Comments on: Art or Vandalism?

By: ted

ted — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:43:32 +0000

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.

By: ECB

ECB — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:08:31 +0000

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.

By: Johnny Cat

Johnny Cat — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:25:25 +0000

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

By: Jev

Jev — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:45:28 +0000

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

Busted

By: Sprigg

Sprigg — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:09:35 +0000

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.

By: gtron

gtron — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:43:12 +0000

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

By: Saskplanner

Saskplanner — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:25:41 +0000

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

By: jm1656

jm1656 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:21:17 +0000

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.

By: lunacy

lunacy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:10:47 +0000

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?!

By: neraK

neraK — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:53:48 +0000

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

By: Key

Key — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:30:30 +0000

Love it.

By: Sam Saturday

Sam Saturday — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:05:18 +0000

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.

By: Vonskippy

Vonskippy — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:40:13 +0000

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

By: seb

seb — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:35:44 +0000

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

By: Gauldar

Gauldar — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:18:16 +0000

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!"

By: Sam Saturday

Sam Saturday — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:53:49 +0000

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.

By: horned_one24

horned_one24 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:53:41 +0000

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.

By: dncucf

dncucf — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:41:58 +0000

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).

By: Frau

Frau — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:36:16 +0000

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

By: matt

matt — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:35:50 +0000

both.

By: shecky

shecky — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:31:01 +0000

Art or vandalism? Both!

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:01:36 +0000

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.

By: linty

linty — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:59:50 +0000

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.