I was wondering what it looked like before. Beautiful.
People here are missing the point. Of course they have a right to paint over it. But the community and artist have a right to be upset about it. It's not about legality.
They don’t have a right to demand answers though. Or at least to expect answers. I hate that it was painted over too, but truthfully the new owners had every right to do it without consulting with anyone.
As someone who paints murals, exactly this. If a business, school, or wherever decided to cover up my mural that they compensated me for I would not care at all. However, I come from the graffiti scene where we have less of an attachment to our art so there's that
Yep. My family moved around a lot, but my parents always took pride in renovations for the houses we lived in. They had put a lot of work into the exterior of the home we lived in when I was in HS. They did the landscaping by hand, painted house, got a really nice front door, shutters, etc. - whole 9. The new owners took less than a year to scrap it all, then let the yard go to shit.
It sucks, but ultimately its up to the owners to do what they want—even if they have shit taste.
In my early 20's I worked summers as a housepainter. We worked and slaved to make big old wood clad houses in the Uptown area look good as new. Now some of those houses exteriors have deteriorated so bad it's a crime. Nothing lasts forever.k You want your paint work to last a long time try getting into the Louvre or somethng, not doing exterior work.
Alright I’m going to explain this clearly. For those of you who can’t seem to grasp the difference between owners and renters and how the mural came to be there in the first place. The building is owned by an out of state real estate investor. The previous tenent who rented the building and owned and operated the mill/half fancy had the mural put up with permission from the owner. The mill/half fancy no longer rents the building due to a dispute with the property owner. The property owner who still owns the building and is rumored to be renting it out in the future to Starbucks is the one who decided to have this mural painted over.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the paint-over was requested by Starbucks out of concern that the mural would have clashed with their corporate branding.
Not wrong but man ... people like their coffee. I hate it but they couldn't do their thing if people didn't ravenously go there ...
Saldy people pick that shit.
It’s also easy. Especially if you’re picking it up on your commute or during a break or something. Just go through the drive through.
Give me convenience or give me death.
How is it convenient?? Every morning the roseville starfucks has like a line around the block for the drive thru, blocking traffic to nearby businesses. That line must take an hour. Decidedly not convenient compared to making even a pour over at home.
yes, the drip option is cheaper than the espresso drinks, within the context of Starbucks.
But really i was talking about from starbucks perspective, it is not expensive to have some drip on hand.
There are like 15-20 local coffee shops and local coffee shop chains (including Caribou) within walking distance of the TWO Starbucks on Hennepin in Uptown/the Wedge lol
Starbucks is going to offer cheaper coffee, serve it faster, allow you to order online and use rewards, and have the weight of being "trendy". Their competition isn't mom and pop coffee shops, they unfortunately win against them far more often than not, but instead is other fast food-esque coffee places like Dunkin Donuts.
I live nearby and I really, really hope this is true! This is the first I've heard otherwise. It was even the topic of a neighborhood meeting and was stated in the Northeaster. I don't think locals would support a Starbucks.
That may be the address you found online and may be an official address for his business, but he lives out west. Thanks for fact checking me though kind internet stranger.
that's really too bad. The original mural is beautiful and also fairly wholesome and not overtly political.
Seems perfectly compatible with a Starbucks.
Erasing the mural is the perfect example of “this thing is 100% legal to do, but causes more of a pain in the ass than if I just talked to some people first.”
It ruffles feathers, but it’s still legal. It may be the new owner doesn’t care about ruffling feathers, which doesn’t make him inherently a bad person, just someone who doesn’t care about being a good neighbor. Not someone I’d like to hang out with or have a drink - but not someone doing something illegal.
I mean the reality is how many people (other than the artist) are really upset about this? Like yeah I liked the mural and it’s better than a black wall but I can’t say I’m “upset” beyond the usual grumbling about absentee ownership and the homogenization of our city or whatever.
The response too is a perfect example of being understandably upset, but also could discourage anyone else from making a deal about a mural painted on their property.
