So, I want to hear from my fellow explorers about your thoughts on the necessity of preservation. It's brought up all the time, but my view might be shifting and I wanted to get your opinions. Do you feel that nothing must be changed when you enter a location? I have an upcoming art project in mind that would require me to paint the walls (one solid color not a mural). I am in love with the location in mind and I hope it will one day be restored. I would never want to do something to a location that would cause the future owner a head ache or damage the property. Currently all the windows are broken out and the doors to the outside are propped open. I feel that it would not take long for new paint to flake like what is in this picture. Pic is 6 years old and I have not been back in a few years... Might not even be there. What do you all think?

click to view

personally, I'd consider the unauthorized painting of the walls for personal purposes as "vandalism", but that's just me, and opinions will vary.

Different people are going to have different tolerances for varying degrees of severity when it comes to vandalism, and you need to decide what your own value system will allow. For instance, writing your name on a chalkboard inside a building you don't own is still technically vandalism, just the same as spray painting a giant cock on an exterior wall. It's up to you to decide how you feel about what you're doing and to act accordingly.

Would I do what you're talking about? No.
Would I call out a friend for doing it? Probably.
Would I call the cops on a friend for doing it? Of course not.
Am I fine with writing my name on a chalkboard? Definitely.
Am I OK with temporary street art like stickers / pasted scrolls? Definitely.
Do I get pissed off when local kids paint tags in my parking garage? Fuck yes.

Every single person you're going to ask is going to have a different take on these same questions and there's no definitive right or wrong answer. Do whatever you think is right and be prepared to defend your decision if called out on it.

Just my $0.02

I always leave locations as is. My view is that if I'm trespassing on someone's property, the least I can do is leave it the way I found it. That being said, simply painting a room isn't doing any damage and doesn't turn it into an eyesore like random graffiti. I think terapr0 is correct in that it would legally be considered vandalism. Morally, I would consider it a gray area. It's not something I would do myself but I don't think I would condemn someone else for doing it. In any case, it's your call.

Just do it. You may be an artist. For sure you're no vandal.

That depends on a multitude of facets. however, I think the most important question here is... What color do you plan on painting it?

Posted by sope That depends on a multitude of facets. however, I think the most important question here is... What color do you plan on painting it?

Red, Like the bathroom walls in the shining.

Depends on the location. Seriously. If it has ornate wood work and is in fairly decent shape I wouldn't. If it's in sever disrepair and on it's way down likely no one will care. Just depends on location. Have you considered simply editing the photos to make it work? Or even getting red sheets and using them if it will be close up work?

This is a good question really. One that will never see a concurrence of thought one way or the other.

1. its abandoned who cares

2. one mans art is another mans vandalism

3. its wide open so the space you plan to make pretty will probably get tagged

4. you make it pretty and somebody tags it on top of your pretty art anyway

I suppose if pressed for a simple answer Id have to say leave only foot prints.

Cliché? Maybe. I know.

Couldn't you just use a red lens filter?

Posted by Radical_Ed Couldn't you just use a red lens filter?

those are very small, these are walls we are talking about. you would need a lot of them.

I don't really have a comment on your specific project, per se, and I know nothing of the nature of the site you're talking about, but...

For me, the point of exploring is to inhabit and experience a space as I find it. To be a fly on the wall. To observe and document. In abandoned structures, specifically, I'm there to see the way time paints - not the way people paint. (See what I did there? ;)) So, I'm not into intentionally altering things. Plus, it's really amazing when you find great sites that haven't been altered.

Parenthetically: Yes of course, whether we intentionally alter anything or not, our presence adds slightly to the wear and tear on a site, but that's unavoidable insofar as we're explorers and is another matter.

However, I'd be lying if I said that the way that human activity - including vandalism - has altered a space since its abandonment doesn't interest me. Sometimes - and this is not to in any way encourage it - it can even be more fascinating than the history of the structure when it was in use. (Note that "fascinating" is different than "good.")

