The real blemish on the cityscape is a half-finished luxury condo building, not the colorful paint job.
Your HOA might disagree.
Disregard for property is not the motivating factor for these artists.
Doesn't matter what the motivating factor is. Maybe they are artists but when others see lawlessness is accepted and even applauded, theyll seize the opportunity.
My point is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. I see it myself, when im in a neighborhood that's pristine, I act accordingly. I remember in Tokyo waiting for a walk to cross when there were no cars nearby or queuing to get on the subway, something unthinkable in NYC.
Laws should be reasonable (e.g. littering, vandalism, can't tag other people's property) and widely enforced. We should condeme lawlessness without consideration of the victim and offending party
Buildings and billboards get tagged because no one really cares about faceless conglomerates of real estate developers. It’s only natural that they don’t derive the same level of sympathy an individual would get if their car got spray painted.
I don't care about faceless conglomerates but neither do I care about hooligans covering buildings in graffiti. It is possible to dislike both and a lot of people do.
Probably true, but isn't that true for nearly all property crime?
Very few bicycle thieves for example are motivated by disregard for the cyclist's property. They are motivated because they want the money that they can get for the bike. Same with car thieves, bank robbers, pickpockets, and purse snatchers.
You don't get to spew air pollution from your property. Or constantly play loud music.
You shouldn't be allowed to force your eyesore on people either.
You talking about the example set by the owner's who have disregarded this unfinished property for years?
There may be a discussion about whether painting on someone else's things is justified or not, and in which cases. But another thing is that tagging is really the lowest form of graffiti, barely any "art" in it, certainly no creativity. It's usually the same low effort, low complexity "stamp" repeated over and over again by the same group. Where's the art in that? Because there's certainly vandalism.
Does anyone consider the words "SOUP" written in blue letters and pink contour (top left title picture), or "AKDE" in all black bold letters (top right), or plain white lettered "LOSTKA" (second picture middle), or the absolute jumble of plain green text right next to it as anything other than low effort spraying of paint on a wall?
Nobody presumes some guy shouting in the park is a talented singer and the shouting is quality art. And someone kicking in your door wasn't actually a ballet dancer performing their art. Tagging your name or your crew on a wall is nothing different. People want their name on a wall because it makes them feel important or memorable. They are neither, and this "tag" art is in the same vein as someone drawing dicks on the side of library books. Low effort, low skill, just making the real artists look bad in the name of some short lived boost of ego and self-importance.
Some decades ago I organized in my adoptive home town several yearly "celebrations" that were a combination of book-fest, food-fest, and street-art-fest. As a thank you for organizing this I was always invited to put my own "art" on the walls. Due to my distinct lack of talent in this area it was limited to a tag-style signature in a corner of some real art. So I managed to do the same level (albeit slightly smaller scale) of street art as these taggers with no preparation and two left hands. It was a punchline against the incredible art the others put on there. Random internet examples [0].
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graffiti+art&iax=images&ia=images
Exactly. In my old neighborhood the local college organizes a matching service - building owners and artists. The building owner (and random people that make donations) pays artists to make public art on their buildings. It provides housing (if they are from out of town), lifts and safety gear (if needed), paint, etc.
Some of them are huge [1] [2] [3] [4] but most are pretty small, that you would miss unless you are walking through the area [5] [6] [7]
[1] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/big-walls-ella-...
[2] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/diosa-jasmina-c...
[3] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/big-walls-kobra...
[4] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/mad-c/
[5] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/wabash-arts-cor...
[6] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/tima-fatima-ezz...
[7] http://wabashartscorridor.org/portfolio_page/wabash-arts-cor...
Technically anything that is illegal is prohibited and yet we all find justifications for doing some of those things anyway. Sometimes because you believe the law is unjust, or because you believe some exceptions should be granted, etc.
Why this is such a difficult position for people to take, I don't understand. I guess everyone has to either be for or against something, without any sort of nuance possible.
I do not find those graffiti attractive. It is not art, like a huge beautiful wall mural, it is rather the human equivalent of dogs peeing on trees to mark their territory.
...is what billboards do as well. And certainly they have more nefarious purposes than just "marking territory" or getting cred or just showing off your skill at writing stylized letters.
Now lets apply the same standard to graffiti.
Those people have rights to vote for politicians, or run for local offices, who control such billboards. They should exercise those rights.
Personally, I like some grafitti, but I'm absolutely against tagging. It is immoral, unethical, and thuggish behavior. When property owners put up graffiti of their own (or commission an artist to do it), I think it can be a nice splash of color in an urban environ.
not really. in theory there is some kind of process where we could collectively decide about the existence / frequency / size of billboards, as can be seen in many towns that have advertising banned, or as can be seen when you contrast New York with any European city.
with wanna be gangster teenagers and adults with Peter Pan syndrome ? not really.
p.s. I hate billboards as well, if you ask me both should not exist
Times square is a disaster the magnitude of which cannot be found in Europe.
Who is Times Square for but Europeans and other tourists? Do you think New Yorkers go there to see the latest billboards? I feel bad for anyone I know who has to work in the few big towers in times square.
Europe has destinations that are way more touristic than Times Square, and you cannot find this atrocity.
>Europe has destinations that are way more touristic than Times Square, and you cannot find this atrocity.
Okay? It's not New Yorkers going there to gawk.
It is the exact opposite of this. It's extraordinarily difficult. That some cities have done it shows that it's possible, not that it's easy.