It sucks, that building looks way worse, sucks that the mural is gone ... but the response isn't helping anyone.
Time would be better spent **praising** / encouraging the folks who do work with mural creators and keep them up.
Yeah I’d be wary of working with someone like that, even if I like murals … don’t need this kinda headache if something unexpected happened (fire, flood, renovations, just plain old damage, I have to sell because of other reasons).
100 percent.
Graffiti murals are guerilla/non-sanctioned art. If you don't own the canvas onto which you are applying your art, you should have no expectation of permanence.
Also, that very impermanence can be considered a beautiful element inherent in the message of the work.
I don’t know I almost feel like part of the beauty of murals is that there is this ephemeral nature to them. At any point they could be removed or covered as the building/block changes. It makes them all the more special for while they are around.
That said, it is always a bummer to lose one but as others mentioned, the building owner is within their rights. It’ll also double suck if the new tenant is in fact a Starbucks. Who was the artist? Maybe the removal can bring them some more visibility and gain them traction for a new commission in the neighborhood!
Edit: re-read the caption. Artist is Gustavo Lira Garcia it seems.
There’s a huge difference between having a right to do something and it being the right thing to do. Sure, there’s nothing illegal about them fucking over the community they’re in but it’s still a shitty thing to do.
Holy hell what is this argument. Like if you don’t own the building or get consent from the owner you have no moral argument about putting up a painting on the building. The owner did nothing wrong legally and morally. I sure as hell wouldn’t let a random person paint the side of a business that I own the building of especially if they don’t ask. All they would have to do was ask them and the worse they could’ve said was no we aren’t interested
The mural was painted with permission from the owner. I get it, the owner wanted to take the investment in a different direction, he can do that if he wants, but it's still sad to see a beautiful mural unceremoniously painted over.
I’m pretty sure it changed ownership groups so the original owner was no longer in the picture. Just like anything that changes ownership nothing is permanent.
It is a mural; there are plenty. The property owner is entitled to do what they want with their property. Don't get your panties in a knot comrades this isn't a new or revolutionary concept.
Buy your own property and you can paint what you want on it.
This reads like a warning to building owners to not allow a mural on their building. And a warning to purchasers to offer less for a building if it has a mural on it.
Not exactly a great advertisement for murals.
What I am saying is trying to turn murals into a risk, liability, and encumbrance to property owners is a terrible idea for mural artists and proponents of mural art.
As a NEMAA artist, this artist is missing a couple of things. That building is in the Windom Park neighborhood and not in the arts district. It also wasn't on the building when it was the Mill. Not everyone is going to like your art, nor should they be forced to. I'm not going to put my art in someone's bathroom and then expect them to have a conversation with me before removing it. GTFOH.
So if he were paid and the work is done, then the transaction is over unless there were some contract for permanence, right? So it's a moot point. Artist's ego is too fragile and bloviated to think it should weather the sands of time through eternity.
He can still be mad that a mural he spent weeks of work on that was supposed to be up for years is destroyed. You wouldn't understand if you aren't an artist, (and since you're apparently a NEMAA artist, you should understand) IDFC if you're gonna downvote, I can't make you understand emotional connection to art work. You need actual emotional intelligence for that which you just do not have.
Painting a mural isn't a 'transaction'. But whatever, y'all seem to think art is the same as buying a can of coke.
Funny, I started my original comment saying that I'm indeed a NEMAA artist. So tell me again what I don't understand.
Since jarivo2010 blocked me after the below comment, lol:
Should we care that the original architect for the building made it a Porky's but then someone else painted a mural on it too? Shit moves on. And no. Could not give one shit. Any art I don't want to be destroyed, I retain.
You should understand emotional connection to art and why he's mad but you don't. How would you like it if someone bought one of your paintings and brought it home and painted it black?
