--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dougandcathy_mcqueen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If I had the money, I'd love to preserve all of the buildings in
> Asbury Park. But the fact is, I don't, and when market realities
> dictate what gets done and not done, unfortunately money talks.
>
> That said, the other avenue to counter market forces is a historic
> preservation program that actually has teeth. If buildings were
> designated under a meaningful historic program, then market forces
> couldn't always rule the day. Until that happens, money talks and
> nostalgia walks.
>
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" <hinge98@> wrote:
> >
> > Did you see the art in question?
> > It wasn't like typical graffiti at all.
> > I agree with most of what else you had to say though.
> > Personally, I think we should dress up Larry Fishman and his band
> of demolition "artists" in
> > orange jumpsuits and parade them around the city to show people who
> destroyed the
> > "real" asbury boardwalk area.
> > In my opinion, Asbury Park is becoming gentrified in the name of
> money, just like
> > everyplace else in this country. To me, it would be nice if we
> preserved our heritage rather
> > then constantly feeling the need to rebuild it. It's pretty hard to
> see the 200 years of
> > history we have here because we love to tear it down. That's
> another reason I love Europe.
> > At least when I go there I can see history. Here in the USA, we're
> awash in crappy
> > pedestrian architecture that lines our highways and cities. I've
> said this many times before,
> > but it's getting to the point in America where you could wake up in
> virtually any given
> > place and have no idea where you are because it's all starting to
> look the same.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > \--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dougandcathy_mcqueen"
> > <dougandcathy_mcqueen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Social Commentary: Yes
> > > Art: Maybe
> > > Illegal: Definitely
> > >
> > > To say that it's not malicicious to destroy someone else's
> property
> > > (even public property) by spraypainting on it without their
> > > permission is ridiculous! Why do people think its OK to graffiti
> on
> > > public property when they wouldn't want someone else doing it to
> > > their house? That's just as senseless as those who feel it's OK
> to
> > > throw litter in public, but not in their own yard.
> > >
> > > I get the whole social commentary thing, but where does it stop?
> > > What if someone else decided to undertake a vast array of other
> > > crimes as part of a "social commentary", like lighting fires,
> > > shooting out street lights, or sending internet viruses?
> > >
> > > Instead of breaking the law (for which the "artist" should be
> fined),
> > > the "artist" should seek a productive outlet for his art. I
> would
> > > suggest approaching the city or the owners of other property he's
> > > defaced to see if they'll pay him to do a legitimate piece.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, the graffiti (even if it is social commentary)
> continues
> > > to leave Asbury stuck with the downtrodden look that it has had
> for
> > > years, which leads residents and visitors to beleive that this
> place
> > > can't overcome its past.
> > >
> > > Or here's another idea for an art piece: we can dress our
> graffiti
> > > artist up in a bright orange jumpsuit, and have him spend the day
> > > scrubbing paint from public property. This would be a social
> > > commentary on how everyone is contributing to make Asbury Park a
> > > better place. It'll be great!
> > >
> > > Just my opinion, but at least I didn't spraypaint it on the side
> of a
> > > building.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" <hinge98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But, it wasn't painted on my front door.
> > > > It was social commentary about Asbury Park. Not malicious.
> > > > I have little doubt that the person who created it is a bona
> fide
> > > artist.
> > > > I wish I would've taken a picture of it before it got covered
> up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "oakdorf" <oakdorf@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Pitzer" <hinge98@>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The graffiti was art, not just any old graffiti. The first
> time
> > > I
> > > > > saw it, viewing it for about 2
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Art it may be, but if it were painted on your front door -
> would
> > > it be
> > > > > art or graffiti?
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that graffiti is art when. There was a good story
> awhile
> > > back
> > > > > ago about programs that took these "artists" and turned their
> > > skills
> > > > > into usefuil careers - in the arts.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
With all due respect, there was a Historic Program with teeth
associated with the Palace Amusements... It was designated a National
Historic Site. That did not preclude the Asbury Demolition Partners
from demolishing a historic building.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
