Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#41

Post by NelsonMinar »

Clarion Alley is totally worth a visit when you're in San Francisco. It's right in the middle of the Mission near a bunch of great places to eat and drink. Balmy Alley is a 10 minute walk away and another great street art gallery.

Clarion Alley Mural Project does great work maintaining Clarion Alley. (Including relations with property owners - this problem is an anomaly, there's been art there successfully for over 30 years.) Also worth knowing about Precita Eyes, a local community organization that manages murals in a lot of the city.

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#42

Post by ButlerianJihad »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art

  Common characteristics of public art are public accessibility, public realm placement, community involvement, public process (including public funding); these works can be permanent or temporary.

  Independent art created or staged in or near the public realm (for example, graffiti, street art) lacks official or tangible public sanction has not been recognized as part of the public art genre,[8] however the popularity of some street artists have led to this notion being reconsidered by many.[9][10] Such unofficial artwork may exist on private or public property immediately adjacent to the public realm, or in natural settings but, however ubiquitous,[11][12] it sometimes falls outside the definition of public art by its absence of public process or public sanction as "bona fide" public art.[1]

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#43

Post by anigbrowl »

SoftTalker wrote: post #33
ryandrake wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Historically murals in that area have been planned, agreed with the property owners, and funded by local nonprofits or donation drives. They're community projects, not renegade takeovers. Using scare quotes to delegitimize it is a cheap shot. I think you're assuming that because some of the painting in the alley was just tagging, all of the paint on the walls was unpermitted vandalism.

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#45

Post by artisinal »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #41

Clarion Alley is totally worth a visit when you're in San Francisco. It's right in the middle of the Mission near a bunch of great places to eat and drink. Balmy Alley is a 10 minute walk away and another great street art gallery. Clarion Alley Mural Project does great work maintaining Clarion Alley. (Including relations with property owners - this problem is an anomaly, there's been art there successfully for over 3…

Looked it up on Google. I don't like people claiming public space to push their personal agenda. Those alleys are for everyone, stop using it for your personal agenda. Please make a-political art.

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#46

Post by asveikau »

ecshafer wrote: post #35
asoidfgnion wrote: post #30

Earlier 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…

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 I saw elsewhere that the owner has been the same for 35 years or something like that. So there is no relevant transfer of ownership.

Your opening statement here is pretty ridiculous I need to say. "Written agreements doesn't mean shit!" Then you just make up a scenario where the contract wouldn't hold up.

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#47

Post by artisinal »

jacobolus wrote: post #25
dmitrygr wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.

Is it morally or socially acceptable to paint over someone else's private property?

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#48

Post by kbelder »

chabes wrote: post #18

Murals are a part of nearly every city in the world. Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness. Such a shame.

>Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness.

and vice versa.

Re: San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art

#50

Post by paulv »

SoftTalker wrote: post #33
ryandrake wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It depends what the mural was of? If it was a pro KKK mural I would object. If it was some of the pictures in the article, that would be pretty sweet. If it was some of the other murals I've seen, I would be thrilled.
Post reply on HN