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

51–60 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#51

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #38
ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #32

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…

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?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#52

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

komali2 wrote: post #48
ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #32

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…

To me personally, it sounds really bizarre. I cannot understand this way of thinking, but I guess it's just a matter of cultural differences.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#53

Post by direwolf20 »

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?

Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#54

Post by readthenotes1 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #42
metalman wrote: post #11

If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal. It's ok

It is illegal. It gives the population the idea they have the right to alter their environment, and that's dangerous.

Alter other people's property.

Agreed, that is a dangerous concept

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#55

Post by threethirtytwo »

direwolf20 wrote: post #41
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.

Bro a lot of these aren’t beautiful quotes. Gang signs, immature shit from kids who do most of this stuff. Some is beautiful art most someone just signed their name.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#56

Post by Ylpertnodi »

voidUpdate wrote: post #46

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…

> You might as well just shit on someone else's lawn and say it's fine because it's art.

Are you referring to 'tagging' (putting your, or your gang name on something)?

I agree.

Referring to well-crafted, or political (think banksy), images, i agree less. Unless i don't like the image/style then it's only lawn-worthy.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#57

Post by Ylpertnodi »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #55
direwolf20 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bro a lot of these aren’t beautiful quotes. Gang signs, immature shit from kids who do most of this stuff. Some is beautiful art most someone just signed their name.

At what age would you suggest whipping or lashing kids?

Would you personally be prepared to do it? Or, the owners of the property

Should it be public lashings, or pay-per-view, or witnessed only by a select group of people, you place your trust in?

If it's a caught female, can men whip her?

How would you phrase the job application?

I see a few flaws in your idea. Does Singapore still not allow males with long hair?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#58

Post by nmeofthestate »

direwolf20 wrote: post #40
bigDinosaur wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graffiti on things like trees (e.g. in urban parks) is awful and trees are the opposite of artificial and antiseptic. The main problem with graffiti is that most of it is made without thought or consideration, and that never ends well.

Yes, I think they should avoid covering other works of art, nature, information signs, and windows. But blank space should be fair game.

Most graffiti is an ugly demoralising reminder of the existence of thoughtless people who have no consideration for others and are happy to degrade the shared public space for a few seconds of selfish enjoyment. For some reason it's got noticeably worse where I live, feels like over the last couple of years.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#59

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #53
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?

Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.

>Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.

No, I am not, and I haven't mentioned guns or even hinted at the topic. Do whatever you want, but trying to purposefully destroy and smear the environment around you and claim it's an expression of freedom is ridiculous. It's just malicious, disgusting behavior that helps no one, serves no cause and has nothing to do with freedom.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#60

Post by nmeofthestate »

komali2 wrote: post #48
ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote: post #32

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…

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.
Post reply on HN