Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
Chicagoist is home to some hearty discussions about whether or not illegal street graffiti can be considered “art." It’s so customary to associate graffiti with vandalism, as soon as artists completed a commissioned graffiti-style mural on the exterior walls of The Ashland bar in West Lakeview, the complaints from area residents started rolling in.
Among the complaints issued to (32nd) Ald. Scott Waguespack’s office: that The Ashland had been vandalized, that the mural was an eyesore, and that owners were using the graffiti to tag the bar as a gang-friendly spot:
"Sometimes people see art and they rush to judge it," [owner Adam] Schenck said. "Someone jumped to the conclusion that we were getting together with gang members to paint on the wall, when in fact it's quite the opposite. ... It's just a bunch of young artists who have access to a bigger canvas than they've ever been afforded before."
The actual mural is completely legal; although the city publishes and distributes official urban design guidelines, most are “voluntary” and no one is legally bound to comply. Even the Commission on Chicago Landmarks doesn’t care what color you paint your house.
Photo by Michael Rioux
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Instead of worrying about some outsiderish art, why not focus on all the actual gang graffiti that all the fucking piece of shit gangbangers throw up all around town.
move to naperville, cakelords.
Yes, because only gangbangers do street art.
Idiots.
Wow, I got actual latin king (or latin king wannabe) graffiti on my newly painted lakeview garage door last nite - sure took me back to the 90's...
the giant "Ashland" tag wasn't a tipoff that this was legit? i doubt many taggers would bother to write out the name of the establishment they're vandalizing.
ahhh Chicago.
O.k every body sing along.... "Chicaaaago, Chicaaaago that toddlin' town, toddlin down
Chicaaaago, Chicaaaago, really a midwest west town, a backwards town" Chicaaago, Chicaaago, a big suburban town, suburban town"
Hey at least it takes some skill to paint like that. Better than some of that modern art crap with paint splatters and strings glued on things. In my opinion it makes for a much more interesting sign than most you see around town. Does anyone else think people are so pissed in large part because its lakeview?
PS-If you don't like it you can move back to your subdivision in the burbs where they DO tell you what you can and can't paint on your own building.
I live right near here, I passed the Ashland many times and always thought it looked like a shithole, now it looks like an ugly shithole... not all graffiti is art, that does look terrible.
at least it takes some skill to do that sort of painting. better than some of that modern art nonsense with paint splatters and strings glued on stuff. but that's just my opinion. and isn't that the joy of art? its all about your opinion and what you want for your home/building.
ps- if you don't like it you can move back to your subdivion in the burbs where they DO tell you what color to paint your house...
opps, didn't mean to post twice but I thought it didn't go through the first time....sorry :(
PS-If you don't like it you can move back to your subdivision in the burbs where they DO tell you what you can and can't paint on your own building.
lol, poptart - do you own property in the neighborhood?
In legal terms, this is a public nuisance - which means that they can be forced to paint over it - even though some of you view this as art.
Wouldn't public nuisance in this case be relative?
I do own property in the neighborhood. I think the whole thing is ugly, but public nuisance is a stretch in my mind.
NUISANCE - Substantial interference with the right to use and enjoy land, which may be intentional, negligent or ultrahazardous in origin, and must be a result of defendant's activity.
This word means literally annoyance; in law, it signifies, according to Blackstone, " anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage."
Nuisances are either public or common, or private nuisances.
A public or common nuisance is such an inconvenience or troublesome offence, as annoys the whole community in general, and not merely some particular person. To constitute a Public nuisance, there must be such 'a number of persons annoyed, that the offence can no longer be considered a private nuisance: this is a fact to be judged of by the jury. It is difficult to define what degree of annoyance is necessary to constitute a nuisance. In relation to offensive trades, it seems that when such a trade renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable, it is a nuisance for the neighborhood have a right to pure and fresh air.
A thing may be a nuisance in one place, which-is not so in another; therefore the situation or locality of the nuisance must be considered.
how in HELL is this a public nuisance? please. really, life is uncomfortable because people don't like the particular style of art? give me a break. *THIS* sort of attitude is the sort of thing people should be talking about when they reference elitism, not barack obama.
