Edit: Not "all of those" but "many of those"
If you want to live out your "artistic ambitions" do it somewhere away from public property.
Some of the most beautiful art I have seen are graffiti
Granted, I have seen competent images which obviously were commissioned by building owners. All of it was bad art though and immensely displeasing.
Most of his work is graffiti’d onto public property without permission.
There is basically no one who makes greater kitsch than him. Everything he makes is steeped in the middle class, liberal, mediocrity of someone who points out that things, which everyone agrees are bad, actually are bad. It seriously is something of the worst "art" I have ever seen and actually makes me quite sympathetic to the post modernists whose movement is a reaction to people like him.
The middle schooler, scribbling on canvas, is at least not trying desperately to impress the most bourgeois group of people the world has ever seen. That alone puts everything he does a serious step above Banksy.
Yes and yes. Overhyped "I'm 14 and this is deep" energy.
So if I graffiti your car because I believe it improves your car; would that be ok with you? It’s art. You should be happy, right?
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=40...
https://lpix.org/4545647/IMG_8335.jpeg https://lpix.org/4545648/IMG_8336.jpeg
Someone should probably tell that to the graffiti "artists" in my town
It is black and white: someone is defacing something that doesn't belong to them. You can call the result whatever you want ("art","expression" etc) but the fundamental issue doesn't change.
Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too?
I’ve seen graffiti art that definitely improved grey ugly walls and barriers. I’ve also seen ugly tags that are nothing more than letters. It’s relative
Let me just put it this way, do I get to just move into your home and take it over simply because I believe that I can make it a better home than you can? Do I get to steal your car/property because I believe I can make better use of it?
Stop rationalizing narcissistic behavior and people trying to impose themselves on others. It’s not relative at all. You or the narcissistic graffiti vandals have no right to impose themselves on others.
For whatever reasons, Germany is rather lenient towards graffiti artists which, in my eyes, makes Berlin more enjoyable than it would be otherwise.
I've lived in a lot of places and I've learned that I hate grey boring walls a lot, I much prefer it when they're covered by colorful graffitis. It seems I'm not the only one so some localities tend to be rather lenient towards graffiti artists and even invite them, other places are much stricter and so you can enjoy bleak concrete walls unblemished by any graffitis.
As to your example about homes, well, in France and in some other European countries, in the 90s there was a bit of a left leaning political push for "right to lodgings". This movement made squatting much easier (in France, it was extremely difficult to get rid of squatters if they moved in past 48 hours). I've always personally thought those laws were stupid and they were eventually repealed and amended recently. But that's the way it is with governments, you don't get to agree with all the decisions made. If it's a democracy you have some measures of influence.
People who pretend to make art on walls are absolute minority compared to those who'd prefer to keep walls clean, or painted, or whatever (there are plenty of options between gray, and wannabe artists spraying smileys). But somehow you offer the majority to leave. I don't think that's how it can work really
If the actual majority wanted to get rid of this problem, then it would be stopped, I'm not the one making the laws or deciding whether to apply them.
As for grey walls, there are plenty of gray boring walls in any city in the world, usually those tend to be painted on, in my experience, not colorful walls nor brick walls nor older buildings.
Well, no offence, but you idea of how society works is not particulatly correct. Both individuals, and institutions have to prioritize thousands of issues against limited resources. Because of that majority opinions doesn't necessary become policies. Only those urgent/emotional/tribal enough to become election fuel. Apparently, graffiti cannot compete with plenty of pains citizens experience now.
>A lot of cities even give space to graffiti
Try researching where it came from, and you'll see it's an attempt to civilize behavior cities found impossible to control.
So reality is that graffitists are active, and numerous to extent it's hard to fought them off the walls so to say, and while majority doesn't like it, it's not ready to re-allocate resources from other issues. This leads to equilibrium we are in at the time.