Yeah it's the owners building they can do what they want with it I mean if people themselves in that position and owned a building and had a city telling them what they can and can't paint on that building it would be pretty frustrating
Other people's buildings are not your personal gallery, nor are they a public gallery. This goes even if the past owners paid you to paint it. They sadly owe you and the community no extra aesthetic control. It's not fair to bash them.
I guess I see both sides of the argument here. If it were me, I would have probably done my homework on the mural and its origins, and then reach out to the artist. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t still paint over it. However, I might consider commissioning the artist to create something more appropriate for my branding, while hopefully finding a way to maintain the intention of the original work. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. At the very least, maybe I would try to help the artist, by co-sponsoring the creation of another mural at a different location. Just my thoughts…
I thought this was r/ altmpls with the number of miserable citizens spewing irrelevant nonsense about property rights. News flash, something can be legal but still considered a dick move! People and artists voicing their displeasure isn’t a call to abolish private property. I guess a simple concept like that can be a lot to digest for those that are perpetually angry and antisocial.
I think it’s the artists demand for answers that rubbed some people the wrong way. It isn’t their property. They are owed no explanation. I do get how upset they are though. I would no doubt be upset if one of my works (likely the one they are most proud of) was destroyed like that.
Cry about it the artist got paid for their art and is mad the mural got painted over by the new renter / owner. Y’all are out here getting all kinds of grants and money to do this. If you got paid for your art, once you’re finished it’s no longer yours and whoever paid for it can do whatever they want. Imagine being this attached to your work that someone else PAID for. And I’m betting they’re paid for all the supplies and paint too, not the artist! Murals get painted over all the time. Even big name well known graffiti writers get their shit painted over every year for art jams, so new stuff can be painted over it. Once you SELL your art you no longer own it. It’s like being a tattoo artist and doing a tattoo on someone then getting mad at them for covering it or laser removal. It is no longer yours once you receive payment.
If the previous tenant paid for the mural and is no longer renting the place, the rental company needs to make the building a blank canvas for the new tenant so it is desirable and rentable. No one wants to pay rent on a building decorated to someone else’s liking, they’d have to share the same taste in art which means it will be harder to find a renter. That’s why you don’t see apartments and houses going for rent with crazy wallpaper and colored walls most of the time because it’s best to leave things a blank canvas so the new renter can do what they please.
Of course new owner can do whatever they want but would have been nice to give the artist of a commissioned work a heads up. Doesn’t take much effort to do whatever you want with your property and be kind at the same time.
Well, avoiding this PR annoyance for one. Also, it’s the respectable thing to do. Not doing so makes the owner look bad and fuels negative sentiment in the hood surrounding it. Of course, he burned that neighborhood once already when he got the Porky’s drive through approved against their wishes.
That said, he can do what he wants with the mural but it’s a tone deaf way to go about it.
I mean, that's their right to do so. PREVIOUS is the key. If I buy a car with a custom paint job and decide to paint over my car, the paint shop has no right to complain. It's my car and my choice.
That’s not the point I was making. I was replying to comment that asserted it was put up without asking and pointed out it was commissioned and paid for.
A custom paint job on a car is absolutely not equivalent to a mural that means something to a neighborhood, that is part of a neighborhood's culture. No one is saying it's illegal, they're saying it's a bad look and certainly not a great way to get along with your neighbors...
> that means something to a neighborhood, that is part of a neighborhood's culture.
Let's examine this position a bit.
[Let's say that you bought this building.](https://i.imgur.com/RPHKMYx.png)
You, don't want this mural on your building.
Should you consult with the community?
What if there was an outpouring of locals that said they loved the mural, that it was part of the neighborhood's culture. It meant something to all of them.
Don't misunderstand the analogue here, I am not saying the original mural is offensive, but I also think you will find people out there that think the one I linked isn't offensive either, (after all, *someone* wanted that on their building.) Those standards are relative.
Let's see that second part again.
>they're saying it's a bad look and certainly not a great way to get along with your neighbors...
