Joyless tiny door vandal afraid that scary hipsters plot will hurt him

The man believed to be the tiny door vandal, caught on video behind a Northeast Minneapolis business, claims to be getting threats against him.

The man believed to be the tiny door vandal, caught on video behind a Northeast Minneapolis business, claims to be getting threats against him.

Reader URSTREETARTSUX responds to Spotted: Minneapolis tiny door vandal apparently caught in the act:

Hi! It's me, the "Joyless Villain." I've attached hereto my correspondence with Dangerous Man Brewing regarding their production and your publication of a photo that purports to be of me after I received multiple death threats related to my efforts to clean up the wack street art of some ridiculous street artist.

You are hereby on notice that if any harm should befall me due to your joint efforts to expose my identity, I will take the appropriate legal actions against you.

The grand irony here, of course, is the absurd misuse of the word vandal. The same amateur journalists, business owners, and other hipsters who become apoplectic if any normal graffiti by graffiti vandals is applied to a property are the same people now claiming that the arbitrarily distinct "street art" vandalism has a "right" to be there, and that my effort to remove it is somehow converted to vandalism itself simply by virtue of the fact that hipsters like street art but don't like graffiti.

This hypocrisy is self-evident to even the most casual observer, but not to your investigative journalists. Graffiti and street art, when applied without the prior consent of the property owner, are the same under the law: illegal.

My removal of them is, well, legal, duh. All of these attempts to construe illegally applied street art as deserving of some special status is motivated primarily by a hipster set of faux-liberal values that seek to deify "street art" because it appeals to rich white people, while demonizing traditional graffiti as the un-artistic scrawlings of criminals whose parents couldn't pay for art school.

No street artist will go to the police precinct to report my removal of their vandalism, as your writer so approvingly quoted the officer as saying, because they would be admitting to criminal damage to property. It's something obvious to the cop inviting the actual vandal in, but lost on hip journalists.

Make no mistake: I am removing vandalism. A bunch of craft beer and street art enthusiasts are attempting to harm me as a result. While you'd never dream of attempting to expose the identity of the standard vigilante graffiti buffer painting over normal graffiti because you "get" that guy, and because of the perceived possibility that violence could befall them, you employ a double standard when it comes to someone removing street art, apparently because you enjoy gazing at the latter while sipping your $8 beer made by people who don't wash themselves but drive luxury cars.

And an additional distinction: vigilante graffiti buffer guy is still illegally applying paint to someone else's property, while I am simply removing detritus. The former a crime, the latter just a good laugh.

So, if you want to like illegal shit, cool, just quit pretending street art is legal and complaining when it is subject to what happens in the street it so plainly seeks to usurp the grittiness of for cred without having to withstand the reality that the street is the street because that's where anything can happen. Like getting your weak shit popped off with a screwdriver.

In any event, have a Happy Art-a-Whirl. But think twice before you go about trying to expose my identity now that you're on notice that: (a) I'm the one following the law; and (b) people want to hurt me because of it.

I dare you to print this. You won't, unless your editorial staff isn't as afraid of a well-framed contrary idea as certain news desk staff who need a dictionary.

Very truly yours,

The artist fka URSTREETARTSUX 


And the letter he received after complaining to Dangerous Man Brewing: 


Thanks for reaching out to Dangerous Man. First off, I'd like to note that Dangerous Man has had no involvement in disclosing your identity, and has made no public comment about the mows doors -- we have made no posts and sent no information out about you or your actions. The FB post did not come from DM or our staff.

Though we have not been directly involved, we still find your actions insolent and hurtful. We have publicly welcomed the mows door to our building and community, and have adopted it as our own (by welcoming it with a signature DM plant). We do feel violated that our public art was defaced, and do not support your vandalism.

I'd like to add on a personal note, that if you're not comfortable being held accountable for your destruction of public art (by having your identity known - I by no means condone anything violent), it might be a sign that you already know you're out of line. Just a thought.

Cheers, and have a great day,

Maggie Pears
Taproom Manager
Dangerous Man Brewing Company