Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a little OTT? I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

God only knows what you guys would do to Banksy by the above reactions. Burn down his house, kill his extended family, and put him in solitary confinement by the looks of things.

 Ketara wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little OTT? I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

God only knows what you guys would do to Banksy by the above reactions. Burn down his house, kill his extended family, and put him in solitary confinement by the looks of things.

People who get caught committing felonies get prosecuted. Not seeing the upside in condoning criminal behavior.

Prestor Jon wrote:


She'll be charged, she can retain legal counsel and see what happens. Jail time isn't a sure thing but this was a crime that needs to be prosecuted. It says right in the OP article that the guys that toppled the rock formations didn't get jail time so Nocket might not either. I'm fine with whatever punishment she gets, I have no sympathy for her, she chose to do wrong.

This is an insane position. Someone committed a crime, therefore whatever punishment they get is just? Criminals are people like anyone else and In all cases correctional action must taken with at least degree of sympathy for the perpetrator. Otherwise the system will converge only on what the cruelest and most self-serving individuals want, because they'll be the only ones invested on determining how the system works.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


She'll be charged, she can retain legal counsel and see what happens. Jail time isn't a sure thing but this was a crime that needs to be prosecuted. It says right in the OP article that the guys that toppled the rock formations didn't get jail time so Nocket might not either. I'm fine with whatever punishment she gets, I have no sympathy for her, she chose to do wrong.

This is an insane position. Someone committed a crime, therefore whatever punishment they get is just? Criminals are people like anyone else and In all cases correctional action must taken with at least degree of sympathy for the perpetrator. Otherwise the system will converge only on what the cruelest and most self-serving individuals want, because they'll be the only ones invested on determining how the system works.

Sounds like a plan to me.

 Ketara wrote:
I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

My driveway has just a few rocks in it...this ain't that. They are unique rocks formed under specific conditions over vast amounts of time that are under protection for the public to see. They also weren't hers to be painting. I have to imagine the UK has a concept of protected public land.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

My driveway has just a few rocks in it...this ain't that. They are unique rocks formed under specific conditions over vast amounts of time that are under protection for the public to see. They also weren't hers to be painting. I have to imagine the UK has a concept of protected public land.

Something about getting the gallows for shooting the King's deer, Robin Hood and all that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

My driveway has just a few rocks in it...this ain't that. They are unique rocks formed under specific conditions over vast amounts of time that are under protection for the public to see. They also weren't hers to be painting. I have to imagine the UK has a concept of protected public land.

Something about getting the gallows for shooting the King's deer, Robin Hood and all that.

Well I'm not saying what the punishment should or shouldn't be, but I think people have a right to be upset that someone decided to mess up public lands because they are a self-centered jerk with their head up their own ass. If I had to throw in an opinion on sentencing lots of prison would be to excessive, though a smidgen probably wouldn't hurt. A hefty fine, community service, and being banned from National Parks would probably be enough.

 Ketara wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little OTT? I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

Sweet, I am glad you are of this mindset. I have been aching to draw a picture on the lovely canvas known as the Seven Sisters, I mean look at all that lovely white space just wasted!

Or, how about these charming little canvases? Yes, I think one of those needs an Imperial Aquila or perhaps an Ultra Marines U to let the world know I was there and I love Warhammer 40k!

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


She'll be charged, she can retain legal counsel and see what happens. Jail time isn't a sure thing but this was a crime that needs to be prosecuted. It says right in the OP article that the guys that toppled the rock formations didn't get jail time so Nocket might not either. I'm fine with whatever punishment she gets, I have no sympathy for her, she chose to do wrong.

This is an insane position. Someone committed a crime, therefore whatever punishment they get is just? Criminals are people like anyone else and In all cases correctional action must taken with at least degree of sympathy for the perpetrator. Otherwise the system will converge only on what the cruelest and most self-serving individuals want, because they'll be the only ones invested on determining how the system works.

