13 Aug 2004 | matthew said...

this is interesting.

13 Aug 2004 | David Ely said...

Charlottesville High School, in Charlottesville, VA has a wall that borders the parking lot that people are free to paint on. I think if you give them a canvas the graffiti artists will use it. The vandals will, unfortunately, paint where they will.

13 Aug 2004 | Brian Andersen said...

I think most of us agree that vandalism isn't fun at all, but that graffiti as an art, when given time, is pretty amazing.

In Copenhagen, near a harbor, there's a loooooong strech of wall, reserved purely for graffiti artists (probably a km long or something), and it's absolutely mind boggling.

Unfortunately, a few blocks away some moron wrote "fuck" on a door. So that makes it even I guess.

13 Aug 2004 | indi said...

matthew - thanks for the link, the guy's a genius. Apparently he also does commercial work by "cleaning" logos into the urban grime background. What would the official response to his work be? Fill in the artwork with dirt or clean the rest of the area?

13 Aug 2004 | ben said...

It is art. In shitty neighborhoods, it improves the landscape. I love looking at it. There was graffitti all over my building growing up. I never contributed to it, but I respected it. I read it and paid attention. You can learn a lot.

Books like that showcase artists.

13 Aug 2004 | Mark G said...

Jason you need one of these!

13 Aug 2004 | Al Abut said...

I feel your pain about your building getting tagged, but out of curiousity, do you know the owner of the car? Or know that they didn't do it themselves to that p.o.s.?

13 Aug 2004 | Johnnick said...

Sociological field studies have proven that the appearance of crime will promote crime. It's one of the reasons neighborhood community groups in ungentrified urban areas often work so hard to scrub away graffiti and clean up glass from broken car windows.

I.e., graffiti helps shitty neighborhoods stay shitty.

I used to live behind MICA in Baltimore. The cleaner streets had fewer car thefts, robberies, and assaults. So we'd get out on Saturdays with "Goof Off" and remove graffiti, attempting to increase the number of clean streets.

We often got hassled -- mostly from aging hipsters (30-40 y.o.) who'd say, "Hey, what if that's some important work!"

More likely, it was the unimportant tag of a white suburban pre-teen yo-boy who came in on the light rail.

But sure, I've seen good stuff too. So I'd say to the hipsters, "Gallery shows are juried and temporary. Why not this too? Besides, if they're commited to the craft, I'm helping them to produce more work."

Carlos -- thanks for the post. Maybe you could enlist some taggers (the less talented the better) to embellish that book's publishing house offices, or the author's condo.

13 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Ben, while I do try to respect all opinions your view that "It is art. In shitty neighborhoods, it improves the landscape..." doesn't seem to find a comfortable place with me. To me, it is just another sign of "urban decay". It might be nice for you to drive by and "enjoy" it, but trust me, the people who live there don't think so. The people who own the buildings probably don't like it either, and the taxpayers who have to pay to clean it up are the same ones who complain about high taxes, and why those taxes aren't beign put to better use.

13 Aug 2004 | tlack said...

My point of view: Graffiti is something that is amazingly context-sensitive. I live in a terrible part of Miami, and some of the local businesses have chosen to pay talented graffiti artists to paint murals on their outside walls. The murals are eyecatching and stunning to look at -- really high level of detail and realism. It's the ghetto version of nice architecture.

On the other hand, a moving truck that parks near my warehouse is covered in "tags" and unwanted graffiti and it's truly an eyesore.

I agree with the other posters; if someone wants to create a piece of art using Krylon, there's are appropriate forums to do it in. Someone else's door is not a good example.

13 Aug 2004 | Al Abut said...

The empty show was the first thing I saw on k10k that made me start to look at graffitti as anything other than vandalism. My interest has been piqued ever since, especially since I've started to see a resurgence of that dirty look online.

And when you think about it, us web designers live a lifestyle where we have all the digital ink we could ever want - we are limited by only our imaginations and our work is as public as we want it. Not everyone has that kind of canvas or exposure, so I can understand (not condone) the impulse to use what's around you even if it's not yours. One person's defacement is another person's beautification.

13 Aug 2004 | Tomas Jogin said...

Whether grafitti is art or not lies in the eyes of the beholder; whether or not it is also vandalism does not...

13 Aug 2004 | Kuja said...

1- Manco's book ("Street Logos") transcends this discussion...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0500284695/002-6774847-1192027?v=glance
2- Seems like the car in the photo is an abandoned car...
cheers!

13 Aug 2004 | David Ely said...

Whether or not grafitti is art (it is) is beside the point. If it's on a building that you don't own and don't have permission to paint, it's vandalism.

13 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

It feels to me like there's a clash of cultures at work here. To those whose property has been tagged, it's an act of vandalism. To some of the people who live in the neighborhood, it's a blight on the landscape. To the taggers, it's something else entirely.

Taggers live in their own subculture with its own value system, it's vastly different from yours and mine. Calling them vandals is like calling Eastern European gypsies thieves or file-sharers criminals -- it's totally true from the victim's perspective, and yet from the perpetrator's perspective what they're doing is acceptable. A tagger can spray-paint your building and view it as an honorable act, but if you put a black mark on his white sneakers he can cut your throat. In his mind, those are not contradictory values. A file-sharer might pirate hundreds of CDs and think nothing of it, but if his roommate steals his iPod he'll go to the police and demand justice.