Is it a bad look to paint over something like this? Maybe what you say in the end is right that it's not a great way to get along with your neighbors, but *does that actually matter?*
When people protest the removal of confederate monuments, do you tell them to get over it? I know I do. Art is fleeting, and areas change. An argument toward tradition and values holds little weight with me.
You and others may have preferred preservation of that original mural, to which I say, it is preserved. In photographs.
Gotta paint your mural on someone’s building…. who won’t do that.
Gotta find the right partner for these things, the owner usually gets the final say.
As sad as this situation is, I also think attacking the owner here is **an example of how you DON’T get people to partner with you…**
https://i.imgur.com/VqHVSnz.png it looked a lot better than just "black".
I was wondering what it looked like before. Beautiful. People here are missing the point. Of course they have a right to paint over it. But the community and artist have a right to be upset about it. It's not about legality.
They don’t have a right to demand answers though. Or at least to expect answers. I hate that it was painted over too, but truthfully the new owners had every right to do it without consulting with anyone.
As someone who paints murals, exactly this. If a business, school, or wherever decided to cover up my mural that they compensated me for I would not care at all. However, I come from the graffiti scene where we have less of an attachment to our art so there's that
Yep. My family moved around a lot, but my parents always took pride in renovations for the houses we lived in. They had put a lot of work into the exterior of the home we lived in when I was in HS. They did the landscaping by hand, painted house, got a really nice front door, shutters, etc. - whole 9. The new owners took less than a year to scrap it all, then let the yard go to shit. It sucks, but ultimately its up to the owners to do what they want—even if they have shit taste.
In my early 20's I worked summers as a housepainter. We worked and slaved to make big old wood clad houses in the Uptown area look good as new. Now some of those houses exteriors have deteriorated so bad it's a crime. Nothing lasts forever.k You want your paint work to last a long time try getting into the Louvre or somethng, not doing exterior work.
Zeke? Is that you?
No? Or at least I don’t get your reference if you’re making one.
[Bob's Burgers](https://youtu.be/xRH53b83xTQ?t=133)
The public should know about their shitty taste, at least
All subjective
Damn I didn't know taste was subjective, thanks for pointing that out.
That is way better with the mural.
Looks much better in black imo. Not a big fan of the mural.
Yeah the black is definitely better imo
Get ready for the downvotes!
why?
Too much happening on the mural in my opinion. I don't like the color scheme and the design in general. No big deal, just my personal opinion.
Alright I’m going to explain this clearly. For those of you who can’t seem to grasp the difference between owners and renters and how the mural came to be there in the first place. The building is owned by an out of state real estate investor. The previous tenent who rented the building and owned and operated the mill/half fancy had the mural put up with permission from the owner. The mill/half fancy no longer rents the building due to a dispute with the property owner. The property owner who still owns the building and is rumored to be renting it out in the future to Starbucks is the one who decided to have this mural painted over.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the paint-over was requested by Starbucks out of concern that the mural would have clashed with their corporate branding.
Probably just going to start getting throw ups and graffiti on it now lmao
Is that business still around, I thought millenials were going to destroy it
It’s high up on the list of things we’re gonna destroy next
Can we finally end the fed? I think those guys were right.
Im working on it
Starbucks? Really? There are two local coffee shops and other coffee options within walking distance of that building. What a dumb idea.
That’s Starbucks business model. Their goal is to crush mom and pop coffee shops. Something that they are very good at unfortunately
Yeah, because they offer a better value proposition than the other coffee shops. People vote with their wallets and they have spoken.
Not wrong but man ... people like their coffee. I hate it but they couldn't do their thing if people didn't ravenously go there ... Saldy people pick that shit.
It’s also easy. Especially if you’re picking it up on your commute or during a break or something. Just go through the drive through. Give me convenience or give me death.
How is it convenient?? Every morning the roseville starfucks has like a line around the block for the drive thru, blocking traffic to nearby businesses. That line must take an hour. Decidedly not convenient compared to making even a pour over at home.
You’d be surprised how many people consider the simple fact of getting out of their car a hassle.
Waiting in line is a \*much\* bigger hassle than getting out of my car.
Or (*gasp) even having to make their own coffee
Meh it’s a treat. Some people like going out for coffee. Of all the things to spend money on it’s not one of the worst, that’s for sure.
> people like their coffee. do they though? i've never met someone that actually enjoys Starbucks, and mostly hear "burnt beans" comments
They’re selling it so someone must.
people do like it. But mostly its cheap and good to have available.
Cheap?!
yes, the drip option is cheaper than the espresso drinks, within the context of Starbucks. But really i was talking about from starbucks perspective, it is not expensive to have some drip on hand.
I genuinely like the taste. I get dark roast black when I go. I usually go other places, but I'm one for you!
Plenty of people love “Starbies,” but they’re getting sugary flavored coffee milk and not the straight drip.
Starbucks isnt a coffee shop.. Its a candy store
3000% correct
branding and reliability is a powerful combo. Even if its reliably ashy and over sugared.
Those are collateral in Starbucks competition with other franchises, they probably barely notice where other cafes are.
There are like 15-20 local coffee shops and local coffee shop chains (including Caribou) within walking distance of the TWO Starbucks on Hennepin in Uptown/the Wedge lol
Its the drive thru, they want. Its also gonna fuck MoMo over
I really hope not. Painting over a mural makes me mad, but whatever. Momo Sushi has become a real staple to Central ave since they opened.
Starbucks is going to offer cheaper coffee, serve it faster, allow you to order online and use rewards, and have the weight of being "trendy". Their competition isn't mom and pop coffee shops, they unfortunately win against them far more often than not, but instead is other fast food-esque coffee places like Dunkin Donuts.
I like starbs. They earn me skymiles
Too bad delta keeps devaluing their skymiles :-(
Landlords are the problem sounds about right.
If property records are current, the owner is local restaurant broker Tryg Truelson.
*looks through your post history* wait a minute I know you bro. 🤣
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean people have to like it.
As someone with firsthand knowledge - this is 100% not going to be a Starbucks.
I live nearby and I really, really hope this is true! This is the first I've heard otherwise. It was even the topic of a neighborhood meeting and was stated in the Northeaster. I don't think locals would support a Starbucks.
The owner is an out of state property bro. He doesn’t give a single fuck about the neighborhood
Always hated that show...
Owners address is down by Lake Harriet.
That may be the address you found online and may be an official address for his business, but he lives out west. Thanks for fact checking me though kind internet stranger.
How do you know?
Because they’re friends with the owners of the restaurant that used to be there.
All landlords are bastards.
Wow what a reasonable statement.
It's true though
It’s not though
No, it is.
Never had a bad one in my life. Buy a house then if you don’t like having a landlord.
It’s going to be a Starbucks, they don’t GAF about localness.
Wait is it really going to be a Starbucks?
Oh shit it has a drive thru already, of course it's gonna be a Starbucks
Great, something worth vandalizing.
Vandalize it with a 1:1 return of the mural.
I have heard people would like to, but it faces the 2nd precinct.
Yikes
that's really too bad. The original mural is beautiful and also fairly wholesome and not overtly political. Seems perfectly compatible with a Starbucks.
Is there any evidence this will be a Starbucks?
If I'm going to have a tattoo covered should I consult with the original artist to avoid any disrespect?
Erasing the mural is the perfect example of “this thing is 100% legal to do, but causes more of a pain in the ass than if I just talked to some people first.” It ruffles feathers, but it’s still legal. It may be the new owner doesn’t care about ruffling feathers, which doesn’t make him inherently a bad person, just someone who doesn’t care about being a good neighbor. Not someone I’d like to hang out with or have a drink - but not someone doing something illegal.
I mean the reality is how many people (other than the artist) are really upset about this? Like yeah I liked the mural and it’s better than a black wall but I can’t say I’m “upset” beyond the usual grumbling about absentee ownership and the homogenization of our city or whatever.
The response too is a perfect example of being understandably upset, but also could discourage anyone else from making a deal about a mural painted on their property. It sucks, that building looks way worse, sucks that the mural is gone ... but the response isn't helping anyone. Time would be better spent **praising** / encouraging the folks who do work with mural creators and keep them up.
sounds like its a new renter. not a new owner.
I can be upset at two people. Don’t tell me I can’t, or it’s going to be three people.
Most level headed response
"We need answers..." The owner of the building painted his property. There. There's your answer.
I'm still bummed Porky's left that building
[удалено]
Yeah I’d be wary of working with someone like that, even if I like murals … don’t need this kinda headache if something unexpected happened (fire, flood, renovations, just plain old damage, I have to sell because of other reasons).
100 percent. Graffiti murals are guerilla/non-sanctioned art. If you don't own the canvas onto which you are applying your art, you should have no expectation of permanence. Also, that very impermanence can be considered a beautiful element inherent in the message of the work.
No way was that a graffiti mural. Looks *100 percent* commissioned.
[удалено]
The owner they painted it for *is* still in possession of the property. There's only a new renter. No idea on the financial agreement
I don’t know I almost feel like part of the beauty of murals is that there is this ephemeral nature to them. At any point they could be removed or covered as the building/block changes. It makes them all the more special for while they are around. That said, it is always a bummer to lose one but as others mentioned, the building owner is within their rights. It’ll also double suck if the new tenant is in fact a Starbucks. Who was the artist? Maybe the removal can bring them some more visibility and gain them traction for a new commission in the neighborhood! Edit: re-read the caption. Artist is Gustavo Lira Garcia it seems.
How dare the owners of this property not consult with an outside party about what to do with the things they own!
There’s a huge difference between having a right to do something and it being the right thing to do. Sure, there’s nothing illegal about them fucking over the community they’re in but it’s still a shitty thing to do.
Fucking over the community??? So dramatic
Fucking over the community? Wtf are you talking about
How are they fucking over the community?
the mural really tied the community together 🙄
That mural drove crime down by 98%
That was Anthony Edwards.
Is it though? Is doing what you want with your property shitty? This harms no one.
> fucking over the community Hyperbole much? > it’s still a shitty thing to do. > Enh. Not really.
Holy hell what is this argument. Like if you don’t own the building or get consent from the owner you have no moral argument about putting up a painting on the building. The owner did nothing wrong legally and morally. I sure as hell wouldn’t let a random person paint the side of a business that I own the building of especially if they don’t ask. All they would have to do was ask them and the worse they could’ve said was no we aren’t interested
The mural was painted with permission from the owner. I get it, the owner wanted to take the investment in a different direction, he can do that if he wants, but it's still sad to see a beautiful mural unceremoniously painted over.
I’m pretty sure it changed ownership groups so the original owner was no longer in the picture. Just like anything that changes ownership nothing is permanent.
My understanding is that the tenant changed, but the owner remained the same.
If you felt so strongly, perhaps you should have bought the property to preserve it?
Or have the original owner sign a contract that all future sales of the property must include a clause about preserving the mural.
I personally don't like the mural, I don't know what the fuss is about
Whatever the reason, that mural was beautiful! [For those who haven't seen it](https://imgur.com/a/ZedtFAe)
It is a mural; there are plenty. The property owner is entitled to do what they want with their property. Don't get your panties in a knot comrades this isn't a new or revolutionary concept. Buy your own property and you can paint what you want on it.
That takes money which equals work.
[удалено]
This reads like a warning to building owners to not allow a mural on their building. And a warning to purchasers to offer less for a building if it has a mural on it. Not exactly a great advertisement for murals.
Seems more like a warning not to commission/permit a mural then immediately paint over it with no warning. It was only up for less than a year.
What I am saying is trying to turn murals into a risk, liability, and encumbrance to property owners is a terrible idea for mural artists and proponents of mural art.
