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

91–100 of 257 posts

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#91

Post by stickfigure »

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…

That explains why I see graffiti in all the rich neighborhoods and none in the poor neighborhoods .

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#92

Post by ryandrake »

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,…

> 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 neighborhoods don't really compare. There's much more of a shared sense of "ours" in a city than there is out in the country, where everything's fenced off in little discrete boxes of land, each with someone's name on it. This greater sense of shared agency over the aesthetic of the broader "city" makes street art more justifiable there than it is in single family home places.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#93

Post by rimbo789 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #72
rimbo789 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are tags all over my building, it’s lovely. Please come add more

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#94

Post by lostdog »

direwolf20 wrote: post #75
nmeofthestate wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are oppressed by their neighbors, who can scribble all over their home without consequences.

Have you had to clean off graffiti?

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#95

Post by dole »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #60
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…

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.

Commentary is graffiti. We're all selfish dogs marking our territory, advertising that we exist.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#97

Post by nemothekid »

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…

>Even if it is, do we really need to tolerate it?

People not only tolerate, but I'd argue most people prefer it. I think, unlike Singapore or Tokyo, Americans, in cities, largely prefer a little lived in grime.

The Mission Bay is a relatively new neighborhood in San Francisco - mostly free of graffiti and is pretty much sterile, and most people would prefer to live in the Mission rather than Mission Bay. OpenAI likely pays a huge premium to HQ in the mission rather than settling in the more corporate offices of Mission Bay or even the Financial District.

I also noticed the same in Berlin - Kreuzberg, Neukolln, and other neighborhoods in East Berlin attract the most people, despite being drenched in graffiti.

If ever move to a city in America and tell people you live in the generally clean, spick and span, neighborhood in that city, half the people will look at you like you have 3 heads or simply assume you have no personality. Graffiti has largely become an accepted, or even valued, feature of a neighborhood. I believe internally it separates the "cool" city inhabitants from the "losers" out in the suburbs.

Edit: I just looked through all the images in the OP and one of them is a banksy. It's been there for over a decade. Graffiti isn't just tolerated, its practically protected.

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#98

Post by lostdog »

mmooss wrote: post #81
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…

To include the obvious in this discussion, it's your opinion that street art / graffiti makes things ugly; others feel differently. I think it brings places alive, brings human expression into the otherwise highly controlled environment. There's a spirit to it, and I love to see kids who have no voice take the step of speaking up. I love to see it, generally. To me it's a sign of freedom and very democratic. As for i…

Please post your address. I'd like to help make your home "feel alive."

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#99

Post by jameslk »

I wish I could say this evoked a nostalgic feeling, but having lived in SF, the literal memory that came to mind immediately seeing these is the repulsive smell of urine and the sight of dirty, trash-laden sidewalks. While graffiti itself could be viewed as artistic expression on its own, I liked looking at some of it, in my mind it seems so often correlated with decay

Re: San Francisco Graffiti

#100

Post by chickensong »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #58
direwolf20 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish you'd stop being coy and just tell us how you really feel.
Post reply on HN