I've been a victim of vandalism, so I know how it feels. But I try to put myself in the other person's shoes, not to soften my feelings toward them, but just to try to understand why.

13 Aug 2004 | Ed F. said...

i bet the owner hasn't driven that car in quite awhile. in fact, i think the owner of that car probably lives in a different city.

not to take graffiti lightly, but to balance the topic, let's look at the work of Banksy. Some graffiti is vandalism, and some isn't.

it's that simple (and then again, it's not that simple).

13 Aug 2004 | Anil said...

Don't confuse canvas with creation. That the medium is sometimes absued by people who don't appropriately respect other people's property or boundaries isn't a reflection on the importance of the medium.

I've heard people blasting Chopin on the subway in New York. Clearly, classical music is not art, it's noise pollution, no?

13 Aug 2004 | Al Abut said...

Tomas, well said.

I think this one of Bansky's stickers is in order, no?

13 Aug 2004 | Joshua said...

i'm torn on this one.

on the one hand, i'm an massive fan of graffiti. i have enormous amounts of respect for the people who really know how to push the artform. people like Futura2000, Mode2 and the rest are artists - pure and simple.

on the other, i live in London and have to see pretty much every part of the city covered in really badly written tags that, in my view, are nothing more than vandalism. it pains me to see them because all they do is reinforce the view that it's nothing but a negative thing.

there's a pretty fine line between the two but it's there, and the people who take care to elevate it from the gutter into something that can inspire you deserve just as much respect as those who's work gets shown in a gallery.

13 Aug 2004 | Jamie said...

Graffiti has been around since the dawn of cave drawings, and it will always exist in some form or another.

13 Aug 2004 | Geoffrey said...

This guy/group has been tagging my neighborhood in Seattle for a while now. There's not much talent, just proliferation. Then one day they tagged the Seattle Library on Broadway (not the Koolhaas one) and it pissed me off for some reason. I guess in a town with very few examples of good architecture, tagging this great, small, public building didn't seem right to me. It's hard to determine that fine line between art and vandalism or subversive commentary and bored kids trying to copy each other. And for some reason, I still like Banksy.

14 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

If I hear or read one more comment where crime is passed off as "culture", I'm going to hit somebody. I guess it's my German culture.

14 Aug 2004 | JF said...

I'm with you, Don.

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

With you too Don. As a clarification, the book that started this whole post was celebrating "vandalism". Yes, some of it might look "cool", but it would be better served on a proper canvas. Someone else's property, of any kind, is not right. And Ed, Whether the owner of that car has driven it in a while, or lives somewhere else. HE STILL OWNS IT! (by the way, you are mistaken) The car belong to some poor hispanic guy (My office is in a primarily Mexican community) and it has been sitting there since it was tagged last week because HE CAN"T DRIVE IT!

In this bbok, they ask one of the taggers if he has any regrets, and his anwer was, "the third rail". He got fried while tri\ying to tag a train. GOOD!

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Ed, I just took alook at some of Bansky's work as you suggested and it just gives me more amo. Are you suggesting that the vandalism of the "Veronica" staue is art? Seriously?

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

one more thing... "People who get up early in the morning cause war, death and famine" - Bansky. WHAT?!!!

14 Aug 2004 | pb said...

That car looks like it has other issues.

"some of the local businesses have chosen to pay talented graffiti artists to paint murals on their outside walls"

Uh...nothing wrong with that!

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

pb, SO WHAT if it has other issues. Don't you get that somebody owns that? Now, it's got more issues. He parked it there because he had a problem with the rear tire. I hope someone does that to you next time you get a flat and leave it there to get help. Jesus!

and, what does "some of the local businesses have chosen to pay talented graffiti artists to paint murals on their outside walls" have to do with anything? Do you think that is what is beign talked about here? This stuff really hurts people. Including you. You pay for this in a variety of ways BIG TIME.

14 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

If I hear or read one more comment where crime is passed off as "culture", I'm going to hit somebody.

Yo, I wasn't saying that graffiti shouldn't be a crime. Defacing private property is a crime in our society, and perps should be punished. Having different values from the society you live in is not an excuse for breaking the law or for receiving a more lenient sentence. If I were an American traveling in a country where owning pirated music was considered a crime puishable by having your ears cut off, and if the police confiscated my iPod and found some pirated music on there, hey, I would deserve to have my ears cut off. Right?

Anyway, the terminology I was trying to finesse wasn't "crime" but "vandalism." I think it's worth trying to understand the motives of taggers. Sometimes it may be mere vandalism, but in other cases I suspect it's something more. That's all.

14 Aug 2004 | Jamie said...

One interesting thing about graffiti/vandalism is how companies/agencies have co-opted some of the techniques that were born out of this subculture of self-promotion. A few things come to mind:

1. Street stenciling of messages led to an IBM campaign for Linux of spray painted penguins at street corners.

2. Shepard Fairey wheatpasting Andre the Giant heads all over the country led to a campaign for that Jim Carrey movie Man in the Moon of Andy Kaufmann wheatpasted posters.

