The Graffiti Question

I've seen some graffiti I've really admired, but for every decent piece there are at least twenty which are just crap. "Every graffiti artist is a superhero." and "all graffiti is art" are questionable statements (the latter depends on how you define art).

Most of the graffiti I see around is some garbage about football (soccer) clubs or someone's tag/signature. That stuff isn't usually entertaining or very artistic. It's usually monochrome.

There is a very basic reason that graffiti tends to be in the city. It is where most people live and people don't usually go out into the countryside with hundreds of spray cans.

> Every graffiti artist is a superhero.

No, every Graffiti artist is a vandal. If you disagree, give me your address, I'll be happy to graffiti your car, your house, your TV, and your laptop and be a superhero!. If you don't like that you're a hypocrite!

I always wish I had the guts to go into a museum showing off a graffiti artist's graffiti and graffiti it.

Note: that's a separate question from whether or not the person is a talented artist.

Someone on HN once pointed out that there's a lot more graffiti around: It's printed, in a typeface, well lit, scaled much larger, and pollutes the landscape far more the spraypainted kind.

People call it 'advertising'. It's someone's or some company's tag and their design, and this graffiti is all over the place in the city (and some in the country too), and nobody likes it. I've never seen advertising that I would keep there if I had a choice, and it fills cities - just imagine a city without it.

Why should the wealthy, already with enormously loud voices, get to 'graffiti' the city and kids trying to express themselves and have any voice at all get criticized and arrested? I know the literal answer is property rights, a system that excludes 99.x% from any voice or public expression, but the real question is about justice and public good. It's a philosophical question to explore the issues, not a policy proposal.

> It’s art that bursts the seams, demanding that the world bend to it and not the other way around, refusing to comply with the arbitrary bounds of property law—those meaningless slips of paper meant to legally confer ownership of land, buildings, bridges, trains, and anything else that might serve as the artist’s canvas.

I won’t touch on the property issue because it’s really tiresome - sometimes I wish there were working communists countries so these people could simply go there and we wouldn’t have to suffer them.

But it’s really the first part of this quote that gets me: it’s precisely the fact that graffitti is forced on us that makes me despise it so much. Imagine having to listen to anyone aspiring artist’s bad poetry when you’re on and about. It’s not much better than appreciating strangers’ music taste on the street or public transit. It’s worse than advertisement: at least ads are bland and repetitive, you can easily filter them out.

> When I see DEFUND BPD hovering above North Avenue in enormous, spray-painted letters, I don’t see the opinion of one idealistic graffiti artist; I see someone expressing an increasingly common sentiment.

There are many graffitis out there asking non-politely that refugees go back to their homeland or that certain kinds of people are not welcome. I suppose, maybe unfairly, that the author would consider these demonstrations a noisy hateful minority speaking for themselves and their little minds. That’s the positive side of living in a democracy: we shouldn’t need to trust that rogue public demostrations, due to the central limit theorem or something, converge on the public sentiment. We have elections for that.

And I don’t disagree that graffitti has artistic merit, however illegal or unpleasant to my eyes. I’m not that egocentric. I just think there are things more important than art.

"Their work is, by nature, uncredited." Uhm... Most graffiti is actually just a tag, the artist's tag. So, most graffiti is literally just the artists credit. And, by definition, they are vandals, not heroes.

To anyone here who expresses harsh feelings towards graffiti — here is a picture of the Berlin Wall:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#/media/File%3ABerl...

Guess which side is which. :-) I know what side I would have rather lived on at least.

> This seems like a no-brainer, but there are people out there who truly believe that the vandalistic nature of graffiti negates any possible artistic merit. Though my appreciation for graffiti is not unconditional, I tend to take the opposite stance: graffiti’s transgressive qualities only enhance its aesthetic value. It’s art that bursts the seams, demanding that the world bend to it and not the other way around, refusing to comply with the arbitrary bounds of property law—those meaningless slips of paper meant to legally confer ownership of land, buildings, bridges, trains, and anything else that might serve as the artist’s canvas.

IMO, this is a complete misunderstanding of why we have rules about who can do what to things. It is true that most of the time, if you actually do a deep-dive, property ownership is arbitrary. It reflects a history of violence, domination, control, power and is rarely rooted in any kind of philosophy that anyone except a sociopath could defend. Yes, of course, there are the empty corner cases - someone makes something entirely by themselves from a resource who supply is not locally or globally constrained, and claims ownership of it based on the labor and conception they put in. But these are tiny subset of actual property ownership situations, and the big picture really doesn't support the sort of claims that propertarians like to make for "the rules".

However, it is not meaningless. Most of us do not want to live in a society where anyone can do anything to anything at any time. It can be simultaneously true that the rules we have are arbitrary and unfair AND ALSO that we do want some kind of rules and these are the ones we have right now.

So by all means propose, refine, campaign for, enact better rules that control who can do what to what and when and how. But pretending that any such rules are arbitrary and meaningless is destructive and doesn't help us move towards a more equitable (or art-filled) society.

I still think graffiti is cool, but my enthusiasm has waned as I've aged.

Not a chance I'm going to read this insanely long essay.

As I grew up I read Subway Art, Spraycan Art and watched Style Wars. Played Jet Set Radio and Marc Ecko's Getting Up. As well as watching whatever AEROHOLiCS I could find uploaded to P2P sites.

I would photograph the graffiti whenever I went on a holiday and took SLR photos in my city.

I still get excited when I see bombed cargo trains on my commute to $DAYJOB. But sadly that rush of excitement is gone.

>inb4 banksy banksy banksy

banksy can fuck off

I was a graffiti „artist“ for 15 years and it almost ruined my life. The people, the physical danger and of course the large claims against me for property damages. Over the course of my „career“ I of course came across the same theories the author presents and I can wholeheartedly say with confidence that it is all naive garbage. If you think that some Roman scratching something into a bench 500 BC has anything in common with a teenager spraypainting a subway car, high on drugs, at risk of getting squashed by an approaching train or getting fried by thousands of volts I lose all respect for you. This graffiti-romantization is usually done by bystanders, and almost always by upper class people. Yeah, you can feel all edgy and stuff about your views, but it has real consequences for kids from those parts of societies that can’t get a lawyer to bail them out. Kids die from this, let alone exposing them to all sorts of hazardous lifestyles.