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

61–70 of 73 posts

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

#61

Post by chrismcb »

magicalhippo wrote: post #55
asoidfgnion wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If they had verbal agreement it is not graffiti.

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

#62

Post by vvpan »

devindotcom wrote: post #15

it's pretty sad reading the comments in this thread. one senses both the cause and the result of SF's declining cultural relevance.

Seeing the world through property rights is so one-dimensional and devoid of any creative thought it makes me sad as well. Eventually this is the SV ethos - own, conquer, extract, no space for externalities like simple urban pleasures.

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

#63

Post by erxam »

devindotcom wrote: post #15

it's pretty sad reading the comments in this thread. one senses both the cause and the result of SF's declining cultural relevance.

Libertarians are unable to conceptualize what 'art' even is. It doesn't bring in financial benefit, so what is it for? If it's not an advertising board with your company's logo on it, it's worthless wasted space.

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

#65

Post by SR2Z »

dmitrygr wrote: post #20
jacobolus wrote: post #4

Earlier 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 if there was a contract governing the property.

There almost certainly wasn't here, but owning property does not always give you unrestricted rights to do as you please with it.

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

#66

Post by SR2Z »

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.

His point is that "written and vegan agreements" is not the same thing as "has a contract" and that the legal niceties need to be respected or else it would be impossible to get anything done.

Asking "is it cool if I paint your wall?" more than three decades ago doesn't create a contract or protect the work.

I highly doubt that street artists made a legally binding agreement with the owners that protects the art for the simple reason that this would be a ridiculous encumbrance on the property that would be unacceptable to most sane people.

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

#67

Post by chabes »

kbelder wrote: post #48
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.

Won’t anyone think of the poor SF landowners

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49600627#49634171

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

#69

Post by artisinal »

erxam wrote: post #63
devindotcom wrote: post #15

it's pretty sad reading the comments in this thread. one senses both the cause and the result of SF's declining cultural relevance.

Libertarians are unable to conceptualize what 'art' even is . It doesn't bring in financial benefit, so what is it for? If it's not an advertising board with your company's logo on it, it's worthless wasted space.

Art is cool.

Painting your art on someone else's private property is not.

Pushing your political agenda in public spaces is especially not cool. I just want to walk outside and enjoy the world, don't want your political agenda pushed on me.

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

#70

Post by artisinal »

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.

So you are OK with it if I paint a big mural on your car, home, laptop, phone?
Post reply on HN