3. Shepard Fairey's probably successful business of selling posters.

4. Nike/Adidas/Sprite/etc co-opting graffiti graphics and hip hop culture to sell more product.

The truth is, it is illegal. We are paying for it. But some people are also making money off of it. There must be something of value here. In other words, people are buying this book that started this thread. Graffiti is making people--probably smart people--some cash.

14 Aug 2004 | Mark Frisk said...

Here in Manhattan's East Village/Lower East Side, the issue of graffiti is considerably more complex. Sure, there's plenty of graffitti as vandalism, but there are quite a few graffiti artists who are currently represented in the Museum of Modern Art who got their starts in this neighborhood.

Next weekend, as part of the gigantic HOWL! Festival of East Village Arts & Culture, I'm producing for the 9th year something called Art Around the Park, which involves a 900 foot long, seven foot high wall of blank canvas, stretched partly around Tompkins Square Park, upon which approximately 180 artists will express themselves in a live-action painting event. Probably about 30-40 are aerosol artists, and let me tell you my name would be mud if I didn't include them. They are an integral part of this diverse and deeply creative neighborhood's culture.

Indeed, Chico, a well-known muralist, created artwork for us that we're using for our web site, posters, postcards, and bus cards. Check it out here:

http://howlfestival.com

"Graffiti = bad" strikes me as a bit of a black & white take on the issue.

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

"Graffiti = bad" strikes me as a bit of a black & white take on the issue. Yes. if it on property you own. Period. This post has reached the fork in the road. We are talking about two issues. The reason companies are making money off graffiti is because there are enought people who do not understand the violation this represents, or are not effected, or simply excuse this as "art". To be clear, I do think there is plenty of extremely creative material. Just put it on the right canvas. (the last time i'll say it). That's all.

14 Aug 2004 | Almustafa El-Said said...

Wait, till we bomb your ass, you punk ass white bitch!

GRAFF FOREVER!

14 Aug 2004 | d. said...

In Quebec City, there was a project where artists painted pillars supporting an highway in an otherwise decrepit part of the city, see for yourself. But look on the left one, bottom, yep, some punkass spray-painted www.a1.com on almost ALL of them this month. Everyone living here wants his head on a platter.

14 Aug 2004 | Johnnick said...

local businesses have chosen to pay talented graffiti artists to paint murals

Those murals don't last, do they?

Because some punk-ass talentless tagger comes along and fucks it up, EVERY time.

It's a shame. There was a piercing and tat shop on Charles and Howard in Baltimore with an amazing manga-style mural of a superheroine giving navel rings to club grrls, and it didn't last six months.

14 Aug 2004 | dmr said...

I'd rather see illegal art than legal advertising; it's about intent. I'm with Barry McGee on this one. (http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mcgee/index.html)

I think there is some limit to what personal property is considered viable medium/space, so abandon buildings and property is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

14 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

"I'd rather see illegal art than legal advertising; it's about intent."

DMR, How do you think you find out about most of the things you have and own. ADVERTISING. The life style you enjoy is based on it. It promotes goods that people work hard to make, which creates our economy.

14 Aug 2004 | dmr said...

I am so sick of seeing ads and hearing about how great and worthwhile corporate advertising (otherwise known as mind & sight pollution) is. Discussions like thisare what contributes to the view that its acceptable. Its becoming part of the landscape of approved opinion. Its bullshit. Period. My mind gets tagged ALL THE TIME and I am sick of it. Its pollution, plain and simple. Look outside your window and count the thoughtless advertising around you. It's trickery and harmful to our collective mindsets.

But I bet the corporation doesnt think this is POLLUTION.

14 Aug 2004 | dmr said...

It promotes goods that people work hard to make"; a statement so very true. Nike workers make less than .01% of the purchase price of a shoe, but they worked their ass off; good for them, good for Nike and good for us comsumers eh? Horray to the corporations for making my life better.

Our economy, which you speak so highly of, is based on exploitation of other cultures and economies. While I'm not saying there's no good in corporations, because there is some, the bad comes in the ruthless intent to profit and exploit.

I understand your point about vandalism, and this against your fellow man is just disrespectful, but I can't say the same when it's against establishments, institutions or even people that blindly participate in the exploit process. I have to side with the McGee/Banksy mindset for much of this discussion. Posting up "fuck pigs" is shitty and thoughtless vandalism, but the smart and well done stuff is hard to paint into the same category.

14 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

Fact is, most of graff appears on abandoned buildings!

Fact is, if the city demolished abandoned buildings or business reinvigorated blighted areas, then graffers wouldn't have a as large of a canvas hence the risk of getting caught greater...

Graffiti is the attempt to put beauty and color to decay.

www.artcrimes.com

What is bullshit Carlos, is people like you that hate their culture. Calling graff vandalism is like calling protest crimes against the state. Think about why youth are doing graff in the first place...

14 Aug 2004 | SH said...

"Think about why youth are doing graff in the first place..."

I really, really doubt that the majority of "youth" doing "graff" are in it for the artistic expression. Kids are destructive, they like to break things and throw bottles at cars and scratch their names in tables - we were all that age once. A kid taking a can of paint to a wall with no purpose other than to deface it isn't "art," it's midguided aggression, and it is vandalism.

