San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#2Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#3There's a never ending supply of douchebags in this world. Such a shame.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#4Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#5Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
I see this response doesn't actually respond to
> Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#6[dead]
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#7There's a never ending supply of douchebags in this world. Such a shame.
It's too bad. It takes no effort or creativity to destroy art. Just a jerk with a pressure washer or paint roller.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#8There's a never ending supply of douchebags in this world. Such a shame.
Yeah man, I wish they stopped sketching stuff over other people's walls.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
I see this response doesn't actually respond to > Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
From Mission Local, https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle...
> “CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project.
> At the moment, it’s unclear whether CAMP has a written agreement for 3331 17th St. The organization, however, does have a verbal agreement with all the landlords/property owners where they have murals throughout the alley.
> The property’s owners haven’t changed since 2001. The owner of 3331 17th St. is listed as the Guerrero V. Espinoza Trust in city records.
> The murals painted over include “We’re all in this together,” a memorial for activist and artist Kirsten Brydum, painted in 2016 by John Viola; “Everything Must Go,” a tribute to Adobe Books’ former home at 3166 16th St., painted in 2015 by Daniel Doherty; a tribute to local graffiti artist Chloe a.k.a. Marfa by Floyd; and a mural completed this spring by students from Graffiti Camp for Girls, a local organization training young women in creating public art.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
I see this response doesn't actually respond to > Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
It doesn't deserve a response. It's self refuting. The likeliest situation is there was no formal arrangement.
The decent thing to do was to come to an arrangement whether there was a previous arrangement or not. You can be perfectly within your rights as they might be litigated in a court and still be an asshole deserving of public disapproval.