It's genius! Think about all the free advertising they've received from this! Even if they have to paint over it, no, ESPECIALLY, if they have to paint over this, everyone in the city will know about this place.
"move to naperville, cakelords."
hahaha
Sumssy - I'm sure this could be viewed as offending the community's moral standards, which is the essance of a Public Nuisance.
"the complaints from area residents started rolling in."
Nowhere in the story does it mention where the area residents lived before they became area residents. Just because somebody doesn't like some art don't assume they must be from the suburbs.
since when does spray-painted signage "offend a community's moral standards"????
is the signage sleeping with it's neighbors wife? walking around nude, drinking in public or using vulgar language???
oh wait... it's a SIGN
i wish these people had better things to do with their time
i'm sure they do have better things to do with their time, they're just not prioritizing it. i really hope that these people just mistook the mural for gang graffiti...for some reason that stupidity would make me feel better than someone having moral outrage because they think it looks like gang graffiti or because they simply don't like how it looks as art.
Are there really still people out there who think all graffiti art is the work of "gangs"?
"Gang bangers eat tacos, I eat tacos, I am a gangbanger! Ahhhh!"
It's art. If you don't like it, make some of to your liking on your own.
People worrying after their property values shouldn't be fretting about some colorful pieces on a wall. Freddie Mac, Fannie May and Mayor Daley are far more of a threat to your property values than graffiti art.
Cakelords.
I guess you're right Static - if a building appears vandalized, which lowers property values in the neighborhood, those residents should just do something better with their time than complain about the value of their investments being lowered.
Anyone whose "moral standards" are "offended" by a brightly painted wall probably DESERVES to have their property values lowered.
Sorry, but even "cakelords" are allowed to be fussy when it comes to ugly things in their neighborhood, whether it be graffiti art or a giant Budweiser billboard.
I'm curious...will the urban hipsters to make the trek over from Logan Square and Bridgeport to visit this fine establishment, now that they have pissed off the locals?
I've lived in the city for nearly 20 years and though there are obviously great things that have happened here in that time, I feel that our neighborhoods are becoming so sanitized that we are losing any identity of living in a city at all.
My sister-in-law lives in Napperville and every time I visit her I'm struck dumb by the banality of the landscape. I relish coming home to a place where the very act of living here actually requires that I question my personal tastes and standards. Several of my neighbors have outfitted their front lawns with things that I consider to be tacky. But am I offended by this? Of course not. It's just a constant reminder that taste is relative. Does it reduce my property value? Perhaps, but only to the type of people that I wouldn't want as neighbors in the first place. Viva la difference.
those people complaining would be complaining about something else if that "art" didn't exist. People just like to bitch.
I guess you're right Static - if a building appears vandalized, which lowers property values in the neighborhood, those residents should just do something better with their time than complain about the value of their investments being lowered.
If word spreads that your neighborhood's full of idiots who are so stupid that they think this wasn't commissioned, will your property values go down too? Fools.
Heh ... I'm tempted to sneak over there one night and paint over the whole thing in a nice beige. Graffiti lovers shouldn't mind ... it'd just be my way of expressing myself.
The American obsession with making everything look like no one lives there is puzzling to me.
Ikea-think is insidious. Let's have bland corporate art that offends no one and simply blends into the background. Let's have nothing that could raise an eyebrow or perhaps trigger some discussion. Let's have everything in earth tones, set to Enya on the stereo. Not too loud, not too garish, not too 'ethnic' or weird or 'urban'. Just a nice, soothing haze.
Fuck that.
The comparison of this to a Budweiser ad is a non-starter. It's a decoration, a creative one at that. Advertising isn't about beauty, it's about brand suffusion.
Heh ... I'm tempted to sneak over there one night and paint over the whole thing in a nice beige. Graffiti lovers shouldn't mind ... it'd just be my way of expressing myself.
No, you're FAIL. Destroying a piece of commissioned art isn't what Graffiti art is about. Pay attention, try thinking. It only hurts a little at first.
