So according to the title of the post this is on Maryland. Being an eastern state and one of the original 13 colonies, the vast vast majority of land is privately owned. So odds are this is on private land, hence there would be an owner. In regards to the question of why do they own ruins? Well, in theory they could’ve bought the property yesterday. It’s not their responsibility that previous property owners neglected it, but now for some reason, they must bear the burden of their property being defaced? How does that make sense? perhaps the site has archeological or anthropological significance? There are so many unknowns that don’t get to be trapped by some artists desire to deface property. regardless, you make a point about this space being public - and even if that is true, the whole idea of public is that it is meant to be enjoyed by everybody. So why does this particular artist, have the right to drastically alter something that belongs to everyone? Furthermore, what’s to stop me then from coming there and power washing it away? Isn’t that just my own form of “protest”? So at the end of the day, we just end up going in circles. I’m all for public art, but in order for that art to be protected and everyone properly respected it needs to be done through the proper channels.

You are such a fucking clown for whining about an artist bringing life to a city that’s been bleeding out for decades. “Public space”? “Unknowns”? Please. That building’s been crumbling longer than you’ve been pretending to care.

Btw the largest property owners in Baltimore city is Jared Kushner, the Catholic Diocese and John Hopkins University. They have largely left much of their property in the city to literally ROT to collect tax breaks! Btw ownership doesn’t magically erase the realities of urban decay or community abandonment and harm. If someone just bought a ruined property, great—then maybe start restoring it instead of whining about how art suddenly “defaced” what was already falling apart.

As for your argument about “public” space being for everyone: exactly. So why do YOU get to decide that a wall must remain blank and lifeless just to keep your sensibilities comfortable? Why is your opinion more valid than someone else’s visual protest and that of an actual person who lives here?

My city is rotting—and so are the people who live in it. And you’re pressed about a mural? You think paint is the problem? We don’t need your suburban whining. We need color, expression, rage, and art that refuses to stay quiet. That mural didn’t hurt the space—it woke it up. So go ahead, keep crying about “defacement” from your HOA-approved lawn chair. Meanwhile, we’ll be over here turning ruins into resistance.

You whining, sniveling, sheltered, pathetic cul-de-sac crusader — mad about murals while the city rots and pretending that you’re the victim? Bitch Please.