Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Graffiti

walzr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#111

Post by browsingonly »

asveikau wrote: post #87

I'm surprised to see so many anti-graffiti comments here. Some of these are crude or ugly (and I'm aware that this is subjective), but a few of these are really good and don't deserve a citation. Meanwhile this thread is SCANDALIZED that there is GRAFFITI (clutch your pearls!). It really goes to show the ongoing slide into total conformity that is the tech industry. I remember when tech had more of a nonconformist, c…

I don't know anyone in tech who enjoyed watching gangs mark their territory with tags in their neighborhood.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#113

Post by jakobnissen »

ryandrake wrote: post #92
komali2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No accounting for taste, but, graffiti is important whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not. https://ancientgraffiti.org/Graffiti/ Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their city. It's a very common form of countercultural resistance and therefore an important relief valve. It's a way for anyone to express themselves on their environment. A city only has value because it's occupied by many people,…

> Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their city. I think this is the heart of it, and where cities and suburban towns differ. It's admittedly very hard to articulate in words. The walls of buildings in a city are part of the greater, broader, "face of the city." They are in a sense both part of a general "public space" yet also still privately owned. The walls of single family homes in suburban nei…

Oh I disagree completely. Precisely because city spaces are more shared, vandalism, including graffiti, is Mitch more destructive in cities.

It really undermines the sense of community when vandals deface public spaces and community centers and apartment blocks.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#114

Post by guywithahat »

rib3ye wrote: post #108
toephu2 wrote: post #104

For a small business owner, graffiti is an unconsented, recurring tax that provides zero ROI for the neighborhood. In SF if you own a business that gets tagged, you have X number of days to clean it up yourself otherwise YOU get fined.. the city does nothing to go after the criminals. They only go after law-abiding tax paying citizens cause that's where the money is.

This site scrapes the city efforts to document who is doing "how much" damage/art. Once they catch an artist in the act, they will use these archives to recommend a punishment. But your point in valid - San Francisco likes graffiti.

Did he argue SF likes graffiti? I don't think he does, and the people living in the city certainly don't. These are criminals tagging buildings, and city officials who either don't care or are too busy with other things. I'm not aware of anyone who actually lives there who likes graffiti, and logically there's no reason anyone should. If someone wanted a mural they would have hired a real artist to do it.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#115

Post by BryantD »

komali2 wrote: post #17
jasonkester wrote: post #8

I live near Paris, and it's a shame to see this sort of thing on every surface here. It's so easy and effortless to trash the look of a place, and so much effort and pain to get it back to a presentable state. It just seems hopeless trying to stop it. Sure, you can point to examples of graffiti that don't look all that bad, and I imagine some examples can even be considered to improve the look of a space. But taking…

No accounting for taste, but, graffiti is important whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not. https://ancientgraffiti.org/Graffiti/ Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their city. It's a very common form of countercultural resistance and therefore an important relief valve. It's a way for anyone to express themselves on their environment. A city only has value because it's occupied by many people,…

If you're a cinema person, I strongly recommend Agnes Varda's documentary on LA street art at the end of the 1970s, Mur Murs. (That's a pun: murals as an expression of the murmurs of the community.) It takes graffiti as an expression of ownership as the central thesis and I found it really lovely. Thanks for this comment.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#116

Post by guywithahat »

dcposch wrote: post #84
jasonkester wrote: post #8

I live near Paris, and it's a shame to see this sort of thing on every surface here. It's so easy and effortless to trash the look of a place, and so much effort and pain to get it back to a presentable state. It just seems hopeless trying to stop it. Sure, you can point to examples of graffiti that don't look all that bad, and I imagine some examples can even be considered to improve the look of a space. But taking…

> You don't want to fine, jail or otherwise ruin the lives of thousands of kids to get them to stop. > You just want them to stop spraypainting shit. https://i.imgur.com/qaFgSm7.png You have it backwards. It's the act of NOT fining them, NOT calling their parents, of ignoring small destructive acts that ruins lives. Almost everyone doing a 10 year sentence for a serious crime started out by getting away with a lot of…

I agree with everything you said but I don't understand the imgur reference

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#117

Post by recursive »

ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #59
direwolf20 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.

>Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what you want. It doesn't mean owning guns. No, I am not, and I haven't mentioned guns or even hinted at the topic. Do whatever you want, but trying to purposefully destroy and smear the environment around you and claim it's an expression of freedom is ridiculous. It's just malicious, disgusting behavior that helps no one, serves no cause and has nothing to do with f…

I don't think most graffiti writers are trying to destroy their environment.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#118

Post by culopatin »

komali2 wrote: post #48
ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a very common form of countercultural resistance and therefore an important relief valve. It's a way for anyone to express themselves on their environment. So, what are these random scribblers resisting, exactly? It's like saying that defecating on the street is a form of self-expression and "leaving their mark". Even if it is, do we really need to tolerate it? >Not to mention, it's lovely to be connected to a…

> So, what are these random scribblers resisting, exactly? The idea that the city is owned by the uppermost caste of that society. > There is nothing lovely about seeing all this garbage littering the walls of public buildings and historical finds do not justify this behaviour. Massive cathedrals to the rich would be erected and made holy, and individuals upon whose back society is build would demonstrate that though…

You really think that the majority of taggers are thinking this deep? It’s mostly teenagers in high school that are mimicking others thinking “I’m so cool”. It fights nothing regardless. We can assign it value out of our asses all day and take some documentary as the truth, but if you think a kid writing a random scribble on the bart window or a bar bathroom, or a small business’s door deserves to take any of that back from the “caste” what are we talking about? The city is everyone’s, the tagger claiming a wall is as selective as what you claim the city is doing. Why do they think some random surface is more theirs than everyone else’s? I find tagging more selfish than what the city is doing.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#119

Post by boblawbomb »

generally speaking- it is frowned upon by people in graffiti communities to tag peoples homes, cars, private property etc. This doesn't really cover "mom and pop" business'. Not justifying it per se, Although I am more on the favorable side of graffiti.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#120

Post by tristor »

jasonkester wrote: post #8

I live near Paris, and it's a shame to see this sort of thing on every surface here. It's so easy and effortless to trash the look of a place, and so much effort and pain to get it back to a presentable state. It just seems hopeless trying to stop it. Sure, you can point to examples of graffiti that don't look all that bad, and I imagine some examples can even be considered to improve the look of a space. But taking…

I really enjoy graffiti murals, and I go out of my way to photograph them in my own city and when I travel. I will see them when I driving or walking around and stop to look for a moment and try to understand the perspective and message of the artist and take a picture if I can.

That said, I don't much like tagging, tagging is generally not art in my opinion even if you can say artist styles are used within it. Tagging is all about ego and selfishness, it's there purely for the sake of saying "I was here", as if you are the most important person in the city that you should claim to put your name on that wall.

I've met quite a few graffiti artists all over the world in my travels, and the people who tag and the people who paint murals are by and large /not/ the same people. The folks who paint murals are trying to say something, the folks who tag have nothing more to say than to try to create a monument of some kind to themselves. I don't respect taggers, I do respect muralists.

Post reply on HN