Ugh, this is always such a tough debate. Yes it IS art and he's either making a statement and being creative but taking something that isn't his, cost money (A fair bit, I would assume) and making them completely un-usable is just not cricket. Had he not actually cut and physically altered them at all, maybe...
Wasn't even making a statement or anything, from what I gather, but I didn't really bother to read the rest of the article.
No statement, and a fair amount of damages. The barrels weren't government owned, either. Private, meaning some company/person is out of that money. I guess he thought it'd be so funny that he'd be above the law.
Comments 2
Wasn't even making a statement or anything, from what I gather, but I didn't really bother to read the rest of the article.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment