8 ms·
San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
- devindotcom 8d agoit's pretty sad reading the comments in this thread. one senses both the cause and the result of SF's declining cultural relevance.
- vvpan 8d agoSeeing the world through property rights is so one-dimensional and devoid of any creative thought it makes me sad as well. Eventually this is the SV ethos - own, conquer, extract, no space for externalities like simple urban pleasures.
- erxam 8d agoLibertarians are unable to conceptualize what 'art' even is. It doesn't bring in financial benefit, so what is it for? If it's not an advertising board with your company's logo on it, it's worthless wasted space.
- artisinal 8d agoArt is cool. Painting your art on someone else's private property is not. Pushing your political agenda in public spaces is especially not cool. I just want to walk outside and enjoy the world, don't want your political agenda pushed on me.
- devindotcom 7d agoimagine telling people not to bring their politics to "the world" so you can enjoy it. the world isn't a product you ordered. i mean a modicum of reflection shows you that what you are suggesting would in fact be imposing your own political agenda on everyone else.
- magicalhippo 8d agoPublic art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
- jacobolus 8d agoThis alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
- tekla 8d agoI see this response doesn't actually respond to > Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
- jacobolus 8d agoFrom Mission Local, https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alley-were-painted-over-last-week/ https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle... > “CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project. > At the moment, it’s unclear whether CAMP has a written agreement for 3331 17th St. The organization, however, does have a verbal agreement with all the landlords/property owners where they have murals throughout the alley. > The property’s owners haven’t changed since 2001. The owner of 3331 17th St. is listed as the Guerrero V. Espinoza Trust in city records. > The murals painted over include “We’re all in this together,” a memorial for activist and artist Kirsten Brydum, painted in 2016 by John Viola; “Everything Must Go,” a tribute to Adobe Books’ former home at 3166 16th St., painted in 2015 by Daniel Doherty; a tribute to local graffiti artist Chloe a.k.a. Marfa by Floyd; and a mural completed this spring by students from Graffiti Camp for Girls, a local organization training young women in creating public art.
- Henchman21 8d agoThere's a never ending supply of douchebags in this world. Such a shame.
- ryandrake 8d agoIt's too bad. It takes no effort or creativity to destroy art. Just a jerk with a pressure washer or paint roller.
- vvpan 8d agoOr jerk's boss or their boss or shareholders.
- SoftTalker 8d agoSo, if you walk out one morning and find that someone painted a "mural" on the side of your house, you'd be happy about that?
- anigbrowl 8d agoHistorically murals in that area have been planned, agreed with the property owners, and funded by local nonprofits or donation drives. They're community projects, not renegade takeovers. Using scare quotes to delegitimize it is a cheap shot. I think you're assuming that because some of the painting in the alley was just tagging, all of the paint on the walls was unpermitted vandalism.
- paulv 8d agoIt depends what the mural was of? If it was a pro KKK mural I would object. If it was some of the pictures in the article, that would be pretty sweet. If it was some of the other murals I've seen, I would be thrilled.
- Zigurd 8d agoIf you bought a house on Clarion Alley, would you be a douche bag and paint over the murals? That's the actual question about this situation. What is your hypothetical about?
- slipperybeluga 8d ago[dead]
- ecshafer 8d ago> How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?” Private Property is how. People don't own other people's property for abstract reasons like they joined a club that once painted graffiti on walls.
- ryandrake 8d agoSaying "It's Private Property" shouldn't necessarily just end the debate. Private property does have a uniquely powerful status in US law, but its absolute ability to override all other concerns, such as collective social needs, cultural expectations and norms, environmental concerns, and so on, at least deserves discussion. Finding the right balance between private property rights and the public good is something that courts continue to wrestle with.
- deleted 8d ago[deleted]
- asoidfgnion 8d agohttps://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alley-were-painted-over-last-week/ https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle... >“CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project. If there was an agreement in place, property rights would protect the murals from vandalism by the property owners, not the other way 'round. I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.
- nickff 8d agoThat statement does not say that CAMP had agreements with all property owners, and it is possible that they did not have an agreement with this one.
- asoidfgnion 8d ago
- deleted 8d ago[deleted]
- chabes 8d agoMurals are a part of nearly every city in the world. Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness. Such a shame.
- kbelder 8d ago>Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness. and vice versa.
- chabes 8d agoWon’t anyone think of the poor SF landowners https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49600627#49634171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49600627#49634171
- artisinal 8d agoSo you are OK with it if I paint a big mural on your car, home, laptop, phone?
- chabes 8d agoThat’s not what happened here. Your strawman is showing.
- ohthehumanity 8d ago“We graffiti people’s walls” ”Cool!” “So do we” ”NooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!”
