http://goo.gl/maps/IdYE

Also, in reference to my first comment, from streetview I’d say a compromise is as simple as locking the bike instead to the street side of that light pole. Clears the sidewalk, and the rack.

Once the primer was dry, I spray painted the bike neon orange. A colour Vanessa and I picked out together at Montana Colours, aka The Bomb Shelter.

Clearly the city has an orange/pink bias.

And I don’t care if Ford had nothing to do with it (even though he kinda does) because I’ll blame him if the subway is delayed 10 minutes. Or if I slip on a pebble on the sidewalk. Or if my streetmeat is overcooked. He promised to fix EVERYTHING, did he not? :-)

It clearly, however, is not property of the city of Toronto, and graffiting an abandoned vehicle that is on public property does not create ownership. Thus, the city of Toronto’s sole remedy is to affix a notice to the vehicle, and if (when) the “owner” fails to remove it, then they remove it and dispose of it. or just leave it the fuck alone. Under /no/ circumstances should they be fining the artists, who – for all the City knows – painted the bike with the permission of the owner.

Does this bike really need to be there for more than six days for it to realize the maker’s ambition for a ‘really-fucking-cool-urban-street-project.’? Maybe, if people liked it, the pink bike could be the model for new projects in the future rather than some end point of aesthetic accomplishment. (The ‘artists’ sense of self-satisfaction with the paint job is a bit much).

And think about this: What if these artists ‘fight’ the ordinance and get the city to bend the rules allowing the bike to be there forever. Then the city will officially have a stake in this ‘artwork.’ A ruling will be handed down. The bike will stand forever as a monument to the ‘courage’ of some city council member who stood up for art while appeasing an influential demographic. Not exactly radical anymore at that point…

I mean, if I find a sidewalk-parked automobile and I go paint it pink, does it become my property?

Don’t be silly! It’s not the paint that makes it yours; it’s the flowers.

It’s clear, though, that the reason they flipped it around was because they had completely sprayed the side of the bike post with orange/pink spray paint, and thought it would look better against a non-spray-painted side. I’d hope if this project continues that they start covering the bike post when spraying.

Ah the perils of claiming abandoned property!
That IS a publicly-owned and built bike rack/ring that now-privately owned (and an act of ownership HAS taken place – somebody took control of the bike by painting it) bike is chained to, is it not?

In general, if they can find them, they can fine ‘em, just fine.

But my guess is that they’d rather the article simply be removed/detached from public property….

Art, in my experience, is pretty selfish, done to the standards of the artist. Commercial Art OTOH often shows that it is the work of a committee.

I like the bike, I do not like billboards.

If painting the bike makes it yours, does that mean if you paint an abandoned building, you own the building?

A bike rack is for bikes, not art. Once the bike is “art,” and the artist wants it to be there permanently, it’s taking up space that was designed for bikes.

Now, of course, the abandoned bike was doing this too, but the city didn’t know it. If someone had complained about that bike, the same sign would have been put up.

I like the bike a lot, but if an artist wants to take up a parking space for her art, she should ask the city. Would people be so appreciative of it if it were taking up a car space?

Besides, there are 56,753 abandoned bicycles chained to various poles and posts in downtown (I counted) and nobody does anything about them. A lot of them don’t even have wheels. I bet someone complained because it was painted pink (a political reference, obviously). Mayor Doug Ford has declared War On Graffiti and there’s nothing Ford Nation hates more than pinko bicycles.

Thank you for all the fact checking and opinions but I really brought the story to everyone’s attention because I think Toronto’s new graffiti law isn’t necessarily fair or just. I think this is a misappropriation of city funds and could be utilized more appropriately in dealing with more pressing Toronto issues

Toronto now penalizes any store or property owner who has ‘graffiti’ on their property. Yet when this defacement is done on public property, i.e the sidewalk, or a government building, the cost is pushed to the artist/vandal. This doesn’t seem very fair or consistent, and I hope that voicing this opinion to the BoingBoing masses assists in getting the word to the right ears.

As for the topic of whether it is or is not art, that is up to the viewer. Personally, I think it’s better than looking at a rusty bike, overstuffed trashcan, or poorly groomed and maintained traffic island.

Haven’t heard any Portland OR officials complaining.

It seems you are implying that artists do not make art for an audience. I don’t understand that statement at all; nearly every artist creates for an audience. In fact, this bike seems to be an incredibly visible version of that. In using a bright color and commenting on how happy the bike made people, the artist is confirming that she made this for others to view.