I suspect there are people out there who paint graffiti as a means of social expression, or as you say, "to put beauty and color to decay," but you simply can't generalize people's intentions with such a statement. And while it's true it can probably awaken the creativity of kids who might not have an opportunity to explore their artistic sides, you can't excourage them to see their "work" or their "expressions" as being more valuable than another person's property.

This discussion isn't about understanding a culture per se, it's more about a certain "culture" not understanding the reciprocal rules of living in a free society: Keep your hands off my shit, and I'll keep my hands off yours. If people want to promote art in under-developed neighborhoods, they should teach kids to be respectful of property and have a little pride for their work.

No artist who appreciates his own craft is going to run around painting smiley faces on windows.

14 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

If you are not involved with the graff scene, I wouldn't talk...

ART CRIMES

Don't talk shit, unless you know the scene.
"but you simply can't generalize people's intentions with such a statement."

Yes, I can because I have been involved in graff since the beginning.

it's more about a certain "culture" not understanding the reciprocal rules of living in a free society

Dumb shit statements like that and the Boston Tea party would never of happened.

Dumbass logic like condemning something never stops it, if you want to stop it you get involved and refocus that energy.

ART CRIMES

14 Aug 2004 | kev said...

People who do not agree on this subject will never, ever agree. Period. Our backgrounds are all too varied to accurately say why you despise graffiti, or for someone like me to explain why it's something I like to see.

14 Aug 2004 | me said...

i for one am OUTRAGED!!! OUTRAGED I SAY

get off my damn lawn you stupid punk kids

14 Aug 2004 | Carl said...

Horray to the corporations for making my life better.

They do make your life better. Who made your computer that you're using to voice your opinions right now? Life better or worse because of that? What about that air conditioning (or heat) you throw on when it's too hot (or cold) out? Who makes that? Taggerboy or Mr. Corporation? And, is your life better or worse off because of that? And when you have a headache or a cold, who do you turn to? Taggerprophin or Advil? And who makes that horrible stuff known as antibiotics? How do you get across the country to visit your friends and family? Hop a ride on taggerbike or on a plane? Who makes those damn planes anyway? You rely on corporate weath, power, risk, and innovation way more than you realize. You'd most likely be DEAD without them.

You are fucking clueless, dmr.

14 Aug 2004 | dmr said...

Carl, while I don't understand your careless reading or offensive and aggressive tone, I will offer a highlight from my above comments:
"While I'm not saying there's no good in corporations, because there is some, the bad comes in the ruthless intent to profit and exploit."

Horray for sarcasm! I'll wait for the quote and follow-up on that one. I support good companies and good people; and thanks for asserting my status of clue!

By the way:
61 percentage of U.S. corporations paid no federal taxes between 1996 and 2000; source: General Accounting Office (Washington). Sweet!

14 Aug 2004 | Jeff said...

Carlos, forget it. People just don't get it. These folks who keep trying to convince themselves that unwanted graffiti is somehow OK because corporations are evil are just kidding themselves. They think two wrongs make a right or something. They never learned respect for other peoples' property, regardless.

That's what it comes down to. When someone paints unsolicited grafitti, they are vandalizing someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY. Someone BOUGHT that property with their money and that criminal is DEFACING it, which causes that person to have to spend time and money fixing it.

The only thing a criminal can do at that point is do what is happening here in this thread... immediately jump to the conclusion that somehow they are getting back at the evil corporations when they deface an apartment or someone's car.

It requires a little more maturity to understand how transparent this childish, puerile attitude is, but they will gain it as they get older and learn respect for others.

Right now, though, it's useless trying to convince them otherwise. They are surrounded by these magazines and TV culture defining their folklore and they believe it.

15 Aug 2004 | p8 said...

Johnnick: Sociological field studies have proven that the appearance of crime will promote crime.
Fix broken windows
"Researchers have discovered a trigger that leads to urban decay. Once a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, the building starts to go downhill rapidly. A car can be left on a street for a week, but break one of its windows, and it will be gutted in hours."

D: there was a project where artists painted pillars supporting an highway
Wow, those look amazing!

One of my favorite examples of graffiti (or illegal art) is The woodcutter, one of amsterdam's secret statues.

I also like some of the more subtle creative examples of Obey The Giant and space invaders. These examples don't look like urban decay. Most examples of graffiti do. There is no excuse for vandalizing someone property and it's pretty funny to see graffiti artists get angry when someone tags over 'their' graffiti.

"I write messages on money.
It's my own form of social protest.
BURN ME
A letter printed on paper that no one will destroy
I AM YOUR FATHER
passed indiscriminately across race, class and gender lines and written in the blood that keeps the beast alive.
A quiet little hijacking on the way to the check-out counter.
And a federal crime.
I hope that someone will find my message one day when they really need it.
Like I do.
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE"
Rage against the machine

15 Aug 2004 | eric said...

DMR, I'm not sure how you got off track from tagging to corporate finance?

There's nothing illegal with tax AVOIDANCE, tax evasion is. So in addition to making sure you pay the most possible tax you can, do you always pay full price for the products you buy as well?

I figure types like you would be more than happy to try tax avoidance, then you could wash your hands of funding that war.

15 Aug 2004 | robert hopt said...

ACKNOWLEDGE CONTEXT PLZ.

I suggest that you go and find a nearby "graffiti wall," a patch of urban landscape specifically set aside for graffiti and spray-paint art. There is such a wall on the side of a classroom building at my college which is really admirable. I've even made a piece of art there myself, built around my own tag.

