There'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.
Or jerk's boss or their boss or shareholders.
San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
31–40 of 73 posts
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#32> 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…
That statement does not say that CAMP had agreements with all property owners, and it is possible that they did not have an agreement with this one.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#33There'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.
So, if you walk out one morning and find that someone painted a "mural" on the side of your house, you'd be happy about that?
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#34Public 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.…
>> done without proper legal arrangements
This is a completely fair assumption in San Francisco of all places.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#35> 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…
written and verbal agreements is incredibly vague. This could mean as little as "Sure you can paint a mural on my building", or any number of agreements that don't transfer ownership rights. They don't say that they have a written agreement allowing indefinite usage of the wall for murals. Allowing a mural to be painted is not a transference of ownership and is not an agreement for the owner to never paint over it.
> I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.
Because property rights are good and allow for a functioning society.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#36Quite 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.
But that's pretty much what that institution does. It might not seem that impressive because it's a neighborhood rather than a city- or state-level institution, but they've been going for decades and organize things like mural tours, regular cleaning and so on; I used to live in that neighborhood and remember as being very proactive about taking care of murals as a community resource, fostering young artists etc.
I think what happened here is the real estate management company viewed the murals as an encumbrance on the property (that would need some sort of negotiation or easement as a condition of resale) and decided to hire a contractor to make the problem go away, calculating that a fine (contractual or city-imposed) would be significantly less than the potential increase in sale value. I feel the contractor who painted it over is partly responsible morally, but legally and realistically such people are hired to do what they're told; asking questions about whether the right permits or agreements are in place for destruction of the artwork is a good way to get blacklisted by property management companies.
The property management industry seems weirdly hostile to any sort of public art. An infrastructural utility building near me had been decorated for years with ~15 mounted images by local artists highlighting interesting things about the geography and history of the area. A year ago the property manager had the entire building repainted in dull battleship gray (probably because it was cheaper than cleaning it), destroying all the artwork in the process. Now much of the building is covered in graffiti (mostly ugly low-effort tags), foot traffic along that street seems to have fallen, and perhaps not coincidentally there has been a rise in vehicle break-ins.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#37The property is owned by Makras Real Estate a notorious slumlord who has been convicted of fraud. They don't respect their tenants, they're surely not going to respect public art.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That statement does not say that CAMP had agreements with all property owners, and it is possible that they did not have an agreement with this one.
>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.
They claim to have arrangements with all property owners. Verbal arrangements are just as binding as written ones, though generally not a good idea as they are harder to prove.
Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#39Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
#40> “We’ve tried to approach what happened assuming there was no ill intent,” Torres of CAMP wrote in the Thursday letter. “Still, after nearly 35 years of stewarding this alley, we have to ask: How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?”
Feels like the most plausible explanation of what happened is the property owners got a blight citation[1] for graffiti on some other part of the building, and either misunderstood or miscommunicated to their employee what was supposed to be removed. I don't know why everyone is jumping to either "the owners are assholes" or "the owners get to do what they want it's their property."
[1] https://sfpublicworks.org/index.php/services/community-prese...