does not prohibit work during that holiday, except during Shabbat itself). The Web site remains open, but orders are not taken or shipped between Friday evening and Saturday evening and on Jewish holidays.[2][3] The store employs hundreds of Orthodox Jews and has been accused of discriminating in their favour.[4] An Orthodox Jewish bus company provides daily service to and from Kiryas Joel, a Satmar village in Orange County, New York.[5]”.

  3. OT:

    National. Treasure.

    David Burge @iowahawkblog ? 17h 17 hours ago
    Breaking: Secret Service K9 apprehends another WH fence jumper
    Breaking Breaking: Hero K9 accused of visiting prostitute Chihuahuas

    1. He’s awesome. I liked this:

      With enough hard work, vertical leap and 40 yard dash time, any American kid can end up in the White House.

      ? David Burge (@iowahawkblog) October 23, 2014

  4. Huh. I’m starting to think that some people on this planet are really, really stupid.

  5. The many levels of functional idiocy in this “protest” are so dense and impacted they form a new geologic formation: Sedimentary Retardite.

    1. Okay that was brilliant.

  6. Who owns the tunnel? Aka, whose property was being repeatedly vandalized?

    1. Oh man, there are so many layers of cognitive dissonance and intellectual contradictions to get through with these people before you even get to that part. That’s what makes it so amazing.

      1. I start with what I care about. Idiots being idiots needs context before I will think about looking into their idiocy.

      2. I start with the fact that these anti-private-property people were originally not given the right to vote in this country.

    2. It belongs to the will of the people, man. As determined and interpreted by us, who are artistically attuned to common people.

    3. I suspect it is city property where graffiti is tolerated if not encouraged. I think that is becoming a thing lately.

      1. I think CSX owns it, with some City of Atlanta presence as well.

        And yes, the tunnel and the graffiti are a beloved quirk of the neighborhood.

        1. And to think that here in NY, the smart people stay OUT of graffitied tunnels.

          1. They’re a novelty here in Atlanta.

  7. When exactly did vandalism become art, or make some great contribution to society?

    1. This is a false dilemma. There is nothing inherent about vandalism or art that means that something can’t be both. Graffiti done on private property is certainly vandalism if the owner don’t give permission. But if DaVinci came and painted the Mona Lisa on the side of your house at night, it would still be the Mona Lisa.

      1. And DaVinci would still be a dick. And you’d be foolish for refusing to give permission in advance.

        1. He’d be a dick if he didn’t ask permission. But that has no bearing on whether or not something is art. That’s my point. I don’t know where people get the idea that it can’t be both art and crime at the same time.

      2. I want to be sooo mad at him but God, that smirk! It’s…it’s…/breaks down and cry.

        1. cries.

  8. Artists appropriate public property for personal benefit and notoriety
    Become furious when people behave as though it is still public property: blame *Capitalism*

    1. That sums it up nicely.

      1. Perhaps that should have been, “Blame OTHER PEOPLE’S Capitalism”

  9. Example 432,685 of “They’d be soooo cute if they didn’t have power.”

  10. What gives, brah? You love our art, but don’t want to listen to our opinions?

    I think that’s exactly everyone’s position on these people.

    1. Actually, I find their “art” repugnant vandalism, and I don’t want to hear their opinions.

      1. Yup.

      2. According to anything I can find on the subject, the owner of the tunnel doesn’t object to the decoration and people generally enjoy it and you are making silly assumptions.
        Also, why “art” in quotes. Whether or not it is also vandalism had no bearing on whether or not it is art. And it clearly is art, even if not to your taste.

  11. Even better:

    Krog painted over other people’s graffitis (I’m assuming he didn’t do every graffiti in the tunnel). How he squares that with “graffiti belongs to the graffiti artist”, I’d love to know.

    1. KROG SMASH!!

    2. Krog painted over other people’s graffitis (I’m assuming he didn’t do every graffiti in the tunnel). How he squares that with “graffiti belongs to the graffiti artist”, I’d love to know.

      Krog is the name of the tunnel (more precisely, the street where the tunnel is located). I don’t see much information about the number or identities of the “protesters” who did the painting over, besides the apparent involvement of this catlanta person quoted in the article.

      Nonetheless, I’d be surprised if the action involved the approval of every single artist whose work was to be defaced.

      1. Remember, there is no such thing as private property to these people…except the stuff that they created and possess. Private property for me, not thee. They really do think that way. It’s actually quite sociopathic if you think about it.

