171–180 of 257 posts
Old time graffiti writer here. There's nothing so wild, anarchic and energetic than painting illegally on some surface without any permission.
It's unfortunate that the city threatens to fine the owner of the property: https://stfu.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/sf-graffiti/138...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes tagging is that, sure, or just some person indicating that they exist there. For some taggers, it's an addiction. I knew one that would tag at people's houses when invited to parties. I was outside smoking a cigarette with him after the owner had threw him out on his ass, asking why he did shit like that, and he said "I just feel like if I can tag someone's house, it's like I've won." I can kinda empathize…
Art? There are some exceptions, indeed, where graffiti can be called art, but most of it is tasteless disgusting mess. It's borderline demonic in some cases. This especially applies to the list of pictures in the post. My theory is why ugliness is often considered beautiful is because ugliness invokes stronger and darker emotions.
Demons aren't real so I don't understand what this means.
> tasteless disgusting mess
Do you disagree that taste is subjective, then? It seems what's happening here is that you're very, very confident that you are an authority on what's beautiful, despite several people telling you they find beauty in what you abhor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
To be fair, not all graffiti on this site is non-consensual. For instance Jeremy Novy's koi fish. After living in Soma for time, everything else was a recurring pain mostly in terms of time I had to spend on it.
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…
The people being hurt by this aren't the millionaire or billionaire tech caste.
I'm reminded of when rioters were trashing stores in response to George Floyd's death. The usual justification was "oh business insurance will cover it, they need an outlet for their emotions" Well, the only grocery store in a predominantly black neighborhood was out of commission for weeks due to damage. A black owned liquor store was burned down, and he didn't have insurance. Lots of similar stories on Lake Street. The people who deserved that harm the very least got it the most.
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.
> 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 a…
any more
"It's a weird city." I think you're just seeing the transition US cities made in the 2000s from the location of the have-nots to the haves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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…
My theory is that graffiti is tied to the feeling of lack of agency in one's life. Everyone wants to "make their mark on the world". Some of us get to do that with an interesting career, building a family, getting involved in the community. If you feel excluded from all that, like those things are beyond your reach, you might resort to things like graffiti. IMO it's something that says "I exist, and I can change thin…
