Art is a 'Reflection of free speech'
You can see why others don't like his "art" but modern art generally is pretty ugly. Ban it all? I guess not
Chris Brown has invoked the U.S. Constitution in his spat with Los Angeles officials over graffiti art at his Hollywood Hills home.
The 24-year-old singer was ordered last month to remove the graffiti art depicting a series of cartoonish blob-shaped monsters with big eyes and mouths filled with sharp white teeth.
Chris was cited $376 for 'unpermitted and excessive signage' and ordered to remove the artwork under the threat of more fines.
Brown has filed an appeal with the city claiming he is being wrongly targeted since the graffiti is not a sign, but art that enhances 'the architectural and aesthetic features of the residential property,' according to a report on Wednesday by TMZ.
Chris cited the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and expression in his appeal.
'The murals are a reflection of [my] aesthetic taste and a reflection of free speech and expression protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,' his appeal said.
Source
4 comments:
I'd say he's captured the essence of his critics quite well.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it. That's why some people pay millions for the child-like scribblings of some "artist".
But, this is Mexifornia, and they will say what constitutes beauty, and everything else.
This is not about his "art."
This is about whether the city has a right to regulate non-commercial, non-political signage in a neighborhood.
As long as the city is basing their claim on the size of the sign and not its content, they are on pretty solid footing.
If this were truly a First Amendment issue, the claim would be "the guy down the block has a image of something and you didn't cite him, but you cited me. Therefore you are attacking the content of the image."
That;s not what happened here.
Bad painting, good argument.
Post a Comment