Did she commit a crime? Yes. Is she being prosecuted? Yes. Will she have a fair trial if it goes to trial? Yes. If she didn't want to be at the mercy of the court she could abstain from willfully committing felonies. Obviously, yes she's a person, and she's a US citizen and has a right to legal representation and due process. I have zero sympathy for her, I reserve that for people who aren't self absorbed criminals. It's not like she's going to be executed or spend the rest of her life breaking rocks or in solitary confinement. She's going to get hit with a hefty fine for sure and either get a short jail sentence (and probably serve only a fraction of it) or a few years of probation. If we're not going to let the criminal justice system prosecute and punish criminals why do we have it?

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I blame the cisgendered, hetero normal white male privilege

Dafaq is collage doing to you.

The pros and cons or colonialism and globalization, the great war and truth tables.I learned all those words from dakka

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I blame the cisgendered, hetero normal white male privilege

Dafaq is collage doing to you.

The pros and cons or colonialism and globalization, the great war and truth tables.I learned all those words from dakka

You fit all of that into a collage? You must have awesome scrap booking skills too.

This outcry is a touch ridiculous. I understand it's a national park - I've been to many - but it's just insane how this is absolutely unacceptable and the complete destruction of plenty of other patches of wilderness is acceptable. Including a lot of places having far more done to them than paint, and the fact some of them are just as beautiful.

If the park wants it removed, have her remove it. Most acrylic paints are water based and thus easy to remove with non-harmful chemical based compounds that do little/nothing to far more complicated things than rock. Not to mention that with enough hot water and powerwashing it would likely fade quite a bit anyways.

Nature is ACTUALLY destroyed every few seconds. Even the toppling of the rocks by those boy scouts was worse, as those formations are not recoverable. Those patches of rock are, and as with most graffiti, nature always wins in the long run. Besides, I think Earth having a few tattoos is a pretty minor offense to what else we do to it. At least some of them are really enjoyable. (Darkwing Duck in Columbus comes to mind, Banksy, the American Indian wolf/dreamscape wall in Seattle, the owls in Olympic National Park etc.)

Prestor Jon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I blame the cisgendered, hetero normal white male privilege

Dafaq is collage doing to you.

The pros and cons or colonialism and globalization, the great war and truth tables.I learned all those words from dakka

You fit all of that into a collage? You must have awesome scrap booking skills too.

Lel god damnit how did i mess that up.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little OTT? I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

Sweet, I am glad you are of this mindset. I have been aching to draw a picture on the lovely canvas known as the Seven Sisters, I mean look at all that lovely white space just wasted!

Or, how about these charming little canvases? Yes, I think one of those needs an Imperial Aquila or perhaps an Ultra Marines U to let the world know I was there and I love Warhammer 40k!

With regards to the seven sisters, frankly, I wouldn't care even slightly if you got your pen out and wrote your name on the cliff. You could even do a little drawing of a dog if you liked, or scribe 'Romans, get out' in fifty spelling variations.

It's a cliff.

It's not like someone using a felt tip on the Mona Lisa, or pulling a paintbrush on a piece of modern sculpture sitting in a square in New York city. It doesn't have some immense intrinsic historical or cultural value. It is raw terrain. People do more damage to the land very time they build a house or lay a water pipe, or set up an oil rig, or a new mobile phone mast. Dropping a plastic bag in a river does far more damage than this.

What's next, suing people who carve their sweetheart's name in a tree using a knife? Let's try and retain some sense of perspective please.

I say give her a huge fine, make her clean it up and maybe probation.

As for why to punish, it's a clear violation of both the law and the wilderness ethos of take nothing, leave nothing.

I'm a climber and there are strict rules in most national parks about where we can put permanent anchors, how we can minimize our impact on the walls, etc. We even use chalk on our hands which is completely harmless and washes away in the rain, but some places we arent' allowed even to use that or we have to use colored chalk that matches the rock. We do all these things so that we can continue to have access and to preserve access for others.