By "Graffiti lovers" do you mean people who appreciate an art form that's been exhibited in museums like the Tate Modern and the Getty? Are you just an angry pointalist?
who really thinks that this wall lowers their property value? i don't know a lot about the establishment in question, but it seems to me that a business owner that commissions a work (and appears to have an outdoor patio) isn't really looking to fuck over the neighborhood.
and i have to agree with staticfritz -- whose moral standards is this sign offending? is the sign hating on anyone? saying we should all go do a three-way? ?? don't get the 'moral' issue here.
Jimbo,
You are the one who got all lawyerish with your public nuisance argument. It is not a public nuisance at law. It just isn't. It is potentially an annoyance, but that is not legally actionable. Stop playing hide-the-ball about "public nuisance" when you raised the issue.
Albany,
This painting is to advertise an establishment. It is ALL about brand suffusion, as you say. It is the same as a Budweiser ad. Of course, I object to your characterization of advertising not being about beauty in the first place. Anyway, this wall IS an advertisement, and it can STILL be art.
All that being said, I hate this kind of art and am glad this is not next door to me. That doesn't make it evil or bad, but I do sure dislike it.
As long as it was commissioned, who cares? I think it looks beyond stupid--as well as cliched, cartoonish and cluttered, with a dose of fake, pretentious edginess often found in urban areas where affluent white people live--but so what? Different tastes and all that, the stuff that makes life interesting, if annoying at times.
But don't try to defend the application of art onto property without permission from the owners. That's not so much art as it is crime and an infringement upon the rights of fellow citizens--in short, a selfish, anti-social act.
"I think it looks beyond stupid--as well as cliched, ugly, cartoonish and cluttered, nasty with a dose of fake, pretentious edginess"
Matilda, I was about to thank you for your candor as I thought you were discribing yourself!
"fellow citizens"
My my my talk about pretentious, what are you running for cyber office? You buffoon, you!
Chicago D - what are you getting at? Nuisances lower property values - it could be argued that this is a public nuisance, which is all I was getting at. Next time, I'll make a flow chart - complete with definitions, arguments, and explanations - so you can follow along.
That doesn't make it evil or bad, but I do sure dislike it.
Which is perfectly fine, I don't like it much either. But it's a far cry from "Eh, I don't care for that" to "I want that painted over as a public eyesore!"
Advertising isn't art, it's noise. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
That's not so much art as it is crime and an infringement upon the rights of fellow citizens--in short, a selfish, anti-social act.
Take it down a peg. There's a big difference between a gang tag and actual graffiti art. Like the difference between my pen sketch on the phone and a picasso.
Graffiti Research Labs is a collective of street artists doing beautiful and amazing pieces all over the world. Sometimes they don't get permission. Does that make what they do any less beautiful?
http://graffitiresearchlab.com/
Ask the londoners selling their walls for hundreds of thousands of pounds that are graced with Banksy tags about "anti-social acts".
Spook: We are all citizens, right? Or do you not believe in the ancient concept of citizenship, one of the great gifts of the Greeks and Romans? Odd, given how much you despair at the apathy of other people when it comes to politics and policy. But hey, thanks for the personal insult (that is, "buffoon" and the candor part). God knows you can't make an argument or float an idea without some personal insult to make you feel superior to all the proles, kulaks, reactionaries, squares, yuppies, WASPs, counterrevolutionaries, imperialists and other general riffraff you must suffer here and, apparently, elsewhere.
Carry on with your usual entertainments ... and, as always, fight the power.
Jimbo: How exactly is a commissioned ad a nuisance, and exactly how much does such an ad lower property values? As well, can you seperate the damage to value in this case from the damage to value brought upon by the deflation of housing prices in general?
I am trying to figure out if your argument is grounded more in fact and reality than in speculation.
Jimbo,
You stated a legal conclusion. You even stated it in legal terms. And you were wrong about that conclusion. Instead of manning up and saying you misspoke, you have played hide the ball. Towit:
(a) nuisance lower property value
(b) you believe that this painting will lower property values
ERGO, this painting is a nuisance.
You know what else lowers property values? The materials used in building. All things being equal, a wood frame home is generally valued lower than a brick home. Does that make wood frame homes a nuisance? Please, enlighten me with your Learned Handesque wisdom. From now on your name on here ought to be Jimbo, J.
How about a flowchart for that?
This is doubly funny considering this is a pretty ugly and very sprawl-ish stretch of Ashland. Never mind the McDonald's next door.....
