An attempt not to get mocked

[delphica]

*Originally posted by ElusiveMiser *
**

If you think about it, most graf is on big walls, public places, or nasty grimey places that most people don’t see anyway. People generally don’t graf on houses or cars, which seems to be a big part what people are opposed to. Just think about where (if you do) do you see the most grafitti. **

I live in NYC, so the places I see grafitti include:

–Subways, although not so much anymore. I get the general sense that New Yorkers are nostalgic about the grafitti-covered subway cars, even though they didn’t seem to like it at the time

–Walls of buildings. Yes, some building owners do pay artists to create murals, which is a great thing and I think it makes the neighborhood look brighter and friendlier. The nasty thing is that these murals last for about a week before someone else comes along and adds their own grafitti. As has been said before in this thread, the key concept here is that property owners chose to have their walls painted.

–Street signs. Nothing more irksome than not being able to read the sign that says when parking is permitted. My car is at risk of being towed because someone wanted to express themselves on the parking sign? Fie, fie!

–Bridges. I hate this. Many bridges are works of art themselves, with their elegant arches, spans, and detailing. They may be “public” but this does not mean that people should feel free to “decorate” them.

–And my ultimate grafitti peeve … NATURE. The city’s parks and other green spaces have huge rocky outcroppings, most of which get covered by grafitti. We don’t have much nature in New York City to begin with – you must tag up the little that is here?

In some ways I am tempted to agree with Totoro’s comment about some grafitti that appears more artful. There are some things that I do like – in NYC’s East Village, there is an artist who creates mosaics from broken pottery, china, and glass. In my opinion, they are really very interesting and attractive. But I realize that is only my opinion. Someone else might dislike grafitti that I find pleasing. I wonder if this person has permission … the mosaics have become a bit of a local landmark. There does appear to be a community standard at work … if the people in the neighborhood like some of the grafitti that is created, they will embrace it. Kids creating an impromptu work of art on the brick wall of the playground will fly here in New York. If they try this on the wall of MY HOUSE, this is a problem.

[The_Ryan]

This whole “I’m an artist” excuse is a red herring. The point is, they are thiefs. If Pablo Picasso had stolen the paint that he used in his paintings, would we say “Oh, that’s okay, he’s an artist”? Why is stealing a canvas (which is in essence what these people are doing) any different? Just because you’re an artist doesn’t mean you can ignore other people’s rights.

[Sam_Stone]

Implicit in the graffiti ‘ethic’ is that they only do it to public walls or the sides of businesses, etc. Somehow they think this is more ethical than, say, painting graffiti on someone’s car.

The fact is, large buildings are owned by others as well. Either individuals or corporations that own the buildings, or public buildings which are owned and operated by the state in trust for US. We elect people we believe are competent to manage these public works for us - they are answerable to the public if they do things we don’t like.

Graffiti vandals have no respect for our public and private arrangements. And they don’t care about the real effect of their ‘art’ - for instance, there may be a poor blue-collar family down the street who have saved all their lives to buy a modest little house, only to see their life savings flushed away in lost property value because the neighborhood becomes known as unsafe due to the presence of graffiti.

Implicit in the nature of these people is the belief that THEIR desires and inclinations are somehow more important than others’. Selfish, egotistical, and childish.

[Zenster]

Miser,

Since you have not answered my email or responded to my post over in the Suitable punishment for taggers thread, I’ll post what I said over there. As nearly every person has mentioned here, it is an issue of property rights. If I intentionally alter the state of some else’s property I am liable for the costs of returning that same property to its original condition. I don’t care if it’s a wall or someone’s car that I have damaged in a wreck of my own causing, it’s all the same. Art is not at issue in this and can serve as no excuse to estop legal prosecution.

I am interested in what you think of the solution that I present at the bottom of this post.

<<<crosspost>>>

**

*Originally posted by Torgo *
…So for every business owner and city councilperson who decries wanton vandalism, theres another clove-smoking, bespectacled espresso-drinker who rises to the forefront to defend the taggers’ “right” to “express themselves,” their arguments wafting into the public air like so many richly fricative farts…

**That’s some D@mn fine writing there Torgo, remind me to have you write my biography.

*Originally posted by Saint Zero *
Felony, 10 years+ in Maximum Security prison.
Take all possessions, let victims take what they like, burn the rest.
Amputation of Index Finger.

**This more closely approaches my sentiments.

Personally, first offense taggers should be sentenced to white washing out the tags of their gang rivals at the other end of town. In gang circles this is an act punishable by death.

Multiple offense taggers should look at hard time in jail combined with full restitution to the victims with treble damages. This is not a minor crime. People go through a lot of misery removing tags and neighborhoods are blighted by this entirely avoidable vandalism.

Special attention should be paid to those who utilize carbide or diamond scribes in order to “etch” their tags into surfaces. Sadly, penalties for the destruction of property are less than those for graffiti so this part of the law seems to lack teeth. Again, treble damages should be paid to the owners of said damaged property and multiple offenders should look at hard time.

Finally, if I’m going to rail against tagging I had better posit some sort of solution. One that I originated and have supported for years is the creation of “Graffiti Parks.” There would be several large walls where the more artistically inclined could ply their craft. The parks would be fenced off to avoid rivals from “defacing” the artwork that is put up. After a week, if you wish to paint something new, you get permission to blank out a wall whose time limit has expired and thusly earn the right to paint a new piece of work. The art supplies would be kept in a secure location on or off site and would be furnished through commercial donations and grants by manufacturers of said products.

The results would be photographed, there would be judgings and art scholarships could be awarded for those who show the most promise. In order to participate, individuals would have to sign agreements not to perpetrate grafitti vandalism at risk of losing their right to scholastic awards and publication of their work in the compendium.

If we could supply a constructive outlet for the true artists among the droves of thugs that ply this trade, there might be more than a few inner city youth who could punch their own ticket out of an urban hell. I would cheerfully devote some of my tax dollars for this sort of effort.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

PLD- well, content may not decide “art”, but 99% of all graffiti around here consists soley of a taggers “tag”, ie a name written, or a gang scrawl. Those colorful “artistic”- like expressions we see sometimes on TV, or in print- are extremely rare. 90% of everything may be crap- but 99.99% of graffiti is crap, and not even bordering on the artistic.
Yes, some very small % of it IS “artisic”, but that still does not justify even that being plced on other folks property, without their permission.

Again, how is simply writing “taggerz 99” with black marker qualify as art? How does writing “norteno” with red spray paint- qualify as art?

[ElusiveMiser]

To quote myself here:

If you think about it, most graf is on big walls, public places, or nasty grimey places that most people don’t see anyway. People generally don’t graf on houses or cars, which seems to be a big part what people are opposed to.**

Well, I regret having ever said that. First of all, it’s untrue, and certainly not defendable. If you wanted to smack me for saying something so dumb, don’t worry, I gotcha covered. ::smack smack::

I guess the only thing I can do with this is say that these are the ideals that I hope a artful or “curteous” grafer would have about their work.

If you believe in such a thing.

Which you probably don’t.

Which isn’t a bad thing.

[SPOOFE]

2sense…

There is no need for me enjoy a particular work. I only need accept the possibility that someone might. At that point it is art.

Someone might enjoy raping a baby’s eye-socket. Is it still art then?

People do listen to rap music you know. Perhaps you are unaware that “Funky-doo-daddy bitch whore crack” wouldn’t be an unusual lyric for that genre.

Do rappers steal the millions of dollars in recording equipment, the huge truckloads of CDs, the stores that they’re sold in, or the airtime on the radio? If not, I fail to see the connection between the two mediums.
'Miser…

I guess the only thing I can do with this is say that these are the ideals that I hope a artful or “curteous” grafer would have about their work.

Well, alrighty, bub, here’s where you can start smilin’ again. “Grafiti-style art” can be very nice to look at. Just because my personal opinions hold that the vast majority of “grafers” perform their practice in the wrong manner for the wrong person, it doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize a talented creation when I see it.

So here’s whatchu do… go find yourself some REAL BIG posterboard (or something). Practice on that. Don’t practice on Old Lady Feddington’s fence, you silly goose! When you think you’re ready, try to go “legitimate” (if that’s your thing). Get the proper permits, and the proper permission (in other words, get something in writing) to do your stuff on buildings, cars, fences, sidewalks, bridges, whatever. Heck, I know some people who’d pay good money for a big-ass mural put on their house.

After all, I wouldn’t want to discourage an up-and-coming artist any more than I already have

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
PLD- well, content may not decide “art”, but 99% of all graffiti around here consists soley of a taggers “tag”, ie a name written, or a gang scrawl. Those colorful “artistic”- like expressions we see sometimes on TV, or in print- are extremely rare. 90% of everything may be crap- but 99.99% of graffiti is crap, and not even bordering on the artistic.
Yes, some very small % of it IS “artisic”, but that still does not justify even that being plced on other folks property, without their permission.

I agree 100% with your last sentence–just wanted to get that out of the way. It probably merits a separate thread, but I was separating the question of whether the graffiti itself is “artistic” from its morality.

Still, I don’t think that even the fact that it is nothing more than a tag precludes it from being artistic. I used to ride the RTA quite a bit in Cleveland, and I saw a lot of the colorful stuff you mention above. It gets repetitious and boring after a while, but some of it was pretty attractive just from a color/layout point of view.

**

Again, how is simply writing “taggerz 99” with black marker qualify as art? How does writing “norteno” with red spray paint- qualify as art? **

Hey, we’re living in a world where Marcel Duchamps can put out a urinal or a shovel and call it art. I don’t think the two things you mention particularly are art, but I can imagine contexts where they are.

All I was saying is that art isn’t a function of its content, but of its aesthetic effect on the viewer.

[betenoir]

I’ve got a question:

How come so much of this thread has focused on if grafitti is art? Who says it is? Not the OP.

So the only possiblity is that grafitti is justified because it has artistic content? Obviously not all of it does. Can we talk about grafitti in any other terms? The voice of the disenfranchised? Vox populis? (However inarticulate that vox might be.)

Like I said in might previous post, I find the perfectly legal “tagging” of every fucking thing with an advertisment a lot uglier and more of a desecration than and grafitti I’ve ever seen. And nobody feels the need to pretend that’s art.