Only assholes tag nature.
Right?
Banksy, she ain’t.
I really hate that crap. I’ve also seen some “art” that consists of people carving into rock faces in national parks, which is an unfixable eyesore. This is why we can’t have nice things.
Even if it was Banksy i would not cheer for art on a national park when it’s not supposed to be there and it’s doing harm to the natural structure. If this was on a random building that can be painted over or repaired then go ahead.
Yes. It’s one thing to take something manmade and ugly and turn it into something beautiful, or at least interesting. But for crying out loud, National Parks are basically the one place where we collectively decided “this little patch of nature is a thing of beauty worth preserving for all time, so let’s protect it instead of allowing humanity to mess it up.”
That was kinda my point;
Not the lack of quality of the art, but that Banksy is an activist who paints on run-down buildings and other decaying man-made structures to make impactful social commentary.
Like @JonasEggeater said, anyone who tags nature is just an asshole.
How is sharing photos of the paintings even sufficient evidence to charge her with anything? Lots of people photograph work which was done by other people.
I presume someone sleuthed some photographic evidence of her art elsewhere, and thus linked her to the vandalism. If she’s plead guilty on all counts that means she had no way to reasonably contest the charges.
Did you read the article? She took credit for the damn things.
Under each picture she left her tag “Creepytings”, which was also the name of her Tumblr blog and Instagram account.
After Nocket wrote in an Instagram post that she had used acrylic paint – which is very difficult to clean off – another user questioned her about it and she responded: “I know, I’m a bad person.”
I know, but that’s still hardly evidence. If I take credit of a noteworthy artwork online, then do I get the copyright without further evidence? It seems like these two kinds of legal action involve stacking the burden of evidence in interestingly different ways.
They asked her “did you do these things” and she said “yes”.
Even Chief Wiggum could solve this case.
This is why we had nice things.
* debateable
Uh, yes it is. Maybe not enough for a conviction all by itself, but certainly enough to start a formal investigation.
So to summarize what we already know from the article:
- She is the one person known to have been at the site of each act of vandalism.
- She explicitly took credit for said vandalism.
- She eventually entered a guilty plea for said vandalism.
This doesn’t exactly sound like someone who has been railroaded by the courts here.
But we have no way of knowing if “you” and “she” refer to the same person, or what was even meant by “yes.”
[takes off @popobawa4u hat]
Isn’t pretty much everything, though?
Somewhere, someone is probably “debating” that the sky is actually green and the ground is blue.
Also, there are only 2 E’s in debatable.
Just sayin.’
Well. It’s just cause you’re not old enough to appreciate it yet.
In 3000 years the spiderians will tell their brood about these odd paleoglyths of the gummi people of yore. They were said to be delicious. Especially the eyes.
