Occu∏ strikes again, all over the nice new mural that just replaced it

First this space was Occu∏’s, then a new mural went up over it, and now Occu∏ is back.

“Occupy, you’re really starting to piss me off,” says Reader Rob T., who sent us this pic, “We get the point but quit wrecking cool stuff!” Which raises the question: Does Occu∏ have anything to do with Occupy, or is this just another culture jam?

32 Responses to “Occu∏ strikes again, all over the nice new mural that just replaced it”

  1. friend says:

    that is so lame. do we have any idea who occu∏ is? can we kindly redirect them to other walls and surfaces?

  2. lalo says:

    I for one think it looks great the way it is … even with the other tags.. it’s all just art anyways right

  3. Fable Jay Scorcher says:

    occudie already.

  4. J says:

    I’m going to say that yes, this is occupy. Purely based on the shitty execution and misguided nature of the tag. It reeks of the whole movement.

  5. jamin says:

    When will this guideless, moral-less movement end? Vandalism is wrong. Your inability to get a job is not.

    • Fyodor says:

      Interesting juxtaposition of concepts. I question what “getting a job” has to do with concepts of right and wrong and what vandalism has to do with morals. It is an oversimplification to state that vandalism is wrong from a moral perspective; it is wrong almost solely derived from law and concepts of property rights. You are showing a strong bias both from your concepts of morality and your assumptions that inclusive statements of unemployment can be applied to the Occupy movement as a whole. Furthermore, in my humble perspective, your moral priorities are a bit out of whack. Vandalism seems like an almost insignificant breach of societal morals in comparison to setting up an economic system designed to fail a growing number of the population for the direct benefit of privileged few. Of course, that is just my perspective, and your mileage my vary.

  6. Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

    The OccuPi on a blank wall was cool. Trashing a just completed mural, on the otherhand, is bullshit.

    • suckerpunch says:

      No it isn’t.
      Everything is temporary, my friend.

      • Jaurito says:

        Everything is temporary so defacing temporary art is totally fine? You’re a fucking douchebag suckerpunch. Get the fuck off SF blogs.

        • suckerpunch says:

          I don’t know if I’d call it “totally fine”, but its certainly nothing to get worked up about. After all, there is something underneath the current mural, no? And something under that, and etc… ie: temporary.

          All of this is merely my own opinion, nothing more, thanks for letting me have it Jaurito.

      • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

        I continue to call bullshit.

      • Fyodor says:

        Everything is temporary, but the unspoken rule is, unless you are putting up a work of equal or greater value, don’t paint over other pieces or murals. Of course, this is subjective, but when someone puts a scrawl over a mural it is safe to assume that they are not following any rules regarding relative merit of street art and are just being a douchebag.

        • suckerpunch says:

          If the rule is unspoken, then not everyone is going to know there is a rule in the first place. Maybe they see a painting that is obviously graffiti, and think “oh, I guess its cool to paint here!” and then paint there.

          And then, of course, are the people who just don’t give a f**k about rules, unspoken, implied or stated.

          • Jaurito says:

            I love these kind of statements – one’s that are so OBVIOUSLY incorrect but are made in a “hey, who can judge, you just never know” manner.

            No, this has nothing to do with someone being unclear on a very obvious rule of thumb, it has everything to do with some little bitch who thinks their occupussy tag is important and must not be concealed.

        • moral sex says:

          oh god you’re still annoying me!

  7. Jeffrey Taymore says:

    According to the tenets of Occupy SF, if it looks bad for the movement, then it’s clearly the work of an agent provocateur.

  8. wizzer says:

    For all of you who love and support “urban graffiti” and try to call it art: guess what? you got it.

    hey. a little spray paint can’t hurt.

  9. bill w says:

    who cares???

  10. Ariel Dovas says:

    At least Sangroncito got the requisite walking-in-front-of-mural shot, and a good one too:

  11. Bilbo says:

    I love how conservative this blog is.

  12. Dolissa says:

    If these idiots even knew the fucking history of the oh so hip neighborhood they’re now living in, they would know that this urban space IS ALREADY OCCUPIED. In the 1970s Latino artists and activists took over a billboard with tobacco and alcohol ads because they felt it was harmful to the community. The took over the space and used it to create art. Galeria de la Raza has been “occupying” longer than these twerps have been withdrawing from their daddy’s trust fund.