Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - jaysnk (09/11/2013) [-]
Its called vandalism
User avatar #59 to #1 - daentraya (09/12/2013) [-]
People are butthurt over the fact that said artist should have gotten permission before painting that. It's pretty indeed, but vandalism it is
User avatar #2 to #1 - jaevel (09/11/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree on you that painting over such a great artwork is vandalisem
User avatar #47 to #2 - newant (09/12/2013) [-]
Moreover, I wish societies had more of these kind of graphitti artists.
I want to look at cool pictures of stuff while going to work, school, etc.
User avatar #3 to #2 - brokentrucker (09/11/2013) [-]
Just because its great work, doesn't make it right to just paint on walls. If you acquire permission, THEN the owners are cunts for painting over it. Without permission, its just vandalism. I don't like the laws anymore than the last man, but to seriously expect anything else is foolishness.
User avatar #50 to #12 - savethepandas (09/12/2013) [-]
How come you don't have more thumbs?

Not in a mutant kind of way.
User avatar #8 to #3 - createdjustnow (09/11/2013) [-]
if you look, how long do you think it would take to piant that? all that effort had to require someone's knoweledge of it being done, and therefore a sort of permission. If the owner didn't want the art up there, should have asked the author to stop before the author finished
#39 to #8 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (09/12/2013) [-]
If the owner wanted it there it wouldn't have been painted over.

No matter how good looking some graffiti are, painting someone's property without permission is comparable to going into someone's FB account and changing their status to whatever they wanted.

And if they wanted to change it back to normal it would cost 25$ and a few hours, or 100$ an hour to pay someone else to do it.
#73 to #39 - anonymous (09/12/2013) [-]
If the owner had the lease to that property, and operated their business from there - like say a skateshop or a tattoo parlour - then that art would have been done by the owner, and done in a way to attract attention and a certain type of customer.

My guess is the business is no longer there, and the real estate company that acts as the vendor decided to paint over that "ugly" artwork to try and attract new business.
#4 to #3 - anonymous (09/11/2013) [-]
yeah like they would ever get permission to paint sexy alice up there, dumbass
User avatar #9 to #4 - brokentrucker (09/11/2013) [-]
You would be surprised sir.
 Friends (0)