Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
BohemianBuddha BohemianBuddha 31-35, M 14 Answers Dec 13, 2012 in Hobbies

Your Response

Cancel

Why not? He purposely tried to destroy someone else's property? What if he lit your car on fire? It's the same thing.

Best Answer

He wrote on a canvas. That is very different from arson. Get real lady.

Best Answer

It's only a different type of destruction of property, otherwise, there's no difference.

Best Answer

Deserves it. He shouldn't have defaced a painting.

Best Answer

He is not danger to the public. Prison is meant for dangerous criminals. I take it you are a conservative person.

Best Answer

I totally agree he deserves prison, and you KNOW no one calls me a conservative

Best Answer

Hah. Far from it. Prison is not meant solely for dangerous criminals, it is meant for people who break the law, some of whom are dangerous criminals.

Best Answer

But you clearly are.

Best Answer

M'kay.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

Prison, plus they ought to fine him plus confiscate whatever he owns to pay for the restoration.

Best Answer

Nazi.

Best Answer

No, an artist with a deep respect for human achievement and spirit. Philistine!

Best Answer

Not sure re the restoration--though I suspect it might depend at least partly on the type of paint he used and the amount of varnish or other medium in it, combined with the type of paint used in the defacement. Re the Nazis, I suspect despite their rantings against "decadent art" they sold a hell of a lot more of it to the Swiss than they ever destroyed---and many of the rightful owner are still trying to pry it back out of Swiss hands.

Best Answer

The real irony is that Banksy and the like write on public buildings ,and people like you and the Tate applaud this as art and not vandalism ,i dont care either way,its the sentence that is in question here,not the crime.

Best Answer

Making assumptions again, huh? No, I don't approve of graffiti on buildings, trains, or anywhere that you haven't gotten approval of the owner for. And I agree with the sentence.

Best Answer

The Vatican has the lions share of those works,and the Nazis were allowed to keep plenty of cash and jewels as part of their reward for their Vatican funded crusade.

Best Answer

i was referring to the other guy.

Best Answer
4 More Responses

A painting, sculpture, book is a collective heritage of all human kind. No one has the right to destroy that. I mean, can one ever justify the burning down of the library at Alexandria by Julius Ceaser ? destruction of Buddha statues at Bamiyan ?

Best Answer

Not to mention the current call from some Islamic fundamentalist group to destroy the ancient art and monuments in Egypt because they're "blasphemous"

Best Answer

The British govt stole and destroyed countless works of art during their occupation of India,this guy is small time compared to them.

Best Answer

How long are we going to crib about what we have lost in the past when we can not even save what we have at hand? Talking of India, Jaisalmer Fort, Basgo Gompa Ladakh, Champaner archaeological site Pavagadh Gujarat, Panchmahal in Champaner, Metropolitan Building in Calcutta, Saint Anne Church at Talaulim in Goa and countless natural heritage sites are in danger. Sad part is while crying about 'lost' heritage, we are permitting the existing ones to disappear. I think it is better if we leave the glories of the past where they belong and do our best with what we have IN HAND.

Best Answer

The punishment is harsh. Motorists knock over and kill people and get off lighter.

Best Answer

That was my main point. You see it for what it is. Most of the others are like a lynch mob.

Best Answer

But they shouldn't

Best Answer

Im still getting over the girl imprisoned for six months for taking a bottle of milk from someones doorstep,and that was at least 15 years ago.

Best Answer

I remember that, and i heard of a few people getting less for manslaughter ,by wreckless driving. It is prety steep . And most here dont understand what i mean . They must be having a bad day and they hate everyone. :)

Best Answer

As I see it MF,none of us know the circumstances behind most of these type instances,so I prefer to err on the side of compassion because I would hope others would give me the benefit of doubt :)

Best Answer

They mostly see in black and white. Probably all white too. I actually think he wanted the sentence , publicity is always good.

Best Answer

haha...yeah i mean its not like it was worth anything...

Best Answer

That is the value as a work of art, but it is worthless in reality,its just a piece of canvas,and a man is imprisoned on the basis of an estimation of a piece of canvas. A fine maybe or community service ,but prison is scandalous.

Best Answer

yeah but in a world of money...someones gonna pay for it

Best Answer

Yup, money talks eh! The art world is so pretentious and shallow.

Best Answer

art ppl suck bc they think they matter...i picked that up somewhere

Best Answer
1 More Response

That sentence is light compared to what I would impose if a person had puposefully destroyed my creation.<br />
The criminal would become my next canvas.<br />
And it would be a masterpiece of rage.

Best Answer

How 'bout my homies tag your crib? No punishment so why not?

Best Answer

Speak English.

Best Answer

How about my gang spray paints your home? We're ONLY defacing it!

Best Answer

You dont have a gang, and i would not expect anyone to be sent to jail for spraying on my home.

Best Answer

OK I'll do it myself. Xp
Can't you see you are advocating vandalism at the least?

Best Answer

Im not, im saying that the sentence was heavy,and if you had done it,would you think prison was necessary. And also,the very same gallery endorses the work of certain street artists ,or graffiti artists, who spray on public walls, and they call it art, so what is the difference?

Best Answer
2 More Responses

Related Questions