But yeah, as others have said, you have to do what your own conscience tells you. As for me, I wouldn't do it, FWIW.

I agree 100% with abandonr. I wouldn't be judging, guilt tripping or shaming you if you did it... But yeah, I do think it's vandalism. If it was one of my favorite local spots and I came in one day and found this, I'd be kinda annoyed.

But that's just me, and you're going to get a million conflicting answers to this question.

Posted by LauraL42 Red, Like the bathroom walls in the shining.

As long as the location isn't especially photo worthy I'd say go for it. It could add to the experience.

You can come paint my house if you like to paint things that aren't yours.

Yes, I would never hurt wood! Also, I did consider putting down contact paper to paint over and then pealing it off when I was done. Im fine with the extra work. I have used Photoshop for a very long time and I know I can not get the subtlety I want with the program. Right now I am planning on using large format film.

Actually, painting over the wood helps preserve it. (I was in the refinishing business for over a decade)

I think if I was doing an explore and came across a room like what you're planning on doing, I'd have a "whoa WTF creepy cool" sort of reaction.

I may be wrong, but I think that "preservation" implies the action of an individual (or group) to alter something for the purpose of mimicking what we assume its previous state was. The act of preservation itself seems fundamentally similar to the act of vandalism. In both instances, someone is altering the aesthetics or structure of something. But, how we perceive that change is moderated by different value orientations. For various reasons, many of us believe that "preservation" is inherently better than "vandalism" because it shows respect for history or some such thing. Others, however, may feel that vandalism respects whatever essence that things carry because we project our feelings of creativity and life onto objects, which is...well, whatever. And some acts of seemingly stupid vandalism may be ideologically motivated acts of resistance (whether they are perceived to be that by the vandalizer doesn't always matter). So really, both actions are motivated by different things and neither of them is "right" or "wrong".

But yeah, I say fuck it, paint that shit red and throw a party.

Posted by scatwomb I may be wrong, but I think that "preservation" implies the action of an individual (or group) to alter something for the purpose of mimicking what we assume its previous state was. The act of preservation itself seems fundamentally similar to the act of vandalism. In both instances, someone is altering the aesthetics or structure of something. But, how we perceive that change is moderated by different value orientations. For various reasons, many of us believe that "preservation" is inherently better than "vandalism" because it shows respect for history or some such thing. Others, however, may feel that vandalism respects whatever essence that things carry because we project our feelings of creativity and life onto objects, which is...well, whatever. And some acts of seemingly stupid vandalism may be ideologically motivated acts of resistance (whether they are perceived to be that by the vandalizer doesn't always matter). So really, both actions are motivated by different things and neither of them is "right" or "wrong". But yeah, I say fuck it, paint that shit red and throw a party.

I see your point, but respectfully disagree. If the cops catch you trespassing with spray paint, you're gonna get charged with vandalism, not preservation. Preservation (as an active verb) is an action done by the legal owner of the property.

You can justify it all you want, but vandalism has a victim. Preservation benefits everyone.

Do whatever you want, who cars, chances are whatever you do will be a pile of rubble when the wrecking ball eventually hits it. Most places when they get renovated get stripped down to the studs, so no matter what you do with paint on the drywall, its all going in a dumpster when the place gets knocked over or renovated anyway.

YOLO go for it

In my opinion it kind of depends of how valuable that place/room is. If it's beautiful and untouched for a long time then I'd say vandalism. If it's average or boring, go for it. If we step out of the illegal zone for a while: why don't you contact the owner?

You could ask him if you can do your art project. Numerous art projects, movie recordings and photo shoots have been done in abandonments and most of the times the building got altered. Doing it legally takes away stress and makes it a bit less vandalism in my opinion.

Oh and if you really love the building you could consider telling the owner about the windows and doors being open. I did this before and sometimes places got locked up pretty quickly. Owners often don't know what's happening. Others just don't care and let it be trashed. If you're really fanatical and the building doesn't have too much entrances you could even consider closing them yourself ;)