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

221–230 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#221

Post by gus_massa »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #208
mothballed wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that sounds basically impossible to prove since the onus is on them to prove the negative that you never consented to it, but my guess is since it's a civil ticket it goes through some kangaroo court where you are fucked from the get go and the judge is basically the 21st century equivalent of a red-coat.

Owner's authorized agent sounds like a court would expect to see some sort of paperwork authorizing the placement of the graffiti. So when you say I told them it was ok the burden of proof falls on you that you did.

No idea about SF, but a few years ago a group painted most of the Rolling security shutters in the business in a street near my home in Buenos Aires https://www.google.com/maps/place/Uruguay+224,+C1015ABF+ABF,...

Most were nice, and some of them still survive, but a lot seem to be over painted. (It would be nice to see a image at night or Sunday, when most business are closed. Some may be still there but rolled up while the business is open.)

Anyway, I don't expect a formal paperwork, just a handshake an an oral agreement.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#222

Post by u8080 »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #89
akomtu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it's not the population's expression of ownership, but simply gangs marking their territory.

The most well known writers (this is their term, few if any graffiti writers I know refer to themselves as artists) are actually the ones who paint trains, not in metro areas. Yes, writers do paint all over metro areas, but that gets buffed out so quickly that the real holy grail is to get up on trains that go all over the country. Train graffiti allows your art to roam and writers from other cities see it and recogn…

"art"

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#223

Post by rib3ye »

voidUpdate wrote: post #204
rib3ye wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a graffiti artist believed shitting on a lawn was art, they would, but they don't. The problem and solution are similar to OSS: The problem: the artists have something to say, they want as many people as possible to see it and use it. The solution: make it free, and put it where as many people as possible can access it. Yes, I just compared graffiti to github.

If there were community areas that were designed for painting, that would be totally fine by me. A big wall that is painted white, maybe with some ladders nearby if that doesn't violate health and safety rules, and tell people to go nuts. Though you would potentially get a lot of disagreeable content, but I suspect that they would quickly get overwritten anyway

There are many such walls or discreet hidden spots, like tunnels, where the graffiti artists paint for other artists. But painting in wide-open spots where the public can judge is just part of the culture.

Maybe I should have compared graffiti to the release of Gnutella.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#224

Post by yatopifo »

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…

Tagging is both crude and ugly, and this is not a subjective opinion.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#225

Post by baud147258 »

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,…

> It's a way for anyone to express themselves on their environment

no, just a way for a minority to trash public infrastructure because they're assholes

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#226

Post by baud147258 »

komali2 wrote: post #50
akomtu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it's not the population's expression of ownership, but simply gangs marking their territory.

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…

> the majority of graffiti is artists just putting up art.

Art? Where I live the overwhelming majority of graffiti is just a few letters forming meaningless words... Like even if it was art, no one could appreciate it because no one could understand it.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#227

Post by baud147258 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #212
lostdog wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are oppressed by their neighbors, who can scribble all over their home without consequences. Have you had to clean off graffiti?

Why would I have to clean it off?

because you find it ugly? Because the city/HOA is asking? Because it's a political message you don't agree with (or don't want your house to get burned for it)?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#228

Post by jakobnissen »

gabrieledarrigo wrote: post #125

Old time graffiti writer here. There's nothing so wild, anarchic and energetic than painting illegally on some surface without any permission.

Sure there is. You can go around beating random people op. Really gets your juices flowing!

I mean, since we’re apparently endorsing crime now.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#229

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

komali2 wrote: post #168
ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

>I think that's very exciting for you

Random online interactions rarely change anyone's opinions, and you don't have to accept my worldview, and neither I need to accept yours. I am just somewhat saddened that there are people who would defend defacing the city like that, but at the same time, I understand that we are byproducts of our environment. I think I should consider myself lucky that I happen to live in a place which I appreciate. It's not that I am incapable of admiring art or loathe graffiti as a style, but, at least based on my experience, most of it are just cases of vandalism. My city actually have places dedicated to graffiti artists, so that they can create whatever they want freely, but I guess that removes at least some of the fun.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#230

Post by Projectiboga »

bradlys wrote: post #132
nerdsniper wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've lived through this whole epidemic, I remember seeing the origional modern Grafitti guy's work all over North Philly on my way to the doctor in the mid 1970s. That guy's name was CornBread. The artful mural like tagging origionating in the Bronx is another story but there have always been a-holes who tag some scribble over other stuff.
Post reply on HN