Geologists throw wobbler over graffiti on Cliffs of Moher.

[Seth]

It's art.

a) it's shit trying to pass as art

b) even as art, it had no business there

c) I hope they catch the guy and make him wash it with his tongue.

This. The Lascaux cave paintings are both art and a source of history. The same is true of hill figures. But this is never really going to be of benefit to future generations. It's just a bloody eyesore, something where it shouldn't be. There are plenty of wells to paint colourful graffiti on if you want to do that.

Sez you. In a thousand years some archeologist might find significant cultural and artistic value in the painting. Don't be so impatient. Think of future generations and the pleasure they will get from speculating on the meaning of the painting.

It's like Glen Canyon on the Colorado. All the envirowhackos bitched and moaned about the beautiful canyon being "destroyed" by the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. It's not been destroyed, it's right where it was. It's just been hidden from view. In a thousand years, or five thousand, the dam will break and all the sediment will be washed out of the former Lake Powell, and Glen Canyon will once again be revealed in all its glory for future generations to delight in.

Today's graffiti is tomorrow's "art and a source of history."

Quit being so selfish and parochial. Think of the future rather than your own artistic biases.

In the Long View, it's all magma anyway eventually.

[Jason]

Oh? The cave paintings we're so fond of look like kindergartener scribbles. So what?

Besides, you're wrong.

[Seth]

It could have been a lot worse. Some hateful bastard painted a swastika on Plymouth Rock. And he didn't even get it right-- painted the mirror image of one.

...

Both directions are valid as far as the swastika goes, if one ignores the specific Nazi usage. But that's probably what this guy meant to portray, so still a fail.

Actually, a "backwards" swastika is an ancient Navajo symbol.

[mistermack]

The simple fact is that the perpetrator and anyone who supports him deserves to be birched.

Me Me !!

I did it !

It was me !!!

[Clinton Huxley]

The simple fact is that the perpetrator and anyone who supports him deserves to be birched.

Me Me !!

I did it !

It was me !!!

Hmmm....the heavy gauge for you. Bend over, sir!

[Clinton Huxley]

Lascaux cave paintings? Rare. This al-fresco doodling? Bloody everywhere. Future cockroach geologists will cause this era the Graffitocene when they dig up our civilization

[mistermack]

The simple fact is that the perpetrator and anyone who supports him deserves to be birched.

Me Me !!

I did it !

It was me !!!

Hmmm....the heavy gauge for you. Bend over, sir!

Well, that will do for a start. But I'm used to Super G and Formidable G, so HG is just a warm up for me.

[Svartalf]

Saatchi is going to have to buy the Cliffs of Moher now...

Just don't let that mad Bulgarian at it. You know, the guy who covered entire buildings and other structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo_and_Jeanne-Claude

There were two of them (see link.) And I think a lot of their work was beautiful, too.

But at least Christo's work is reversible

[Jason]

I hope someone paints a giant trollface on the cliffs of Dover. That would be epic.

[Bella Fortuna]

Yeah, while they're at it why don't we let them update Lascaux with some spray paint... Or maybe Apple will fund adding to them to make the figures look like those iPod silhouettes in the adverts.

[Thinking Aloud]

Pave paradise...

[Jason]

No no.. culture must be frozen! No more fucking self expression, especially on our pristine rock faces! We want to preserve those for the ages.

[Jason]

Lascaux cave paintings? Rare. This al-fresco doodling? Bloody everywhere. Future cockroach geologists will cause this era the Graffitocene when they dig up our civilization

I can imagine primitive cave-painters receiving the same flavour of crap for their doodlings. They're rare now. Time passes. Now they're a symbol of culture.

[Bella Fortuna]

No no.. culture must be frozen! No more fucking self expression, especially on our pristine rock faces! We want to preserve those for the ages.

You want to do that... go buy your own rock and decorate it any way that appeals to you. But to damage/deface either property or natural space that is not your own is another story, no matter how talented the person doing it.

Should these spaces be up for anyone to attack with paint or other materials?: http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/play ... see-639593

Should your own house, car, or other property?

[Jason]

That depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on regarding the human impact on the 'natural' world. If you take the position that humans exist beside nature, rather than as part of it, I can understand the appeal in preserving 'nature untouched'. I understand humans as being part of nature, shaping the natural world much as any other thing on this planet, erosion included, does though to a greater extent. What people object to in this case is the jarring nature of the art with respect to their commune with 'nature untouched' in their pseudo-spiritual quest to feel 'at one' with the earth. When they see human hands have been at work in what they consider their sanctuary they are greatly distressed in their naive atavism.

As for personal property, that's entirely different. You own that and therefore have control, by the law, as to what you allow to happen to that property.