- dreamcompiler 8d agoIt seems like public art is always in danger of being erased when it's nobody's official job to protect it. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/dallas-fifa-mural-lawsuit-robert-wyland https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/dallas-fifa...
- ermir 8d agoQuite a shame to lose art like this, but without a process to preserve, display, and maintain such artwork, (like a museum is equipped to do), this kind of destruction is inevitable. At the very least we can be grateful for all the years it was available, but such is the way of all things, nothing lasts forever, and I think the story of the end of such works of art is also part of the artwork as well.
- anigbrowl 8d agoBut that's pretty much what that institution does. It might not seem that impressive because it's a neighborhood rather than a city- or state-level institution, but they've been going for decades and organize things like mural tours, regular cleaning and so on; I used to live in that neighborhood and remember as being very proactive about taking care of murals as a community resource, fostering young artists etc. I think what happened here is the real estate management company viewed the murals as an encumbrance on the property (that would need some sort of negotiation or easement as a condition of resale) and decided to hire a contractor to make the problem go away, calculating that a fine (contractual or city-imposed) would be significantly less than the potential increase in sale value. I feel the contractor who painted it over is partly responsible morally, but legally and realistically such people are hired to do what they're told; asking questions about whether the right permits or agreements are in place for destruction of the artwork is a good way to get blacklisted by property management companies. The property management industry seems weirdly hostile to any sort of public art. An infrastructural utility building near me had been decorated for years with ~15 mounted images by local artists highlighting interesting things about the geography and history of the area. A year ago the property manager had the entire building repainted in dull battleship gray (probably because it was cheaper than cleaning it), destroying all the artwork in the process. Now much of the building is covered in graffiti (mostly ugly low-effort tags), foot traffic along that street seems to have fallen, and perhaps not coincidentally there has been a rise in vehicle break-ins.
- diogenescynic 8d agoThe property is owned by Makras Real Estate a notorious slumlord who has been convicted of fraud. They don't respect their tenants, they're surely not going to respect public art.
- tqi 8d ago> “We’ve tried to approach what happened assuming there was no ill intent,” Torres of CAMP wrote in the Thursday letter. “Still, after nearly 35 years of stewarding this alley, we have to ask: How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?” Feels like the most plausible explanation of what happened is the property owners got a blight citation[1] for graffiti on some other part of the building, and either misunderstood or miscommunicated to their employee what was supposed to be removed. I don't know why everyone is jumping to either "the owners are assholes" or "the owners get to do what they want it's their property." [1] https://sfpublicworks.org/index.php/services/community-preservation-and-blight-reduction-act https://sfpublicworks.org/index.php/services/community-prese...
- NelsonMinar 8d agoClarion Alley is totally worth a visit when you're in San Francisco. It's right in the middle of the Mission near a bunch of great places to eat and drink. Balmy Alley is a 10 minute walk away and another great street art gallery. Clarion Alley Mural Project does great work maintaining Clarion Alley. (Including relations with property owners - this problem is an anomaly, there's been art there successfully for over 30 years.) Also worth knowing about Precita Eyes, a local community organization that manages murals in a lot of the city.
- artisinal 8d agoLooked it up on Google. I don't like people claiming public space to push their personal agenda. Those alleys are for everyone, stop using it for your personal agenda. Please make a-political art.
- superb_dev 8d agoNo. I will not make apolitical art.
- artisinal 8d agoThat is fine. Just don't use private property in the public space for it. Put it in an art gallery somewhere.
- vvpan 8d agoHero.
- artisinal 8d agoPushing your personal agenda in public spaces on people by using someone's private property makes you a hero?
- NietzscheanNull 8d agoYes. Otherwise, only those with money get to choose what messages are shown to the public.
- ButlerianJihad 8d agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art Common characteristics of public art are public accessibility, public realm placement, community involvement, public process (including public funding); these works can be permanent or temporary. Independent art created or staged in or near the public realm (for example, graffiti, street art) lacks official or tangible public sanction has not been recognized as part of the public art genre,[8] however the popularity of some street artists have led to this notion being reconsidered by many.[9][10] Such unofficial artwork may exist on private or public property immediately adjacent to the public realm, or in natural settings but, however ubiquitous,[11][12] it sometimes falls outside the definition of public art by its absence of public process or public sanction as "bona fide" public art.[1]
- deleted 8d ago[deleted]
- syspec 8d agoGraffiti is not a culture, it's a blight on shared spaces.
- curtisblaine 8d agoIsn't inherent impermanence one of the factors that make street art art? If we treat graffiti like museum pieces exposed outside instead of inside, we don't do justice to them (and we end up in these kind of ridiculous situations). Graffiti are defaced, painted over, repainted, even modified over time. They're intrinsecally not immutable. If we think of them as immutable, they're just spray-painted art brut that happens to be on a wall instead of a picture panel - not very interesting.
- deleted 8d ago[deleted]