If she had used chalk, it would essentially be like making a sand castle and and I'd be ok with that, even though it'd still be a temporary eyesore, but she didn't. Instead, she used acrylic paint, which can take a long time for rain to wash away, and she did this in some places that have very little rain to begin with.

This girl is a criminal pure and simple. She has marred the very thing that people come to see, that is, nature.

As for the punishment.
She commited a non-violent crime and it appears that she doesn't have a previous record that we know of. There's no reason to put her in jail, and I certatinly don't want to have to pay for a prison stay for a first-time-non-violent offender.

Prison is America's knee-jerk reaction to way too many crimes and what we know prison doesn't deter criminals or prevent future crime.

As for the Boy Scouts, they should have gotten at least a hefty fine.

It is because we do so much damage to terrain that people fear there wont be anything natural left for our children's children's ect ect.

it is why we made them national parks that are protected so they will exist later on

In the same way we put these art pieces behind glass and lasers and a 10 foot no mans land.

 Desubot wrote:
It is because we do so much damage to terrain that people fear there wont be anything natural left for our children's children's ect ect.

I don't think Big Teddy R cared about damaging the planet so much as preserving certain parts because he thought they were awesome.

Well that and hunting iirc no?

 Ketara wrote:
It doesn't have...or cultural value.

Except it does have cultural value, which is why it is protected. Not all lands are protected, nor have they all got the same history (both geologically or socially). And, yes, carving your initials into a tree in a protected forest will get you in trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Well that and hunting iirc no?

He did love to shoot animals.

From the images I've seen her work usually has a focus on feminine facial features and a semi-realistic quality. The only other thing that makes it unique is the emphasis on signatures, with signatures taking up an inordinate amount of space.



It seems like the artist is using nature as a means of egotistically "dominating" the landscape, showing superiority over it . This is also apparent when considering what a visitor would see when they walk by the rock- they see a face, a signature, an eternal "Nocket was here, this is her rock". The permanent and enviornmentally unfriendly nature of the work was probably deliberate, a choice of the artist to express their delusive self-obsession.

The only signifigant difference between her paintings and a standard graffiti 'tag' is that a 'tag' expresses unity with a group, while her art is self-promotional.

In a few words I'd call her work toxic, destructive, and conceited. The big mistake the artist made is assuming that her message could transcend law, which is completely incorrect. While people should feel free to express themselves as they feel fit, I wouldn't want to let anyone express themselves in a way that ruins other peoples enjoyment of nature. She should be punished.

 Ketara wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this is a little OTT? I mean, it's a few rocks at the end of the day.

God only knows what you guys would do to Banksy by the above reactions. Burn down his house, kill his extended family, and put him in solitary confinement by the looks of things.

These are not "just rocks". In many cases, she has "added to" cavern walls or rock formations decorated by First Nation people or even by long-extinct prehistoric tribes.

It's not like someone using a felt tip on the Mona Lisa, or pulling a paintbrush on a piece of modern sculpture sitting in a square in New York city. It doesn't have some immense intrinsic historical or cultural value. It is raw terrain.

Actually, it *is* exactly like putting a felt-tip pen to the Mona Lisa and she has done this to far more areas than just "raw terrain". Some of the places she's painted on contained recognized works of prehistoric art. That sh*t is irreplaceable, and is of both cultural and historical interest.

http://www.modernhiker.com/2014/10/23/why-the-creepytings-national-parks-vandalism-is-a-big-deal/
http://www.modernhiker.com/2014/10/21/instagram-artist-defaces-national-parks/

 Ahtman wrote:

Except it does have cultural value, which is why it is protected. Not all lands are protected, nor have they all got the same history (both geologically or socially).

Land is not inherently cultural. Rocks are not inherently cultural. Rocks on land is not inherently cultural. Rocks in land owned by the Government are not inherently cultural. For it to be cultural, there has to be an ascribed cultural significance relating to a custom, an artistic or intellectual concept, or the social behaviour of a society. Simply being located near something of cultural significance is not sufficient, generally speaking.

