Quick summary:
The article talks about a Belgian graffiti artist that goes by the name ROA, who created a piece of art on the side of a recording studio of a rabbit. The artist allegedly obtained the permission to create the art piece from the owner of the building, however the city council has issued a warning to the owner saying he has to paint over it. Local consensus say that the artwork is not an eyesore and do not understand why it is being painted over. The article then goes on to talk more about the artist himself and his work, and the councils view on the subject matter.
This is an interesting article as it does raise the question whether what the artist did was right or wrong. You may say that he is in the green, because he got the owners permission before painting the wall, but his art is in a public area. The building owner is not the only person who will be looking at the artwork. Although this is a rather small issue in terms of the ethics involved, considering its not an obscene or graphic image being depicted, just a rabbit. It is still a matter of thinking about oneself instead of thinking about the community as a whole. The city council's justification for the request of removal does seem more ethically justifiable, as they asked the building owner to remove the work as they want to "keep hackney's streets clean". But in the end, this article does raise some more questions on ethics. Is it the owners right, as a building owner, to allow whatever he wants on the side of his building? Is the council in the right to ask to remove the piece, even though the public consensus say they like it? Is something okay to get removed just because it doesn't "go" with the look of its surroundings?
No comments:
Post a Comment