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

71–80 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#71

Post by socalgal2 »

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…

Tons of people unfortunately see this as ok. My response to them is always "let me tag your car, your house, your laptop" and if you complain you're a hypocrite

I like "Street Art" where permission has been given. I don't like tagging and property destruction. Maybe when I get a little older I'll find some graffiti exhibit at a museum and go tag it.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#72

Post by socalgal2 »

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.

Tell me your address so I can come tag your car or your windows or your laptop

Graffiti is property destruction, pure and simple. I'm happy to come destroy your property. Complain and you're a hypocrite

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#73

Post by direwolf20 »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #54
direwolf20 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

*in ways that don't harm that person

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#74

Post by direwolf20 »

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.

You didn't answer the question.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#75

Post by direwolf20 »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #61
direwolf20 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not American, but I doubt being pro-graffiti is a universal American value. I suspect many Americans aren't that into it, given it makes the place look bad. Many Americans might think instead that you should only deface things you own.

I think it makes the place look like a place where people are free and not oppressed, which is nice.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#76

Post by deadfall23 »

I did a similar pet project about 12 years ago called Graffiti City. It was very simple map that displays pins where reported cases of destruction of property with paint, aka graffiti art, throughout the city of San Francisco. This uses public data available at data.sfgov.org.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#77

Post by socalgal2 »

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.

I'm surprised you don't understand it. Put your money where your mouth is. Let me come over and tag all your property.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#78

Post by socalgal2 »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #56
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.

I don't agree with the political graffiti either. See imgur as where this leads. imgur used to be interesting images. Now it's 90% images of text as political statements. The site is effectively ruined.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#79

Post by dkarl »

s_dev wrote: post #14
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 think there is a lot of nuance here. Just as councils and developers can construct ugly buildings artists can also add ugly work to walls. I agree there is a spectrum. On one hand you've Banksy or Basquiat adding to a flat grey wall and creating art that has a political voice or some artistic merit and the other you've some twat scribbling hate symbols on a historic monument. I don't have on ideas on how we can ens…

It sounds like you're saying the only thing ugly about tagging is when it contains objectionable political content. That's not really responding to the complaint here, which is that the vast majority of it is low effort, low quality tagging that makes things aesthetically uglier. It's easy to go out with a collector's eye, cherry-pick the good stuff, and put together a slideshow that makes it look like a public amenity, but that ignores the overall effect of wall after building after block of proof of Sturgeon's Law.

Is it ignorable? Does all the terrible stuff just disappear into the background, or should we care about how it affects the experiences of people who have to live with it and walk past it every day? I think that's the question people are arguing.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#80

Post by bigstrat2003 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #73
readthenotes1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alter other people's property. Agreed, that is a dangerous concept

*in ways that don't harm that person

Nonsense. The owner almost certainly doesn't want someone's "art" to adorn his wall, and will then have to pay to restore the wall to its desired condition. That is material harm done to the building owner.
Post reply on HN