        So they’ll cover up everyone’s art to make this point, but if someone else had covered up their art without them agreeing, they’d scream bloody murder. It’s not just sociopathic, it’s mindlessly infantile as well.

        1. That’s about what I was going to say, though I was taking it further; why should we believe that the people who claimed responsibility actually did either the graffiti OR the painting over?

        2. Free speech! SHUT UP! I’M TALKING! NO, IT’S NEVER YOUR TURN. DERP, DERP, DERP!

          Derp.

      2. Krog is the name of the tunnel

        My bad. As you note, though, Unless every single “artist” who graffitied the tunnel consented to having their work destroyed, though, the point stands.

      3. This place is an evolving art project. By putting something there, you understand that it will be covered up or edited by someone else.

        It’s a weird property rights situation, as the owner (CSX, I believe) doesn’t seem to care if there’s graffiti and the neighborhood has embraced this tunnel and it’s “art” as part of their identity. It seems the event organizer has disrespected the neighborhood and graffiti community, so they simply made another edit to the tunnel’s design.

        1. This place is an evolving art project private property. By putting something there, you understand that it will be covered up or edited by someone else you are placing something on someone else’s property that you do not own.

          1. You don’t know the situation. For many many years it has been at least ignored and possibly encouraged (to keep it localized) at this tunnel.

            If CSX (I read they were the owner) changed their tune to prohibit graffiti, I would agree with you. However, they don’t care.

            1. It’s still private property. And you are still placing something there which you can not then claim ownership over because you placed it on someone else’s property that you don’t own.

            2. And since CSX also didn’t object to the organizers of the Krog Masquerade using the tunnel for their purpose, who the hell are you to protest that use?

              1. Man, I’m with you. Plenty of derp.

                These people feel they, as a community, own the art on these walls. They don’t like this guy exploiting that which they intended for free for everyone, so they greyed it all out.

          2. the owner (CSX, I believe) doesn’t seem to care if there’s graffiti

            If that is true, then your comment is just stupid. Private property owners can and often do allow the public to use their property for various purposes. Specific permission is not required in each case. And in this case it looks like the property owners don’t mind the graffiti and may well consider it as something that adds value to the property.

            1. Facts, as best I can relate them:

              -People who paint there have a sense of ownership of the walls, as a community.
              -The owner, and government, don’t care that graffiti goes on there. I guess it helps to keep it contained.
              -People who paint there don’t like their paintings being closed off to the general public for a $100/ticket party.
              -People who paint there decided to paint over everything.

              If there were EVER community property, these walls would be it. There’s plenty of “derp” and lack of sense, but those are the facts.

              1. I don’t know if I buy the community property part. But if the owner doesn’t mind it being decorated, the cries of “vandalism” are just wrong.

                I happen to think that the artists had stupid and unreasonable complaints about the party. But I find that the assumption that all graffiti is vandalism and therefore can’t be art to be irritating on many levels. And if they are generally allowed to paint there, then they can paint it over too. If you want to organize your party around something like street art, then you have to deal with the things that street artists do.

                1. Said it better than I’ve been able to. Thank you.

                2. “But I find that the assumption that all graffiti is vandalism and therefore can’t be art to be irritating on many levels”

                  Why would that irritate anybody? It’s just paint on a fucking wall. Call it creation if it gives you jollies.

                  1. I don’t know. Why does anything irritate anyone? Why shouldn’t we all just sit perfectly still until we die?
                    Art is a wonderful thing, so it bothers me that people want to decide what is or is not art based on personal preference or taste. Call it a pet peeve. I also hate it when people say “why is that in a museum, I could have painted that?”

        2. There’s an interesting legal point to be raised here, though. If the tunnel is indeed private property, and the owner has allowed this sort of informal arrangement whereby people can come put up their art, what are the limitations?

          If somebody came by and started painting things that were obscene, would the owner have a case for vandalism against the painter, or is that charge forfeit since he extended the privilege of painting there to others? And does the answer to that change if we switch “painting things that were obscene” to “painting over the art that is there”?

          1. I don’t believe permission is expressly granted.

            CSX ignores it because it doesn’t affect their trains in the least, and City of Atlanta would prefer the graffiti stay in a dark, hard to police, tunnel along a railroad line. Give kids that want to screw around a place to do it, and it keeps them from tagging something more visible.