>plenty of gray boring
It makes a good excuse in the internet discussion, but it doesn't correspond to street reality. I'm in a nice medieval quarter now, and see lots of graffity across buildings which neither gray, nor boring. It is as if people who do that don't care about beauty, other humans, and all those good things usually claimed to legitimize the phenomenon
Ok, point to you there, that would infuriate me. To be fair, I haven't traveled back to Europe since Covid (moved to Asia 20ish years ago) and I don't know if the situation has deteriorated. I didn't experience graffitis as much in places that are actually nice but I've liked them in places that are gray and drab and I remember enjoying them in Berlin and in Bruxels.
I live in Hong Kong and here quite a few people express disagreement over the government removing the works of invader and other graffiti artist (the "King of Kowloon") but to be fair, graffitis are really limited to exactly the type of places where not many would complain.
> Well, no offence, but you idea of how society works is not particulatly correct. Both individuals, and institutions have to prioritize thousands of issues against limited resources. Because of that majority opinions doesn't necessary become policies. Only those urgent/emotional/tribal enough to become election fuel. Apparently, graffiti cannot compete with plenty of pains citizens experience now.
I think it's not only limited resources, it's a political wish to be lenient against petty crime, there are plenty of countries with the same resource in term of police that are much stricter against petty crime with much more success. There's more policemen per capita in European countries like Germany, France, Spain than in Singapore, Malaysia or Japan (I was surprised looking at Wikipedia that Hong Kong as more but that makes sense given the response to the protests before COVID) [1]. They could absolutely enforce fines but they don't. Whenever I traveled back to Europe, I've not been as bothered by graffitis nearly as much as I was bothered by dog feces and littering which is absolutely everywhere and never fined.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
Just because something is illegal, does not make it immoral or unethical by itself.
I do understand the argument against graffiti, but there’s also something to be said about any kind of expression that’s inherently rebellious and counter-culture.
> Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too?
Correct me if I’m wrong but the vast majority of graffiti is on public walls and facades, and not on houses or cars. At least here in the Netherlands that’s what I’ve seen.
However only very few graffiti "artists" rise above the skill level where their work could be considered beautiful. Usually it's just plain old dick measuring contests like spraying political slogans and overspraying the opposition's, putting your name on as many places as possible or proving their "worth" in the danger of getting caught, with no aesthetically relevant outcome whatsoever.
Graffiti is (partially) just the consequence of not living in that ideal world, but because of all the other problems with graffiti, I'd rather just treat it as the vandalism it usually is in all cases. No sense holding an election before every prosecution or clean and paint job.
This sounds like the words of a “community oversight” committee obstructing the construction of housing, and we already know the effects of that on the housing market. Society has swung too far into allowing other people to tell someone what to do with their property already.
The buildings have a lot more impact then the graffiti, and arguably should have more community voices involved.
Let's apply some strict law-and-order to the wealthy and powerful, to corporations, to government officials. Then to all adults. Then I think it would be reasonable for kids with spray cans.
As in, "we will leave this unadorned wall, and we won't clean up the graffiti unless it's truly an eyesore, and we won't chase you for it". The wall I most recall was close to quite utilized road, so yes it was very "public facing".
The end result was that it was the one place where I would see actually impressive graffiti, with competition to make better stuff, instead of random vandal tags.
(the OPs photo is actually a perfect example of that, without graffity it would just be a depressing grey wall, I much prefer the colorful "defaced" version)
I wish people would be as much against advertising as they are against graffiti.
In reality we just want to live in a city that doesn’t have ugly graffiti all over it.
It’s OK, when you grow up you’ll understand. Walking little kids past a wall that reads FUCK because “the community” (aka a single edgy teen) decided it should is not a comfortable experience.
> If it was a swastika or the n-word I would be very concerned about the nature of the community in that neighbourhood and if I'm in danger.
If you lived in a large city like NY or London and you saw a random swastika, your immediate reaction would be to blame your neighbors? How do you know it wasn’t someone from somewhere else?
> If you really need the authorities to tell your community that swastika graffiti should make them angry and call them to action, then your community is screwed already.
Hopefully nobody needs the authorities to tell them things, but they do need authorities to help them enforce already agreed-upon laws. I can’t spent my time running around cleaning up all the graffiti.
Do you think it should be the duty of citizens to stop bank robbers, too?
> Either way, yeah just as we have laws to deal with incitement to violence and hatespeech we can have that with walls if you'd prefer, it just has to be sth actually extreme and targeted.
We literally already have this which is why vandalism is ILLEGAL, but your previous comments were completely dismissive of this!
—-
Seriously, this is like Basic Empathy and Human Emotions 101. Imagine yourself seeing the n-word written several times around your city. Contemplate the anger that you would feel, the desire for someone to do something about it, the realization that even if you dedicated all your free time to finding and stopping these people you probably couldn’t do it yourself. Now replace “n-word” with something someone else finds deeply offensive and imagine yourself as them. Do you STILL think graffiti is totally harmless, or justified as long as you’re vandalizing a megacorp?
Graffiti is prevalent in every major urban center. Yet you hate it.
Seems like you're the one who can't empathize.
Not sure why that follows, or how it would avoid the tragedy of the commons, or why we should act as if that’s already the case.
That all aside, how would you feel about people reclaiming public space, parks and public transportation, by blasting loud music in there?
It's a struggle for everyone to accept different perspectives on art and aesthetics, but we need to accept that others' perspectives exist and are as legitimate as our own.
Could you imagine that one person's "defaced" is another person's "finally some colors"?
The destruction of property, trespassing etc. is obviously on the wrong side of the law, but on purely aesthetical terms this could be argued either way making it for that narrow category a subjective thing. Proponents of graffiti could argue you cannot deface a faceless thing, opponents would argue they like their lawn short, their fence white, the sky blue. One persons order is another persons prison.
Note that I tried to look at the aesthetic question while ignoring the legal question — mainly because you made an aesthetic argument. For many people the two would be entangled however: Something being illegal makes them look at the result unfavourable, even if a similar legal wall mural would strike them as aesthetically superior to the 10 years weathered white wall that it was before.
As an art person I really see truly good graffiti, yet I have to notice that heavily graffitied parts of my city are tourist magnets — so many people tend to like those "defaced" walls.
I am not arguing I personally think tag smeared walls are aesthetical, but I argue that there are people who do indeed do. But most noise-protection-wall-graffiti where I live isn't tagged smearing. If we go by area easily 80% are big colorful motives.
Having known people who do these things I also know that for them the "where" is sometimes more important than the precise what and while the aesthetics won't convince me personally I can't say that I never asked myself the question: "How the hell did they manage to paint this thing in that location?"
And I don't see train stations on instagram, because I don't follow people who post them. But I also don't see couples posting their vacation photos or influencers selfies for the same reason. If I did follow them I would see them.
Was the graffiti made with approval of the owner of the building? Does it fit general aesthetics of the city? Yes and yes - it's finally some colors. Otherwise it's a vandalism.
If it's a public building - it's vandalism, unless it was decided by all people living there.
> As an art person I really see truly good graffiti, yet I have to notice that heavily graffitied parts of my city are tourist magnets — so many people tend to like those "defaced" walls.
Yeah, way to make life hell for residents of the neighborhood.
No. The graffiti I have seen in my life was clearly put there as narcissistic self expression by (usually criminal, if only by trespassing) youths, very rarely I have seen something which comes close to presenting an attempt at improving the environment.
I grant you that I can emphazwith the idea of clearing withering concrete slab with anything at all. But the few times I have seen it be an improvement were when it was a commissioned piece. But even then it was a small improvement at best.
"Hacker" can have different meanings, but certainly in this case it isn't meant to reference the tech enthusuast anarcho communist subculture.
As always, reality has some nuance, and we need to be careful about assumptions.
The thing about a big city is it's not just about the people who own the stuff you look at, it's about all the other people who have to look at it. I'll take graffiti over advertising any day. At least graffiti isn't trying to sell me anything or make me depressed or addicted or whatever.
It's all great until your stuff gets destroyed because someone thinks it's better a different way. And when the graffiti is truly spectacular you can find some consolation in the result, maybe truly appreciate it. But that's not the case 99.99% of the time. Most graffiti is just trash, some rando spraying their name somewhere. Takes 10 seconds and 0 talent. It causes extra expense for people or the city to clean up, or it stays there as an eye sore for everyone.
> Most graffiti is just trash
People say that about modern art, and about that crazy 'rock'n'roll'!
Which gets cleaned up with public money that could be used elsewhere, or stays there as an eyesore.
> It’s not on the front of people’s houses.
Sometimes the sides too.
> people say that about modern art, and about that crazy 'rock'n'roll'!
Did you just compare modern art and rock and roll to the few letter “tag” sprayed in 10 seconds again and again hundreds of time throughout a city? Because that’s what 99.99% of graffiti is, simple tags and doodles [0][1] anyone can make.
Charitably I’ll say you just didn’t pay attention to tagging’s aesthetic effect on a city. The less charitable alternative seeing the “tag = modern art + rock and roll” opinion is that you’re one of the “artist”.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fy...
[1] https://cooltourspain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/tag-gra...
> Did you just compare modern art and rock and roll to the few letter “tag” sprayed in 10 seconds again and again hundreds of time throughout a city?
Yes! That's what rock'n'roll is at its core, three chords (or fewer) and the truth, and that's how it was characterized - artless noise, etc.
People try to put us d-down
Just because we get around
Things they do look awful c-c-cold
I hope I die before I get old
> Because that’s what 99.99% of graffiti is, simple tags and doodles [0][1] anyone can make.
It's just noise, I tell you!
Now get off my lawn geezer! :p :)
Same for EDM, maybe it’s just noise to you but you can at least appreciate some effort went into it and every song is different. You don’t like it but you also can’t do it yourself in a way anyone likes.
Most graffiti is plain text tagging like in the pictures I showed above. Tagging is repetitive, same tag again and again, and literally anyone can do it because there’s close to zero effort or creativity involved. Take a spray can, spray a couple of letters, you got a tag. I can replicate all of the tags in those pictures, like a real artist. So I know what I’m talking about. :)
You make it sound like anything is art, “you just don’t understand it”. The problem with that view is that if everything is art, nothing is art. Me taking a breath is art. You just don’t get it.
Every shitty graffiti is about to be replaced by a better one!
I know it's commonplace, but let's consider whether extreme expression has any rational substance to it, whether it's somehow more meaningful than an argument with actual reasons.
Outrage is a weapon. Do we want it to be? I think (apologies to the parent comment) it should be disqualifying, shunned, excluded. It's a demonstration that they have no reasoned basis and will not contribute.
And I'd rather see graffiti, even if I find some ugly, than ads all over. And there's way more public ads anywhere than graffiti. I think local urban expressions like stickers and graffiti is pretty cool. The mainstream prefers ads I guess.
And your framing is odd - can you only dislike one of these things? Graffiti or ads? There are successful movements to rid cities and scenic areas of ads, or to tone them down.
For one thing, it can be costly to remove graffiti. And when it's on publicly owned property, who pays for that removal? The public, of course.
If, for example, a train is the target of graffiti, it will often need to be taken out of service. This, then, results in a degraded service to the travelling public.
Furthermore, graffiti artists often put themselves in dangerous situations. Numerous people have been seriously injured or killed when doing graffiti. That not only sucks for them, but also has various knock-on effects.
Some graffiti art can look really nice, whereas others have little artistic value. Regardless, the negative impacts of graffiti should not be overlooked.
The cost incurred here is a choice the owner makes when they disagree with the aesthetics of the graffiti.
Ephemerality is known, understood, accepted, and even leveraged in art. I don't think this is an efficient deterrent, or even a deterrent at all.
