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

161–170 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#161

Post by [deleted] »

jjmarr wrote: post #137
zahlman wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#162

Post by scoofy »

mothballed wrote: post #146
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.

Regulating otherwise legal non-commercial speech on someone's own property is insane and sounds unconstitutional. If you want it there, or want it gone, that should be your own prerogative.

There are literally dozens of local ordinances in SF that are blatantly unconstitutional. The issue is that nobody wants to actually pursue they to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, just for a court to eventually say “okay, you’re right.”

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#163

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

InMice wrote: post #13

Cool, but why lay out the images in such an annoying way? Whatever happened to simple, functional photo galleries? I miss them.

on desktop i had to click on the small black area between two pictures before scrolling with left/right arrows became possible ... very bad UX

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#164

Post by komali2 »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #60
komali2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I suspect most graffiti doesn't actually have this twisted motivation. It's just selfishness by thoughtless people wanting to advertise themselves, like dogs marking their territory. This intellectual rationalisation is more of a projection by resentful people with a poisonous worldview.

Do you believe you're giving graffiti artists even a thimbleful of good faith by comparing them to dogs?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#165

Post by komali2 »

culopatin wrote: post #118
komali2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ba…

> You really think that the majority of taggers are thinking this deep?

Nope, not something I thought up at all, this is what I discovered after talking to a lot of taggers and street artists as a result of my photography obsession leading me into the skater scene. I used to think tagging was just gangs marking territory (in reality only a small portion of it is).

What I have noticed is that a certain class of people have formed an immutable idea of taggers, skaters, and street artists, and that idea includes that for whatever reason all these sorts of folks are stupid. I've found that to be not the case at all.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#166

Post by komali2 »

stickfigure wrote: post #91
komali2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That explains why I see graffiti in all the rich neighborhoods and none in the poor neighborhoods .

You don't see graffiti in rich neighborhoods either because you're describing the suburbs where nobody really lives (as a measurement of people per square kilometer) or because rich neighborhoods get immediate attention by cleaners (or the rich hire private cleaners).

There's plenty of graffiti in Manhattan, have you looked up how much it costs to rent there lately?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#167

Post by bko »

mothballed wrote: post #146
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.

Regulating otherwise legal non-commercial speech on someone's own property is insane and sounds unconstitutional. If you want it there, or want it gone, that should be your own prerogative.

I think you're overthinking it. I think overwhelming majority of people don't want that crap over their streets. It would be an easy 80+% issue for a politician to pick up so most places have laws that say don't have that ugly crap everywhere. Hence you see the value of neighborhoods with a lot of graffiti and considerably lower than those that don't

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#168

Post by komali2 »

ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #51
direwolf20 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resisting the ideology that only people with money can alter the city environment. When you see an impressive sculpture or skyscraper you know a lot of resources were spent, you know the rich people here are rich. When you see an area with lots of graffiti, there may be many good or bad things about it, but you know the citizens are free. I would hope graffitiers have respect to only draw on the mundane parts of the…

I think the cultural barrier preventing me from understanding this way of thinking is impenetrable to me. What a strange world, huh?

I think that's very exciting for you, because imo it's very rarely we encounter truly challenging problems like this.

I understand that you prefer to make up your mind about street artists, but I can assure you as someone that used to hold the same opinion, that opinion is held from a place of unfamiliarity with the culture and the people in it. It was very enlightening for me to step out of my SF tech circle into the street art scene and talk to very, very different people. You may be different but I personally find it very important to challenge my thinking by talking to very different kinds of people.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#169

Post by komali2 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #77
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.

I'm surprised you don't understand it. Put your money where your mouth is. Let me come over and tag all your property.

You would be doing so alongside tens of other artists, and then after a month or so I would whitewash the wall, and everyone would start up all over again. Such is street art. Kinda beautiful, how much effort people put into art they know will be gone or changed possibly within a couple days.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#170

Post by komali2 »

jakobnissen wrote: post #113
ryandrake wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It really undermines the sense of community

The people in these communities feel the opposite of you, especially since a lot of street art is murals capturing some local culture e.g. see Clarion Alley in San Francisco, a lot of very explicit messages of community.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/AAWmH3aq51MWN1M88

Post reply on HN