So if you could please provide a cultural context/link for these rocks that I could not apply to any other rocks in parks/driveways/gardens, that woulkd help to substantiate your point.

Psienesis wrote:These are not "just rocks". In many cases, she has "added to" cavern walls or rock formations decorated by First Nation people or even by long-extinct prehistoric tribes.

Actually, it *is* exactly like putting a felt-tip pen to the Mona Lisa and she has done this to far more areas than just "raw terrain". Some of the places she's painted on contained recognized works of prehistoric art. That sh*t is irreplaceable, and is of both cultural and historical interest.

See my earlier point. Proximity to another item of cultural significance does not automatically bestow cultural value in most cases. I've yet to see any shots of her scrawling her name on cave paintings, or indeed, even on the same wall as cave paintings. If you could provide me with a photograph/example of her doing that, I would agree with you. But drawing a picture five hundred metres further along a gorge around two corners from a cave painting? No. That's not the same as defacing an existing piece of artwork, and it is just a wall.

She may have previously climbed over one of those cave paintings to have a selfie taken twenty minutes beforehand, but that is a separate issue to her artwork, and actually something that should be regarded as punishable.

Can we throw her out of a jet plane and call the splat "art" and tell the police they just don't understand? Seriously. Fry her.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Except it does have cultural value, which is why it is protected. Not all lands are protected, nor have they all got the same history (both geologically or socially).

Land is not inherently cultural. Rocks are not inherently cultural. Rocks on land is not inherently cultural. Rocks in land owned by the Government are not inherently cultural. For it to be cultural, there has to be an ascribed cultural significance relating to a custom, an artistic or intellectual concept, or the social behaviour of a society. Simply being located near something of cultural significance is not sufficient, generally speaking.

So if you could please provide a cultural context/link for these rocks that I could not apply to any other rocks in parks/driveways/gardens, that woulkd help to substantiate your point.

Psienesis wrote:These are not "just rocks". In many cases, she has "added to" cavern walls or rock formations decorated by First Nation people or even by long-extinct prehistoric tribes.

Actually, it *is* exactly like putting a felt-tip pen to the Mona Lisa and she has done this to far more areas than just "raw terrain". Some of the places she's painted on contained recognized works of prehistoric art. That sh*t is irreplaceable, and is of both cultural and historical interest.

See my earlier point. Proximity to another item of cultural significance does not automatically bestow cultural value in most cases. I've yet to see any shots of her scrawling her name on cave paintings, or indeed, even on the same wall as cave paintings. If you could provide me with a photograph/example of her doing that, I would agree with you. But drawing a picture five hundred metres further along a gorge around two corners from a cave painting? No. That's not the same as defacing an existing piece of artwork, and it is just a wall.

She may have previously climbed over one of those cave paintings to have a selfie taken twenty minutes beforehand, but that is a separate issue to her artwork, and actually something that should be regarded as punishable.

The hyperbole of some people in this case (like most everything) is just plain stupid, that much we can agree on... but why is it a big deal?

Because we have the right as taxpayers to witness and enjoy the natural beauty of the National Parks (and other protected nature areas) unmarred by some idiot and her "art," which according to reports was done in conspicuous places that are easily accessed by visitors. Your trying to compare what she did to what Banksy does (which I don't condone either), or the building of a strip mall, and your dismissal of it being "just a wall" and not recognizing that we place cultural value in our wilderness is, for the lack of a better term, ignorant.

I'm failing to see why that is a difficult concept to grasp.

After review, I have not a shred of sympathy for her.

Although I'm the kind of guy who would have Banksy arrested if I knew who he was, so there you go.

As someone who studies and works in the Environmental field I find this such a poor decision by this person.

