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

131–140 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#131

Post by bradlys »

rib3ye wrote: post #121
guywithahat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.

> SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.

SF residents are incredibly snobby when it comes to street art. The typical tagging, 2 minute stencil sprays, and so forth are not up to posh standards of SF residents. I don't think most SFers think those are "renegade artistic expression". Maybe some of folks in Berkeley would but not SF.

There's a huge disconnect from the city residents and a lot of what happens by the government. SFPD is a prime example of this. Almost none of the cops live in SF. A lot of the people committing crime also don't live in SF. It's a weird city.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#132

Post by bradlys »

nerdsniper wrote: post #127
rib3ye wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.

But not sympathetic to corporate expression via renegade spray-painting. (Justin Bieber, now ASAP Rocky) https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-city-attorney-goi...

Hated this shit in NYC too. It's a fucking blight. Nothing but people spray painting their IG handles trying to become a clout goblin.

Ads everywhere. Can't even look down.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#134

Post by dragonwriter »

direwolf20 wrote: post #37
brador wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s explained by punishment.

If you execute everyone who commits a misdemeanor, crime rates are extremely low.

If you simply eliminate all criminal laws, the crime rate goes down as much as is possible, immediately.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#135

Post by AngryData »

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…

Are there places people can legally grafitti there? In a number of small towns there are unofficial grafitti rocks or walls in public view that redirects a lot of peoples mischief and desire to display public art. Nobody is in any actual trouble if they are caught painting it although you will lose your paint.

It might not be a total solution, but it could have a significant impact on grafitti other places.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#136

Post by y-curious »

roughly wrote: post #129

There was an article that came through here a little while ago describing the process by which commercial property owners and banks collude to keep storefronts boarded up and vacant because otherwise they’d have to adjust the loan terms or take a loss somewhere, but sure, go off about how the graffiti artists tagging the boarded up windows are the ones making the city ugly.

It’s all Banksy and “wall art” til you get an ugly stick figure drawing sprayed on your storefront/door. Also commercial property owners doing bad stuff and vandalism are not mutually exclusive bad things

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#137

Post by jjmarr »

zahlman wrote: post #106
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 consider corporal punishment inherently barbaric. An appropriate fine or short stay in jail ought not be life-ruining. Also, I think there are other effective approaches in some circumstances. People (including "the kids"), locally (Toronto) and other places I've heard of, have been paid (not a super common thing, but it happens) to do actual artwork. There's a mural I consider quite well done, not too far from my…

I've heard real estate people call this legalized extortion, since you have to select a graffiti artist with enough reputation that others don't mess with the piece.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#138

Post by secretsatan »

rib3ye wrote: post #121
guywithahat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.

I think there should be distinction between tagging and graffiti

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#139

Post by Cornbilly »

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'm surprised to see so many anti-graffiti comments here.

I'm not. HN trends toward the most suburban conformist mindset possible.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#140

Post by secretsatan »

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 think mostly here in switzerland, it’s tolerated in certain areas, and even directly sponsored, in Lausanne, nearly every pedestrian underpass is completely covered in pretty good work, every bit of street furniture has unique designs that seem to be left alone by taggers, areas that might otherwise be run down are covered in colourful murals that are regularly refreshed, i think this is the right approach.
Post reply on HN