Graffiti can frequently be ugly, especially if it is nothing more than an uncreative scrawl of atag. However, it can also be very endearing - I've had the opportunity for just one ride in the Paris Underground, and it was one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen, because of the INCREDIBLY intricate and overlapping graffiti art all over the traincars.

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

Who made your computer that you're using to voice your opinions right now?

I did, son!

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

ART CRIMES

15 Aug 2004 | dmr said...

Eric, from tax avoidance to funding the war? That's quite a leap too; applause all around.

As I said before, I have my own personal limits as far as what I would consider graffiti in poor taste, and I consider abandon buildings and property viable space in certain contexts. There's good and bad art, and good and bad graff. I'm interested in the good of both, tho certain destructive measures aren't okay. Paint, chalk, installed wooden panels, and stickers all seem pretty non-destructive to me.

Banksy is fighting his own war, one that I admire. Just because I admire his efforts doesn't mean I could bring myself to commit those same acts. I participate in non-destructive acts (stickers and posters) because I have a respect for certain property and certain situations.

And now back to real life!

15 Aug 2004 | Geoffrey said...

Can we at least make a distinction between "tagging" and "grafitti"? Tagging is certainly a blight, while grafitti gets people like Keith Haring into the MOMA. I'm sure most grafitti artists will gladly take off the hoodie and join the fray when offered enough sponsorship.

15 Aug 2004 | Lance Osborne said...

I was in Berlin in June and was appalled at the amount of graffiti everywhere. Everything was covered with it (including public sculptures). I found Berlin to be a great city, but the graffiti made it feel worn and tired.

15 Aug 2004 | MH said...

> Calling them vandals is like calling Eastern European gypsies thieves or file-sharers criminals...

If the particular gypsies in question in fact steal, and the particular files shared are the copyrighted works of others ("hey, information wants to be free!"), then I don't see the implied absurdity in that comparison.

>I've been a victim of vandalism...I try to put myself in the other person's shoes...to try to understand why.

Is that what they taught you this semester?

Profit bad! Money evil! Sky Green! Crime only means of expression!

15 Aug 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I don't see the implied absurdity in that comparison.

Okay, here's another analogy: driving your car over the speed limit is a crime. Black-and-white, no question: there's a posted speed limit, and if you drive faster than that you're breaking the law. But if I were to make a blanket statement that "speeding is an act of aggression and selfish lack of regard for the safety of others" some of you might disagree. You might make rationalizations like, "hey, I just like to drive fast sometimes," or "every now and then I get distracted and look down to see that I'm driving 20 mph over the speed limit" or "everyone speeds sometimes, it's not such a big deal" etc. (In fact, though, speeding is a far more serious crime than tagging, because it directly puts lives at risk...not just the lives of speeders but also the other people he/she might kill.)

The dictionary defines vandalism as "willful or malicious destruction of public or private property." It's worth pondering whether all graffiti/tagging qualifies for that definition. The key words are "willful," "malicious" and "destruction." Tagging and graffiti are definitely willful and sometimes malicious, but whether they destroy property depends on your perspective. And that's why I'd argue for shades of gray instead of black and white.

15 Aug 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

I'm 100% with Carlos Segura on this one. It amazes me how many people (besides the vandals) try to find justification for this with all kind of colored arguments. What part of vandalism is hard to understand? What part of property (public or private) is hard to understand?
Banksy is fighting his own war? Send him to Afghanistan to tag Osama bin Laden's ass. That I could admire.

15 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Brad,
COME ON MAN! Speeding? Are you kidding? (I was going to into, in detail, my counterpoint on this, but I fear it will make matterts MUCH worse). How can a simply discussion go so stray? WOW!

Profit bad! Money evil! Sky Green! Crime only means of expression! WTF!!!!! I hope whoever said that is kidding.

And, Jose.Thanks.

15 Aug 2004 | len said...

Paint on your own fucking house or apartment building and make sure that you include some arrows that lead to your front door. The lame thing about this craft is that it's done in shadow and under guise. Go on show your face, paint on a car, home or statue mid day.

It's all so self serving, tagging something high is the equivalent of killing big game - let's see who can get their penis up higher than the next.

15 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

So, to recap: Corporations are evil, vandals are good. George Orwell would be proud.

Film at 11.

15 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Hmmmm ... what if I start a corporation that does graffiti?? Would the corporation be evil, but the "art" good?

In the immortal words of the guys at Monty Python: "There, I've run circles around you with logic!"

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

ART CRIMES

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

No corporation can do graffiti. Individuals do graffiti.

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

In the beginning God created the hip and the hop

And the earth was without style and void and wackness was upon the face of the street. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the street.

And God said, Let there be graffiti and there was graffiti.

And God saw graffiti and it was good and God divided the hiphop from the wackness.

ART CRIMES

15 Aug 2004 | JF said...

Hey Graffiti King, we appreciate your point of view, but if you keep posting just that ART CRIMES link we are going to blacklist you as spam.

15 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

Oh, sorry...

Try this intead...

