61–70 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t an American building where you buy a couple of two-by-fours and some plastic siding from Home Depot. It’s a historical building made out of stone.
You think a stone building is hard to clean with a Kärcher?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.
> The dull blocks have no character That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they ju…
The murals and the waffling shall continue until morale improves.
> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. How in the world do you spend £50k to remove a graffiti?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what that temple is or which oak park you mean but I will take your words for it
It's one of the most famous Frank Lloyd Wright buildings (and architecturally one of his most important, and, apropos this story, his building that is most like the RCJ.)
Your comment makes me realize I know nothing about US architecture
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. There is no enforcement mechanism to punish them if they chose not to enforce the listed building rules.
Just to be clear, you're asking the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for maintaining the court system, to break the law? I can't think how that could have horrendous long-term consequences...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. There is no enforcement mechanism to punish them if they chose not to enforce the listed building rules.
In the sense that they are the enforcement mechanism of the law it's true that they can probably just ignore the law to a point, but it's no use pretending that there isn't a legal stricture here. (I'm a policy opponent of historic preservation, which is a major impediment to housing reform, but even I don't pretend that it simply doesn't exist.)
For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article: > A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character." This is the why . HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove…
The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.
"If you change the law to make this legal, then it will be legal!"
*Shakes head
It’s street art/graffiti. If someone wants to tag over it let them. Protecting this stuff with tax payer money is just stupid.
I think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.
Art makes questions: It's both stencil-like and precisely, powerfully executed; it's both obviously 'on-the-nose' as you say, and penetrating. How is that all true simultaneously?
(I don't know; it's what I've wondered and you helped clarify the question.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The dull blocks have no character That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they ju…
Is there a second Grade II Royal Court of Justice building on Carey Street in London? Because the Royal Court of Justice is a Grade I building, and it's on Carey Street.
> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. A further £35,300 was spent on overtime and security costs.
I also double-checked against Historic England and I think the one you're referring to is the Law Courts (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1...). It looks like there's a number of buildings in the law courts area between Carey Street and The Strand and each one has its own grading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.
> trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover. Art makes questions: It's both stencil-like and precisely, powerfully executed; it's both obviously 'on-the-nose' as you say, and penetrating. How is that all true simultaneously? (I don't know; it's what I've wondered and you helped clarify the question.)
There's nothing wrong with that; I respect graphic design and branding deeply. But it's not deep or meaningful.