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

51–60 of 72 posts

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

#51

Post by superb_dev »

artisinal wrote: post #45
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.

No. I will not make apolitical art.

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

#52

Post by Zigurd »

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?

If you bought a house on Clarion Alley, would you be a douche bag and paint over the murals? That's the actual question about this situation. What is your hypothetical about?

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

#53

Post by artisinal »

superb_dev wrote: post #51
artisinal wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. I will not make apolitical art.

That is fine. Just don't use private property in the public space for it. Put it in an art gallery somewhere.

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

#54

Post by ecshafer »

asveikau wrote: post #46
ecshafer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do not define what their written or verbal agreements are, it is as simple as that. That statement would mean its possible they asked 35 years ago got a shrug and some guy saying "sure" OR it could maximally be a full contract with permanent transfer of the right of painting the wall. If this organization uses a vague statement, then its fair to take the vagueness is the worst possible way for them.

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

#55

Post by magicalhippo »

asoidfgnion wrote: post #28
magicalhippo wrote: post #2

Public 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.…

Yeah, my complaint was with the article. Why leave out such an important piece of information? Why not dig into the agreements and understandings? You say it is obvious, but to me it is not. I know of several works of wall-sized graffiti and similar that just had a verbal agreement, which would be very vulnerable if the property got new owners or management.

As I understand it, here in Norway the propery owner would be entitled to destroy the murials entirely (but not alter or mutilate), by say painting over them in entirety. However they should then notify the copyright holder (artist) in advance so the copyright holder has time to document the murial.

Sounds like this wasn't done, but I don't know if there are similar laws over there.

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

#56

Post by jrflowers »

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?

That depends on why, in this scenario, have I not walked out of my house in thirty five years

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

#57

Post by mc32 »

jacobolus wrote: post #9
tekla wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think we need to know the nature of the agreements (what did they agree to) as well as whether they are legally binding. Without that information we’re all left to guess.

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

#58

Post by vvpan »

superb_dev wrote: post #51
artisinal wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. I will not make apolitical art.

Hero.

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

#59

Post by curtisblaine »

Isn't inherent impermanence one of the factors that make street art art? If we treat graffiti like museum pieces exposed outside instead of inside, we don't do justice to them (and we end up in these kind of ridiculous situations). Graffiti are defaced, painted over, repainted, even modified over time. They're intrinsecally not immutable. If we think of them as immutable, they're just spray-painted art brut that happens to be on a wall instead of a picture panel - not very interesting.

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

#60

Post by jacobolus »

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?

If my property bordered an alley where literally every surface had been covered in murals for decades, and I discovered that the organized non-profit coordinating murals in that alley, who had a long-standing relationship with all of the property owners, had set an artist up to paint a new mural there, then I would be happy, yes.

Or if I were unhappy, I would talk to the artist and/or the mural organization about it, ideally before they had put too much time into the project.

I certainly wouldn't wait more than a decade after the murals were finished and then on a whim decide to paint over them, erasing months (?) of artists' efforts in an afternoon.

I don't know why you are putting "mural" in scare quotes. The works in question are clearly murals, not just graffiti tags or something.

Post reply on HN