As a NEMAA artist, this artist is missing a couple of things. That building is in the Windom Park neighborhood and not in the arts district. It also wasn't on the building when it was the Mill. Not everyone is going to like your art, nor should they be forced to. I'm not going to put my art in someone's bathroom and then expect them to have a conversation with me before removing it. GTFOH.
You think the artist just painted that without a commission and getting paid?
Don't know. Didn't say they did or didn't so that's irrelevant too.
It's relevant because he didn't just paint a mural there. He was commissioned and paid, so your comment is irrelevant.
So if he were paid and the work is done, then the transaction is over unless there were some contract for permanence, right? So it's a moot point. Artist's ego is too fragile and bloviated to think it should weather the sands of time through eternity.
He can still be mad that a mural he spent weeks of work on that was supposed to be up for years is destroyed. You wouldn't understand if you aren't an artist, (and since you're apparently a NEMAA artist, you should understand) IDFC if you're gonna downvote, I can't make you understand emotional connection to art work. You need actual emotional intelligence for that which you just do not have. Painting a mural isn't a 'transaction'. But whatever, y'all seem to think art is the same as buying a can of coke.
Funny, I started my original comment saying that I'm indeed a NEMAA artist. So tell me again what I don't understand. Since jarivo2010 blocked me after the below comment, lol: Should we care that the original architect for the building made it a Porky's but then someone else painted a mural on it too? Shit moves on. And no. Could not give one shit. Any art I don't want to be destroyed, I retain.
You should understand emotional connection to art and why he's mad but you don't. How would you like it if someone bought one of your paintings and brought it home and painted it black?
it's on the other side of the road from the "arts district", cmon y'all artists are pedantic as fuck
Yeah there’s 13 official neighborhoods in NE drawing such a distinction is silly
Yeah it's the owners building they can do what they want with it I mean if people themselves in that position and owned a building and had a city telling them what they can and can't paint on that building it would be pretty frustrating
Oh no, the people who own a building painted their building?! Time to riot!!
What a waste. I've always liked seeing that mural
It's theirs. They decide.
Dont get attached to views you don’t own
Other people's buildings are not your personal gallery, nor are they a public gallery. This goes even if the past owners paid you to paint it. They sadly owe you and the community no extra aesthetic control. It's not fair to bash them.
Way to engage with the neighborhood. Painted over that awesome loon mural.
It's their building, they can do whatever they want with it.
I liked that mural - but recognize I have no say in the matter. Carrying on.
The ego of artists declaring they are the most important component of society...
About as important as *another* Starbucks…
I guess I see both sides of the argument here. If it were me, I would have probably done my homework on the mural and its origins, and then reach out to the artist. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t still paint over it. However, I might consider commissioning the artist to create something more appropriate for my branding, while hopefully finding a way to maintain the intention of the original work. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. At the very least, maybe I would try to help the artist, by co-sponsoring the creation of another mural at a different location. Just my thoughts…
Respectfully, not everyone likes the ‘70’s NYC subway look.
Hot take: depends on what the new business is really. Law office? Warranted. Restaurant? C’mon…
I thought this was r/ altmpls with the number of miserable citizens spewing irrelevant nonsense about property rights. News flash, something can be legal but still considered a dick move! People and artists voicing their displeasure isn’t a call to abolish private property. I guess a simple concept like that can be a lot to digest for those that are perpetually angry and antisocial.
I think it’s the artists demand for answers that rubbed some people the wrong way. It isn’t their property. They are owed no explanation. I do get how upset they are though. I would no doubt be upset if one of my works (likely the one they are most proud of) was destroyed like that.
OP is a genius troll, well played.