GRAFFITI FOREVER

15 Aug 2004 | Stanley said...

James Carse, in Finite and Infinite Games, excellently describes property as the trophies of success. Maybe you "won" that great job or worked really hard to "win" that paycheck. However you arrived at the wealth, for the conquest to mean anything the trophy must be displayed, or else no one recognizes that you are a "winner".

I've seen graffiti that I would call brilliant and graffiti that I would call vandalism. A lot of art is crap, whether it's painting or music, and graffiti is no exception. What makes graffiti so hated when its canvas is private property is that the very act of its creation calls into question the notion of "private property".

Somewhere deep inside everyone who calls this issue "black and white" is the fear that someone with a $2 can of spray paint has the power to make us all equal and everything fair game.

16 Aug 2004 | MH said...

>> Profit bad! Money evil! Sky Green! Crime only means of expression!
> WTF!!!!! I hope whoever said that is kidding.

I guess the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.

16 Aug 2004 | graffiti queen said...

i think others have touched on this, but graffiti is a very complex subject. i'm kind of shocked that any designer wouldn't appreciate it for what it is at so many levels -- artistic expression, youthful rebellion, and urban decay.

in a pefect world, we could make society more inclusive and give opportunities and education to all. but in the real one we move to our gated communities or highrises and then bitch when the folks who are left behind remind us they are still there. hmmm.

16 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

in the real one we move to our gated communities or highrises and then bitch when the folks who are left behind remind us they are still there. hmmm. PLEASE!

16 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

What is bullshit Carlos, is people like you that hate their culture. Calling graff vandalism is like calling protest crimes against the state. Think about why youth are doing graff in the first place... Cleanse yourself man, before it's too late.

16 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Well, what do we have here. How timely. I get up Sunday morning, go get coffee and what do I find on the wall out side my building. CRAP!!! (I guess my neighborhood is more attractive now, not to mention artistic). Unbelievable.

16 Aug 2004 | John Y. said...

How karmic.

16 Aug 2004 | bob stroob said...

61 percentage of U.S. corporations paid no federal taxes between 1996 and 2000

and?.................... in london (where i live) there are many examples of people being 'let off' paying taxes as there benefit to society is so great the governement want to provide an incentive for them to continue living in the country.

These corporations arnt commiting any crime at all, how does this compair to vandalism?

16 Aug 2004 | Russell said...

What really bugs me about it all is the people that run traffic signals after the light turns red. I guess we can justify that crime because now they aren't sitting there idling and polluting the earth.

16 Aug 2004 | KillAllDash9 said...

Other's have said so, but I'll add my opinion anyway -- whether graffiti is art or not really isn't the important question. If you don't have permission to paint on an object that you don't own, it's vandalism pure and simple. Doesn't matter if it looks good. Think about it this way -- what if I decided I didn't like the color of your house, so I hired a team of house painters to paint it all off-white (and even add a nice accent color to the trim) while you were away on vacation without ever asking your permission. It may or may not look better than it did before, but you'd probably still be a little pissed off when you got home.

16 Aug 2004 | Jeffrey said...

Ok, I think that maybe some people here are missing the point. So to that, I offer a couple thoughts...

(1) Carlos has the right to be upset about the vandalism to his property. Because it is his property, it is vandalism. It wouldn't make any difference if Michaelangelo's corpse was resurrected by the full moon and limped his decrepit ass down Milwaukee and painted something that by all means would be a masterpiece on the side of his building. If Carlos didn't want it there - if it was done without permission - it's vandalism.

(2) It's unfair to graffiti as an art form to have Carlos call it all vandalism. Graffiti can be beautiful, meticulously detailed works of heart and soul. It is an art form (yes, of the streets) - but none-the-less... which leads me to...

(3) I think it's total bullshit that "tagging" is lumped together with graffiti. Some no-talent-ass-clown writing his name on a window with a marker, or spray-painting his initials (or whatever) on the side of Carlos's building... that's retarded. It serves no other purpose than marking 'territory' - much like a dog pissing on every tree & hydrant it walks past. These idiots should feel shame that they don't put pride into the responsibility of being part of the 'graffiti community'. Everytime some kid tags up a wall, or scratches their 'name' into a subway window - they're bringing down the validity and respect of their 'art form'.

There's obviously a bias, probably caused by a generation gap, to artwork that's created with markers and spray paint. There's an obvious stigma and predisposed inferrence that graffiti = street kids = hoodlums = crime. I think it's unfair, but I also think that the people who are complaining of the unfairness need to take a step back a realize that they are probably doing nothing to curb the stereotype. Like any art, some is beautiful, and some is crap. Well... most is crap. But the point is that no other medium besides graffiti has such a public forum. That comes with a responsibility that most people choose to ignore. Renegade, amateur oil painters don't make a practice of breaking into galleries and hanging their work, do they?

There's a place for all art. Being part of any community involves responsibility which shapes the public's opinion of it. I would hate to see a general 'outlaw' on graffiti art, so put it where it belongs.

Show some respect.

16 Aug 2004 | JF said...

Bringing this full circle, how would you pro-graffiti folks feel if someone defaced a web site that you designed? If someone hacked in and changed your design or your content? If someone tried to make it their own?

16 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Graffiti isn't necessarily vandalism.

Vandalism isn't usually good.

The legal debate isn't necessarily the same as the moral debate.

