5 Pointz spray painted white overnight

Other possible messages:

Building owners have the right to paint the buildings they own.

If you want your Art to last, select a medium other than the application of spray paint on other people's property.

---

Updated On: 11/19/13 at 02:32 PM

Ya know…I might be in the minority here. They are Graffitti Vandals. I like my building unadorned with "Tags".

---

I was just commenting while taking the train this morning the incredible amount of tagging and with the new thick spray paint.

I prefer reverse graffiti.

There are large sections of San Francisco that are bona fide works of art, that just happen to be painted with spray paint on the outside of a building. These are usually done in private alleyways.

One just went up near my work. It was cool seeing the artists transform the plain white building into something.

Graffiti can be artistic.

Graffiti can be artistic.

so can box of broken dishes on the floor if they fall right

---

DOuble post.

---

Updated On: 11/19/13 at 08:49 PM

Did you read my post? The new owner will be providing a bigger and better "face" for the artists once the building is erected.

I can completely understand how difficult it can be. Especially for the artists. It is too bad.

For the record, 5NY News just interview the councilman who helped broker the deal and he confirmed that the new owner voluntary agreed to provide over 10,000 square feet of canvas space (an entire outside facade) to the artists and a gallery "tribute" to the old artwork inside of the building. The owners thought the whitewash would ease relations between them and the artists before they tore it all down, according to the councilman.

Always good to have every side to the story.

Graffiti is a "mostly black" culture?

Hmmm, that's news to me.

I'll allow that the issue is *somewhat* more complex than a building Owner simply painting a building that has been 'vandalized' with graffiti. Wolkoff--the Owner--had apparently agreed to allow the building's walls to be painted and it had certainly become a widely- and well-known attraction.

I can't agree, however, that the graffiti painters acquired any ownership of the building by virtue of having sprayed paint on the building's walls--unless, of course, some sort of Contract was executed explicitly giving the graffiti artists some share in the building's ownership in exchange for their work.

This is simple property rights. The guy owns the building. He let them spray-paint pictures on the building. He still owns the building.

On a more philosophical level--graffiti is, essentially, ephemeral. Kids sneak onto bridge abutments and into train tunnels in the middle of the night and tag them. Maintenance crews remove the graffiti. The notion that the graffiti on this building had somehow become 'sacred' or inviolable is explicitly ad odds with my understanding of the nature of the art form.

Borstalboy, I don't doubt that it was a vibrant and interesting thing to see on your commute, but constant change is the very essence of this City--for better and for worse.

And your statement that "absolutely no one will be able to afford" the proposed luxury housing has no basis in fact. The seemingly insatiable demand for "luxury" apartments has created an overheated residential real estate market in New York--which is precisely why the building Owner has decided to proceed with demolition of the existing building.

---

Updated On: 11/20/13 at 11:22 PM