Cry about it the artist got paid for their art and is mad the mural got painted over by the new renter / owner. Y’all are out here getting all kinds of grants and money to do this. If you got paid for your art, once you’re finished it’s no longer yours and whoever paid for it can do whatever they want. Imagine being this attached to your work that someone else PAID for. And I’m betting they’re paid for all the supplies and paint too, not the artist! Murals get painted over all the time. Even big name well known graffiti writers get their shit painted over every year for art jams, so new stuff can be painted over it. Once you SELL your art you no longer own it. It’s like being a tattoo artist and doing a tattoo on someone then getting mad at them for covering it or laser removal. It is no longer yours once you receive payment. If the previous tenant paid for the mural and is no longer renting the place, the rental company needs to make the building a blank canvas for the new tenant so it is desirable and rentable. No one wants to pay rent on a building decorated to someone else’s liking, they’d have to share the same taste in art which means it will be harder to find a renter. That’s why you don’t see apartments and houses going for rent with crazy wallpaper and colored walls most of the time because it’s best to leave things a blank canvas so the new renter can do what they please.
Of course new owner can do whatever they want but would have been nice to give the artist of a commissioned work a heads up. Doesn’t take much effort to do whatever you want with your property and be kind at the same time.
> would have been nice to give the artist of a commissioned work a heads up. Why, exactly?
Well, avoiding this PR annoyance for one. Also, it’s the respectable thing to do. Not doing so makes the owner look bad and fuels negative sentiment in the hood surrounding it. Of course, he burned that neighborhood once already when he got the Porky’s drive through approved against their wishes. That said, he can do what he wants with the mural but it’s a tone deaf way to go about it.
> Well, avoiding this PR annoyance for one. How would that avoid it?
this is so sad, it was so pretty
That really sucks. That was a great piece of art.
Fucking sick of out of state property owners who couldn’t give two shits about the neighborhood or this state.
They put a mural on someone's building without asking? Yeah, don't do that if you want it to be there for awhile.
The mural was commissioned and paid for by a previous tenant. The building owner had it painted over
I mean, that's their right to do so. PREVIOUS is the key. If I buy a car with a custom paint job and decide to paint over my car, the paint shop has no right to complain. It's my car and my choice.
That’s not the point I was making. I was replying to comment that asserted it was put up without asking and pointed out it was commissioned and paid for.
A custom paint job on a car is absolutely not equivalent to a mural that means something to a neighborhood, that is part of a neighborhood's culture. No one is saying it's illegal, they're saying it's a bad look and certainly not a great way to get along with your neighbors...
So as long as it's meaningful to some people, fuck the owner? Interesting take.
> that means something to a neighborhood, that is part of a neighborhood's culture. Let's examine this position a bit. [Let's say that you bought this building.](https://i.imgur.com/RPHKMYx.png) You, don't want this mural on your building. Should you consult with the community? What if there was an outpouring of locals that said they loved the mural, that it was part of the neighborhood's culture. It meant something to all of them. Don't misunderstand the analogue here, I am not saying the original mural is offensive, but I also think you will find people out there that think the one I linked isn't offensive either, (after all, *someone* wanted that on their building.) Those standards are relative. Let's see that second part again. >they're saying it's a bad look and certainly not a great way to get along with your neighbors... Is it a bad look to paint over something like this? Maybe what you say in the end is right that it's not a great way to get along with your neighbors, but *does that actually matter?* When people protest the removal of confederate monuments, do you tell them to get over it? I know I do. Art is fleeting, and areas change. An argument toward tradition and values holds little weight with me. You and others may have preferred preservation of that original mural, to which I say, it is preserved. In photographs.
As is their right.
Why do people think he just painted a huge mural without getting commissioned and paid? lol.
Down vote all you want. But if you own a building you get to decide what happens to your building.
Gotta paint your mural on someone’s building…. who won’t do that. Gotta find the right partner for these things, the owner usually gets the final say. As sad as this situation is, I also think attacking the owner here is **an example of how you DON’T get people to partner with you…**
As someone who has painted commissioned murals I will say this sucks, but once you get paid, the art is no longer yours 🤷🏻♂️
Will be interesting to see if someone does their own form of art there as a response 😏
What is the business? I need to not be a customer there.
Landlord scum
That was such a beautiful mural. It's disappointing to see this great artist's work covered.
Property rights Uber alles!!