“We graffiti people’s walls”
”Cool!”
“So do we”
”NooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!”
San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
21–30 of 70 posts
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#22It seems like public art is always in danger of being erased when it's nobody's official job to protect it.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/dallas-fifa...
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#23Quite a shame to lose art like this, but without a process to preserve, display, and maintain such artwork, (like a museum is equipped to do), this kind of destruction is inevitable. At the very least we can be grateful for all the years it was available, but such is the way of all things, nothing lasts forever, and I think the story of the end of such works of art is also part of the artwork as well.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#24Earlier 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.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.
Not here; being an owner just means you're liable for the taxes and still have to get permission from someone else to do anything with the space.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#25Earlier 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.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.
Some people have the legal authority to destroy public art. That doesn't make it a morally or socially acceptable behavior.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#26Earlier 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.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.
You are also a member of the community. That carries obligations.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.
Some people have the legal authority to destroy public art. That doesn't make it a morally or socially acceptable behavior.
Morality is relative
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#28Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
This is one of the sources for the linked article:
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.
This should have been mentioned in the original article. It also should be obvious, I think. Why would you assume that high-quality murals created by an established institution were done without proper legal arrangements?
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.
Not here; being an owner just means you're liable for the taxes and still have to get permission from someone else to do anything with the space.
To be a bit more nuanced, you can do anything with your property except that which requires permission or approval. NOT that you must get permission for anything you do with your property. The specifics can vary widely from locality to locality, obviously.
Painting a wall is something that usually doesn't require a permit. Maybe some restrictions if the building is a historic landmark or something like that.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#30> How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?” Private Property is how. People don't own other people's property for abstract reasons like they joined a club that once painted graffiti on walls.
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.
If there was an agreement in place, property rights would protect the murals from vandalism by the property owners, not the other way 'round.
I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.