Albany: Gang tag or graffiti, it is a crime and an anti-social act when it is applied without permission of a property owner. I don't see what is confusing about that. The question of beauty doesn't mean squat--I can think a piece of so-called street art is beautiful--and I often have here and elsewhere--but I can't celebrate anyone who defaces private property, as I believe in property rights (yeah, I am an evil capitalist). My objections pretty much fadel when property owners give permission. (Granted, I would not have cared about vandalism to the Berlin Wall, to use an extreme example, but I think in that case it was less about the "private" property of the DDR than a protest against actual totalitarianism, if you want to play devil's advocate, which everyone should.)
If you disagree, may I then visit your living quarters and put my mark over whatever property you own? I swear, it will be beautiful--at least according to me and a few of my drunken mates. I can do a great cubist smiling face after a few High Lifes, though it may be less like Picasso than the output of his hangers-on.
I'll take a bar that hires local artists for a splash of color over the 8,000 nearby watering holes that slap on a faux Irish pub facade and call it a day. Now that is a public nuisance.
And Jimbo, did you read the article? If so, do you really think a mural is more of a public nuisance than a meth addict bar?
I know that there are some of you that think that Brendan Scanlon's spray painting was considered art. I am looking for people's opinions: what makes "Solve" any different from any other graffiti in this city? This is an honest question.
Hey, madvulture, i've noticed some random Latin Kings tags on my quiet, out of the way West Lakeview/Roscoe Village block as well over the last couple of months.
"Property value". Because life is only ever about the bottom line.
This is the U.S.A., we don't care about art, philosophy, ethics, community, or quality of life, all we care about is the money!
"Hey man, you can't do that! Your freedom is lowering the value of my stuff!"
Wow, Chicago - you're stretching here - wood frame houses? lol.
I'll try and keep this simple -
The fact that one thing can be defined as a nuisance and lowers property value does not mean that anything that lowers property value is a nuisance (your wood frame example).
"Property value". Because life is only ever about the bottom line.
This is the U.S.A., we don't care about art, philosophy, ethics, community, or quality of life, all we care about is the money!
________________________________________
Well, hold on now. What are the ethics of imposing your personal artistic style on an entire neighborhood? Granted, from an ethical perspective the lack of art is also a potential imposition, but still, you brought up ethics, so you should play it out.
Also, for many people "quality of life" is related to "property value." That is particularly so for people counting on the sale of their home to either finance a new dwelling, or to be a substantial chunk of their retirement.
As for "community" it seems to me you'd have to poll a given area to decide if public art was an act for or against the community.
Seems like you are only solid on art and philosophy, but maybe not even there.
@Matilda:
Maybe there's something more important than maintaining the homogenity of appearance?
I'm not calling for a massive campaign of vandalism, but what if we saw walls as canvases, not borders between nations of individuals? What if we opened up, just a bit, about what is "OURS"?
Most tags are ugly because they're not about art, they're about speed and territory. True graf art is also about speed, but it's more about beauty.
I can cite a number of examples, just in Chicago alone, where property owners opened up their walls to street artists. They stopped dialing graffiti busters and installing cameras and fighting a losing battle and opened up, just a bit. The results can be beautiful.
You ultimately either have a society fighting to keep things tidy, which is the path of stagnation, or you look at the possibilities inherent in opening up.
I'm not going to respond to your wish to vandalize my home. It's exactly the kind of tagging that no one here is defending. Sorry, I won't go to that "What if your wife was raped?" level with you.
Jimbo,
That answer was insufficient. Think before you type. You have no basis for your "nuisance" argument OTHER THAN lowering property values. Either you must distinguish property lowering facotrs from this "nuisance" or admit that everything that lowers property values is a "nuisance."
Or admit that you were full of it when you said "In legal terms, this is a public nuisance - which means that they can be forced to paint over it - even though some of you view this as art." I would just admit that you were full of crap, because this is starting to look bad.
I think it's a pretty nice mural. The white outline really pops out the word Ashland. All the color makes the drive down Ashland much more interesting now. Knowing this city it will probably get painted over soon by the city "on accident."
"I'm not calling for a massive campaign of vandalism, but what if we saw walls as canvases, not borders between nations of individuals? What if we opened up, just a bit, about what is 'OURS'?"
Okay, so I'm going to open up and think of this particular wall as "ours." It will be my canvas, and I like beige. I think beige is arty. Beige is how I express myself as an individual.
I think beige is arty. Beige is how I express myself as an individual.
When you bought this joke, did you think it would last you more than one use? Silly rabbit.
Grown-ups are talking. Go outside and run around like a good little bunny.
Albany: I pretty much agree with you, as long as you add this: As long as property owners give permission (which is why I care not a lick about this mural). I don't even care if I like a certain style of art--that is not the point--only that when it comes to this type of art--street art, whatever you want to call it--that property rights are respected. I do understand that when it comes to art, boundaries usually must be tested and crossed, but I see no reason to celebrate willful violations of property rights, which is a bedrock principle of our society (as far back, at least, as the stated ideals of the Founding Fathers, right?).
If everything is a de-facto canvas, does that include your property as well? I think that is the true test.
By the way, I am NOT a property owner not so much by financial concerns as by choice--I have some odd politics--if that means anything.
The building I live in was tagged by a pretty well-known graf artist. My landlord liked the piece and left it up. He asked me if it made me feel "nervous" and we both laughed at how stupid that sounded.
He didn't ask permission.
If it was beautiful, if it was lovely, I'd leave it.
Too much emphasis on DEFENDING YOUR STUFF is just toxic.
As is too little.
Look, this isn't difficult. Just as your right to express yourself stops somewhere short of punching me in the face, so does it stop somewhere short of doing anything to my property -- even if you think it's "beautiful". That's all there is to it.
Albany: That's good for your landlord, and apparently all parties are happy.
But I doubt that all property owners would have the same view, and you can expect them to have the same view. Yes, materialism and stuff are trivial compared to art and such, but still, property rights are a basic foundation of our society, and unless you are OK with me coming over and creating art over your property-can I?--I am skeptical you have really thought this through.
In a civil society you simply can't have one group of people deciding they can alter, deface or otherwise change another person's property without permission. It borders on the most chaotic forms of anarchy. And while I am not a big fan of STUFF--in fact, I despise materialism--I have yet to see or read about any worthwhile system without a basic concept of property rights. In fact, the right of property seems a basic concept of human nature, despite the philosphical objections you or I might have.
This has nothing to do with banality or the sizzle of city life, or even art. This has to do with living in a civil society where laws, not men, or the whims of certain men and/or artists, are supreme. This is basic American civics with roots in the Declaration and beyond.
"This has nothing to do with banality or the sizzle of city life,"
Matilda, uhhhm, as part of civil society, do you actually talk like this?
For shizzal my Nizzall
sparky: i'll answer you. what's the difference between solve and sonny and blutt and ninjagrl and "any other graffiti" in the city in MY opinion?
aside from where it gets posted -- those people tend to use 'empty' space like boarded up construction sites and crappy free paperboxes and such -- it makes me think, makes me smile, makes me have an interaction with the world around me and with society and its mores, ideals and concepts.
that's what makes it art. that's what makes it appealing. those people also, from my experience, don't tend to throw their stuff up on storefront windows and stuff. that's what makes it different to me. but that's just one woman's opinion.
Has anyone actually set foot into this "controversial" establishment? Are taggers and hip graffiti artists throwing back Stellas and comparing notes about technique and color palattes? What is this place getting at? Just looks like another boring, shitty Lincoln park tavern...no amount of graffiti can hide that. Maybe their fries are good, though...
I'm pretty sure the most chaotic form of anarchy is way way way more scary than someone writing on the wall.
Besides people are writing all over the walls and offending me everyday: Coca-Cola, Zune, Apple...
The whims of capital are what is considered superior in this great land- I do not agree this is the best case and every once in a while if someone writes on a wall then I think- "good, fuck the system."
Kfunk: Good point about ads. I hate them, too. And you are right on calling out the hyperbole about anarchy.
But, here is the rub: Adverstisers, in almost all cases (excluding so-called guerilla marketing and other tactics) have permission and follow the law. Taggers and grafitti artists do not, in most cases.
I prefer to live in a society of laws, not men. If you think the laws should be more open to street art, work to change them. Hell, I might help. Yes, I am offended by most people and many cultural expression in our society, yet I don't feel compelled to resort to childish actions -- vandalism, harm to another's property, often obtained at high cost and through hard work -- to get my revenge on an ugly world.
And writing on the wall is a rather weak middle finger to The MAN, don't you think? The Man don't care; in fact, The Man often sends out cleaning crews (which, in case you don't know, comes from OUR tax dollars).
Wouldn't working to change the system be better revenge?
Sparky- I think this is a pretty poor place to bring up Brendan and bark over our tastes reg. his or others' art. But in general I agree with Smussy.
Everyone has their own ethos about where to put things and what is okay, but a lot of these people are using ugly vacant landscape. I mean as much as I really enjoy that grime on the underpasses, I like the artwork better. These are people trying to put art up, and maybe their definitions are very different than others (on "art") but I think intentions are important. They're not etching on your front door to alert other violent people that this is their "turf".
Its not a sign of aggression its a sign of expression. (sorry to be lame and rhyme!)
Forgive Sparky, Awkward. He/she was not aware of the 65-day official mourning period for this person.
I mean as much as I really enjoy that grime on the underpasses, I like the artwork better.
Oh, it's about what you like, then? What if I like the underpass, with all its natural griminess? Who wins?
These are people trying to put art up, and maybe their definitions are very different than others (on "art") but I think intentions are important. They're not etching on your front door to alert other violent people that this is their "turf".
Sure--as long as this art does not go up without securing the permission of the property owner first. Are you familar with the concept of property? Typicall, it is a thing, or a building, or a piece of land, or a structure, that people--sometimes poor people, sometimes middle class people, sometimes rich people--often work hard to afford and maintain (and yes, some inherit property). As for public works, they are paid for by taxpayers. No single taxpayer has the right to deface public works, either--our elected representatives generally set such rules.
Do you own property? A car? Condo? House? Bike? Stereo? Clothes? If so, may I improve your property with my art? (See, I am even asking permission, something most street artists tend not to do.)
Keep on keeping on ...
matilda-
"Forgive Sparky, Awkward. He/she was not aware of the 65-day official mourning period for this person. "
that comment is in very poor form -
"laws not men"
yea whatever - laws are created, enforced and broken by people. Laws and civility are our own constructs. What if I wrote 'George Bush kills Babies' on the wall- Vandalism? Free Speech? Protest? Journalism? There are much greater laws broken everyday than writing on the wall. Get over it.
I can work against the system and I do. I don't write on peoples walls without permission anymore because I have too much to lose (OK maybe sometimes).
The point is this: your world of Laws get trampled on by my world of Individuals.
Individuals are way more interesting to hang out with than your Laws. Yes the Law often wins and yea our tax money helps the Law. I like to be on the side of the Individual to express themselves- you obviously prefer the Law.
This is further proof that you are boring and probably suck.
Give me some kid with a spraycan over griminess, over Laws, over your mentality any day. Yea I might get pissed with the kid when he writes on my garage or something, but I'll be OK.
Kfunk: That you apparently have no idea what "laws not men" even means shows you have a very poor grasp of American history and the American concept of government and civic society, which, in its ideal form, springs from the best of the Englightment. You argue against "laws not men" in a way that is childish and ignorant of the basic concept. May I suggest some readings: The Declaration of Ind.; the Federalist Papers; the writing of Jefferson, especially, as well as other Founding Fathers; the letters of Lincoln; the Constitution; etc.
Yeah, I am boring, and I suck, and I am certainly not as cool and edgy as you seem to be, but let me ask you: Can I spray paint your property without you saying I can? If not, why not? That is the only issue here.
Why can't any supporter of street art actually answer this question?
As well, what if I like the "natural" look of the underpass--who wins in that case?
