Switch Theme:

Feds chase criminal case against artist who marred rocks in parks  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Martial Arts Fiday






Nashville, TN

 Ahtman wrote:
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.


Actually something very similar is still in progress today. On "sacred" land no less.

"Holy Sh*&, you've opened my eyes and changed my mind about this topic, thanks Dakka OT!"

-Nobody Ever

Proverbs 18:2

"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

 warboss wrote:

GW didn't mean to hit your wallet and I know they love you, baby. I'm sure they won't do it again so it's ok to purchase and make up.


Albatross wrote:I think SlaveToDorkness just became my new hero.

EmilCrane wrote:Finecast is the new Matt Ward.

Don't mess with the Blade and Bolter! 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Actually something very similar is still in progress today. On "sacred" land no less.


Eh, he died while that was "in progress" even though the family told him not to do it and the Natives of the area told him not to. It has been in progress for decades and the fight goes on. It is a memorial that is an insult to the person it is memorializing and destroying the environment to boot. Admittedly it has been awhile since I did any research on it but I recall being stopped and started for various reasons for ages.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




People go to the wilderness to get away from ignorance like this woman's graffiti.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
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.


I have no issue with the argument that 'her 'artwork' spoils other people's enjoyment of the area. I can completely get behind that, in the same way that I would with regards to someone who threw a pile of old metal coke cans all over Cheddar Gorge. The question is whether or not ruining other people's experiences is prohibited on private property, and if so, coming up with a sentence in direct proportion, such as an £80 littering fee, or paying for the cost to be removed. Jail terms is insanely over the top.


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.


Firstly, the dismissal of an alternative viewpoint does not make it 'ignorant'. It just means someone disagrees with you. I know such a notion might be hard to comprehend, but try anyway. The rest of your point is dealt with below.



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.



This is entirely correct. Art is an incredibly subjective thing to begin with, and quite frankly, some might enjoy her drawings. The only difference between what she does and what Banksy is a small level of technical skill, and a lot of fame. Something that might degrade one person's enjoyment of an area could conceivably enhance another's. Let's be honest, the only thing separating her scrawlings on a cave wall from the original ones three hundred metres around the corner, is that one was done a significantly longer time period ago.


@Ketara: Nothing is inherently cultural unless we assign cultural value to it.


Sure. And I've asked you what cultural value you assign to a rock in a park, or a cliff facing. Simply saying, 'people enjoy it the way is now' is not much of a cultural valuation though,

Perhaps you don't give two gaks about your environment but that doesn't mean that is how everyone feels.


I'm very pro-environment, but I separate that from my concepts of law/justice/logic. Chucking a girl in jail for writing her name on a rock is not proportionate or fair. And the rock, as far as I can see (or as anyone can point out thus far), holds no real cultural value that I can approximate which would cause the issue to be of greater significance.

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.


Things can have value, but that does not automatically signify that they have cultural value, except in the broadest general sense of, 'We have a culture, and that culture has interacted with the object of discussion in some way'. There is no intellectual merit attached to these rocks specifically, no issues of great scientific importance, and no specific relevance to a past point in history. There are no social customs orientated around these specific rocks, or beliefs held regarding them. They are just...rocks.

One could conceivably argue that an ugly drawing on a rock infringes upon the enjoyment of others in the area, thus marring their sense of local aesthetics and diminishing any sense of natural beauty or art that they might otherwise enjoy from the area. But conversely, as art is subjective to the core, you could argue that it might enhance the artistic sensibilities of others. So it's a bit of a dead end argument. I would wager that the above reason is why most of you feel so outraged, but I would contend that admirable as that rage might be, it is not logical because one must recognise the subjectivity of that outrage felt. And thus it should not affect the sentence handed down.

I would argue that the only significant cultural inclination/attachment shown in this thread thus far, is the belief of a small sample number of Americans that people with different artistic sensibilities to theirs (or enough of the majority for the act to be against the law) should be locked up.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/10/25 05:29:49



 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I feel like you are trying way to hard to be contrarian. Now you are moving goals and pretending to not know how to contextualize the discussion. This isn't a complicated concept and you're a pretty bright guy, but it seems we may have found a blind spot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 05:42:13


Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like you are trying way to hard to be contrarian. Now you are moving goals and pretending to not know how to contextualize the discussion. This isn't a complicated concept and you're a pretty bright guy, but it seems we may have found a blind spot.


