KatjaMouse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who gives a shiat? She got paid to paint a mural, it was displayed in a public building, and now it's been removed.

Who farking cares?

Seems in line with most of the comments in TFA.

The reason why people care is because this was a piece that was commissioned by public funds and that she had very likely run her sketches and preliminary pieces through a committee for approval before before hanging the final piece in a public building. This was a piece that told a visual history of labor. More than appropriate for a Labor Department building, you think? The idea that the governor says its anti-business and that's why he pulled it down smacks of not really keeping the people's interests to heart.

Alright, well, if enough people care, they can vote in a new governor who will put the painting back up.

GoldDude: Would she feel any better if it were removed because the Governor just thinks her artwork sucks and hates looking at it?

Knowing this man's aesthetic tastes differed from mine would make me feel better.

I thought Maine was immune from that kind political pettiness. I guess not. That anonymous letter must have been signed David Koch.

trotsky: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: trotsky: See kids? THIS is Communism. Acutally, more like Stalinism, where history is re-written to exclude elements that the ruling elite deem inappropriate for their narration. And it is their narration as well, we don't matter.

This turd in Maine needs a history lesson.

History isn't being rewritten you overdramatic schmuck.

Oh, shut up. I am making a point about airbrushing unpleasant things out of the narrative. Might as well play their game, right?

If you look to the art in government buildings for your history lessons, you're already farked.

KatjaMouse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: KatjaMouse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Who gives a shiat? She got paid to paint a mural, it was displayed in a public building, and now it's been removed.

Who farking cares?

Seems in line with most of the comments in TFA.

The reason why people care is because this was a piece that was commissioned by public funds and that she had very likely run her sketches and preliminary pieces through a committee for approval before before hanging the final piece in a public building. This was a piece that told a visual history of labor. More than appropriate for a Labor Department building, you think? The idea that the governor says its anti-business and that's why he pulled it down smacks of not really keeping the people's interests to heart.

Alright, well, if enough people care, they can vote in a new governor who will put the painting back up.

Either way, you don't see anything wrong with the governor making a decision about a mural based one anonymous letter? And that he has openly stated that it goes against his "business agenda"?


It wasn't removed due to an anonymous letter, it was removed because Gov. Paul LePage said it was biased toward organized labor and out of line with his pro-business agenda.

Personally, I think that's a shiatty reason to remove a mural. I also think that if a state elects a governor, and he is legally within his power to have a mural removed, then so be it.

FarkOffAndEatShirts: I'd love to know how much the removal of said mural is costing-

Based solely on Gov. Walker's estimate of the damage done to the Wisconsin state capitol, I'd say it cost at least a couple of million.

Testiclaw: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: and he is legally within his power to have a mural removed, then so be it.

Tusz: It can't be removed without the artist's knowledge and consent, as per the contract between the artist and the state. But it's currently hidden, and the governor won't tell anyone where it is.

That's what some dumbass Farker is alleging. Don't you think if that were true, the artist would be suing for breach of contract? Or at least mention the breach of contract in her statement?

Jesus, kid, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

I would hope that a state governor would have more on his mind that some perceived political narrative in public artwork.

I didn't know that when you bought a painting they can make you sign a contract saying it needs to be up for x amount of time. I am curious of how it states. If it only states it needs to be on display, there is open wall space in the basement I'm sure.

Like someone above said, I'm not an artist and I'm pretty sure that girl isn't one also by the looks of that painting. I've seen street art that is way better than that.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Testiclaw: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: and he is legally within his power to have a mural removed, then so be it.

Tusz: It can't be removed without the artist's knowledge and consent, as per the contract between the artist and the state. But it's currently hidden, and the governor won't tell anyone where it is.

That's what some dumbass Farker is alleging. Don't you think if that were true, the artist would be suing for breach of contract? Or at least mention the breach of contract in her statement?

Jesus, kid, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Michelle Small, a Brunswick resident and member of the Freedom of Information Coalition, filed a Freedom of Access request with the administration to obtain the location of the mural, which was removed over the weekend and is being kept in an undisclosed location.

/by top men.

They are replacing it with a new mural.

THE LIFE OF THE BUSINESS OWNER

Panel 1- From Birth to Business.
This panel shows the business owner from his birth, through his school years, until he inherits his business.
It shows him being born, his nanny caring for him, his maids cleaning his house, his expulsion from college for cheating, and finally the death of his parents.