16 Aug 2004 | Kristof said...

Kids are destructive, they like to break things and throw bottles at cars and scratch their names in tables - we were all that age once.
SH

You know, there is a solution for that particular problem.

16 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

It's unfair to graffiti as an art form to have Carlos call it all vandalism. OK, I'm done with this post. I'm not getting thru (not surprised).

Maybe someone will see the light with Jeffrey's comment... (1) Carlos has the right to be upset about the vandalism to his property. Because it is his property, it is vandalism. It wouldn't make any difference if Michaelangelo's corpse was resurrected by the full moon and limped his decrepit ass down Milwaukee and painted something that by all means would be a masterpiece on the side of his building. If Carlos didn't want it there - if it was done without permission - it's vandalism. Good Bye.

16 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

"OK, I'm done with this post. I'm not getting thru (not surprised)."

I think we all understand you. You hate vandalism, and consider all graffiti vandalism.

Fair enough.

16 Aug 2004 | Quest 1 said...

As Graff King said:

In the beginning God created the hip and the hop

And the earth was without style and void and wackness was upon the face of the street. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the street.

And God said, Let there be graffiti and there was graffiti.

And God saw graffiti and it was good and God divided the hiphop from the wackness.

16 Aug 2004 | John Y. said...

Heres the thing, Carlos. We understand what youre saying, we just think youre wrong.

Youre seeing things in purely black-and-white terms when its clearly not a black-and-white situation. How does chalk-drawn artwork on a sidewalk fit into your worldview? Its probably not the property of the artist, but the next time it rains, that chalk goes away. Nobody is hurt, nobodys tax dollars have to pay to clean it up.

And then your halfhearted brushing aside of Brad Hurleys speeding point (which, I might add, perfectly illustrated what he was saying) demonstrated to me that you've got a pretty hypocritical view of this whole thing. Oh, the laws that I break those arent a big deal. Its only the ones that other people break that are the problem.

And, yes, every time you speed you are putting peoples lives at risk. Thats a much bigger deal than a little bit of paint on a wall, or a little bit of chalk on a sidewalk. The fact that you cant see this tells me youve jumped the shark.

16 Aug 2004 | ar said...

Count me out of that "we" John.

16 Aug 2004 | Jamie said...

Jason said: Bringing this full circle, how would you pro-graffiti folks feel if someone defaced a web site that you designed? If someone hacked in and changed your design or your content? If someone tried to make it their own?

A similar analogy would be if a graffiti writer painted a piece and then another writer vandalized that with a tag or a throw-up (bubble letters). This would create what would be called a "war" where these new rivals would be overwriting each others work all over the city--possibly even getting into fist-fights. I know, it sounds silly.

In short, if someone defaced or hacked another person's web design, these street-minded individuals would have an all-out war on the internet. And actually, I believe this subculture exists. There are hacker "crews" much like graffiti crews. It is interesting to see these similarities. When it all comes down to it, it is all about adolescent boys (and some girls) challenging "the man" and learning some lessons about rebellion before they realize the harsh realities of the "real world".

Can't we all just get along? Carlos, you're the man!

17 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

"harsh realities of the "real world"

Kind of like me making a living through graffing.

What is harsh is lame ass people who get old, forget what it means to be young and give up by letting their dreams die.

I would never think so called "internet people" would give a fucking fascist lecture on private property.

Now we know, frauds are everywhere.

Kid will be kids, always.

One love.

17 Aug 2004 | ek said...

^ God, what an idiot.

17 Aug 2004 | tagged said...

relax, carlos. your graffiti artist is probably just a disgruntled freelancer who never got paid. ooof.

17 Aug 2004 | ar said...

Graffiti King - you sound like a real tool. The shit you spout makes me laugh.

17 Aug 2004 | Tim Hill said...

hey what about the janis joplin graf early on, I dun know so much about graf starting out with hip n hop.
and dmr makes some good points, interesting that some people have resorted to aggresive posts about his rational ones.

17 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Private property is a facist thing?

Someone doesn't know the definition of "facist" ... they're just tossing the term around in between marches against Starbucks and time spent with their Xbox.

*sigh*

17 Aug 2004 | Quest 1 said...

For the record

17 Aug 2004 | Quest 1 said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascist

17 Aug 2004 | Jeff said...

Haha, the only "kid" here is Graffiti King and his self-righteous attitude that we should be grateful that people like him paint crappy unoriginal designs all over our property. Just like the little kid who doesn't get his way, he panics and tries to make everyone validate his existence by crapping on everyone and everything else.

You're right GK, we HAVE forgotten what it's like to be a kid. An immature, hate-the-world, tantrum-throwing kid.

17 Aug 2004 | kev said...

Did jason/37s not design a website for a graffiti artist awhile back? I'd search, but I'm not sure when it was posted.

17 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

And here's the definition of "fascism," just for quick reference...

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

17 Aug 2004 | Quest 1 said...

Or " A reactionary or dictatorial person."

17 Aug 2004 | p8 said...

Ah, dictatorial:
"... asserting or tending to assert one's authority or to impose one's will on others."

That sounds like Grafitti on other people's property alright.

17 Aug 2004 | Jeff said...

Yep, couldn't be any more clear.

If you paint something on my property without me asking, you're not giving me a chance to dissent. In order for me to change your decision, I have to go out of my way and buy cleaner, take time (which is money) and spend countless calories scrubbing it off of my property.

