# Graffiti



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

In today's What Are You Wearing, Upr_crust mentioned posing in front of a statue in Rome so as to hide graffiti at the statue's base. I didn't want to sidetrack the thread, so am posting this here.

I like graffiti. It generally adds visual interest and a dimension of untidiness to most settings. New Yorker has gone through the years of subway cars covered in paint to the present total elimination of graffiti from subways and its redirection to buildings and regular railroad equipment. 

Simultaneously, "graffiti art" has become acceptable, even earning some practitioners a good living and stature in the art world (whatever that may mean). In parts of Europe, Budapest, various Swiss cities, to cite examples with which I'm personally familiar, graffiti has attained a quasi-legitimate status. 

There are a number things that could be said about this topic. I'm interested in hearing what the many educated, well-read, and esthetically informed members of the forum think about graffiti. I know this is a highly charged topic. I'm hoping, however, that we can discuss it with civility.

Thanks,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mindless vandalism. Even the most lauded graffiti is execrable nonsense. Especially that pseud Banksy. Cats may mark their territory with piss but this is a less tolerable activity in a civilised creature. If one desires to paint then purchase a canvass and oils. Ruining an environment for others in pursuit of a supposedly *ahem* 'artistic urge' does not meet with my approval. Children scrawl on walls with crayons because they know no better, hardly a glowing endorsement of such activity. Whilst I would not endorse chopping off their fingers, still.....it is a viable deterrent.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

All graffiti is a form of trespass. It used to irritate me when I lived in Victorian townhouse with a large white-painted stucco flank wall. It was a tabula rasa for mindless vandals. Nothing witty or clever ever appeared there.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

It's a blight. It's how gangs mark their territory and issue their challenges.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

It was back in the early to mid 1980's when graffiti and graffiti gangs were prevalent.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

In most instances, graffiti artists are vandals and if caught, they should be criminally charged and held financially liable for the damage they have caused.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

I grew up in the NYC of which you speak - late 60's - early 80's. Graffiti was EVERYWHERE! It was so ubiquitous on the subways, I had no idea there was anything wrong with it. I thought it was just a part of the subway's appearance.

As for graffiti being "acceptable", there was a brief time in the early 80's when some of the more prolific producers got some gigs in some of the less mainstream galleries, but it was pretty short lived. I did come to appreciate the large murals that would adorn the exteriors of some subway cars. Huge works covering the car from end to end, top to bottom. The tagging on the inside was a different story... just unattractive and destructive.

I will mention Keith Herring to say that I remember when it too was called "graffiti", but it was always considered somehow different - I would guess because of the placement and subject matter. I do recall a few times thinking I should grab one of his pieces when it was fresh on the black paper they used to clean up the print ads mounted on the walls. If only...

Of course, NYC has made a huge turn and the last few times I visited, I barely saw any - maybe a few tags here and there.

For those who never experienced the NYC subway graffiti of the 70's...










(I can almost hear the squeak of the NYPD leather patrol jackets...)


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> In most instances, graffiti artists are vandals and if caught, they should be criminally charged and held financially liable for the damage they have caused.


I forgot to add: One of the regular punishments for convicted graffiti vandals was to do community service removing graffiti from the subways!


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

I can't stand graffiti. It's visual filth. Deplorable. We have a graffiti problem here and "tags" can appear even in a nicer neighborhood not known for gang activity. The city has an "app for that" (SF311) that removes some of the hassle of reporting it so I do so pretty often using my vintage smartphone:

















To my surprise, the city does a good job afterwards of sending somebody out to warn the property owners that they need to clean it up or they clean it up themselves if it's on public property.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I don't like graffiti for the same reason I don't like public smoking, talking in libraries, or texting in a movie theater: it's just "me! me! me!", a selfish act conducted in the spirit of mindless disrespect.

Now, I'm defining "graffiti" here specifically as public art which isn't sanctioned; some of it is *good*, and I'd be happy to see public murals if the owner of the decorated surface is in on it.

We have an organization here in Atlanta called "Living Walls", which matches owners of public buildings and spaces (including the City itself) with artists and muralists who then do large concept pieces. So the interior of a bridge underpass might be wholly covered in a complex mural, and so forth; it's a neat idea. Interestingly, it also discourages graffiti, since graffiti artists seem reluctant to "tag" or otherwise mar public art, perhaps because they'd risk being seen as "uncool" by fans of local urban art.

I've attached an example of an amusing one (and how do you attach a nice, large picture? mine always show up as thumbnails. I'm normally tech savvy, but not in this!)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
"Living Walls," an very thoughtful initiative on the part of your city managers. Absolutely love the example of such that you shared with us! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

The problem with public murals, at least around here, is that they often take on strong political stances that I don't agree with. I'd rather not see those either.  But, they obviously do work to discourage graffiti.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

To open the debate somewhat - and perhaps speaking more directly to the thrust of my much admired fellow member, gurdon's, perspective - I offer the Chauvet caves for consideration. Over 30,000 years old (and but recently discovered) these daubings of our distant ancestors are a thrilling insight into the minds of those who preceded us. A record which could not exist so significantly, speak so powerfully, with such immediacy, in any other form- this is graffiti with the power to bring a moistness to my eye.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> In most instances, graffiti artists are vandals and if caught, they should be criminally charged and held financially liable for the damage they have caused.


They should be given a bottle of cleaner and a washrag, there you go, clean it off themselves no matter how long it will take.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I've had an idea for some time - and it may be unworkable - that if I ever need to buy or build an actual building (to house whatever corporate endeavor I might have which needs lots of people - I try to run as lean as possible, so it's unlikely to happen), I would install a kind of removable "veneer" or "skin" over the building (or one wall). I'd then invite local artists (maybe via Living Walls, maybe directly) to paint a mural/public art on it, and it would be displayed for a year.

After a year, it would be removed and/or sectioned, the "canvases" auctioned to raise funds for whatever charity seemed worthy (probably something arts-related). Then a new surface would be applied to the building, and the process could repeat annually.

I like the idea of city buildings being "usable" 24/7; in some sense, a good building is a living entity within a city's ecology, and being an artistic surface is one means to achieve that.

(There's a building in Nagoya - the city in Japan where I live part of the year - which is designed so that after closing time, as night falls, the hip hop dance community can come practice there: the windows become mirrors, so the dancers can work on their routines, and there's a covered surface around the building, so it's sheltered. It becomes a dance studio, essentially, so the building remains a hub of city life well into the night. "Graffiti" of another sort, one might say.)

DH


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I still see a lot of graffiti where I work on Atlantic Avenue



and there is some artistic graffiti


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

There are some really good artists among them. It is sad to see their talent so often being misused. It is not that expensive for a city to put up some concrete walls in some parks so the public can paint on them. 8X12 feet for size would be really nice. Concrete is cheap. One of the cheapest "toys" the city can make. I would love to paint some scenic pictures that big. The graffiti style (technique) is interesting when used for something good.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It's been years since I spent any time on the Interchange, and members who do remember me will probably remember me as one of the reliably most liberal members here. Thus, you might be surprised to hear me say this, but I hate it.

When I was going to school in New York in the mid-late 60's the tags started popping up. TAKI183 was legendary and one of the guys claimed to know him, or at least who he was. It was all downhill from there. If one guy gets to do it that pretty much means everybody will and the outcome is the ugly scene sbdivemaster shared with us.

Not only is it a visual blight, it sends the populace a clear message: civilized people do not control this city, the thugs and vandals do. It should be punished harshly.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on a contentious topic*

My connection to graffiti dates from childhood. I grew up in a Los Angeles area community roughy half Chicano and half Anglo, and attended public schools. A number of my classmates tagged with their nick names and territorial affiliations. My high school Latin textbook had an illustration showing a a message written on a Roman wall. The caption said how lucky we were to have this glimpse into the daily lives of the ancient Romans. Being a bright young man I immediately made a connection between the Roman graffito and the efforts of my Chicano classmates. The Roman example was a valued historical artifact. The contemporary one a blight and vandalism.

In my view, risk and commitment are central to the production of art. For me the risks involve pushing a lot of boundaries and academic assumptions -- pretty esoteric and not physically threatening unless you count fatigue, angst and long-term exposure to low levels of toxic stuff. And you have to work hard.

My classmates in the 1950's risked getting roughed up and arrested if caught by the police, yet they persisted. People who write on walls and trains today face similar, albeit harsher risks. The likelihood of a severe beating is considerable, and falling from a building or working around trains can get you killed. And if you are over 18, you will be charged with a felony.

Addressing art production from the perspective of outlaw art tells us something about what it takes to be a serious artist. For me the risks have not been life-threatening, nor the rewards remunerative. And hard work is good for you.

It is useful to situate graffiti somewhere on the continuum of art production. I believe the production of graffiti has a great deal to say to artists and art appreciators/consumers as to what it takes to be an artist.

I appreciate everyone's willingness to contribute to this discussion.

Regards and thanks,
Gurdon


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> It is useful to situate graffiti somewhere on the continuum of art production. I believe the production of graffiti has a great deal to say to artists and art appreciators/consumers as to what it takes to be an artist.


I think that's a good way to categorize it; it can be a mode of transgressive art.

I guess intent is a big thing; the gang tags have a distinct function ("this is our area"), while the more muralist style is (I assume) about expression (it's more traditionally "art like"). Most of my opinions about "what is art" come from reading Ernst Gombrich, but lack of Google hits suggests he had precious little to say about graffiti. One could probably make a case for it being folk art.

I did have an idea for an app a while back which would allow city dwellers, urban explorers, and other interested sorts to snap graffiti with their smart phones, upload to images to an archive, throw in some analytics and geolocation tools and have an interesting "mine" for street art; it's worth noting that the popular (is it still?) game "Pokemon" geolocates a number of interesting pieces of urban art (from graffiti to public installations) for powerups or other in-game uses.

DH


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Whilst staying in Glasgow during the late 1970s I once became involved in a somewhat misguided project to 'map' graffiti. This was mostly in the once notorious Gorbals tenement area, then in the process of being utterly demolished. There was supposedly an academic aspect to this project but I can't recall the details. I don't think the locals appreciated our presence.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Why is it there a lot of defacing properties in New York, has graffiti been on the rise lately?


----------

