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

41–50 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#41

Post by direwolf20 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #26

Beautiful and disgusting at the same time. It’s vandalizing public property in the same way that human shit vandalizes a lot of public property in SF. I don’t know which one is worse. One can be beautiful, the other is done because he has no choice. For graffiti I’m in support of lashing or whipping the people that do this. It’s effective in Singapore. But then we lose all this great public art.

If they're not covering windows, signs or art, what is being vandalized? A blank slab of concrete performs its function equally well no matter the color.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#43

Post by comrade1234 »

We have places in Zurich where anyone can spray (I'm sure most cities have designated areas like this) but they still come out into the neighborhoods and do it. Its usually in areas with poor refugee/subsidized housing but the people doing the graffiti are local young swiss, making areas where they don't live shittier.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#44

Post by GrowingSideways »

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…

[dead]

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#45

Post by GrowingSideways »

mahrain wrote: post #34
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…

One of the most startling differences between Chinese and European cities is the lack of grafitti in China. I wonder if it's explained by laws, norms, enforcement?

[dead]

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#46

Post by voidUpdate »

The thing that really gets me about graffiti is that you don't own the canvas. It's just vandalism. If you're commissioned to do it one someone else's wall, I'd call that a mural instead, and I see quite a few aesthetically pleasing ones around. Why can't you paint on stuff you actually own, instead of making it someone else's problem? You might as well just shit on someone else's lawn and say it's fine because it's art

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#47

Post by InMice »

rimbo789 wrote: post #12
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 like graffiti - even random tags over blank walls because it’s a sign people are truly living and breathing in a space. As long as there have been walls there has been graffiti. Spaces without graffiti are artificial and antiseptic.

I like that part of it too - but feel that if I owned a building and had people spraying paint all over its exterior whenever they felt like it...maybe not so much.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#48

Post by komali2 »

ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #32
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,…

>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 entrance is barred to them, they still can make the thing their own.

Nowadays there's plenty of such things in a city that closes its doors to many people that live in said city. San Francisco is a great example of this, where rising costs are pushing anyone not working in tech. Graffiti is an easy way to spit in the face of the rich that are trying to take a city away from you. Clearly, it has an outsized impact on their sensibilities.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#49

Post by [deleted] »

xnorswap wrote: post #36
walthamstow wrote: post #23

As an aside, the Financial Times (yes, that one) did a great interview a couple of years ago with prolific London graff artist 10FOOT. The comments were predictably howling with rage and injustice ("he's a criminal!!", says employee of cartel laundry HSBC), but I enjoyed it a lot. https://www.ft.com/content/45a184ee-b7d9-4c16-b1c2-71def32cc...

He is indeed incredibly prolific, anyone taking a train around london will recognise 10FOOT. But he is not an artist, he literally just tags 10Foot in what could be described as looking like it was done with a marker pen. something like this is very typical: https://ldngraffiti.co.uk/graffiti/writers/flash?pic=152931&... I enjoy good graffiti, but 10FOOT does not fall into that category.

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#50

Post by komali2 »

akomtu wrote: post #29
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,…

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 since I'll have an addiction to getting the perfect photograph during a protest or whatever and will go to extreme lengths and burn through SD cards to get it.

In my experience the majority of graffiti is artists just putting up art. Privileged folk pass down the propaganda that graffiti is dirty and gangster and so any street art is viewed as dirty, but in the end it's just a matter of taste.

Post reply on HN