Street art in England vs. America

[Pangloss]

I'm curious if you think there's anything odd about the pre-emptive arrests which have been occurring before the RNC. Is that abnormal, or just standard operating procedure?

 

It sounds like the St. Paul police decided to be aggressive and proactive about all the violent protesters entering their city. Can you blame them? I surely don't want those religious zealots anywhere near MY house.

[iNow]

Well, we could act like mature adults and responsible citizens and discuss the seriousness of these acts whereby our freedoms are being infringed, and where our nation is acting in ways that seem to resemble fascism, or we could instead dismiss it all as leftist liberal tripe and call it a day (not much better than saying "God did it" if you ask me).

 

 

DN producer RNC pre-emptive detention of journalists - Pt1

DN producer RNC pre-emptive detention of journalists - Pt2

DN more Pre-Convention Pre-Emptive RNC raids - pt 3

DN more Pre-Convention Pre-Emptive RNC raids - pt 4

 

 

 

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/3481/minnesota-police-raid-%E2%80%98criminal%E2%80%99-rnc-protesters

News of Sarah Palin and Hurricane Gustav has eclipsed a series of police raids that took place in the Twin Cities over the weekend, in which FBI agents and local law enforcement detained six people on suspicion of conspiracy to riot at the Republican National Convention. The detainees have not been formally charged with any crime and their lawyers are in court today seeking their release. There were no such pre-emptive arrests of protesters at the Democratic Convention in Denver last week.

 

 

FOX News Overstates Number Of Violent Protesters At Republican Convention

 

Sean Hannity falsely announced on last night’s (9/1/08) Hannity & Colmes that “thousands of violent anti-war protesters descended on the site of the Republican National Convention earlier today assaulting police officers, breaking windows and throwing bottles at convention goers.” But moments later, even Newt Gingrich noted that the number was much lower and that the vast majority of the protesters were not violent. What was never discussed, unfortunately, was the appropriateness of the reactions of the police. Also not discussed was the wrongful arrest of journalist Amy Goodman and two of her producers who were there covering the protests.

 

<...>

 

Regardless of what you think of the protesters, it’s hard to justify the arrest of prominent alternative journalist Amy Goodman or her two producers. An update from the Democracy Now website says that all three have been released but with charges pending against them. The two producers face felony charges. YouTube video of Goodman’s arrest shows the police manhandling her without justification.

 

 

Oh, that's right. They won't be dismissed as lefties or liberals, they'll be unilaterally painted with the label of "anarchists." Shall we set up Internment camps for them just to be safe?

[Pangloss]

YouTube is not an objective news source, and the manner of their arrest is not the subject of this discussion. And I have no interest in anything Sean Hannity has to say.

 

As for whether or not any civil liberties have been violated, people like to say that and tout it and then when you look into it later it all turns out to be perfectly legal, it was just undesirable to the detainees. You actually included information above that actually says they've filed criminal charges. Where exactly is the problem?

[Pangloss]

If their posters looked like this, hell yes:

 

In other words no, thus proving my point that you're not defending free speech, you're defending an ideological agenda. Thanks.

 

Well, he's been charged with "interference and posting unauthorized posters" supposedly. I guess the camera crew was arrested for conspiracy to commit interference and post unauthorized posters. I don't know what "interference" is, but unauthorized posters are, at worst, misdemeanor littering, punishable by a $100 fine.

 

Got it, I believe that answers your question:

 

Also, why did they arrest the camera crew? Conspiracy to commit street art? I see this as a case of a bunch of philistine cops acting with zero clue about what they were actually doing.

 

Nope, it ain't. Movin' on.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Mod note: Thread on AP photog merged into this one. It's the same subject and the same arguments taking place.

[iNow]

Where exactly is the problem?

 

Are you really so obtuse that you are incapable of seeing that my problem is with the way our freedoms are being tossed aside like rotten vegetables, and how our basic freedoms outlined in the Constitution of our nation (and the ammendments to it) are being disregarded?

[Pangloss]

What freedoms were tossed aside? Every time one gets listed I ask into it and get answered that they were charged with a specific crime after all, and that everything is legal and above-board.

[iNow]

Perhaps then you should watch the videos I posted which you previously disregarded as not being objective since they were presented via YouTube.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps then you should watch the videos I posted which you previously disregarded as not being objective since they were presented via YouTube.

 

Okay I took a look at the first one and it's even worse than a thought -- a talking head from Democracy Now, a completely biased, partisan organization hell bent on destroying conservatives regardless of the cost to the truth. And she's just blabbing about "armed groups of police", a statement which she has a predisposed reason to make. How much of that am I supposed to watch before I get some truth instead of just spin?