If you'd care to point out where you feel I've moved goals, I'm more than happy to address that. Perhaps there are no blind spots, but a mere difference of opinion. Some people here ascribe enough cultural significance to an inobtrusive rock in a natural park, that they would be happy to sling somebody in jail for drawing on it.

I conversely, contend that their 'cultural significance' is really nothing more than 'what they find pretty'. Which can be regarded as culturally significant to an extent (as I've already conceded), but I would argue that there are no real significant cultural factors beyond that. As such, I believe there should be a sense of perspective and proportionality retained during the sentencing, i.e., a fine/paying the costs of the removal of her signature. Jail would be extreme, inhumane, and somewhat ridiculous.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/25 06:23:57



 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Ketara wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like you are trying way to hard to be contrarian. Now you are moving goals and pretending to not know how to contextualize the discussion. This isn't a complicated concept and you're a pretty bright guy, but it seems we may have found a blind spot.


If you'd care to point out where you feel I've moved goals, I'm more than happy to address that. Perhaps there are no blind spots, but a mere difference of opinion. Some people here ascribe enough cultural significance to an inobtrusive rock in a natural park, that they would be happy to sling somebody in jail for drawing on it.

I conversely, contend that their 'cultural significance' is really nothing more than 'what they find pretty'. Which can be regarded as culturally significant to an extent (as I've already conceded), but I would argue that there are no real significant cultural factors beyond that. As such, I believe there should be a sense of perspective and proportionality retained during the sentencing, i.e., a fine/paying the costs of the removal of her signature. Jail would be extreme, inhumane, and somewhat ridiculous.


It goes far beyond what is pretty. For many people here in my state of Utah, anyway, it's a spiritual sense that it is part of what makes us who we are. When those idiots toppled the Goblin there was a strong feeling of violation because of people's attachment to those things that make us unique. To have people going in and defacing petro glyphs and rock formations is a slap in the face. In different parks around the world, there are things that can't be found anywhere else that need to be protected and not mucked up so our children can enjoy them.
Self obsessed vandals can put their "art" up on the walls of their house if they feel the need and not destroy things that took millenia to develop.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 06:47:19


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Relapse wrote:


It goes far beyond what is pretty. For many people here in my state of Utah, anyway, it's a spiritual sense that it is part of what makes us who we are. When those idiots toppled the Goblin there was a strong feeling of violation because of people's attachment to those things that make us unique. To have people going in and defacing petro glyphs and rock formations is a slap in the face. In different parks around the world, there are things that can't be found anywhere else that need to be protected and not mucked up so our children can enjoy them.
Self obsessed vandals can put their "art" up on the walls of their house if they feel the need and not destroy things that took millenia to develop.


I'm curious. I know this is OT, but what spiritual significance do the Goblins have? I just ran a google search, but I couldn't find anything related to the Native Indians or suchlike on the official website or anywhere else.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/25 08:06:56



 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut





UK

It's a stupid thoughtless thing to do,

but it also raises troubling questions about the preservation of 'historic' graffiti

some of it may well have had deep religious/cultural significance, but a lot of it was just done to dominate the landscape/location in the same way she's done

we've plenty of examples here in the UK of 'Bob woz here' on historic monuments, houses etc which are revered and protected as a 'connection to the past', but woe betide anybody who try to do the same now

eg http://www.maeshowe.co.uk/maeshowe/runes.html

what will historians in the future have to study and protect

(that said, she should have been aware of the law, and now she'll have to live with the consequence)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 12:32:46


 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
It's a stupid thoughtless thing to do,

but it also raises troubling questions about the preservation of 'historic' graffiti

some of it may well have had deep religious/cultural significance, but a lot of it was just done to dominate the landscape/location in the same way she's done

we've plenty of examples here in the UK of 'Bob woz here' on historic monuments, houses etc which are revered and protected as a 'connection to the past', but woe betide anybody who try to do the same now.


I think it's a simple matter of the "historic graffiti" on the walls often being some of the only examples of this kind of art remaining from people groups that either died out or have undergone massive change in the past couple hundred years. In some cases, it's all we've got.

On the other hand, There are thousands (perhaps millions) of preserved photos and other records of modern graffiti. It's not something that is rare or uncommon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 13:32:06


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





Most modern graffiti is just people trying to get attention anyways, such as this person who really wants her name to be spread in her sociopathic manner of defacing things and begging for attention.

