Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Monday, February 28, 2011

Private Property Rights and Art Attacked by NIMBY Cranks and City Bureaucrats


In America, you certainly have the right to decorate your home any way you want, but apparently not in Valley Village.

Ten North Hollywood High students were commissioned to paint a Graffiti Art mural on a homeowner’s private fence. But the City came out and fined her, and is now forcing her to paint over it. This despite other murals in the area being allowed.

Certainly someone with a lot of time on their hands complained.  Supporters are appealing to Paul Krekorian and hope you will too.

Labels: ,

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Oh come on ...how could you even defend this?

Let's back to CD14..it's too quiet.

February 28, 2011 2:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Obviously there's an ordinance against this or the city wouldn't be there. I think you are whining Higby.

February 28, 2011 2:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

GEEZ, Higby, use your head for something besides a place to hang your hair on.

Taggers don't understand the "gentle" distinctions between "private" and public property - let along "with permission" They only know I WANT MINE TOO.

I WANT TO BE SEEN, TOO... (mommy didn't love me enough). ME, ME, ME!

Start allowing "graffiti" art on private propery in plain view, "with the owners' permission,"
and you won't be able to hire painting crews fast enough to remove what follows in the immediate area -- WITHOUT permission.

Just look what happened in the L.A. River when FOLAR commissioned an "tagging area" the cost to the City to remove the obscene and threatening art was in the millions of dollars.

February 28, 2011 3:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I know a guy who can draw a daisy with a machine gun on the side of a building, but that doesn't mean every time I hear a semi-automatic weapon firing in my neighborhood (and I have), that "art" is being created.

"Grafitti art" isn't art. It's destructive patterning and a failure to provide healthy examples for young people who might otherwise be able to make a living from their artistic bent. The apparently well-meaning numbskulls who describe it as art should have to pay for the damage it does to the whole of society.

February 28, 2011 3:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

See, THIS is why I could never be a "Libertarian" type.

Principals of "freedom" trump any responsibility to use that freedom with wisdom and concern for neighbors and community interests and needs.

Libertarians should just admit what they really are - slightly less-violent anarchists.

February 28, 2011 3:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Graffiti isn't art? Who says? You? well that's your own opinion but it has been classified as art and has produced artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring and influenced Banksy. Graffiti is nothing new and it's thousands of years old. Graffiti Art is a style of art. Graffiti is vandalism. That's the difference. Graffiti Art with the permission of the owner is not vandalism as in this case.

I'm sure you don't think Abstract Expressionism or Cubism is art either. booooh. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not art.

The point of the article was the City's ordinance. Can anyone accurately and fairly explain why a neighborhood mural is an ad while another neighborhood mural is not? Please shed some light on this.

February 28, 2011 3:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3:57

I could quote the article, too.

Big whoop. It's a great ordinance whatever it is, now explain (which you can't), how this "property owner" is not going to be responsible for a marked increase in "unpermitted" tagging everywhere nearby.

I say if you allow tagging on you own "private" property, then you post a $5,000 bond for every square foot of visible space it covers to pay the costs to the rest of us for all the crap copycatting that we'll have to deal with from the wannabe's who WILL follow suit. Immediately!

There are no cases where the uptick doesn't follow -- including the little vandal thugs that will then COVER UP, the "art" that the owner actually permitted, to the point where it's unrecognizable as whatever form of dysfuntional art expression it was supposed to be.

Including obscene, violent, and the antisocial forms. No nearby neighbor's fence, wall, garage door, and sidewalk will be safe.

THAT's why there are rules against it. It's more an infectious destructive disease than any form or "art".

February 28, 2011 4:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Gee, I can remember the last time anyone tagged "Abstract Expressionism or Cubism" on any of the freeway overpasses and died from being hit by cars passing by.

I must have missed that story?

Didn't that dude who painted the Sistine Chapel do his rough draft on an underpass on the 405?

"Art"... sheeeoooot! Ask any of the little gangbangers who practice this if mommy will let them do it in the bathroom at home?

February 28, 2011 4:32 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

So I guess you can have a mural of a guy sucking another guy's dick and that is art.

But God forbid someone hire some teenagers (MY GOD! They Might Be Mexicans!) to create a highly stylized form of art.

I still don't see how the art is "advertising." Advertising for what?

How is it "worser" than the other mural?

February 28, 2011 4:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"So I guess you can have a mural of a guy sucking another guy's dick and that is art."

If you like that Higby, sit tight.

That and worse will follow "permitted" tagging - every time, everywhere.

If they have to climb trees and hang from their ankles. "Allowed" here is allowed there.

Thug artists can't understand the difference. And REAL artists will be the first ones to complain when their work is covered up by it.

Will the owner of the house be paying the thousands of dollars necessary to grafitti coat the "art" on her property, as people who put up REAL murals do? Or will she be expecting other taxpayers to come up with all of the ancillary costs.

I'm betting her sense of entitlement follows that way. Arrogant art snobs that push this kind of irresponsible clutter and waste always expect others to bear the costs of their "expression".

February 28, 2011 5:04 PM  

Anonymous Lisa Bianconi said:

Graffiti is the plural form of scratch, quick strokes in Italian. It goes back as far as the Greeks/Romans/Eqyptians and was used as a quick form of art. The word Graffiti has been used to describe vandalism/people writing on walls/creating art on walls without permission. It is a general term. No one is saying that is a good thing to do. However, graffiti is an art form and we must accept that. The style of art illegally put on walls is YES an art style. We should encourage this style of art legally and in a way for all to enjoy. Are flower and rainbow murals ok but funky, weird colorful writing not? That's not fair.

Please note that tagging and a graffiti art piece are not the same thing.

February 28, 2011 5:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Those white folks in Valley Village don't want this kind of art. Because they think it is Mexican.

February 28, 2011 6:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They should have called it homoerotic and it would have been celebrated over there in Lesbian Village.

February 28, 2011 6:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What an eyesore !!! If that was painted on the house next door to me, I'd complain big time. First because the gaudiness is aesthetically offensive. And second, because if I wanted to sell my house it would be at a greatly devalued amount. Debate whether it's art or not. Who cares - it devalues everyone else's property within sight of it.

February 28, 2011 6:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It is Graffiti and needs to be cleaned up. Paul Krekorian needs to act and clean it up! Graffiti Busters are just for this! It also has gang logos, that will encourage other Graffiti in the area. Sorry but this is not Venice Beach get it out.

February 28, 2011 6:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Most of the complaints are coming from people close by. I don't blame them.

February 28, 2011 9:38 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Maybe she should have opened up a pot shop instead.

February 28, 2011 9:39 PM  

Blogger Joe B. said:

What she should do is not violate city ordinance. I feel sorry for her neighbors.

February 28, 2011 9:44 PM  

Blogger John said:

The ordinance she was cited for is "advertising signage." This is clearly not an ad (I don't see any Pepsi logos?), thus the ordinance she was cited for is invalid and WRONG. It's an abuse of power to cite a private citizen for the wrong ordinance just to force them to remove art you disagree with.

Out of curiosity, how much money are we talking about when you say it will "devalue your property?" The anti-art arguments are so hysterical and follow a slippery slope logical fallacy.

March 01, 2011 3:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It'd probably devalue the next door neighbor's property to the point where it'd be hard to sell. It'd just sit on the market without getting any offers.

March 01, 2011 10:46 PM  

Anonymous True Freedom said:

To many people, graffiti is associated with urban blight and gang activity.
Most (almost all) graffiti is uncommissioned and technically is vandalism… so the association between graffiti and illegal activity is strong. Those associations are offensive to many.

The owner of this property obviously knows that this upsets many of her neighbors. Regardless of the legality, I think a person should strive to minimize their negative impact on those around them, no matter where they are, but especially those who live around them… so, with that I think the “art” should be removed.

March 02, 2011 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement