GnomeGeneral wrote:

I don't care if you have to show me that "you exist" by putting a shitty throwup on my property. ESPECIALLY, if you are from the burbs, had a college education and are over 25.

newgirl99 wrote:

Graffiti makers are sometimes artists . . . and sometimes graffiti makers are simply people who have something to say.

CommanderKeen wrote:
To the anti-graffiti people: what's your opinion of the mural on the side of Hudson County Art Supply? Do you think it looks nice and makes the neighborhood more lively and beautiful? If so, is there much difference between that and a mural painted on an unused wall across town?

Also, I completely understand the desire to have your property protected. My entire block once (in Newark) was defaced by some scumbags with no talent. But there's a difference, I think, between wanton destruction of personal property like that, and creating art in otherwise unused spaces.

jclxz wrote:
Quote:

PBW wrote:
Quote:

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Stealing does not equate to graffiti. I can't stand it when people refer to it as "destruction". Nothing is being broken, nothing is being physically taken away.

If an artist (see?, I call them artists) uses my storefront as their canvas, and I have to pay to have it removed, that is money that that I would not have had to spend. No argument here can justify that.

Nothing is being broken, but it is altering/modifying things that do not belong to you. By your argument, if someone came and painted the outside out your windows black (and give it a title, like "midnight.") then it would be okay.

If your storefront is such an eyesore that spraypaint can turn it into art, you're damaging the entire community to a much greater extent than the "artist".

CommanderKeen wrote:
To the anti-graffiti people: what's your opinion of the mural on the side of Hudson County Art Supply? Do you think it looks nice and makes the neighborhood more lively and beautiful? If so, is there much difference between that and a mural painted on an unused wall across town?

Also, I completely understand the desire to have your property protected. My entire block once (in Newark) was defaced by some scumbags with no talent. But there's a difference, I think, between wanton destruction of personal property like that, and creating art in otherwise unused spaces.

newgirl99 wrote:
"Grafitti is an art form that, like other art forms, arises out of an attempt to speak -- or an attempt to be heard. As an attempt to exist. We make art, write poems, create sculptures because for some reason, we are compelled to create.

Many people have frowned upon my insistence that NO GRAFFITI IS BAD GRAFFITI, even if the text or images are profane, obscene, hateful, or inciteful. (Most grafitti is not the aforementioned -- but when it is, it calls attention to a person that needs embracing, or it is a call to a community to respond with dignity and strength, which, in general, they do.)

Graffiti makers are sometimes artists (as in http://www.graffiti.org/cinci/cinci_16.html), and sometimes graffiti makers are simply people who have something to say. Maybe the painter wants to say "I exist -- and even though no one seems to see me, or care about me -- I still exist and I am going to write my name on this wall to prove it." Maybe the painter wants to say, "I am so angry about X and I have a need to respond to it in a very public way." Maybe the painter chose this medium out of a love for spray paint, or maybe the painter chose it because oil paints (27$ a tube) are three times the price of a good can of spray paint (8$ a can).

Any artist, actor, musician or poet will tell you, "I am a (writer.) I have no choice." This drive to art exists as frequently and as fervently in multi-racial teenagers from "bad neighborhoods" as it does from white girls from Rochester, NY. My artwork (the books I've recently sent to many of you) has no greater value than the "BAM" tag on the bridge. I write poems because I cannot stop myself. I am constantly attempting to exist in a public way, or at least in a way that forces other people to acknowledge me. The same is true of the graffiti artist."

Text taken from www.readspeakresist.blogspot.com

PBW wrote:
Quote:

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Stealing does not equate to graffiti. I can't stand it when people refer to it as "destruction". Nothing is being broken, nothing is being physically taken away.

If an artist (see?, I call them artists) uses my storefront as their canvas, and I have to pay to have it removed, that is money that that I would not have had to spend. No argument here can justify that.

Nothing is being broken, but it is altering/modifying things that do not belong to you. By your argument, if someone came and painted the outside out your windows black (and give it a title, like "midnight.") then it would be okay.

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Stealing does not equate to graffiti. I can't stand it when people refer to it as "destruction". Nothing is being broken, nothing is being physically taken away.

Also, recent studies are showing the "broken windows" theory to be non-correlative to the decline in crime over the past few years; it was a false attribution to something that was happening anyway. Same goes for Guiliani.. he can't take credit for what turned out to a natural uptick in the urban cycle.

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
You're over simplifying it. Perhaps the real world is too complicated for you.

A graffiti artist would not paint someone's windows black because that would be ridiculous. It doesn't even happen in real life; you're trying to make a point by referencing fairy tales.

On the other hand, at least some portion of the population can understand the alienation an entire block of drab steel roll gates can be. Life shouldn't imitate The Trial. Look into Espo's storefront work from the 90's for a great example of putting life back into a depressing urban streetscape. Not every landowner is a saint in this city, so stop going on about the poor, poor victims.

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Stealing does not equate to graffiti. I can't stand it when people refer to it as "destruction". Nothing is being broken, nothing is being physically taken away.

newgirl99 wrote:
"Grafitti is an art form that, like other art forms, arises out of an attempt to speak -- or an attempt to be heard. As an attempt to exist. We make art, write poems, create sculptures because for some reason, we are compelled to create.

flying_the_flannel wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
I?m curious about something. Morally, how does one justify a graffiti job on someone else?s property?

As in legal walls, or are you speaking illegally and the what not?

Well, there are a lot of "unwritten laws" regarding where you write, what you write, etc. No churches, no schools, no houses, etc.

Jersey City Incinerator Authority will bring the buff (removal of graffiti) by either chemical washing it (they have a crazy giant truck!) or painting over it (if it's on a store front, if the owner supplies the paint, JCIA provides the labor

Immature as it may be, think of how many people would be out of work if they weren't out cleaning up graffiti every day, haha.

You justify doing it because you know you're gonna love the rush, and you know that your peers within the graffiti community will see it and talk amongst themselves or to you about it.

And don't worry, I know that trying to defend graffiti is a moot point and nobody is ever going to REALLY understand where I'm coming from; I'm still going to politely give the other side of the story, so to speak. I'm not gonna put you down because you don't approve of what I do, all I ask is don't put me down because I do what I do.

Even though my mom said I'm an idiot for doing it, she still loves me.

f if the owner supplies the paint

DirtMcGirt wrote:
I?m curious about something. Morally, how does one justify a graffiti job on someone else?s property?

kitten wrote:
fwiw.. I actually like the text graffiti. I like when there is a meaningful message in such a concise phrase. I like being reminded to pay attention to what is bigger, what is beyond my job and home life, the grind. I like that it appears in front of you sometimes so unexpectedly and makes you think. But, what I don't like is touching or vandalizing what is not mine. So, I can't ever fully support the graffiti thing. But then again, it's the unexpectedness and location that can make it awesome (for me)... oh... the conundrum.

flying_the_flannel wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:

Great article. In the end these "artists" are just posers trying to get laid and make money on their outlaw image. They all shop at Urban Outfitters and they're as original as Tarantino which means NOT. A few hours curled up in the fetal position, crying in a holding cell will set them right.

Haha, what? What an absurd tirade, no offense but it sounds like you have some serious issues with hipsters or something. I wouldn't step foot in an Urban Outfitters, though.

As for originality, some fantastic art (and then some) has come out of graffiti culture; I'm not speaking strictly of the graffiti culture you think of when you think graffiti, either. Yeah, in the 80's all the NYC train writers ended up all over the galleries, but what about the Situationist graffiti done by Students in France once upon a time?

I know graffiti artist who were painting trains back in NYC in the early 80's that are still alive and kickin' and doing the same thing. I know plenty of graffiti artists who have spent time in a holding cell, and aren't stopping any time soon.

Whether you like it or not, this form of vandalism has worked through a system of twists and turns and become a form of fine art. It will have ups and downs, but it isn't going anywhere.

If it weren't for graffiti, I would have never shown any interest in art, and if it weren't for that, I would have never gone to art school.

I'm sorry to come at you like this, but I've gotta defend something that means a lot to me. If it weren't for graffiti, I'd have probably turned to drugs to get my teenage kicks. And I have met a lot of youth in my travels who are into graffiti, and if they weren't doing that, they'd probably be breaking into your cars or some other shit.

PBW wrote:
Quote:

CommanderKeen wrote:
you are a crime
pure and simple

Wow. Nice comeback. You really put me in my place. I like graffiti now. Check out your hero Shepard fairey:
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932

Vigilante wrote:

Great article. In the end these "artists" are just posers trying to get laid and make money on their outlaw image. They all shop at Urban Outfitters and they're as original as Tarantino which means NOT. A few hours curled up in the fetal position, crying in a holding cell will set them right.

PBW wrote:
Quote:

CommanderKeen wrote:
you are a crime
pure and simple

Wow. Nice comeback. You really put me in my place. I like graffiti now. Check out your hero Shepard fairey:
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932

CommanderKeen wrote:
you are a crime
pure and simple

GnomeGeneral wrote:
Quote:

wildwildzero wrote:
you know what they say " if the aids don't get you then the sh!theads will!!!!"

Actually there is a nudnik who tags AIDS all over, he is a friend of a friend so its an awkward situation. He keeps putting lame kiddie stickers on our "For Sale" sign pretty regularly. Animal...you suck as well. Wish we could kidnap Fafi from France to paint over the ugly mural on Christopher Columbus.