Timewarp's rant series 7: Graffiti

[Timewarp]

We all know what it is. We see it everywhere. On signs, on walls, in bathrooms, on buildings, trees, rocks, streets, and even on public transportation. They demoralize are neighborhoods, comunnites, culture, and life in general. It would bother me if not for a couple of reason which I'll list.

1. They are not art: Has anyone ever looked at one of them and said to themselfs, "This person is truly gifted"? No, never. They don't represent beauty in anyway. They're not concieved through days of thinking and modeling. They are nothing more than the cries of pathetic souls saying "Look at me". Art belongs on a painting or in a staute, not on a toilet, not on a public road sign, not on a building.

2. You can never understand the message: I've never seen one piece of graffiti and said, "Oh that makes perfect sense". I don't know what english class these scum have attened but it's obvious they flunked out on penmenship day. I guess they or gangs could truly understand such misused language cause after all, it's a sad attempt to establish an identy or property

3. Graffiti is a selfish action: I never realized this until my history teacher at the community college ( Who I swear should be the next Martin Luther King Jr.) pointed out that graffiti is the most selfish, pathetic outcry of ego any person can ever do. Forget your movie stars, the elite class, the athletic and the well-knowledgeable, the shells of humans who make graffiti are the most egotistical idiots to have ever exisited. Instead of applying their efforts to improve themselfs, they would rather deface our walls, our landmarks, and everything we stand for just to get notice and there is no lower crime then that.

To live with the sad reality that these people even exsist echos how far our own civilization is morally bankrupt. How much further will we dive into the abyss until we start to climb back out? I weep for the future...

 

[DarthGrinn]

Well I can agree with you on the most common form of graffiti (black spray paint, usually spraying obscene language etc) but I have seen some very beautiful, and artistic, graffiti. So you're painting in very broad strokes when you say that all graffiti isn't art.

Some graffiti actually beautifies the community, and makes it more cheerful looking; especially in older neighborhoods where the buildings are all dilapidated and neglected.

Graffiti is a form of expression, and although the messages may not appeal to some, others can relate. It may not conform to what society considers to be art (then again, the best forms of expression usually don't imo), I feel that it is a necessary element to society.

 

[Senshi1]

It just depends. If it's a large, colourful mural saying something non-offensive it can be great. But if it's just "BOB IS GAY" then it's daft.

 

[Cbarton]

To live with the sad reality that these people even exsist echos how far our own civilization is morally bankrupt. How much further will we dive into the abyss until we start to climb back out? I weep for the future...

To steal the line from Senator Patrick J. Moynihan, as long as we as a nation keep "defining devinecy (sp?) down", we'll allow our civilization to continue it's death spiral downward. We're too busy making up excuses and looking for why Johnny and Jenny are misbehaving and giving them some 'syndrome" or other excuse rather than stopping and punishing them for doing wrong.

This quote from him sums it all up:

"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable."

His entire essay is a great read, whether you sit on the left or right hand side of the aisle...here is a link to his essay:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm

 

[DarthGrinn]

I couldn't access the essay (500 server error). But anyway just a question: Who's to decide what is deviant or not? This is especially true if the country separates religion and state... Do you turn to God's laws, or man's?

If we are discussing what man would consider deviant, then I'd say that is not a reliable barometer; as the term "deviant" can change to suit the current political agendas; first its graffiti, then what... posting up flyers? Protesting?

I see nothing wrong with artistic expression; like Senshi said, it all depends on the context. If you have a bunch of guys spraying hate messages and threats and stuff... then I can agree. But if an artist wants to beautify his or her community, and actually has talent and skill... then I'm all for it.

I think the problem here is when we stop analyzing things intelligently and resort to painting broad strokes; we risk lumping in the innocent with the guilty.

 

[labrat78]

Artistic content is all good and everything but.....
painting grafitti usually involves using someone elses property as canvas. I work for a railroad and while yes, some of the stuff is well done, it is still painted on railroad cars that do not belong to the artist. Some are considerate and do not paint over places that provide me importatnt information of the car. Most do not and after 27 years it is getting worse and yes it is infuriating.

just my two and a half cents

 

[TheChameleon]

We're too busy making up excuses and looking for why Johnny and Jenny are misbehaving and giving them some 'syndrome" or other excuse rather than stopping and punishing them for doing wrong.

I agree with this statement on most levels.

There is a fine line between reality and fiction here though.

MOST kids who are given the "you have ADHD" treatment don't really have it, you can chalk it up to bad parenting, yes.

BUT, you can also find the rare individual who actually HAS ADHD.

Fortunately, the more messed up you are, the easier it is to get help.

For example, I was born with a gross motor factor, terribly bad ADHD, and a myriad of other issues.

Now, I do one of the most physical jobs possible, using a wide variety of gross and fine motor skills, with near no issues at all.

My ADHD is containable, I don't take any medication for it, but I've learned to attempt to study and understand in an environment where I can achieve success, and its not your quiet classroom with 30 other people.

If I'm going to learn history, its gonna be in a room full of rowdy teenage punks who are listening to obscene music and throwing stuff at each other, or its gonna be on my own, in a room with a few computers.

When somebody talks to me, I have to sit there and draw little pictures, or else I'm gonna miss everything they say.

My doctor once said, "Your son is the worst case of ADHD I've ever seen, and I know its not your fault."

I heard him say to another parent, "Your son can succeed, if you help him and show him the way, he doesn't need the medication."

Then again, when the parents tell the doctor they want they're kid on ritalin, because he's ADHD, and she'll go find another doctor if he doesn't, well, you know what they all do. Remember, $$$$ is the truth, even in the medical field.

If that doctor can't pay the bills, he can't expect to help kids like me.

 

[Timewarp]

You guys sure make my rant threads into weird conversations. Oh well I don't give a damn, you people go ahead and slaughter yourselfs, i'm going to think of more fodder to stoke the furnice.

 

[Cbarton]

I agree with this statement on most levels.

There is a fine line between reality and fiction here though.

MOST kids who are given the "you have ADHD" treatment don't really have it, you can chalk it up to bad parenting, yes.

BUT, you can also find the rare individual who actually HAS ADHD.

Fortunately, the more messed up you are, the easier it is to get help.

For example, I was born with a gross motor factor, terribly bad ADHD, and a myriad of other issues.

Now, I do one of the most physical jobs possible, using a wide variety of gross and fine motor skills, with near no issues at all.

My ADHD is containable, I don't take any medication for it, but I've learned to attempt to study and understand in an environment where I can achieve success, and its not your quiet classroom with 30 other people.

If I'm going to learn history, its gonna be in a room full of rowdy teenage punks who are listening to obscene music and throwing stuff at each other, or its gonna be on my own, in a room with a few computers.

When somebody talks to me, I have to sit there and draw little pictures, or else I'm gonna miss everything they say.

My doctor once said, "Your son is the worst case of ADHD I've ever seen, and I know its not your fault."

I heard him say to another parent, "Your son can succeed, if you help him and show him the way, he doesn't need the medication."

Then again, when the parents tell the doctor they want they're kid on ritalin, because he's ADHD, and she'll go find another doctor if he doesn't, well, you know what they all do. Remember, $$$$ is the truth, even in the medical field.

If that doctor can't pay the bills, he can't expect to help kids like me.

I concurr with you. I am probably ADHD myself, family doc said I needed to learn to control myself and I did. My daughter has it, heavy on the anxeity and attention deficit rather than the hyperactive end, and she is controlled with Straterra. Many don;t need meds. Some do. A good pediatrician will steer parents the right direction for their child.

The big problem these days is that the public school classes are so large that the teacher can't/won't keep them in control and needs them 'doped up' so he/she can have 'control' of their class. Discipline the kid (and I'm referring to NON-VIOLENT discipline), and you get sued and/or fired. After all, 'Johnny
can't help it...he has (fill in the blank)....

 

[TheChameleon]

The big problem these days is that the public school classes are so large that the teacher can't/won't keep them in control and needs them 'doped up' so he/she can have 'control' of their class. Discipline the kid (and I'm referring to NON-VIOLENT discipline), and you get sued and/or fired. After all, 'Johnny
can't help it...he has (fill in the blank)....

I don't mind the occasional whap, then again, if ya look at it, my mother's hit me TWICE in my life, and those are the best 2 lessons I ever had. Probably because she hadn't hit me forever in between, and never before.

I was in the kitchen, and I had a few friends over, and my mom said, "Your room is a mess! Shouldn't you clean it?"

my reply: "Pfft... I gives no fuck"

my mothers reply: *WHAP!*

And, learned lesson, don't act big because you have friends around.
To think, my mother, a woman of small stature, just smacked her 250 pound gorilla of a son. What did I do? Exactly what a small puppy would do, single tear... walk away...

Best lesson ever.

 

[labrat78]

I grew up in the 60's and went to parochial school too but I can safely say there was not a butt kickin' I didn't deserve.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

On topic, its my opinion that graffiti on public or private property is unnecessary and unlawful. Even if you could claim it serves some purpose or has some sort of artistic merit, this is all secondary and below the fact that you're ruining either public, government, or private property, and no one has any right to do that even if they could claim it was in the name of art. Theres simply no excuse for it. And I mean none. Its not logical, lawful, or lovable.

They take it upon themselves to assume what needs to be beautified, improved, or changed, and they have no business doing that on their own without a city permit. What they're doing is selfish and is completely inconsiderate of everyone else and their enjoyment of the sights. It is a personal whim forced upon the majority, rather than a mutual agreement aqquired through legitimate means. Thats sad and unfortunate, especially if the graffiti is well-intentioned or even a masterpiece in it's own way.

Unless you're paid to do this by the owner of the property you're working on, or you have their consent and wish to spraypaint, or its your property, then you have no business doing it.

Plain.

Simple.

Easy.

I remember discussing this some time ago (although as part of a side conversation in my forum), and an example I used was that if a man builds a brick wall next to his business, for whatever reason, and this wall is somehow used to attract business and is a part of his establishment, he has every reason to expect he can use his wall without any problems from anyone else.

A tagger who vandalizes his wall, whether because they're a gang member or whatever, has no place doing this, its illegal, and the owner has every right to want to be compensated (something he'll, unfortunately, probably have to fight over and may never get).

The problem with graffiti and the majority of these "artists", is that they feel their "hood" is their canvas, anything goes, and rules and laws don't apply to them. Whatever they mark now belongs to them, as does the general area, in their opinions. They do these "projects" either in the dead of night like cowards where no one will see them, or they do it when no one is around (again, like cowards). The fact its an illegal activity makes the matter an open and shut case.

Considering that a majority of graffiti is gang-related in most places, I think its a very weak case and near pointless to defend graffiti as an artform when its done without permission.

You can't justify damaging or ruining someone else's property for your own selfish exploits, so don't. Even, if in the end, no one minded the work and people actually think it makes the local area look better somehow, thats still no justification and the whole situation and it's conclusion is illbegotten.

In cases where its your own property, you have permission, or maybe you're even being paid to do it by the owner, then, by all means, spray away.

If not, drop your cans, get the hell out, and get a new hobby.

 

[labrat78]

I couldnt agree more. Like I said earlier I don't mind the art value, but the scribblings are not art and the canvas belongs to someone else.
It is just plain wrong and says a lot about us as a society.

 

[DarthGrinn]

Very well put arguments Vlad. This brings me back to my point of intelligently analyzing something instead of painting broad strokes.

Grafitti in itself is not wrong or bad etc. It's the circumstances that dictate whether or not it is unlawful.

Gang members vandalizing public property? Unlawful.

Professional graffiti artists commissioned to beautify a wall in a dilapidated neighborhood or whatever? Lawful.

Artist taking upon himself to paint a dilapidated wall that nobody has cared about; in a red light district where cops won't even come if somebody dials 911, let alone complain about some paint? who cares (really?)

It may or may not appeal to our own sense of art; that's a non issue. My beef with the OP was the fact that it argued that all graffiti is illegal/bane of society/icky etc. I think we can both agree that this isn't the case...

 

[Timewarp]

On topic, its my opinion that graffiti on public or private property is unnecessary and unlawful. Even if you could claim it serves some purpose or has some sort of artistic merit, this is all secondary and below the fact that you're ruining either public, government, or private property, and no one has any right to do that even if they could claim it was in the name of art. Theres simply no excuse for it. And I mean none. Its not logical, lawful, or lovable.

They take it upon themselves to assume what needs to be beautified, improved, or changed, and they have no business doing that on their own without a city permit. What they're doing is selfish and is completely inconsiderate of everyone else and their enjoyment of the sights. It is a personal whim forced upon the majority, rather than a mutual agreement aqquired through legitimate means. Thats sad and unfortunate, especially if the graffiti is well-intentioned or even a masterpiece in it's own way.

Unless you're paid to do this by the owner of the property you're working on, or you have their consent and wish to spraypaint, or its your property, then you have no business doing it.

Plain.

Simple.

Easy.

I remember discussing this some time ago (although as part of a side conversation in my forum), and an example I used was that if a man builds a brick wall next to his business, for whatever reason, and this wall is somehow used to attract business and is a part of his establishment, he has every reason to expect he can use his wall without any problems from anyone else.

A tagger who vandalizes his wall, whether because they're a gang member or whatever, has no place doing this, its illegal, and the owner has every right to want to be compensated (something he'll, unfortunately, probably have to fight over and may never get).

The problem with graffiti and the majority of these "artists", is that they feel their "hood" is their canvas, anything goes, and rules and laws don't apply to them. Whatever they mark now belongs to them, as does the general area, in their opinions. They do these "projects" either in the dead of night like cowards where no one will see them, or they do it when no one is around (again, like cowards). The fact its an illegal activity makes the matter an open and shut case.

Considering that a majority of graffiti is gang-related in most places, I think its a very weak case and near pointless to defend graffiti as an artform when its done without permission.

You can't justify damaging or ruining someone else's property for your own selfish exploits, so don't. Even, if in the end, no one minded the work and people actually think it makes the local area look better somehow, thats still no justification and the whole situation and it's conclusion is illbegotten.

In cases where its your own property, you have permission, or maybe you're even being paid to do it by the owner, then, by all means, spray away.

If not, drop your cans, get the hell out, and get a new hobby.

Wow it's just like what I said but more detailed. I'd buy you a beer but I'm not old enough too, or willing to drive that far. 🙂

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I couldnt agree more. Like I said earlier I don't mind the art value, but the scribblings are not art and the canvas belongs to someone else.
It is just plain wrong and says a lot about us as a society.

Yes. I'm an artist (you may or may nor know that), so if anyone understands the difference between sharing art through an agreeable medium and one that is forced and intrusive (possibly destructive), it would be me and other artists.

The things these graffiti artists need to do is seek consent, even if it seems trivial to do so. Just because they figure no one is going to make a stink about it, or it may go unreported, or maybe they think they can get away with it (as many taggers do), doesn't mean they should.

Personally, I would rather people know its me that did it and that I asked them if I could do this for them. That way, no one has any hard feelings about it and I don't get in trouble. This is especially true if its meant to be seen as some kind of community project or community mural or picture. If thats the case, the artist should include the community in the project and not act completely alone, under the radar, or in a deceptive or sneaky manner.

A real artist shouldn't need to hide or work under the cloak of night. There are options, they just have to find them.

Very well put arguments Vlad. This brings me back to my point of intelligently analyzing something instead of painting broad strokes.

Grafitti in itself is not wrong or bad etc. It's the circumstances that dictate whether or not it is unlawful.

Gang members vandalizing public property? Unlawful.

Professional graffiti artists commissioned to beautify a wall in a dilapidated neighborhood or whatever? Lawful.

Artist taking upon himself to paint a dilapidated wall that nobody has cared about; in a red light district where cops won't even come if somebody dials 911, let alone complain about some paint? who cares (really?)

It may or may not appeal to our own sense of art; that's a non issue. My beef with the OP was the fact that it argued that all graffiti is illegal/bane of society/icky etc. I think we can both agree that this isn't the case...

Yes. If its not your property you have no business modifying it. What the subject matter is isn't as important, though it easily could be (racist, lewd, not in good taste, etc.)

Wow it's just like what I said but more detailed. I'd buy you a beer but I'm not old enough too, or willing to drive that far.

I always tend to be detailed about stuff. ^^

The way things are, you probably could buy beer and get away with it. Not that you should. But thanks for the offer. 😉

You'd buy him a beer but you're not old enough to? Hmmm do we have a user that's under 18?

*they're singing in a musical*

"I'd rather drink a beer than 'win father of the year'!"- Homer

"Can I bee-eeeeeeeee a boozehound?"- Bart

"Not till you're fif-teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnn."- Homer

(The Simpsons)
__________________

 

[MistressValerie1]

You'd buy him a beer but you're not old enough to? Hmmm do we have a user that's under 18?

No; in the USA, the drinking age is 21 🙂