            1. Right, as I said, it appears to be an informal arrangement. What I’m wondering is whether CSX retains the right to change the terms of that arrangement at any time. That is to say, if CSX objects to what somebody is painting in that space (for whatever reason), could that act be considered vandalism?

  12. These works of “art” shouldn’t even be there in the first place.

    Vandals should be shot on sight.

    1. This place is VERY closed in and out of the way. It has become more of a community art project than an eyesore.

    2. Shot seems a tad extreme. How about spray-painted?

      1. Shot with paintballs.

      2. Or, I don’t know, being duly charged and given due process of law if the property owner wants to press charges.

        1. And then shot with paintballs, right?

          1. Just for good measure.

      3. mandatory econ classes

        1. (while being shot with paintballs)

    3. Jesus, who called the art police. Is it really impossible to get that it can be art and vandalism at the same time? And that in this case it appears to be tolerated if not encouraged by the property owners. Some people seem to lose all reason when the word “graffiti” appears.

      1. Is is really impossible to get that it is irrelevant if it is art or not?

        1. Irrelevant to what? It seems relevant to the morons who keep putting “Art” in scare quotes.

          But you are right, it is not very relevant to the discussion. It is just a pet peeve of mine when people insist on defining art to suit their own preferences and prejudices. Whatever else you think of it, graffiti clearly is art.

          1. “It is just a pet peeve of mine when people insist … graffiti clearly is art.”

            LMFAO

            1. What? Your ellipsis kind of skips the relevant part there.

              1. No it really doesn’t.

              2. “It is a pet peeve of mine when other people do precisely what I am doing…”

  13. So… he cleaned up the mess he made for free? WIN/WIN!

  14. Georgia Lawyers for the Arts

    move over Human Fund

    1. Stalin and the buttplug are both from Georgia.

      1. +1 Golden Fiddle

        1. buttplug

          +1 Golden Shower

      2. Well played.

        /tap on bum.

  15. This place is a de-facto open canvas for graffiti artists. A person’s designs will get covered up within weeks by other designs.

    The community (local and art community) have embraced this place as part of their identity and a place for their expression.

    Combine a dickish event organizer, a 2-mile detour for this neighborhood, and commercialization of these “donated” works and that’s what you get here. The artists are upset that their designs, intended for the community, were being used for a $100/ticket party benefitting a jerk of an organizer (not much, if any, is going to this artist charity). IMO the painters have more redeeming qualities than the event organizer.

    These artists simply edited their canvas, as is usual.

    1. These artists simply edited their canvas

      Did they? Or did a few of them do so?

      And was it part of the understanding that your design will get covered up include getting covered up by primer-gray paint?

      None of them would have objected if this were done by the owner of the tunnel or someone who was opposed to graffiti generally?

      1. I see the art in there as abandoned property and you can’t expect it to remain.

        I do believe they’d be upset if “the man” painted over their drawing, but they’d get over it. Pretty sure it’s happened before in this tunnel.

        1. So, derpity derp?

        2. I do believe they’d be upset if “the man” painted over their drawing,

          It always comes back to principals over principles for this crowd.

          What would be really hilarious is if turns out an anti-graffiti activist painted over the entire tunnel, dressed it up as a stupid leftoid protest, and then after everyone picks sides based on their principals, reveals that it was painted over by one of the Wrong People.

          New and epic levels of derp would ensue, I’m sure.

          1. I wish I were independently wealthy and didn’t need a real job. I would have excellent hobbies.

            1. You? Ha! Me! I’d build a space elevator that would also double as a giant piece of art.

        3. I see the art in there as abandoned property

          Apparently, the people who painted over the art disagree. Their protest is based on their assertion that they retain control over what use the property is put to.

          You can’t say that about property you have abandoned.

          1. the owner (CSX, I believe) doesn’t seem to care if there’s graffiti

            I think it would be more accurate to say that their protest was an assertion of de facto control over the property. But that kind of control doesn’t necessarily require ownership. I don’t think you can break this down to a simple property rights thing. This is apparently a place where it is generally accepted that people can paint as they please, including painting over other people’s art. Unless the actual property owner wants to assert control over it and either erase or preserve what is there, then no one really owns the art. It is IP without any legal protections. The guy who painted over it was asserting control in the only way he had available.

            I still think the guy is a moron with his anti-capitalist nonsense and inconsistent view of property rights. But the people holding the party were probably the same kind of idiots, just with more money, so I have to sort of admire the guy for fucking with them like this.

