Art or Vandalism?

1. linty
   June 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am

   no fine line here...
   When it involves altering somebody else's property in a permanent way I really can't see it not being considered vandalism.

   That being said, I don't think art and vandalism are mutually exclusive.

2. Rich
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

   Very creative, but I'm afraid if he used perfectly good private, state or city property - it's vandalism. On the other hand - I'm sure something like this could be funded or permission could be sought to make use of damaged cones and barriers in a way like this, rather than throw them away.

3. shecky
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

   Art or vandalism? Both!

4. matt
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

   both.

5. Frau
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

   If it is someone elses property - then it is vandalism.

   All that is missing, is that orange barrell monster to be standing over http://www.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/zombiesahead.jpg

6. dncucf
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

   Vandalism is just one of the mediums that he/she is using for his/her art. Or maybe it would be more appropriate to say that vandalism is one of his/hers techniques. The expression or statement the artist is trying to make would not be the same if the material was gained in any other fashion (bought or donated).

7. horned_one24
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

   Vandalism period. Im sick and tired of "artists" who think they have a right to do "art" with anything they want. Your idea or meaning you want to convey means nothing. Especially when you use other peoples stuff to make it.

   I dont think artist is the right term for these people; I prefer douchebag.

8. Sam Saturday
   June 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

   Its possible to create art without destroying something that belongs to someone else (or communal property). Why not choose that?

   I think the destruction is used for attracting attention the artist otherwise isn't able to earn.

9. Gauldar
   June 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

   horned_one24 wrote:

   "I dont think artist is the right term for these people; I prefer douchebag."

   If that's the case then I think there are too many artists in politics these days.

   @Sam Saturday

   Yes, it is about attracting attention. Things are put up where they are not supposed to be in order to draw attention. If something is supposed to be there it gets a glance and an "Oh, isn't that nice." instead of a "Huh, WTF, LOL!"

10. seb
    June 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    I used to pass that building in the first picture everyday when i lived in Raleigh. Strange coincidence..

11. Vonskippy
    June 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Let's see, he has to take on a nickname to PROTECT his identity and you're asking is it vandalism?

12. Sam Saturday
    June 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Gauldar:

    Yes, art is about attracting attention - but I question the artist's ability to attract attention through conventional means, or if he is only able to achieve it by pulling stunts.

13. Key
    June 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Love it.

14. neraK
    June 11th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    it may be clever, it may be amusing. but it's not his property. someone has to pay to replace what he damages.

15. lunacy
    June 11th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    There is the added benefit that the "artist" in these instances doesn't have to buy his own supplies like the rest of the creative suckers.

    How neat?!

16. jm1656
    June 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    it would be acceptable if he purchased his own cones or construction equipment with his own money and did what he wanted with it. otherwise it is vandalism. that was easy.

17. Saskplanner
    June 11th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    No question. Vandalism. Buy your own stuff and do it there.

18. gtron
    June 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am

    in 2002 'a guy I know' used a sampled clip from Blade2 (that was found online BEFORE the film was released) - he inserted it into his film 'The Infringement' (which was already 95% finished and featured the same actor that was sampled from Blade2) and then he released his film online, the same day that Blade2 was released in cinemas, in a statement against DRM, DMCA, etc.
    (no purchase required, and no affect on the original film's release)
    is it art or is he a vandal? http://www.vimeo.com/2170544

19. Sprigg
    June 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    why is it that I've been living in Raleigh, NC for the last 14 years and I've NEVER heard of this guy? I'd love to see some of his/her work.

20. Jev
    June 12th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/5339554/

    Busted

21. Johnny Cat
    June 12th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    huh. Joseph Carnevale? Pretty cool name, he should stick with it on future vandalism adventures.

22. ECB
    June 12th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    According to our local paper (I live in Raleigh near NCSU) Joe Carnevale has offered to pay for the traffic barrels, which belonged to a contractor working on Hillsborough Street. If that's the case I really don't see any reason to waste time and money prosecuting him.

23. ted
    June 13th, 2009 at 6:43 am

    They forgot "Part douchebag", which is weird, considering that's the biggest part.

    He should do like Banksy: get permission to do something and only pretend it's vandalism.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT