Sorry, but that part about your ex made absolutely no sense to me. I read it three times, and I couldn’t figure out why cars got tagged after you called the cops. Was it a cause and effect thing, or did it just happen really quickly? What did your ex have to do with any of that?
This:
kept me scratching my head. Can someone please count the mistakes here, and turn it into something that resembles a sentence? Oh wait, I think I see what you’re saying. Would it shatter your world if you knew that tagging is quite often done by the children of very wealthy families?
Show of hands: Who wants it in their neighborhood?? Anyone?
Well, I feel the same way: how come? What’s the big deal? Hakuna above says that somehow a $2 can of spray paint can totally ruin and make a waste of a beautiful building. I disagree. I’ll still look at the building, not the tag, if it’s more beautiful than the tag.
Why is it ugly? Why does that matter to you when it’s unlawful, but the ugliness of street signs and advertisements are okay? I would rather see a tag than an ad on the side of a building. Hakuna considers tags ‘defiling’ his work; I wonder if he feels same about billboards? Or worse, since they’re much bigger than tags, usually.
I live in NYC, where every surface is covered with visual information, so my perspective is probably influenced by that. But I never minded them back in Syracuse, either.
Why such incredible rage and hostility to taggers, but not the other people who clutter up the urban landscape visually? Are advertisers guilty of the hideous sin of being the children of welfare mothers? (I too found certain implications in the OP’s rant, but I’ve learned not to talk about classism and implied racism around here unless I feel like being piled on that day).
I’m afraid I can also honestly say I don’t understand.
billboards are worse But if they (tagging or billboards) are part of the design of the building I can see it. I have seen a few projects where this is part of the design. Times Square is a perfect example of this in my opinion.
I once designed a building where we had an alley running down between the two halves of project. This was where the cars went in and out of the parking garage. So we designed the surfaces to be ‘street art’-which would include tagging, advertisements for bands, etc.
It worked for awhile—but the eventually the tagging took over and spread past the alley to the face of the building. So the owner just painted the alley walls each and everytime it got tagged–and eventually it stopped getting tagged.
In my opinion the best and only thing to do is to remove it. Think of it like a spyware on your computer You have to remove it or it takes over.
I acknowledge that ‘how would you feel’ scenarios don’t work for you. But I could empathize with film lovers when Turner started to colorize the old black and white films, or when certain video stores started editing dirty words out of movies, etc. The artist intended them to be viewed a certain way–which didn’t include color or editing dirty words out. I feel the same way about the buildings I design–I want them to be viewed a certain way.
I can’t control anything in this arena though. That is all up to the owner of the project and the miscreants who tag the buildings, so I don’t lose a lot of sleep over it either.
You honestly don’t understand the difference between someone unlawfully damaging someone else’s property contrary to the property owner’s wishes (tagging) - and the legal posting of advertising authorized by the property owner (billboards)?
I’m just trying to figure out what kind of philosophy/social construct you are suggesting here?
I guess to me it’s the same as if I was in Buckinham Palace and some child had scribbled on the walls with his crayon. It’s not meant to be part of the design, and just conveys so much, I don’t know, disrespect for the owners and for those responsible for creating it.
It’s ugly (to me) because it’s usually just some unintelligible (*to me * )scribbling. Street signs don’t even register with me, unless they’re directing me to do something, like stop. Same with billboards; I don’t even notice them most of the time. But even when I do, though they may not be a thing of beauty in and of themselves, they’re an expected, accepted part of the landscape.
Taggers to me are just a bunch of fuckwits who deface the landscape; not for the sake of beautifying it or even to send a message to the greater society, but as an extension of their own shitty egos.
I can’t say that I think about their mothers, welfare or otherwise when I see their handyworks, but I think we both know what the OP was getting at. I’m sure plenty of kids that come from money pull this shit too, but my first thought when I see graffiti is that it’s the work of some poor thug from the ghetto, and that 's because graffiti isn’t likely to remain for more than a few hours on surfaces *outside * the ghetto. If that makes sense.
One which is, obviously, extremely different from yours and most other posters’. That’s partly why I didn’t want to get into a fight about it. By the way, I didn’t say I didn’t see a difference. I do. The ads are much worse, much bigger, much brighter, much more completely prevalent, often much uglier and always much more intrusive.
But I don’t mind them that often either, so there’s not much point in following that path. I’m not the one who was complaining about visual information uglifying my urban landscape.
But not as well as those welfare kids obviously. I’m afraid it did not live up to my standards indeed but you’re well and truly forgiven. Like The Swan said, this part is really strange:
What’s the implication between calling your ex in the police and old cars getting tagged? Why does that make you think gangs are prevalent? Actually the way you phrased it, seems like gangs are countering tagging. And what service are you talking about? It’s just all so very intriguing…
What’s that even supposed to mean? Please stop, you’re sending chills down my spine.
I don’t know what a PG&E pole is but I assumed it had something to do with electricity. Or did you paint your address plaque black to cover the tag? Because that would be brilliant!
More serious answer: There are many things that annoy me, like spitting on the street, faulty car alarms, double parking and yes, tagging. The list is pretty big so I won’t bore you with the details but if I reacted the way you do I would live in perpetual rage, cursing large subsets of the population based on my misguided perceptions.
I’ll tell you what I think it is. The assholes who do this shit don’t care that their actions will knock my home’s value down considerably. When I was looking for a home, tagging in the neighborhood was a definite turn-off.
Wasn’t trying to start a fight - just trying to figure out where you are coming from. What - if any - appreciation you had for property rights. I was trying to figure out a coherent mindset that could encompass your remarks, or whether you were simply posturing.
I’m not understanding you. Do you have pics of the tags covering every surface? Are you claiming that they do, but these were all you could get pictures of? Why does that big huge building just have one tag on it? Those other tags are from parts not visible, are you saying? So is the whole back of the building covered? Why not take a pic of that then? I’m confused.
And honestly, now that I look at these pictures, and the sheer hatred in your rant, I just…can’t make it match up in a rational way.
So instead of an ad, that’s probably had at least some attempt at design and visual appeal, you’d rather see a barely readable, one-color, nonsense word like “Jisk” or “Zenac” painted on the side of building? Because when I think of tagging, that’s what I see around here. The ones I can read, anyway.
If tagging looked more like hawkgirl’s link, I would enjoy it. Instead, it usually looks like this crap: http://photos1.blogger.com/img/229/1129/1024/fugly.jpg There’s nothing redeeming about that, and when it’s 3 or 4 feet tall, it can make you mad.
Yes, I do. I have no interest in discussing my politics on this board beyond certain basics like “everyone should be fed” and “genocide is bad” and “all ‘races’ are equal” and so on. Yes, there is a coherent mindset behind it, though whether I am also posturing I’ll leave up to you to decide.
Oh, and I didn’t mean to accuse you of starting a fight, that was just an aside. Your question was perfectly reasonable.
No. It can make you mad. Like I said before, it doesn’t make me mad, and you can’t show me anything I haven’t seen, believe me.
And I didn’t say I would rather see tags than ads. I said I don’t mind most ads either. What I don’t understand is why ads are given a pass, but tags are the most horrible disgusting thing that only filthy shithead animals do, etc.
Okay…maybe I kind of do. But I really don’t want to. I really dislike the answers I come up with, so I’m trying to keep my mind open and get where you all are coming from.
Well, when I see an ad, I assume that there was some sort of deal arranged, the property owner and the advertiser get benefits.
When I see an ugly tag, I assume that the tagger did it for self-serving reasons or out of a need to be destructive*. It’s not an improvement over the blank wall or ugly gray electical box, in most cases it looks worse, and no one is benefitting but the vandal.
*Which is, of course, probably not true. I went through a phase 10 or 12 years ago where I (and some others) affixed a certain sticker to flat surfaces in 6 different countries. Why? I dunno, I guess I thought people should see it or something. (and, yes, it was one ugly sticker)
Because advertisers are doing it out of their genuine desire to serve mankind? :rolleyes:
Okay, more than advertisers do benefit from that arrangement, it’s true. But we’re not talking about usefulness, we’re talking about aesthetics. If you’re saying that the ugliness of ads is acceptable to people because they believe they benefit from their presence, then …maybe we’re getting somewhere. That may be the answer I’m looking for, in fact…
…But the problem is that people keep talking about how they don’t even notice ads but tags are the ugliest thing in the world. It’s that discrepancy that puzzles me.
Okay, the mention of my police officer friend meant that if there are abandoned junk vehicles left around my neighborhood and I (or neighbors) call the “abandoned car” phone #, then the police will come to the site and put a decal (which they call a tag) onto the car. This provides the date they were there and a “will be towed on” date. If the owner doesn’t move or claim the car, it gets towed away. I’m sure that having a friend on the force has nothing to do with that, I was being facetious. Sorry.
The pictures = The whole view of the building was for perception. To show that it’s new and still being built. The other pics of the individual graffiti was to demonstrate ugliness. That lovely scribbling is, like I said, on just about every flat surface. It’s vandalism and I don’t like it and will do my best to discourage it wherever possible.
Seriously, I kind of like tagging. Sometimes America feels like living in a bubble. Every building, every storefront, every little thing has been planned and designed and subjected to endless reviews and market research. Tags, to me, are like trees in a forest, but more human. They are a sign of life in the concrete. Spontanious. Unplanned. Evidence that people live here and grow here and don’t neccessarily live their entire lives in the well-architected lines of the city. A sign that a city belongs, ultimately, to it’s people.
They also evoke a kind of sense of wonder to me. Tagging is a bit like a real life video game- you “level up” by finding new, cooler, harder to reach places. I can appreciate an amazingly placed tag- like the ones on top of freeway overpasses and the very tops of buildings- how do they do that? It delights me to see such a feat of guts and skills. I’m proud that people are doing art, just for the sake of art, and indeed that there is still a culture- among some of the worst off people in our nation- that is organized around art.
Tagging transforms the urban landscape to me in to something with additional potential. A new dimension. A buidling becomes more than just a building- it becomes possiblity.
In short, I think it’s beautiful. I like people. I like my city. I like to see it’s natural expressions.
I understand Hakuna Matata’s point, but I still think its’ a little arrogant to say “I’m the architect and I decide how buildings look”. Why shouldn’t taggers be a part of that process? Do you need a degree in design before you can be a designer?
nope
but you if I recall want to make a movie or made one? If I am recalling correctly. So would you mind if someone modified your movie? Do I need to have a degree in movie making to make it better? Do you think it is okay to color old black and white movies?
This is one of my favorite neverending arguments, and I would urge you to start (doubtlessly another) thread on it in Cafe Society so the benefit of the contributions of those posters smart enough to stay out of the Pit won’t be lost.
That said, I don’t think it’s more than loosely analogous, if simply because there is a long tradition that buildings are completely out of the architect’s creative control after completion, and always were intended to be interactive structures to a certain degree at least (though obviously, tradition does not allow anyone to decorate them in any way). Films are intended to be viewed, but interaction is different, if you dig me.
I appreciate your perspective, and certainly, I had never stopped to think how the building’s artist might feel. I do empathize with you, but I also think there are just too many other factors at play for me to say ‘and therefore it’s exactly like defacing a painting in a museum or colorizing a classic’ (which two things are, as you have correctly noted, also identical ;)).
But if they (tagging or billboards) are part of the design of the building I can see it. I have seen a few projects where this is part of the design. Times Square is a perfect example of this in my opinion.
You have to remove it or it takes over.