People just don't understand that we have provincial and national parks for a reason (state parks and national ones in the states). As humans we destroy so much of nature for our own benefit whether that be resource exploitation or city development. We need some places that are free from as much of the human destruction as possible.
People like this bother me. If you want to show off your art then that's cool and I enjoy art but I don't like people defacing nature to get "attention". Go do it somewhere else.

I don't know how big her art but if I was walking through a provincal park here and there was a huge piece of graffiti on a rock I would be pretty upset. I am pretty lucky where I live though and can walk out my door and have a great walk in the woods. If I want to go see some graffiti I will go to the train yard. People are just disrespectful sometimes.

While I don't appreciate this as art...at all...I imagine one could plausibly argue Mt. Rushmore as a precedent(president? ) in acceptable vandalism? I believe the sculpture, during it's creation, had backlash too...but obviously it wasn't too vociferous. Maybe our collective disbelief in the validity of this crap as art is nothing but a sound bite for future historians to deride as 'backwater bigots with phobias related to free expression'?

I don't really think the above, but I suppose others could. I'm with the majority opinion of y'all here, btw. She needs to get ta scrubbin'. Still, one look at Jackson Pollock's work and I realize maybe I just really don't get art.

Edit: More food for thought. I wonder if those who find this form of expression vandalism also consider the Buddhist reliefs/statuary at Bamiyan? as ancient vandalism as well? The cave at Lascaux? Etc. I ask because I can see an argument for artist expression, once committed to stone, being an object of worth...either immediately or over the ages.

Rusty Trombone wrote:
While I don't appreciate this as art...at all...I imagine one could plausibly argue Mt. Rushmore as a precedent(president? ) in acceptable vandalism? I believe the sculpture, during it's creation, had backlash too...but obviously it wasn't too vociferous. Maybe our collective disbelief in the validity of this crap as art is nothing but a sound bite for future historians to deride as 'backwater bigots with phobias related to free expression'?

I don't really think the above, but I suppose others could. I'm with the majority opinion of y'all here, btw. She needs to get ta scrubbin'. Still, one look at Jackson Pollock's work and I realize maybe I just really don't get art.

Edit: More food for thought. I wonder if those who find this form of expression vandalism also consider the Buddhist reliefs/statuary at Bamiyan? as ancient vandalism as well? The cave at Lascaux? Etc. I ask because I can see an argument for artist expression, once committed to stone, being an object of worth...either immediately or over the ages.

Interesting point about Mt. Rushmore I didn't think of that. I personally don't really agree with that giant sculpture tho....Sorry if I offend some people but I just don't see how it was a good idea to deface a whole mountainside permanently just to show some faces of some presidents (their faces are on the currency for a reason lol)
I do agree that the argument of Rushmore is an interesting point that I wouldn't have even thought of myself.

Mount Rushmore wouldn't be made today to be honest, and was done in a time and place by a guy wanting to display mastery over nature.

@Ketara: Nothing is inherently cultural unless we assign cultural value to it. Perhaps you don't give two gaks about your environment but that doesn't mean that is how everyone feels. If you want examples just look at this thread. There are many examples of people who feel it is important to maintain these areas, and not for mini-malls. The fact that we even to the time to find these places, set them aside, and create laws to protect them says something about their cultural relevance to Americans. Just because it has no cultural value to you doesn't mean it doesn't have any. There are things Brits place importance on we never would, so it really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 Chongara wrote:
Eh.

On the one hand, mucking up the national parks is kind is a pretty dickish move. The woman also seems like kind of an ass.

On the other hand it is just paint on rocks from what I've seen and is likely easily remedied with soap and scrubbing, nothing that's permanent damage in a real meaningful sense in the word. On my scale of things to get outraged about relatively small acts of vandalism rank pretty low.

At the end of the day, she isn't some raging threat to society and I don't think the world's going to come out a better place for having somebody in jail. If I was running things I'd probably go with a ban and some hefty fines.

I'll concede that in retrospect perhaps the ban and fines are more reasonable than jail, although I don't believe anyone in this thread was "outraged" exactly.