 

You're a man of science, not propaganda. Give me some evidence instead of all this fear-mongering and leaping to conclusions.

[YT2095]

On the evening of August 25, Fairey decided to take a break from installing the gallery show to hang posters around downtown Denver, wheat-pasting them to the sides of buildings.

 

not super glue or construction bolts, but Wheat Paste, a good rain shower and it`s gone!

no harm no foul IMO.

[bascule]

but the real point you're missing is that if you let one person do that then you have to let all people do it.

 

Are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy? Well... ostensibly not... hello Bill O'Reilly... if we let gays marry we have to let people **** their donkeys too...

Edited September 4, 2008 by Sayonara³
Word censor evasion removed

[ParanoiA]

but the real point you're missing is that if you let one person do that then you have to let all people do it.

 

Are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy? Well... ostensibly not... hello Bill O'Reilly... if we let gays marry we have to let people fück their donkeys too...

 

You seriously posted that? Pssst...this one is really obvious dude...if we let ONE gay couple marry, then we must let the rest of them do it too - not a hideous non-sequitor like donkey sex. Which, by the way, is a cool idea. But yeah. Try to keep the apples with the apples and the oranges with the oranges please.

[iNow]

You're a man of science, not propaganda. Give me some evidence instead of all this fear-mongering and leaping to conclusions.

 

So, you've again dismissed it as leftie tripe. I see that your not willing to entertain the possibility that the control of the state is going too far.

 

I strongly encourage you to refresh yourself on our Constitution. I'll make it easy. Here's Amendment #1 (presumably, put first since it's most important):

 

 

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/home/ConstFrameset.htm

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

.

 

 

Well, I suppose the police didn't make any laws which did this, they just contorted existing laws about civil disorder (despite the fact that these people were in houses and not in the public, and the strike by the police was pre-emptive). I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that in order to arrest someone for civil disorder, and to take the equipment and computers of the press and not return it, that these people would have to first be actually out in public doing something to put people in harms way.

 

But, nope. What did these people do here? Well, they helped over 4,000 arrests back at the 2004 convention get overturned, since they had video and audio proof that many of the police statements were false and outright lies for the arrests they made. Well, how can police this year ensure that their arrests stick and that nobody can argue the facts with video? You set it up like a military operation and take the cameras away from everyone recording and detain them until the convention is over. Simple!

 

I don't discount that this is a well executed plan and an effective approach to their mission by the police, I'm just saying it stands in stark contrast to the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

Thanks YT for the clarification on wheat-pasting. I hadn't made the connection that a rain storm would wash all of the posters away, and it makes the actions of the authorities that much more out of bounds IMO.

Edited September 4, 2008 by iNow

[ecoli]

...taken from behind with no verbal orders to disperse, etc:

 

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/09/03/3320/ap_photographers_last_pre-arrest_shot_is_a_stunner

 

After attending the DNC, I really get the feeling the cops at the RNC are 100x worse...

 

from the last paragraph:

 

In the end' date=' authorities recognized their errors. Phil Carruthers, the Ramsey County attorney's office division director, told AP that no charges against Rourke were anticipated.[/quote']

 

Looks like the problem was resolved.

[bascule]

if we let ONE gay couple marry, then we must let the rest of them do it too - not a hideous non-sequitor like donkey sex.

 

So if we let one street artist put up posters without getting arrested, we have to let them all do it? Last I checked street artists don't typically get arrested for putting up posters...

[Pangloss]

I will just add briefly that I do understand there's a reasonable difference between putting up posters that can wash away with the next rain and permanently tagging someone's property. The legal system generally recognizes the difference as well. My main objection here is to people who deliberately prod the system for a legal response and then complain when it responds. They're just trying to get your anger up, and they succeeded, and for reasons that have nothing to do with freedom of expression. That's just how I see it.

[Royston]

They're just trying to get your anger up, and they succeeded, and for reasons that have nothing to do with freedom of expression. That's just how I see it.

 

That's certainly the case in England, there's quite a distinct divide between tagging the side of somebody's home (or just scrawling some hum drum activist message), and the areas around my city where certain hot spots for graffiti have become accepted as adding to the area, rather than taking away.

 

This has happened over time, where artists have been left to their own devices to make certain areas a lot more interesting to look at...this is privately owned and council owned property. Not just skate parks, but the back of shops, alley ways, lamp posts et.c There's an etiquette involved, where I'm sure it was frowned upon when certain areas were subject to graffiti, but over time it has become part of that area, and accepted. People are free to express their art, be it political in content or not in these areas, providing it has content and flare, not just some childish scribbling.

