What's appearing on our streets.......vandalism or art?

<center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/thedark.jpg"></center><center><i>~~~</i></center>

While I agree that there is nothing wrong with appropriation in art, there is a vital difference when it comes to vandalism. The majority of appropiation consists of ideas or copied images (as in photography), but vandals appropriate (read: deface) the actual original artwork of architects. The analogy to slashing paintings of the masters is apropos, because vandalism damages property.

 

Banksy says, "Remember crime against property is not real crime." I could not disagree more. Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Crime against property is a real as crime against life or liberty. It may not be as serious, but it is crime nonetheless. Those who think that crime against property is not real crime would surely not mind if I destroyed all of their homes, cars, clothes, frying pans, etc.

 

Also, property is more than a physical item. What of the labor it took to create the property and the labor it takes to restore it to its non-vandalized state? Does that have no value? If defacing property is justifiable and labor has no value, with what are we left?

Claudia, what you feel comfortable with is your prerogative and no one can argue that. Truth of the matter is that Oakland is not much different than any other inner city environment. Maybe a different dialect but the same message and ultimately your same "socio-economic facts" bond it to others. It's all about the flexibility and adaptivity that come forth from these meager conditions. Every culture has the right to create and express themselves.

 

I did work in Oakland for someone who researched and published a book on the subject of Oakland's socio-cultural conditions and it's urban landscape so I have a little bit of an idea what the city is about.

 

Brian, the analogy of slashing paintings to creating murals is plain laughing out loud ridiculous. I would think slashing paintings is more akin to well slashing tires, where as graffiti would lie more in the realm of a transforming an environment through an expressive means.

I think the slashing a painting analogy is appropriate. Paint can

permantly deface stone for example. The pschological aspect can be

very much equivalent.

 

Graffiti vandals are simply selfish and arrrogant. They believe that

they are an elite who are above everyone. They only have respect for

their own egos.

In a past life (ahem) I was known to adorn public property with spray paint but in my defence the vast majority was done on old abandoned factories etc and trackside walls as i got better at it, I gravitated towards dong legal stuff at youth clubs,commissions on shop fronts etc.Good graffiti can be bueatiful whereas mindless tagging I agree can be an eyesore.

Have a look here for some fine examples. http://www.graffiti.org/ I also admire the work of Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant who documented the rise of graffiti on the new york subways,it was their fault I got interested in it in the first place.

Incidentley I'm now a responsible adult and spray paint rarely comes into my life now only on special occasions!

I agree that banksys work has merit, though I would feel less so if he chose to graffitti on non corporate property. Cant help feeling sympathy for his point of view and in particular enjoyed his take on the rebranding of the south bank of the thames as BANKSIDE by stencilling a massive BANKSYDE in the area.

 

For those in london, he's got some photos on show and for sale in a makeshift gallery on tottenham court road. Do a search for xmas ghetto on google and you should find it. For my sins i went and bought one, should keep him in spray paint and turkey this xmas though.

I can't help but think that all you graffiti-lovers would feel very differently if some stranger came and spraypainted all over your walls, or the walls at your parents' home, or inside your kids' school.

 

The fact is, they do stuff to other people's property without asking first. That isn't freedom of expression, it's just mindless destruction.

Guy

 

I think theres a distinction to be made between the type of graffitti or 'graf art' as they would have it called and tagging. One generally is carried out on non residential property (round my neck of the woods at least) and tagging, generally carried out by snot nosed little urchins. Having recently suffered at the hands of taggers who put there mark on some nicely painted white walls in our comunal hallway, I can say that if i were to have caught them I would have dished out a little home justice there and then! However I have yet to see graf art in places that would cause offence to anyone other than commerce.

 

 

Yes - tagging is vandalism

Just re reading through the posts above....

 

Edmo. ...They'd commercialize it and assimilate him and kill it that way....

 

Banksys stenciling has been used in an animated fashion in the new smirnoff tv ads. If it isnt him the styling of the whole thing is so bang on as to be a copy. Once overground and part of the mainstream can the work have the same impact?

<center><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2960666-lg.jpg

> </center>

Edmo, you can't justify vandalism just by claiming it transforms an environment through an expressive means. Defacing property is still wrong, even when done in the name of artistic expression. Could one not claim to be a "cut artist" and transform the Mona Lisa by expressively slashing it with a razor? (Come to think of it, it's easier to tout that as artistic expression than slashing tires.)

<P>

I would like to know if anyone knows the details about <a href=http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/suicide-jesus.html">http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/suicide-jesus.html</a>.

it's freakin' kool

 

<center><img src="http://www.lolaphoto.com/78nyc24.jpg"></center>

Anyone remember the guy who worked in San Francisco in the 90's, I think his moniker might have been "Twist"? He would first paint the wall white and then spray his images over that with black spraypaint. He had a masterful control of the spraycan, he would move it in and out for very subtle shading effects. His style was totally recognizable and his images (usually cartoonish renderings of common objects) were mesmerizing. Anyone know the guy I'm referring to? He was the best I've seen. I once considered offering to buy a garage door that he'd "defaced".

A little of A, a little of B...<div></div>

The analogy to the slashing of the paintings is totally absurd, put your crack pipe down already.

<p>

Will, paint can be removed from stone and other porous building materials via power washing and or with the use of chemical cleaners. In addition the owners could have their architects specify graffiti resistant coatings for their buildings.

<p>

Graham, thanks for the link.

<p>

Guy, <I>I can't help but think that all you graffiti-lovers would feel very differently if some stranger came and spraypainted all over your walls?</I>

<p>

No way man, corners of my building get painted, got no problems with that. Beau mentioned a guy named "de la Vega", looking forward to his release so I can again see his work on the sidewalks as I leave my building in the morning.

<p>

Kevin, that I wasn't my quote I was just quoting a previous post. Couldn't agree more about the tagging though.

<p>

Bottom line is that in my opinion it's a form of folk art.

<center><img src=http://www.johnsidlo.com/images/WankDSCN0449.jpg /><p><i>but is it art?</i></p></center>

It isn't as simple as deciding whether you agree with it. For me, it depends in large measure on whether I like the image on display. just as I don't like all watercolours , all antiques, all photographs -though I like some of each of them - I like some graffiti and reject other examples.

 

Second it depends where it is. Most of the graffiti I see doesn't detract from the environment because that was pretty poor to start with; and in some cases anything beyond the mindless scrawling of names or slogans is likely in my opinion anyway to make the place look more interesting. When I see beautiful buildings in Venice defaced by spray-painted initials though I have to say that gets to me and I'm unimpressed by the intellect and motives of the people that do it

 

One thing I am clear about though- that I don't have to worry about whether the owner of the wall wanted it there it to determine whether I like it. Neither do I have to want graffiti on my walls to like it in some other environments. I wouldn't want an Edward Hopper painting as a mural on the wall of my house, but I can think of other privately owned environments that would (in my opinion) look better for it. I'm quite relaxed about the fact that my opinions as observer and ownwer might be different.

 

PS I like Banksy's stuff too- couple of books of it around here somewhere in fact.

a friend of mine has a cool website, he records grafitti over time at various spots in sf. <a href="http://grafarc.org">grafarc</a>

 

 

k

K, nice link...thank ya.

Brian Diaz wrote: <I>"Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property."</I>

<P>

Hmm, I always thought it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". But that's certainly an interesting turn of phrase.

<P>

As for graffitti, for me it's like this: I know should probably take the high road, but I can't help it, I like a lot of it.

<P>

-sp<div></div>

Thank you also for the link K.

Brian Diaz wrote: <I>"Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property."</i><BR>

SP wrote: <i>Hmm, I always thought it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."</I><BR>

 

Exactamundo. We DO hold property sacred. Jefferson's vision is trumped by Hamilton's. If we could just keep them in balance.

i took those picture 2 years apart. the wall gets clean painted over in black often and somehow the face stays untouched and preseved each time, which puzzles me the most. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2955168">now</a>

and

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1984967">2yearsago</a>

k

"The analogy to the slashing of the paintings is totally absurd, put your crack pipe down already.

Will, paint can be removed from stone and other porous building materials via power washing and or with the use of chemical cleaners. In addition the owners could have their architects specify graffiti resistant coatings for their buildings."

 

EDMO, a slashed painting can also be repaired. As far a stone, chemical clears are not some miracle, the affect of cleaning can still be seen. And note, the coatings are graffiti "resistant," not graffiti "proof." That can be a big difference. So there is no difference between defacing a painting and defacing a piece of architecture. While both can be repaired, the repair is never as good as the original.

 

As far as the arrogance of the vandal, there again slashing a painting and defacing a building is the same. The act clearly shows contempt for others while having no positive affect except to gratify the ego of the vandal.

Lighten up, will ya?