            1. Woops, wrong thing quoted above. I meant to quote MM’s
              Their protest is based on their assertion that they retain control over what use the property is put to.

            2. To be clear, it wasn’t just one guy that painted over the tunnel. According to news reports it was 100+ people from the neighborhood and graffiti community.

              1. Or the people who did it, then.

              2. We can circle the black hole of stupidity with these people forever, I know, but:

                The guy who painted over it was asserting control in the only way he had available.

                I think the “property” at issue here isn’t the tunnel, but the graffiti works themselves.

                And the fundamental claim of the people who painted over it seems to be that

                “We’re not going to give away this art for free to somebody who is trying to make money off of it.

                That is an assertion of ownership. You can’t “give away” something that belongs to somebody else.

                Either this art is “public” which means its already been given away, or the artist retains some ownership and can remove it if he/she/it wishes.

                If individual artists had painted over their works, that would be fine. But, after asserting that the artist retains some ownership, these clowns destroyed somebody else’s art. In the name of public art. Or something.

    2. So, “derp”?

      Got it.

      1. On all sides. Yes. Definitely “derp”.

        I was surprised to see it here. Knowing the details, I can’t find where it really fits on Reason.

        1. You see nothing odd about ‘artists’ appropriating someone else’s private property for their ‘art project’ and then getting upset when yet another entity does the same with the ‘art’ they left there? No cognitive dissonance at all? Derp?

          1. You obviously don’t know the specifics of this place and situation.

            This place is an open canvas (by omission or encouragement, I’m not sure) for graffiti in Atlanta. The graffiti community feels that they own the graffiti, collectively, and have put it up there for all to observe for free. They feel someone shouldn’t be making money off this, so they (as always) edited the graffiti in the tunnel.

            There’s plenty of cognitive dissonance, sure, but this is a pretty petty response, worthy of zero attention.

            1. So, for you it’s all about the feelz and fuck any actual principles. And since you can’t answer based on logic, you will simply refuse to respond to any actual point regarding private property and ownership.

              Derp de derpity derp DERP!

              1. Nah dude. Logic is great, but this situation doesn’t follow it. Not even from it’s root.

                This situation is ALL about feels, so you can’t apply logic here. It’s all grey area.

                I’m just giving facts, as best as I can. These people feel that they own the art, as a community. They don’t like it being used for someone else’s profit (plenty of cognitive dissonance here, since it’s been done before without complaint) so they removed their “property”.

                1. It’s all grey area.

                  It certainly is now.

                  1. +1 “Use Rustoleum Grey To Temper Extreme Color Schemes

                    “Primarily gray spaces require other accent colors in order to convey emotion or a mood. Left alone, grays communicate maturity and wisdom. These spaces will not encourage coversation and are recommended only for areas where you wish to retreat for peace of mind.

                    Darker grays convey a stately formality, while lighter grays waft a relaxing air across a space. Metallic grays are associated with state-of-the-art technology and refinement. Use grays sparingly to foggy, rainy climates to avoid a depressing effect.

                    Get Inspired!”

                2. so they removed their “property”.

                  Together with everybody else’s.

                  I know, I know, these are profoundly stupid people who are incapable of rational thought, etc.

                  And I do appreciate your local knowledge, eubes. Always good to have the context.

    3. So, which ‘Community’ unilaterally decided it was the real community, and the rest of the community could go fuck itself?

      1. Well, some of it is the actual neighborhood upset with this jerk of an event organizer (closing off the only north-side exit), which fed the graffiti community’s objection to their donated work being used for profit.

        It’s a very small community getting “fucked”, and they’re not really getting fucked because they contributed nothing to that tunnel other than calling attention to it through this party for their profit.

        In some twisted way, it’s a “I’m leaving it as I found it” situation.

        1. This word you use, “Community”…

          …I do not think it means what you think it means…

          1. It seems like at least some of the community he refers to is the people who actually live in the area and use the tunnel to get places. If I were one of those people, I’d be annoyed about someone closing off a public way for a private party.

            1. true

              wouldn’t their beef then be with the city?

              I’ve griped when my block was shut down for TV and Commercial shoots, which has happened often. It would not have been considered ‘cool’ of me to, say, paint big dicks on all the walls so that the ‘commercialization’ was discouraged.

              1. Sadly, living in Albuquerque, I suspect painting big dicks on random walls would have just been taken as fine for “Breaking Bad”. :-/

                Tempting anyway, though. Seriously people. Fuck off and just let me drive to work already.

              2. And I was really tempted to tag some of the “burnt out” cars a few years back with “JOHN CONNOR LIVES” when they were shooting T4. 😀

    4. Re: eubes,

      This place is a de-facto open canvas for graffiti artists. A person’s designs will get covered up within weeks by other designs.

      But in the meantime, no cocktail parties!

      The artists are upset that their designs, intended for the community, were being used for a $100/ticket party benefitting [sic] a jerk of an organizer (not much, if any, is going to this artist charity).

      Which is the gist of the article. You’re basically summarizing here.

      IMO the painters have more redeeming qualities than the event organizer.

      Profits Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-d!

      These artists simply edited their canvas, as is usual.

      Sure. The even organizer did not place a single speck of paint on the art, was simply having a party. The artist or artists painted over out of spite and jealously. And yet somehow the organizer was the one acting like a jerk?

      Ah, those little red Marxians!

      1. He managed to piss of the neighborhood during community meetings, and piss off the graffiti community.

        The only group he managed to please was the City of Atlanta permit office. He’s clearly a jerk.

        FTR: I have no problem with him profiting off this event, even if he’s closing a street for it. This community of graffiti artists is not OK with him using their free art for gain. They have a sense of ownership over what’s on these walls, so they “left it as they found it.”

        1. “They have a sense of ownership over what’s on these walls”

          Which is the funny part.

        2. Re: eubes,

          He managed to piss of the neighborhood during community meetings, and piss off the graffiti community.

          And that means the artists did not feel jealous? Or do you find rationality behind defacing a work of art? Just asking.

  16. So, my takeaway from this is, “Douchebags gonna douche, yo.”

    The retardation is epic. Fuck ’em.

    1. I’d rather not; I imagine they’re no more selective about their sex-life than they are with their art, and I don’t WANT every STD known to man.

  17. …”He gives away some art for free, but he sells some, too.”…

    A lefty hypocrite?! Why, imagine my surprise!

    1. Loss-leader. The freebies are advertisements, and hidden around town. People who REALLY want one, but are too slow to find one he hides are willing to pay a lot for his scarce product and his brand.

      1. So, the hypocrite didn’t want somebody else capitalizing on the CSX property, while he has been capitalizing on the CSX property.
        Douchebags gonna douche.

        1. Well, his favored medium isn’t graffiti. I believe he’s just a louder voice than others in this situation.

          He cuts out and paints little wooden cartoon cats and leaves them around Atlanta (LITTERING!!) and posts the locations on Twitter/Instagram. It’s part of the “Free Art” movement in a few cities.

          Corporations and other groups have enlisted him to create art for them, as he’s become a fixture in Atlanta.

          He’s turned giving out free trinkets into a career.

  18. This weekend is a masquerade ball that’s open to the public, but tickets cost $50-$100 dollars. Graffiti artists “staged the protest because they said they were offended by how the party planners were using their art as a backdrop,”

    Little red Marxians hiding behind semantics, as usual. Acting like jealous jerks is justified because “they were offended.”

    Doesn’t matter that a ball with lots of photos and selfies would bring free publicity for their art but not these guys! Oh, no. These guys are all about principles and shit.

  19. These Graffiti artist shot themselves in the foot. By painting over their work they have denied a bunch of stupid rich people from seeing their work and then those same people possibly buying some of their art. More DERP. BTW I think their stupid rich people because they are paying someone big bucks to see something they can see for free. Of course by paying someone who will close the street for them means they are probably a bunch of liberal white people to scared to associate with the artist and that is what the artist should really be mad about, the liberal high brow hypocrisy.

  20. perhaps a roundtable discussion on ‘property rights’ is in order

  21. “Street art, public art, should be free for all. It shouldn’t be privatized.” “What gives, brah? You love our art, but don’t want to listen to our opinions?” “KrogIsNotForSale”

    In other words, “Public art should be free for all, except for those we don’t like; and it you want to like our graffiti art, you have to like it for our reasons and not your own.”

    These graffiti artists are offended that someone was going to use their creation as part of something to which they did not agree and of which they do not approve. How do they not see the irony?

    1. “How do they not see the irony?”

      Self-Awareness & Intellectual Maturity are not prominent features of the quasi-marxist graf-hipster set.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.