 

The area I live has attracted many artists, and their work is generally of a high caliber, and unique in style. So I think a distinction on what we're discussing is important.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Snail

[iNow]

So, in England, are the artists arrested? Would a person holding a camera behind them be arrested for conspiracy? Let's set the appropriate boundaries here so we're not just "trying to get your anger up."

[bascule]

For anyone interested, here's Shepherd Fairey's reaction to his DNC experience, along with pictures of the postering:

 

http://obeygiant.com/post/things-to-do-in-denver

[CDarwin]

The issue here is an interesting one, and it's over the status and use of public space. Not public property mind you, but public space. And there are legitimate perspectives on both sides. Paranoia, I would wager, and the law as well incidentally, hold essentially that public space is an illusion and that private property has the only reality. You could also, however, honestly hold that private property is the construct and that public space should be open to works of artistic value. Our society already implicitly supports this notion with thinks like public statues and even zoning regulations, which impose upon private property a particular aesthetic to what might be called an 'artistic' end. So I don't know as there's much point letting into each other. These are worldview differences.

[Royston]

So, in England, are the artists arrested?

 

Depending on the area, and if they get caught, they'd be arrested for vandalism. Like I said, the graffiti culture is ingrained into the culture of the city where I live, so there are areas where graffiti has become part of the city, rather than something that's deemed as defacing it. As CDarwin points out, these areas have now segregated from property, to public space over a period of time. I welcome that personally.

 

Some examples...http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp1.blogger.com/_JTHkIoacY6Q/RncRZF9sHZI/AAAAAAAAAIE/kbo40LsvktE/s400/DSCF20661.JPG&imgrefurl=http://stellastarguitar.blogspot.com/2007/06/brighton-graffiti.html&h=400&w=292&sz=34&tbnid=r0tjLSGULIwJ::&tbnh=124&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrighton%2Bgraffiti&hl=en&usg=__TtzxBmgBN_HuJn0MaWDuQQSFdOA=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

 

However, as I said (and I'll run you through an example in a bit) there is, what could be deemed as appropriate artwork, and just scrawling 'f*ck the police' on the side of a law courts is purely to illicit a response, and get people's anger up.

 

Would a person holding a camera behind them be arrested for conspiracy?

 

I get your point, but as photography and filming is permitted in public areas, then no.

 

Let's set the appropriate boundaries here so we're not just "trying to get your anger up."

 

Ok, suppose I went to my local Baptist church (in England they have the highest percentage of believers in YEC) and scrawled on the side, 'YEC's are f*ck wits !' All I'm doing is trying to anger the members of that church, with a cheap shot.

 

However, if I painted a huge elaborate mural, stating 'Young Earth Creationism is a Belief, not a Science.' and below 'You're welcome to your belief, but please keep it out of the science classroom.' I'm merely using the Church as an anchor to bolster a legitimate point. I could throw in a picture of a microscope, perhaps a fractal et.c.

 

Yes, it would probably make the members of the Church angry, but they should only be angry that I've invaded their property, not the message that underlies the graffiti. Perhaps we're talking about two different things, but that's what I gathered from Pangloss's point.

 

Back to the property side of things, and as an aside, (slightly different argument) but this thread reminded of this. When I visited the Grand Canyon there was a sign stating 'This is our Grand Canyon, look after it' or words to that effect, the Grand Canyon doesn't belong to anyone, and that to me is an example (although different context to CDarwins point) of public property over public space.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Snail

[CaptainPanic]

Without having read the whole thread, I want to share a good idea that at least one town in the Netherlands had:

 

There was a tunnel in the city, and the government had hired some company to "decorate" it. It got some ugly balloons in happy colors. It just looked dreadful. A place where people pass as fast as possible, and only stop to urinate will not change because you paint the odd balloon on a wall (all looked the same, and just 3 different colors, on a nice grey background).

 

Then some genius came up with this idea:

 

The local government put up a sigh saying: "Official graffiti place, please only use this-and-this wall".

Now the most beautiful paintings decorate the tunnel's walls, and people actually stop to watch. Only downside I can find is that the air inside the tunnel isn't always healthy (paint-smell). It reduced graffiti in the rest of the city, and improved the looks of a part of it. Brilliant!

The tunnel gets an almost complete new look about every month, and sometimes as many as 10 people are making some really good art there.