Panel 2 -The Fleecing of the workers
This section shows the business owner making his business more efficient. Workers scramble for scraps of food. One loses his arm in the machinery, Sick workers struggle without health care. Disappointed workers open their paychecks. The Business owner watches TV in his office and visits the casino.

Panel 3 - Busting the Unions
In a dramatic pose, the Business owner directs a wave of armed hired thugs and police at the scrawny lines of workers.

Panel 4 - Profit from the environment
Sludge pours out of a Koch Brothers Paper mill into a river, while a paid scientist tests the water and gives the thumbs up.

Panel 5 - The Tax Breaks
In the first section, the poor queue up to put their change into a bank. On the other side of a wall, the bank President takes the money and gives a "loan" to the business owner. In the second part, The President shakes hands with the Business owner and slips him a symbolic envelope of bailout cash.

Panel 6 - The socially active Business owner
The business owner attends a political Tea Party Rally of overweight white males. On stage, a sign says "overpaid teachers" and "Obama's fault".

Panel 7 - The Trophy Wife
The business owner takes a young trophy wife. His business associates attend in their mobility chairs.

Panel 8 - The Concluding Dinner Party
In the concluding panel, the content but now aging business owner meets with his fellow overweight male business owners to plan the future. The Business owners overweight kids are being introduced to the group so the cycle can continue. The table is piled high with food. Outside, a window line of SUVs is parked. The only minorities visible are serving the food.

TNel: I didn't know that when you bought a painting they can make you sign a contract saying it needs to be up for x amount of time. I am curious of how it states. If it only states it needs to be on display, there is open wall space in the basement I'm sure.

Like someone above said, I'm not an artist and I'm pretty sure that girl isn't one also by the looks of that painting. I've seen street art that is way better than that.

They didn't purchase a painting she had already completed, they commissioned her to paint one for them. There is likely a contract, but if it indeed mandated public display for x amount of time, I'd think the artist would be filing a lawsuit instead of attention whoring via her dead father.

TNel: I didn't know that when you bought a painting they can make you sign a contract saying it needs to be up for x amount of time.

The contract in question says that the department is supposed to inform the artist if the painting is going to be moved, and that the artist can give "advice and consent" as to its relocation.

The governor has the right to change out the art in various state buildings. This particular seems to have a) violated the terms of the contract, and b) done it in a remarkably dickish way, for remarkably dickish reasons. And wasted taxpayer money to do it.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Testiclaw: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: and he is legally within his power to have a mural removed, then so be it.

Tusz: It can't be removed without the artist's knowledge and consent, as per the contract between the artist and the state. But it's currently hidden, and the governor won't tell anyone where it is.

That's what some dumbass Farker is alleging. Don't you think if that were true, the artist would be suing for breach of contract? Or at least mention the breach of contract in her statement?

Jesus, kid, don't believe everything you read on the internet.

From the linked article:

"A copy of a contract between the department and Taylor obtained by the Bangor Daily News specifies that "the artist and [Maine Arts] Commission will be notified if, for any reason, the work has to be removed or moved to a new location." The contract then states that the artist and the commission have the right to "advise or consult" with the state regarding the relocation.

In past media reports, Taylor has stated that the administration has not contacted her about the mural's relocation, adding Monday that she does not know where her artwork is being stored. The Maine Arts Commission has been in contact with the administration."

The contract apparently only requires notification that it is being removed. Are she and the Commission unaware that it was being removed? It appears that they were aware as of March 23rd.

It also states that they have the right to advise or consult with the relocation. Since it was just taken down, perhaps the decision on where to relocate it has not been made yet. When they decide to move it to a permanent location, I'm sure that the artist will be permitted to advise and consult.

And apparently, LePage wants to move it to a state museum. Probably a better place for it.


Yeah, exactly. And she was notified and consulted as per the contract. And now she's using daddy's medal to attention whore. Oustanding lady, I'd say the governor should add her to his cabinet as she sounds more business-savvy than he does.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: And she was notified and consulted as per the contract.

You know this how?

someonelse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: And she was notified and consulted as per the contract.

You know this how?

I don't, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Ok, this thread has been godwinned. I'm out. You retards continue to argue over nothing.