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

181–190 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#181

Post by jasonfarnon »

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 when vandals deface public spaces and community centers and apartment blocks."

I much prefer graffiti in my field of vision than corporate billboards. In SF I don't even notice the graffiti, maybe because most of it is hard to read and understand? But I do notice the huge huge billboards over every thoroughfare with the stupid corny messages.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#182

Post by gtowey »

zdragnar wrote: post #180
gtowey wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's what therapy is for, not spray paint.

Ah yes, just what everyone scaping by paycheck to paycheck with no housing security is thinking: "I should go to therapy"

Why, once they do that they'll be pulling themselves up by their boostaps in no time!

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#183

Post by c22 »

bko wrote: post #167
mothballed wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is graffiti causing those neighborhood's value to drop or are businesses and individuals residing in cheaper neighborhoods less equipped to cover the ongoing maintenance costs of removing the ever-recurring graffiti?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#184

Post by boarsofcanada »

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.

The city does go after the people illegally tagging properties: https://sfstandard.com/2024/10/17/san-francisco-prolific-gra...

https://sfdistrictattorney.org/prolific-tagger-charged-with-...

https://sfist.com/2016/01/25/prolific_tagger_fined_over_200k...

Many more results if you search for “prolific tagger San Francisco”.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#185

Post by komali2 »

zdragnar wrote: post #177
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…

This is just whitewashing crime. 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.…

I really don't understand the connection between street art and the George Floyd protests. I understand that you generally don't like the idea of people operating outside of the State-mandated heteronormative way, in which case I say, the best way to prevent a riot is not have cops murder people.

We whitewash crime every day here, for example theft of labor value. It's not a crime in the USA but it is a crime insomuch as it's unethical.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#186

Post by komali2 »

zdragnar wrote: post #179
komali2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Graffiti is by definition uninvited and unwanted (esp. in SF city ordinance)

Then why is Clarion Alley covered in graffiti that hundreds of people a day come to look at? Why is said graffiti often applied by residents?

City ordinance is not an accurate reflection of the desires of all subsections of a city. It's a reflection of the desires of the ruling caste, whose needs sometimes, but frequently don't, align with those of "lower" castes.

A bench is a great place for a nap, unless the mayor happens to see you sleeping on one, gets scared, and calls the cops about it.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#187

Post by komali2 »

woodpanel wrote: post #151
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. Is of course what art-students, pol-sci and social-sciences majors construct out of it because it fits their narratives. Never mind that the scratching of some roman soldier in a brothel's restroom has nothing to do at all with the NYC-born graffti culture. This top-to-bottom social astro-turfing would be just laughable grandstanding if it didn't res…

> This top-to-bottom social astro-turfing would be just laughable grandstanding if it didn't result in real consequences for less affluent kids: crime, drugs, and deadly injuries as well as filing for bankrupcy

We were discussing graffiti.

You seem to know a lot better than less affluent people what's good for them. When you talk to such people, what do they tell you about crime, drugs, deadly injury, and filing for bankruptcy? When you've talked to graffiti artists, what led you to believe they were doing it so as to cause crime, drugs, deadly injury, and bankruptcy?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#188

Post by akomtu »

komali2 wrote: post #173
akomtu wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's borderline demonic 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.

The type of art you like or dislike is a reflection of your mental state. In this sense, taste is subjective. However some of those mental states are good and some are evil, which is objective. If I suddenly find myself liking aggressive chaotic art, I'll be worried that something's changed in me in a bad way.

But you're right that I'm very confident in my measure of what's beautiful and what's not, and a few people aren't going to sway me. Even if every last human on the earth fell for this demonic art, I wouldn't budge.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#190

Post by snypher »

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.

>real estate people call this legalized extortion

I hope they know what some say of the real estate agent.

Post reply on HN