You denied me my right to dissent in the first place. You also stole time away from me. You also stole my money.

Sounds like National Socialism to me. ;)

17 Aug 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

These graffiti "artists" are all fascists of the communist kind! First they impose their crap and then they defend a collective ownership of property and an equal part of crap to everybody.

17 Aug 2004 | Graffiti King said...

Quite gone off on a tangent, I see.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

To all those:

Lets bring back the original post:

sick of seeing books about how great and artistic graffiti (otherwise known as vandalism) is. ...contributes to the view that its acceptable. Its becoming part of the landscape of approved opinion. Its bullshit. Period. My building gets tagged ALL THE TIME and I am sick of it. Its vandalism, plain and simple...

By the fact that graffiti now a world wide phenomenon with it influencing graphic design and media in general shows it has power as a unique American artform. Carlos, if you are having problems with graff on your building I suggest you take care of it like a man. Instead, you condemn an entire culture, fine - you have a right to your opinion.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

Truth be told, graffiti as now a global artform will continue. Paint over our graff and we will bomb you again. Public and private property - your boundaries are meaningless to us.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

Funny thing is your kids or a friend of your kids is into graff or hiphop in general. Thats all the argument I need.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

Cheers, its been fun.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

18 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

"...Public and private property - your boundaries are meaningless to us..."

Then, I guess, it's highly ironic and hypocritical that the site you love to spout here includes a copyright statement.

18 Aug 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

"...Public and private property - your boundaries are meaningless to us..."

Not to mention this is exactly what Carlos was saying since the begining. You are vandals.

What an idiot, indeed.

18 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Whoa. I'm not much of a nice guy sometimes ... but please, gang ... can we refrain from ad hominen attacks? It's starting to sound like Michael Moore versus Sean Hannity in here.

:-)

18 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

can we refrain from ad hominen attacks?

I think that is par for the course now on SVN.

So, Don, what have you been up to? Weather is good here. Hope to duck out for a vacation soon.

18 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Darrel -- nothin'. Working four days a week, spending my Fridays on my deck, in and out of the pool, enjoying cigars and s-l-o-w-l-y working on my business plan, marketing material, etc etc. I REALLY gotta get moving, but ...

18 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

Working four days a week, spending my Fridays on my deck, in and out of the pool, enjoying cigars and s-l-o-w-l-y working

Keep it up. That's how life *should* be lived. ;o)

18 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Truth be told, graffiti as now a global artform will continue. Paint over our graff and we will bomb you again. Public and private property - your boundaries are meaningless to us.

I can't wait until you grow up and actually own something that some ASS like you "bombs". Let's see how much you'll like it then.

18 Aug 2004 | Andre Bokanov said...

Carlos,

Do you know GK?

18 Aug 2004 | Carlos Segura said...

Carlos, Do you know GK?

Don't know who that is.

18 Aug 2004 | Andre Bokanov said...

Is Graffiti King a previous client or friend of yours?

You said, he needs to "grow up", do you know him?

19 Aug 2004 | font said...

Judging from the looks of the alignment the owner has a lot more to worry about than the new paint job...

20 Aug 2004 | Andi said...

I agree with Font....the paint would be the least of my concerns.

22 Aug 2004 | Natalie Buxton said...

Because I like graffiti and am involved on the very edges of the culture, I spent a few weeks considering my response to this post before putting in my 2 cents worth.

It boils down to this:

All graffiti is NOT vandalism.
All damage to my property without my permission IS vandalism.

Stating that all graffiti, regardless of context, venue or media is vandalism is just silly.

The point here is permission, without it you are breaking the law (and pissing people like Carlos off - quite rightly so).

(Please note that tagging is not graffiti, it's a subculture that is an entirely different ballgame (and to me, vandalism at all times.)

26 Aug 2004 | eric said...

Andre D,

You don't have to "know" someone to tell them to grow up. Since we're all hiding behind keyboards here, what you type represents you.

Maybe GK has to have some of his own shit defaced and maybe he'll get a clue.

28 Aug 2004 | Almustafa El-Said said...

You guys are SO establishment and know nothing about graffiti or hiphop in general.

ART CRIMES

29 Aug 2004 | dt said...

I used to write, but now I'm an old man - 30 years old with a wife and kid...

There's really no point in ranting on about how pissed of writers make you. Keep your own personal property looking good and tidy, and real writers will respect it. (Gangs, little kid toys, and that fool who's drawing pac-man ghosts in Seattle don't count - they're not writers.)

But back to the original point - I agree the commercialization and glamorization of writing is sickening. I don't want see fancy designed books about graf, I want see new writers keeping tradition up - like the (not so) old school vandals MQUE, JA, CAP, COPE, SANE, SMITH, TWIST, and so on ...

I hate to hear people say "In the proper setting...", "In a Gallery", "On a Canvas" - graffiti is beautiful art. It's not supposed to be art. It's about getting over. Making a plan, accomplishing a mission. Pissing people off.

Someone old writer said that graffiti is a kid's game - just when you turn 25, you're good, but then you're too old to do it. So true - you're seriously not going rationalize with some 18 year old about why he shouldn't paint on an abandoned, broken down Ford Taurus in an overgrown alley...you'd be wasting your time and his.