I think tearing it down was fine. I think installing it was fine. Circle of life, sure. I do kinda wish the location had never been published, just some out of context photos. It was the mystery of it that made it fun.
3 Likes
Yes. As you pointed out in the post before this one, rule of law means rule of law.
So the decision whether to remove it (or not) should have been made by whoever in Utah is in charge of this.
Two unsanctioned/illegal acts do not cancel each other out. Even when everybody involved “means well”.
6 Likes
Future Scientist, rubbing chin, “We believe it had… um, cultural… or, er, religious significance.”
I like that they appear to have used a drone with a light on it to produce the “beam” effect in camera.
1 Like
And how right he is; the permits I issue are works of art in their own right.
3 Likes
Yeah… no. There’s much easier bucks to be had in that biz.
This was purely political / ideological / aesthetic (as was the actions of the person/s who put it there).
@leicester and @Bozobub
I live upstate in NY for all 47 years of my life and we have allot of random sculptures and random artwork going up all of the time on public and private land. It hasn’t ever been a problem to my knowledge. Anyone interested in a random sculpture on my property would only have to ask first. Just like with fishing and hunting permission. There’s nothing to be gained nor is it effective to shout “get off my lawn” while waving a shotgun in the air.
The land owners are free to remove the “installation” at any time. Most leave the artwork alone and standing for a time at least. The specter that you are trying to raise isn’t nearly as frightening or pervasive as you’re making it out to be. I’ve seen it, I live the life, my neighbors and I own the lands and many of us have had it happen on our property is it nuisance? Not really. I also have friends with farmland in the south who install artwork made of scrap on their ranch all of the time. Is it an environmental problem? No.
So don’t accuse me of hand waiving or dismissal. I’m experienced with exactly this sort of situation and I don’t see some vigilantism as the solution to this over stated problem.
It’s your sort of attitude that prevents healthy productive land use and a dialogue about how to engage people with nature. We should all be willing to share so long as no real abuse occurs and I don’t see any signs of abuse to date other than the guys who took it upon themselves to remove the statue without permission of any sort.
It was a cool bit of artwork and the fact the some numb nuts is probably making a pretty penny selling it for scrap is annoying in the least. I would happily invite the artist to install their artwork on my land.
3 Likes
3 Likes
a) Banksy is fine, as long as he isn’t marking up people’s homes, in my opinion. I’m reasonably sure cities are not considered fragile biomes.
b) If those artworks were made before laws restricting such things in parks, again, I have no issue. After, without permission, on public land in a park? Not even close to OK.
You’re not making the point you think you are. No, the monolith was NOT made or placed hundreds or thousands of years ago, nor with permission.
1 Like
Defending littering is a really stupid hill to die on.
1 Like
Excuse me? You tried to wave it away, because YOU wouldn’t/didn’t mind, and in fact just did so again.
MY sort of attitude, I’ll note, wouldn’t have allowed the Bundys to continue violating BLM grazing laws. MY kind of attitude, is what caused the establishment of the park system, in the first place.
Once again, the monolith was installed in a fragile biome without permits or permission, and damage DID occur, a lot of it at that. I’m reasonably sure your farm is unlikely to be considered a “fragile biome”. It sure as heck isn’t a national park!
Additionally, can you explain exactly how the people who removed it a) did anything wrong OR b) violated a single law? So far, no, you can’t. Yes, if people are free to install an illegal sculpture without permission, people are ALSO allowed to remove it without the artist’s permission, both de jure and de facto.
Until you can explain how the monolith was OK, but it’s NOT OK to toss an aluminum can into the bushes in a park, after I hammer it into a little “obelisk”, and how it’s somehow bad to remove that can from the bush later and throw it away properly at the same time, you have nothing more to say to me.
4 Likes
Interesting that you would say that, and post a picture of the yellow umbrellas:
1 Like
That word does not mean what they think it means.
3 Likes
It wasn’t, in fact, illegal to remove the sculpture. That seems to drastically reduce the impact of the point you’re trying to make. Additionally, even @Orb says it above:
Guess who owns the land, in a public park, at least in principle? At the very least, they certainly didn’t have less of a right to remove the monolith, than the creator(s) did to place it.
1 Like
ok it’s gone now, but have you seen the tiktok video where some sort of small cryptid looking beastie is peering out from one of the rock nooks behind where the monlith stood, it’s face and arms clearly visible!?!?!?
Citation needed.
Interesting legal theory, though.
3 Likes
I see a pattern here…
1 Like
That’s nice that you have had such a wholesome experience with everyone who ever interacted with you and your land.
You see, I grew up farming and ranching in the high plains, and other than the art installation, everything I listed has occurred to us.
Yes, we allowed people to hunt with permission, and yes, we escorted many people off the property because, “so-and-so said it was ok to hunt here,” or, “I didn’t see a house to ask at.” Never mind the no hunting signs.
And let me tell you, escaped black Angus cattle are really hard for a driver on a country road to spot at night.
2 Likes
My land isn’t part of the ecosystem and deserves no protections? Tell that to the BLM. We regularly need permits every time we sneeze around here. About 25 acres of my land is protected.
Also, with regard to citizens “owning the land”. While it may seem that way at face value, I know for a fact I can’t do whatever the hell I want on public land. We answer to the BLM. Removing the statue was not up to some random idiots who believe it’s their authority to act on this. It should have been opened for public debate since its public land.
3 Likes
Our 150 head of horses are pretty hard to see at night as well. They escape all of the time. Sometimes because people leave gates open. What’s your point? Managing and policing the land is It’s part of having tons of it.
We’ve had to ask people to leave of course but we don’t say NO! To everyone who drops by to fish in our giant ass lake visible immediately from the road or hunt in our back lot. We do our best and try to be reasonable. I don’t see bozobub being reasonable and certainly he’s not talking from the experience. Clutching pearls serves no one.
their job is literally to protect and preserve the area. if they were not alarmed enough to immediately remove it, even after word got out, this is not worth being so worked up about. i agree our parks are precious, but this didn’t do nearly as much damage as, say, mining and drilling for oil. i think it’s better to put energy towards stopping that sort of thing.
4 Likes
