Great "street" hacker

[Pyr0]

http://www.roadsworth.com/main/video/video.html

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Great "street" hacker

quite interesting, especially the public support he received.

I wonder where his activities lie, ethically, considering the public support. Obviously, his actions are illegal, but cause little direct harm. If a majority of the public approved, should the government legalize his actions? Or is the responsibility to promote 'safe driving' an overriding factor?

either way, I enjoy art that transforms sterile, utilitarian aspects of our lives.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Great "street" hacker

i've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements. if you want to get uber libertarian about it, i could get behind the notion of only "non destructive" defacement being given said protection.

in other words... burning down a billboard wouldn't be protected speech, but altering the commercial message upon it would, heh. it sort of reminds me of the Bubble Project.

[cronek]

Re: Great "street" hacker

either way, I enjoy art that transforms sterile, utilitarian aspects of our lives.

Banksy is a nice example of this as well:
http://images.google.be/images?q=banksy
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm

[Thorn]

Re: Great "street" hacker

Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement, and demeans real art to imply that it's even in the same class. Personally, I'd be OK if there should be a bounty on those who deface other people's property.

[streaker69]

Re: Great "street" hacker

i've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements. if you want to get uber libertarian about it, i could get behind the notion of only "non destructive" defacement being given said protection.

in other words... burning down a billboard wouldn't be protected speech, but altering the commercial message upon it would, heh. it sort of reminds me of the Bubble Project.

I believe the idea of "non-destructive defacement" fall under the same idea that my right to throw a punch ends at your nose.

No one has the right to deface another person's property, no matter how 'artsy' they may feel they are. I'm with Thorn on this one.

[Agent X]

Re: Great "street" hacker

I have to say the awesome cross walk / foot print is piece of work. It perfectly metaphor for the purpose of the graphic in the first place.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Great "street" hacker

Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement, and demeans real art to imply that it's even in the same class. Personally, I'd be OK if there should be a bounty on those who deface other people's property.

a stylized name or obscenity certainly isn't art, but I'd say Roadsworth's work is. Whether or not it's legal, or even ethical, is a different matter, but it's certainly art.

i've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements. if you want to get uber libertarian about it, i could get behind the notion of only "non destructive" defacement being given said protection.

in other words... burning down a billboard wouldn't be protected speech, but altering the commercial message upon it would, heh. it sort of reminds me of the Bubble Project.

I think even having that law would change how advertising exists in public space. Knowing your ads could be defaced, companies might choose to advertise less, or more, or choose ads less likely to be defaced.
That said, I'm not sure how that would work out - many advertisements are on private property in public space, so you'd have to protect certain kinds of defacement of private property.

[a joke, not political]
If you really wanted to go libertarian about it, you'd legalize everything and let the free market sort it out.

[theprez98]

Re: Great "street" hacker

i've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements.

is this really any different than defacing a website?

[Thorn]

Re: Great "street" hacker

a stylized name or obscenity certainly isn't art, but I'd say Roadsworth's work is. Whether or not it's legal, or even ethical, is a different matter, but it's certainly art.

I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art. It is simply theft or vandalism.

This is similar to the arguments we have here about hacking. Hacking skills may be used for interesting things on networks you're allowed to be on, but if you step over the line and commit a crime, then you aren't a hacker, you're a criminal. The same concept applies here. If these things were truly art, then those executing the works wouldn't sulk around and have to do it when no one is looking. Instead, they'd be invited to place the work there by the property's owner.

[streaker69]

Re: Great "street" hacker

"I was using my neighbor's unencrypted wifi just to check my email, I wasn't doing anything wrong and they probably never noticed."

How many times have we heard that? Same goes for vandalism, except in this case they're actually doing damage, and causing a potential distraction on the roads and drivers try to see what's painted on the road.

Symbols on the road serve a very specific purpose and adding things to them is only going to cause confusion as people try to interpret what is outside of the norm that they see while they're driving.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Great "street" hacker

I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art. It is simply theft or vandalism.

This is similar to the arguments we have here about hacking. Hacking skills may be used for interesting things on networks you're allowed to be on, but if you step over the line and commit a crime, then you aren't a hacker, you're a criminal. The same concept applies here. If these things were truly art, then those executing the works wouldn't sulk around and have to do it when no one is looking. Instead, they'd be invited to place the work there by the property's owner.

I see the two definitions as orthogonal.
If the Mona Lisa had been painted on stolen materials, it would still be art.

I'll use the definition given on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art.
I agree that it's absolutely illegal, and quite arguably immoral, but that doesn't change the fact it's a "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty. ."

Again, I'm not saying what he did is necessarily right, or even not wrong, just that it counts as 'art'.