   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Squatting with the squigs

She should fething hit freight train cars instead of 150 million old rocks.... in this society it's less likely to stay on the deposits than on something that contributes something valuable to society. I like nature and all , but does anyone else find it weird that a rock is important????? omg 150 million years to form, yes that rock under your foot did it too, and that bacteria you killed when you took a step 250 million years. and the bacteria that fed off the bacteria that you destroyed how they lived took 450 million years..ect...humans are weir...ITS fething INANIMATE!

My new blog: http://kardoorkapers.blogspot.com.au/

Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."

Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"

Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST" 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

 Ketara wrote:
I have no issue with the argument that 'her 'artwork' spoils other people's enjoyment of the area. I can completely get behind that, in the same way that I would with regards to someone who threw a pile of old metal coke cans all over Cheddar Gorge. The question is whether or not ruining other people's experiences is prohibited on private property, and if so, coming up with a sentence in direct proportion, such as an £80 littering fee, or paying for the cost to be removed. Jail terms is insanely over the top.
You're right, which is odd because you seem to have left out the part where I wrote that people are being hyperbolic over this and that is stupid. Funny how that works.

Firstly, the dismissal of an alternative viewpoint does not make it 'ignorant'. It just means someone disagrees with you. I know such a notion might be hard to comprehend, but try anyway. The rest of your point is dealt with below.
No, it's pretty easy to disagree with something, but there is a way to not be ignorant about it. Thus far, that has not been the case.

This is entirely correct. Art is an incredibly subjective thing to begin with, and quite frankly, some might enjoy her drawings. The only difference between what she does and what Banksy is a small level of technical skill, and a lot of fame. Something that might degrade one person's enjoyment of an area could conceivably enhance another's. Let's be honest, the only thing separating her scrawlings on a cave wall from the original ones three hundred metres around the corner, is that one was done a significantly longer time period ago.
That has to be about the dumbest thing I've read today. If you really think that only difference between a cave paintings from the dawn of humanity (and arguably, one of the first step to making us, well..."us") and what some asshat stenciled on a sidewalk is time, you either don't actually believe that or you are just ignorant. I hope it's the former, though.

Sure. And I've asked you what cultural value you assign to a rock in a park, or a cliff facing. Simply saying, 'people enjoy it the way is now' is not much of a cultural valuation though
This is what the IUCN has to say about national parks:

-One or several ecosystems not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphological sites and habitats are of special scientific, educational, and recreational interest or which contain a natural landscape of great beauty;
-Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological, geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment; and
-Visitors are allowed to enter, under special conditions, for inspirational, educative, cultural, and recreative purposes.

You're right, as an white American man of European decent born on the East Coast, something like Goblin Valley plays no part in my personal history. However, despite the stereotype, the culture of my country places value in the unspoiled wilderness, which is why we choose to protect it from people like this woman.

I'm very pro-environment, but I separate that from my concepts of law/justice/logic. Chucking a girl in jail for writing her name on a rock is not proportionate or fair. And the rock, as far as I can see (or as anyone can point out thus far), holds no real cultural value that I can approximate which would cause the issue to be of greater significance.
Yeah, jail is stupid and hyperbolic talk about locking her up forever (or causing physical harm) is pointless. That doesn't make anything else you've said correct.

Things can have value, but that does not automatically signify that they have cultural value, except in the broadest general sense of, 'We have a culture, and that culture has interacted with the object of discussion in some way'. There is no intellectual merit attached to these rocks specifically, no issues of great scientific importance, and no specific relevance to a past point in history. There are no social customs orientated around these specific rocks, or beliefs held regarding them. They are just...rocks.
But they aren't just rocks to us. You just said that things can have value, and even cultural value, but these things don't because they are rocks. Our culture and government decided that these rocks are important to America and should be protected and left to their natural beauty, hence, they are culturally significant to us. We as a culture have decided that they are worth protecting from harm. I don't understand why you don't see that.

One could conceivably argue that an ugly drawing on a rock infringes upon the enjoyment of others in the area, thus marring their sense of local aesthetics and diminishing any sense of natural beauty or art that they might otherwise enjoy from the area. But conversely, as art is subjective to the core, you could argue that it might enhance the artistic sensibilities of others. So it's a bit of a dead end argument. I would wager that the above reason is why most of you feel so outraged, but I would contend that admirable as that rage might be, it is not logical because one must recognise the subjectivity of that outrage felt. And thus it should not affect the sentence handed down.