It's the other way around, if it isn't quickly removed it will be encouraged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
What is 0 encouragement/discouragement? It's not obviously easy to define. One definition is doing nothing = 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement. By that definition, not removing graffiti (aka doing nothing) is not encouragement, it's simply doing nothing: a lack of encouragement and a lack of discouragement.
Because we haven't agreed on a definition of 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement, saying "decreasing encouragement" and "increasing discouragement" mean basically the same thing.
"Doing nothing" results in encouragement in the broken windows theory:
Under the broken windows theory, an ordered and clean environment, one that is maintained, sends the signal that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated. Conversely, a disordered environment, one that is not maintained (broken windows, graffiti, excessive litter), sends the signal that the area is not monitored and that criminal behavior has little risk of detection.
There's also the same analogy to refactoring in software engineering. If a project is well maintained with every incoming feature, then a big refactor epic won't be necessary.
"The stop of encouragement will prevent the start of discouragement" doesn't mean that the reverse is true ("the start of discouragement will promote the stop of encouragement"). So it isn't stating basically the same thing.
The big irony in social studies with the broken windows theory is that discouragement often feels easier to practice than maintenance to an outsider. Or, in analogy to software engineering, a one time big refactor feels easier to do than continuous maintenance, as all the work actually included in a refactor (team syncing, product without features etc.) is mostly overlooked during the development if maintenance is not well practiced.
The aesthetic argument here is trying to validate a violent act. A lot of graffiti is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.
But imposing your own preferred art on public commons is a (minor) form of violence, in any economic system. Especially when you do so with paints of questionable chemical composition, or with images/text that is likely to offend.
I would also say that doing the same thing even on your own property can be reprehensible, as long as it is visible to the public. Just because you own a house doesn't mean you should be able to make it look however you want on the outside, especially not in ways that are actively unpleasant to those of us that need to walk by it every day: we the public should have a say in how your private property looks. A most anti-capitalist position.
Sometimes councils put up several designs to be voted on by the public, but they will largely follow a bunch of design norms that will be whatever the architecture firms they hired think is trendy, for example.
And how many election programs even talk about artistic taste? That's not why we elect people, and making that an election point would be a distraction from real problems, so why not let society be and if people are more artistic in one area and make more public art, let them make it?
Even beyond electoral politics, many cities have public NGOs and other organizations that seek to shape this sort of thing from an early stage through various legal means (and sometimes even through civil disobedience, like tying themselves to a building to protect it). If they are broadly in line with the tastes of the people, they tend to thrive; if they are not, they will often die out.
And yes, in certain cities and towns, people actually like the way grafitti looks and are bothered when someone goes and whitewashes a beautifully painted wall. That's perfectly fine, and is a part of the culture and esthetics of that place (and here, destroying the art that people enjoy is an act of violence against the public and/or the artist). But it's also perfectly fine for other places to want neat walls with clean textures, and marring their beautiful walls with grafitti would be an act that goes against the public.
I'm going to spray a can of paint on your car and explain to judge that "it's thuuuomas's problem now, since he disagrees with aesthetics of his new car color".
“Hey, I’m going to hold a gun to your head. If you don’t give me $100 I’ll shoot you. Remember though that the cost incurred here is a choice you’re going to make if you disagree with my actions. I can’t truly force you to do anything…”
The "furthermore" and the "Regardless, the negative impacts of graffiti should not be overlooked" do feel a bit AI-esq these days, but it was only yesterday that I myself felt like I was writing like an LLM by responding to a "you misunderstood, I meant …" with an "ah, now I understand": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40380692
The reason is that whoever puts an ad does so on their own property. You don't put an ad on someone else's wall against their will.
Graffiti, on the other hand, is usually done without authorization from the owner of the wall or facade being graffitied.
EDIT, for the mods, artificial or not: Japanese spoliation aesthetics are a safe-ish counterexample for rightwingers as they localize the field of contention to the high local effort-high social payoff quadrant, where existing metrics are not questioned. You really want to constrain debate to the low local effort-high global payoff quadrant, which triggers all stripes, but are most relevant for humanity. Consider a GPT7 that requires only 10 dollars to train. Its worthwhile to think about but scares the bejeezus out of most folks.
Analogously, left wingers want to move the debate to low local effort-low global cost quadrant, because it seems straightforward to redefine cost metrics… moat and bailey dynamics really, quite curious.
But you're right, certainly not as bad as a bank robbery.
How about neither?
Seems like you got the idea. Give her some stencils and have some fun.
It's the difference between vandalism and art.
My university for example, in every single room, every single table is scribbled on and marked for years and years. When I arrived there as a fresh faced student I saw scribbles that were 30 years old. Some people left their names, some people said they didn't like professor X, some people left Maxwell's equations on there. I'm so glad the university didn't consider it vandalism. This could be applied to so many more things. It had zero negative impact on my education or experience in the classroom, so how can it be considered vandalism?
They can involve multiple lives being at much greater risk and a large amount of resources allocated to criminals. The fact that it doesn't come from the bank but an insurance agency doesn't change anything. The money comes from somewhere.
The context was the graffiti subculture around the German rail system, although I didn't specify, that's what I was referring to. Of course graffiti on private residences is practically just vandalism. There aren't subcultures around that though, besides subcultures that just revolve around general vandalism.
In that vein, you should probably get graffiti insurance if that's a concern.
I get your point though, on reading the comment I replied to, after reading yours, it's clear to me that the equivalence implication is fairly weak. Your interpretation seems more accurate.
I am for tough penalties on the authors of grafitis. At least make them pay the full cost of cleaning them up plus heavy fines.
I somewhat agree with you if we are talking about low effort tagging, especially on homes.
However if I had to choose between some ambitious criminals being given a large amount of money or if some wall getting a bad piece of art on it, I would always choose the latter.
Its Art.
I would like to understand why people take offense in it - especially if done on places that are so non-important.
It's a reason it is a crime, although sadly it doesn't seem to be really enforced or punished, given the prevalence.
There is whole subculture, competition and collaboration networks between fan groups.
Some call it bestial street fighting where people lose lives and health but some might find it fascinating…
[0] https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinland-pfalz/trier/17134459...
It's far nicer and more interesting than yet another development or parking lot.
So not sure community outreach would help with those.
You wouldn't admire it if you were in a coffee shop and someone decided to unload their artistic ejaculation on your MacBook. Public infrastructure belongs to the public, no single person is the owner, and you don't get to deface it just because you think it's pretty that way.
Cleanly maintained public infrastructure sends a message: that this is a place where people take these things seriously.
What makes a billboard, for example, more legitimate than graffiti?
In the same sense bike thieves are.
Incentivizing violence? Bold strategy.
The difference between billboards and graffiti is that one is “OK” and the other is not. But in neither case do we get a real choice.
I don’t think billboards have much political legitimacy at all, but there is lots of money behind them, so they’re probably here to stay.
Not that illegal graffiti can't produce great art too, and the illegality is a part of what fuels the culture. But I've come to the conclusion that if a place is likely to be "vandalized" by graffiti anyways you are better off just allowing it and see what people do without the time pressure of avoiding arrest.
Thing is, if I decide not to do that, the impact on my life is relatively minor. What gives graffiti artists the right to impose their personal predilection unto others?
In other words, given your reasoning, what’s stopping me from playing John Coltrane at 110dBA the whole day and night?
And the problem is that 99% of the graffiti in the world is trash tags in stations/trains which has the direct impact of giving a rough feel to any well-meaning location.
So to me, that kind of graffiti is the result of a "me important" mentality which totally disregards the rest of the community who just loses in all fronts (including aesthetics and monetary).
I’m all for street art, but not fond of not being able to navigate because some group decided to let me they were here by making a road sign unintelligible.