Then again, I also disagree with your example [one who is a hacker can be a criminal, even though not all criminals are hackers, not all hackers are criminals, etc.], so I'm not sure we could convince one another of our viewpoints.

edit: Another way of putting it: the definition of 'art' doesn't include 'not illegal', and the definition of 'vandalism' doesn't include 'not art'. With Roadsworth, the same work, commissioned on private property, would unarguably be 'art'. Simply moving it does not change that, in my mind.

By the same token, putting paint on property you don't own is unarguably vandalism. making that paint pretty doesn't change the fact that it's vandalism, either.

I guess my real point is a response to:

Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement, and demeans real art to imply that it's even in the same class.

'real art' shouldn't stand to be demeaned by anything which is created and conveys its creator's artistic intent. To dismiss it from consideration so simply seems intellectually dishonest.

[Ellen]

Re: Great "street" hacker

I'd argue that while the person who does it may be very artistically talented, but that if placing the work involves theft or vandalism of the medium, it is most certainly not art.

Art is like Theoretical Science. It is hard to say what "is" or "isn't." There are popular/textbook artists that are also criminals or vandals. Then again, as you pointed out, the same applies to hackers. Sometimes in the eyes of society (not the law), the message is more important than the rights of the victim.

It is simply theft or vandalism.

Now this I am in total agreement with. Vandalism by any name is still vandalism. There is a victim involved who will have to repair, replace, or accept the damage and/or monetary loss.

I've often wondered what society would be like if there was some sort of legal protection for anyone who defaced or altered commercial messages and advertisements.

I think even having that law would change how advertising exists in public space. Knowing your ads could be defaced, companies might choose to advertise less, or more, or choose ads less likely to be defaced.

Knowing that ads could be defaced, companies would participate. Done.

[Thorn]

Re: Great "street" hacker

I see the two definitions as orthogonal.
If the Mona Lisa had been painted on stolen materials, it would still be art.

I'll use the definition given on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art.
I agree that it's absolutely illegal, and quite arguably immoral, but that doesn't change the fact it's a "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty. ."

Again, I'm not saying what he did is necessarily right, or even not wrong, just that it counts as 'art'.

Then again, I also disagree with your example [one who is a hacker can be a criminal, even though not all criminals are hackers, not all hackers are criminals, etc.], so I'm not sure we could convince one another of our viewpoints.

edit: Another way of putting it: the definition of 'art' doesn't include 'not illegal', and the definition of 'vandalism' doesn't include 'not art'. With Roadsworth, the same work, commissioned on private property, would unarguably be 'art'. Simply moving it does not change that, in my mind.

By the same token, putting paint on property you don't own is unarguably vandalism. making that paint pretty doesn't change the fact that it's vandalism, either.

I guess my real point is a response to:

'real art' shouldn't stand to be demeaned by anything which is created and conveys its creator's artistic intent. To dismiss it from consideration so simply seems intellectually dishonest.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. However, I would just like to say that just because something is made pretty (or prettier) doesn't divorce it from it's legality in being placed on a particular surface. I would further argue (assuming that it is liked by someone), that the very act of the private commissioning elevates it to art, while illegal placement diminishes it to being worthy of being removed at the earliest convenience by the rightful owner. Again, some of these people have definite skill, but they're diminishing their own works to the same level as obscenity scrawled by a moron who can only express himself in that manner. That to me seems more intellectually dishonest, because the person only expresses himself as a vandal and his works as petty defacement, worthy of no more comment or critique than a bucket of gray paint by the rightful owner.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Great "street" hacker

is this really any different than defacing a website?

yes. to deface a web site you, by definition, have to access a private and restricted system and commit computer trespass (or drop in a highly well-crafted automated script worm or something to an ISP's email)

something like the Bubble Project (or much of Banksy's work, etc) can be performed by persons who are standing on public ground and never touching or interacting with anything other than the corporate speech that they are seeking to alter.

many advertisements are on private property in public space

but the issue about which i'm theorizing (and not supporting outright, people... for me this is just a fun mental exercise, and i love hearing all the varied opinions) is defined very narrowly: what if the public had the right to alter or change commercial speech as long as they weren't destroying or damaging property in the process?

so, postering over an existing poster of some kind would be ok... but causing damage to the sign/wall/whatever and disrupting the owner's ability to use the space in the future would not.

I believe the idea of "non-destructive defacement" fall under the same idea that my right to throw a punch ends at your nose.

that's assuming that commercial speech has the same right to be heard as individual speech.

Bah. Graffiti isn't "art", it's defacement

wow, man... i'd have to surely disagree with you there. some of the most amazing art i've seen has been street art. while i'm fully prepared to acknowledge a huge host of legal complications that can arise with regard to the street art debate, simply broad-brush classifying a whole genre as "not art" sounds about as fair as when your parents' generation called the "new" sounds you crazy kids were listening to as youths "not real music" or some such.

heh... you're making the visual equivalent to an argument espoused by folk tapping their toes to a Benny Goodman orchestra while scowling at teenagers with their transistor radios.