I would argue that the only significant cultural inclination/attachment shown in this thread thus far, is the belief of a small sample number of Americans that people with different artistic sensibilities to theirs (or enough of the majority for the act to be against the law) should be locked up.
See above.

I think Ahtman said it best:
 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like you are trying way to hard to be contrarian.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 19:20:04


 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Most modern graffiti is just people trying to get attention anyways, such as this person who really wants her name to be spread in her sociopathic manner of defacing things and begging for attention.


I don't entirely disagree, but there are alot of graffiti artists who take their craft very seriously. Also, doing it for attention, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't art. Lots of great and famous artists have had self-agrandizing streaks of various sizes.

Not at all justifying her actions, just a bit of context for the graffiti-as-art dialogue.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

The issues of what is or isn't art and what is and isn't culturally important are entirely irrelevant. Was the rock Nockett's personal property? No. Did she have the right to paint it? No. She committed the crime of vandalism and she knew it at the time. There is nothing wrong with prosecuting people who willfully break the law and damage property that doesn't belong to them. She will be punished and it will be done within the limitations of the law.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in ca
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Edmonton, Alberta

I'm not the type to go hiking, but I imagen people who do, do so because they love seeing the natural beauty of our world. I don't think they came to see the heads of blue haired anime ladies.

So yah. She is a massive jerk and should have to pay the bill to have her art removed from these places.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/25 18:52:19


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

I think at worst she should get a ban from the park or a fine, painting rock in acrylics (that is what she used right?) isn't that extreme as they're paints that are relatively easy to remove.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Cheesecat wrote:
I think at worst she should get a ban from the park or a fine, painting rock in acrylics (that is what she used right?) isn't that extreme as they're paints that are relatively easy to remove.


It isn't that easy to remove. Sure it isn't permanent but it covers a large area and will require a lot of time to strip it, neither of which is easy or cheap. It isn't like dipping a mini.

I said earlier I don't think jail time is needed but if she does get a little (like a day to a week) it won't be for the painting but most likely for her attitude that it is ok to deface an area that isn't hers, and that she would do it again. Lawyers have gotten harsher penalties for contempt of court. Honestly I think it is her attitude that has more people angry than anything. Normally people would be annoyed and upset that she painted public protected land but her response turned it from annoyance to anger.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 Ahtman wrote:
 Cheesecat wrote:
I think at worst she should get a ban from the park or a fine, painting rock in acrylics (that is what she used right?) isn't that extreme as they're paints that are relatively easy to remove.


It isn't that easy to remove. Sure it isn't permanent but it covers a large area and will require a lot of time to strip it, neither of which is easy or cheap. It isn't like dipping a mini.

I said earlier I don't think jail time is needed but if she does get a little (like a day to a week) it won't be for the painting but most likely for her attitude that it is ok to deface an area that isn't hers, and that she would do it again. Lawyers have gotten harsher penalties for contempt of court. Honestly I think it is her attitude that has more people angry than anything. Normally people would be annoyed and upset that she painted public protected land but her response turned it from annoyance to anger.


I have been painting semi-regularly since I was 5 (probably earlier) and can assure you that acrylic paint in comparison to many other paints is fairly easy to remove. Although because of the large scale of paintings used you have good point about how removing it will be much more difficult,

which would make removing the art that she made at the park another suitable punishment for her. Maybe a ban from the park is a bit excessive but a lengthy suspension would be fine with me as well.
   
Made in au
Terrifying Treeman






The Fallen Realm of Umbar

She broke the law, let's hope the courts don't shirk their responsibility when it comes time to pass punishment.

DT:90-S++G++M++B+IPw40k07+D+A+++/cWD-R+T(T)DM+
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.

 
   
Made in ie
Jovial Junkatrukk Driver





Angloland

I dont really see why she should go to prison. Its just paint, even if it is acrylic, its gonna come off pretty fast.

A better punishment would be some sort of community service for one of the parks or at least a fine where the money would go to the park.

motyak wrote:[...] Yes, the mods are illuminati, and yakface, lego and dakka dakka itself are the 3 points of the triangle.
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Ahtman wrote:
Honestly I think it is her attitude that has more people angry than anything. Normally people would be annoyed and upset that she painted public protected land but her response turned it from annoyance to anger.


Yeah, that was where my first post came from - how she's kinda doing this and taking a dump on hour system of laws at the same time.


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: