SFist: Vandalism Report Card: Graffiti Hurts

largo01

Wed, 14 May 2008 06:33:38 -0800

I like graffiti, but I agree tagging is lame. Public spaces should be open game for expression--whether it is vocal or visual. Check out Borf (name for John Tsombikos), the infamous stenciler in Washington, DC. His stuff was the only thing that convinced me Washington, DC had any soul at all. And then they cought him and made him clean up his shit--also banned him from the city except for attending art school. So lame. I'm glad I left DC. Borf was seriously an inspiration, and I wish we had ballsy stencil artists who did that stuff in SF too--though I have seen a few good sidewalk stencils. Still...nothing in comparison with Borf.

wchase

Wed, 14 May 2008 00:37:10 -0800

pfft. graffiti only hurts if it sucks. read wooster collective and you'll see what there is to appreciate about good street art.

manys

Tue, 13 May 2008 19:22:33 -0800

...or days. Can't find the timeline images that are in the first Banksy book, but the gist is there.

KWillets

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:51:40 -0800

The problem with having a $450,000 Banksy mural on your wall is that it will be covered with crappy gang tags within a few years.

cowsaysmeow

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:49:38 -0800

I want that stencil, it's so cute!

OrangeDrink

Tue, 13 May 2008 15:30:44 -0800

"And how would such a $450K banksy tag on my wall benefit me? Could I tear the whole wall off and sell it? Pft." Yes. Yes you could. Unless you live in an apartment. Then you get evicted! Yay!

manys

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:39:41 -0800

coolcucumber: Not sure, but the other imagery is of wearing all black, playing basketball (twice!), wearing a backpack, and I don't know what the first image is. Perhaps something to do with the letter(s) 'B' and/or 'K,' neither of which are known to be gang-oriented.

The Angry Young Man

Tue, 13 May 2008 14:37:04 -0800

"And how would such a $450K banksy tag on my wall benefit me? Could I tear the whole wall off and sell it? Pft." No, no, no! It's all about the cachet that comes with living in a super special Banksy selected building. All the art school drop out Dot Com! 2.0 losers will see it and want to be your friend for 15 minutes. During this time it should behoove you to find their worth, the weakness you can use to exploit that worth, and the opportunity to do so quickly before the next cool thing comes swinging along and you're no longer "hip." Done properly, you can like totally jump ahead like 50 spaces in this game we call being an American.

bluecanary

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:58:35 -0800

And how would such a $450K banksy tag on my wall benefit me? Could I tear the whole wall off and sell it? Pft.

Joel

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:47:16 -0800

"FAG NUTZ!!!" So that's what that mark on my building's facade which my landlord hasn't cleaned off in over a year says... And all this time I thought we were merely property of the Sons of Death

Brock Keeling

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:14:37 -0800

"FAG NUTZ!!" Heh.

OrangeDrink

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:10:46 -0800

Well... It's a little more complicated. Some dude spray painting "FAG NUTZ!!!" on your house is one thing, but random graffiti can be useful for passerbyes and owners alike. Think how excited you'd be if you woke up with a $450,000 Banksy Tag on your wall. Also, 'hip' business that try to attract alt crowds often benefit from the appearance of graffiti.

coolcucumber

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:07:17 -0800

i think there is trying to be a graffiti-gang link here. bc spotty is a bit reminiscent of a gunshot, or a face with gunshot splatter behind his head. i really don't think they are the least bit concerned with "murals," commissioned or otherwise. the whole ad is pretty weird...let's see: -gunshot graffiti man -80's-tastic design (but more "we dug this up from the 80's" than "we dug the 80's and wanted to pay homage to it" - "GRAFFITI HURTS..." ...but srsly, how again? and i, the hypothetical tagger audience, am supposed to care...why? -pictures of alienated kids yeah...they could've done better.

manys

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:54:36 -0800

If you invite a graffiti artist into your home to paint the walls it is no longer graffiti, but commissioned artwork.

fsharp

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:51:14 -0800

Posters have been trying to change teen behavior for decades. Has one ever worked? Half the kids who tag can't read anyway. What about people who tag plants? Kind of mixed message there for green-leaning people.

bluecanary

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:43:22 -0800

I admit a lot of those murals are cool, but I, in response to the above, that unsolicited "murals" hurt the property owner who didn't ask for them to be painted on the side of his building, and now must go to the expense and hassle of cleaning it up. Just because it's cool, doesn't mean you want it painted on the side of your wall. However, those who think that it's acceptable should by all means invite the graffiti-ists into their homes and let them paint their living room walls for them. I, for one, wouldn't give someone such artistic license, but what can I say, I'm a little tight-assed that way.

manys

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:15:56 -0800

That most people don't recognize the distinction is not a reason to gloss over it; it's a reason to highlight it. At the end of the day, it remains a distinction with a meaning. What if the distinction was turned upside down, to "Murals Hurt?" Then again, it seems that the author is equating graffiti with "80s art," and if so my point is so much more pissing in the wind. One wonders if he'd also say camp is only so much kitsch.

Joel

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:06:46 -0800

I know the difference, but I'd assume the campaign doesn't discriminate either way

periqueblend

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:56:20 -0800

How does graffiti hurt me? I understand how it damages property, but me personally? It might offend my aesthetic sensibilities, but so do billboards. And good point about tagging v graffiti, but that is to most people, a distinction without a difference.

manys

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:52:10 -0800

Joel: Except that they aren't focussing on that subset of graffiti. I predict this campaign is even less successful than the "I Lost Me To Meth" one.

icbalaam

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:34:10 -0800

I'm a fan of elaborate and thoughtful graffiti but not most taggings. The taggers that go around and scrawl their stuff on buildings, marking their territory out like a dog pissing on a hydrant, are lame and their work is ugly. Especially those taggers who use an etching medium to ruin the windows of businesses. I think that's completely unacceptable. Graffiti which is large, colorful, and takes more than 20 minutes to do is often really nice to look at. Unfortunately there are wannabes out there who can't produce that kind of work and the result is: they turn to tagging.

Joel

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:33:46 -0800

Awful poster in message and aesthetics, although I agree with the sentiment. It should just say "Taggers: you are fucking idiots"

what

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:32:49 -0800

Where was this sign posted? And how long will it be up before it gets tagged? Seriously, don't you have to put an anti-tagging sign 50 feet out of reach, behind bulletproof glass, with 24-hour armed security around it? And then be ready to replace it when it inevitably gets tagged within hours?

OrangeDrink

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:18:17 -0800

I'm guessing the ratio of people in general who've read the Constitution is very very low. I think the message here is that graffiti hurts the spray paint more than anything else.

rroseselavy

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:12:55 -0800

I too love the dejected spotty, but alas, it seems the wrong style of message for those who need it.

bluecanary

Tue, 13 May 2008 10:50:17 -0800

Um, the first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to spray their message on the side of buildings. I always wonder if the people who so readily scream "free speech" and "first amendment" have actually read the Constitution, or any of the case law surrounding the first amendment. My guess is very few.