Stop with the crap from some art-show mission statement and address the real issues. Think and respond instead of proclaiming your coolness.
i absolutely acknowledge that putting a sticker on a street sign is illegal. but i think there's a difference in the street art aesthetic and the gang/graffiti aesthetic.
again, this is only personal evidence, but no one i personally know who is involved with that scene goes and spray paints personal property ... bikes, stereos, clothes, houses. i asked someone once why there's tons of free space in millenium park that never gets tagged, for instance, and they said that generally that stuff is respected as a park/open space/art area. that stunned me, frankly. it didn't seem to me that the kind of tagging i'd seen (just random gang graf) would have respect for anything, much less a park. but, i really don't see much of it in places like that, which is cool.
anyway, i hate things like "you're boring and must suck." seriously? we can't disagree without that? but, i have to say that i think there's some give and take in the city. yes, our tax dollars paid for the stop sign and the parking sign that a street artist may put a sticker up on or stencil a sidewalk with paint, but the fact of the matter is, last time i checked, there was no real law about 'dibs,' and i have to deal with that stuff here, too.
i just don't have a problem with it as long as people are leaving garages and houses and businesses alone. sidewalks and paperboxes and boarded up stuff and whatnot seem to be fair game to me ... and of course, even then i have my preferences to what i like and don't like.
I can work against the system and I do.
That's a very romantic view you have of yourself. Thing is, the system is still here and most likely doesn't feel much one way or the other about you. So, you're pretty ineffective Kfunk.
Matilda-
Your comment WAS in poor form. When someone you are friends with dies, you tend to give a crap about that forever. I don't even think a friend has to "die" for you to want them to be respected. This is quite clearly a personal point and I thought it was shitty for you to reference the one street artist you knew, who happened to be murdered, when your point could have been made without. And I don't think a few months is an excessive amount of time to be sensitive about your friend being murdered.
As for the "what if I like the dirt better" question-
If this is supposed to be taken seriously then, put more dirt up! If you like dirt or cartoon clowns as opposed to whatever someone put there, then go ahead and put what you want there instead.
And as for the personal property-
I think several people have adequately indicated that many "street artists" do not modify the property of individual citizens and/or consider many other areas "off limits" for their own reasons. And yes I own several things, and no I'm not 19, and yes I have a job. Just because I have a totally different viewpoint then you doesn't mean I'm necessarily completely different than you in a statistical or socioeconomic way.
Everyone has their own ethos about where to put things and what is okay, but a lot of these people are using ugly vacant landscape
So, TIA, if my ethos says I can tag your property, you'll let me do so? I'm serious, we'll arrange for me to decorate your property because my ethos says that I can tag the property of people who encourage tagging. I'll do your car, your building, etc. I may or may not be any good, but just as the city can't choose who expresses their artistry on an underpass, so you can't really choose my form of representation.
I'm not sure what Cakelords means, but I like it.
Some Cakelord should do a massive throw-up of Cakelord 101!
OH esnap!
BTW Art of Pizza, puro art for reels.
By,
If you think tagging my personal property is a good idea...well then that sucks for me I guess.
I don't think its a good idea and most people I know don't either. Since I don't support this type of thing..I'm not sure how else to respond?
Coming back to you late in the game, TIA, but the point, if you'll take notice four days on, is that you're deferring to the personal "ethos" of the tagger in question. You don't support my ethos as stated and won't take me up on my offer (again). So it's not the ethos of the tagger to which you defer, but a nonexistent ethos of tagging.
Which brings me back 'round to the first time you didn't take me up on my offer. If *you're* not the perpetrator, you have no say, so defending the person in question is ridiculous.
The thrill of tagging is getting away with it, there is no permissible tagging, that's the point. It's not defiance, there's nothing high minded there. It is about putting your handprint on the cave wall and moving on to the next cave.
@matilda:
The issue: Can you spray paint property?
The answer: yep
the rest: but maybe you will get in trouble
the issue: you like grime
the answer: who ever gets there last... when i see a crappy underpass the natural instinct is to paint it - if the city comes by and paints it white after I'm done then great for both sides. You get a white clean underpass and I got my moment of fame and possible a cleaner canvas for next time.
Are you happy now?
I know WTF laws are- I think laws should be broken at times- and I also take offense to people who seek to apply the law without regard to intent or balance of the crime.
A gun does not equal a spraycan or even a crack rock- and penalties should be allocated justly.
@smussy
matilda started it
@by
yep its ineffective, but it makes me feel good. i wouldn't do it unless i enjoyed it anyway.
Try this one
cave : hand print :: message board : comments