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia, I would wager, and the law as well incidentally, hold essentially that public space is an illusion and that private property has the only reality. You could also, however, honestly hold that private property is the construct and that public space should be open to works of artistic value.

 

I don't know about that. I don't have an issue with public space on public property. But I think that property definitely has value and belongs to the whole of the public. I would think it should be regarded, by default, exactly the same way by law as any private property.

 

A citizen does not have the right to alter someone else's property without their permission. Since the property belongs to everyone, and not just some dude and a paint can, then I don't see how he earns the right to alter any of it. I don't care if he sprays gold on it, or decorates it in million dollar bills - it's altering property without permission or reverance to its owners.

 

However, I also don't see why our public representatives or whoever is specifically responsible for the maintenance and decor of the property can't designate the public space for "free for all" artistic alteration. Of course, that ruins the fun of graffiti art. They want to be "rebels" so it's no fun when the "adults" spoil it with permission.

 

I have far more of an issue with painting a mural on the side of my store or business and thinking this should be "ok" because some teen steem artist is revered by the local teenage population. When I can come to their house and paint a giant tit on the front of it and they're cool with it, then maybe we talk. I suspect not, since they are an "artist" and I'm not and I would likely be painting over their revered art.

 

But hey, since when did inequality ever stop anyone?

[iNow]

Some examples...http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp1.blogger.com/_JTHkIoacY6Q/RncRZF9sHZI/AAAAAAAAAIE/kbo40LsvktE/s400/DSCF20661.JPG&imgrefurl=http://stellastarguitar.blogspot.com/2007/06/brighton-graffiti.html&h=400&w=292&sz=34&tbnid=r0tjLSGULIwJ::&tbnh=124&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrighton%2Bgraffiti&hl=en&usg=__TtzxBmgBN_HuJn0MaWDuQQSFdOA=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&cd=1

 

I only quoted the above because I didn't want to limit my comments to any one point you made. That was one of the most articulate posts on difficult subjective issues I've read in a long time. Well done, my good man.

 

It's interesting to hear that the photographers and film makers would not have been arrested, since that is legal. The thing is, it's legal here in the US, too. That's what really flips this issue in my mind into one where the state was clearly in the wrong, and it gives signficant issues into their true motivations.

 

They weren't upholding laws protecting property as their primary mission. They were using the law and leveraging it to prevent people from freely expressing themselves, and precisely because they disagreed with what that expression was saying.

 

This is my opinion, and readers of this thread are welcome to disagree. People don't generally confuse me with a anarchist whacko, and I'm not generally ill-founded in my points or motivations, but I can't help but think that we are ever venturing closer ourselves to becoming the evils which we fought to uphold with honor in the mid-20th century. My grandfather would NOT be proud of acts like this by the state, and I'm not either.

[bascule]

Then some genius came up with this idea:

 

The local government put up a sigh saying: "Official graffiti place, please only use this-and-this wall".

Now the most beautiful paintings decorate the tunnel's walls, and people actually stop to watch.

 

Sounds like the Swiss Embassy in London:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/feb/29/art.streetart

[ParanoiA]

They weren't upholding laws protecting property as their primary mission. They were using the law and leveraging it to prevent people from freely expressing themselves, and precisely because they disagreed with what that expression was saying.

 

You're not free to express yourself by trespassing and using other people's property to do it. Just like you can't put a sign in my yard, or a burning cross. I'm sure you wouldn't care much to find I postered your house overnight with pro Palin "hope" messages.

 

I'm sorry he's too poor to buy advertising space like the rest of us. He sells this stuff, so where's the money going? Do I get to advertise for Dr Paul for free also?

 

Also, if that was true, then they would have arrested anyone who "said" this stuff. Like, uh, Obama himself. Or the thousands of people at their convention. Or any number of the anti-protestors protesting the DNC protesters. Come to think of it, if they were arresting protestors of the DNC, then wouldn't they be targeting anti-democrats? Why would they stifle speech that compliments the DNC? Maybe it's because it didn't have anything to do with freedom of expression after all? That maybe, just maybe, they are enforcing the law - objectively?

 

Sounds to me like they got scooped up with the rest of the protestors by the police who were probably beaten over the head about security and threatened by who knows how many shiney shoe politicians scared shitless the convention was going to get crazy. It doesn't make it ok, it was already ok and lawful to arrest people for hanging posters and those who are complicit. As always, the police reserve the right to enforce law sensitive to realities on the street.

 

Tomorrow, they might start jailing folks for littering if a controversial fast food trash convention comes into town.