posted
One of the things that came out of talking about the street art movie, Exit Through the Giftshop (see my other thread), was what exactly is the difference between illegal vandalism and billboards and other forms of public square advertising.
To me, there isn't much, in terms of defacing public spaces. With very rare exceptions, the least offensive public square advertising is pretty much just corporate "tagging", little different from someone graffiting their tag somewhere. In most cases, it's worse, as it's a deliberate attempt to manipulate people, sometimes with fairly objectionable content.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little over 10 years ago here in Vegas there was a billboard for a strip lub here in town that said "No Ifs, Ands, or....", with a picture of six women lined up with their behinds showing. They were wearing g-strings so it wasn't considered pornographic, but it was still obscene.
To be honest I'd rather kids see some mild graffiti or tagging than that garbage.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tagging culture has evolved to an aura-preferential status in many places. Most cities already depreference 'acceptable' tagging, stenciling, and wheatpaste, get rid of the offensive or 'invasive' stuff, leave the rest. It's why you can flat-out run into ground level banksy and fairey in places like Harvard Square.
Billboards, on the other hand, are nearly universally an aura scourge and consistently devalue property. They aren't even allowed in my city. I love it when you leave Colorado's aura-conscious highways and hit Wyoming's state border, and are immediately assaulted by scores of billboards for Jesus and strippers.
Gee, tagging or billboards. I know which one I'll take.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were outlawed here in Maine back in the 70's. I'm glad too, even though our family business is making signs.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"vandal |ˈvandl| noun 1 a person who deliberately destroys or damages public or private property : the rear window of the car was smashed by vandals."
I think there's the obvious difference in detail, but Lisa, you need to apply the standard that others are applying here in order to catch on to what is being said. Billboards are not a crime in some places, but they are not necessarily acceptable morally, just as though graffiti may be illegal in some places, it may be morally acceptable.
So, for the sake of clarity, imagine a situation in which tagging is, within certain broad limits, acceptable. Suppose a publicly elected council overseas the content and decides what should go and what not, and business owners have their rights respected as well, but are incentivized to allow tagging. Now imagine in this world, that billboards are also legal and have similar restrictions. Which is more morally acceptable now? If we're talking just about the content of the messages, the images, whatever, it's difficult to judge based on the nature of the medium alone. Billboards advertise, often aggressively. People feel annoyed, violated, hemmed in by these signs and want them out- some of them. Some graffiti is the same way, and some is not.
So in that moral universe, I don't see much of a difference.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're talking about which one is more annoying to have to put up with when it is visible in your region. Not which one is a crime.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, which is why I wanted to separate "moral" from "crime." I suppose it is immoral to annoy people unnecessarily.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember that billboard in Vegas, Geraine! When I was younger, so much younger than today our family would always go pass it while traveling through Vegas to get up to Utah. I don't really have anything to add to this conversation...just random memory trigger.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: hit Wyoming's state border, and are immediately assaulted by scores of billboards for Jesus and strippers.
In my head, those images meshed for a moment.
We dont really have a problem with bilboards in Arizona, they are in the big cities but along the highway the terrain is too rough for stuff like that. It sounds as if it can be annoying to many of you so Im happy we dont have that problem.
posted
Lisa, You may have missed the qualification I put in.
To make it more clear, I'm talking specifically about the degrading and devaluation of public spaces. It's my opinion that public square advertisements are at least as bad as graffiti in this manner.
I'm willing to accept that there are very rare cases where this isn't true, but in the vast majority of cases, public square advertising makes the area surrounding it worse. Much like pure vandalism graffiti, it's a visual equivalent of noise pollution.
In contrast, in a lot of cases, good - but technically illegal - street art is a net positive to the public space that it occurs in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wait... so there's no difference between someone putting a sign on their own property and someone defacing someone else's property?
In what moral universe?
In the moral universe where individuals and they stuff they "own" are not little independent islands and where we recognize that we all do impact each other. That one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are we defining "degrading the public space?" Does it include secondary effects, like how safe and secure we feel in our persons and property? Because if that's included I would think Lisa's point is well taken. If instead we just mean, "how pleasant is it for someone to look at this place," I would say the argument isn't cut and dried. For one thing, "corporate tagging" is usually more professional and often more aesthetically pleasing than amateur graffiti. For another, it's more regulated both by a need not to offend people and by actual legal mechanisms.
I remember a bathroom at an assembly line I worked at as a temp one day. Inside was (in my opinion) an incredibly offensive cartoon of a woman's genitals. I can't think of any billboard advertising that I would have found more destructive of that public space.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, I can. Cigarette ads, beer ads, lottery ads, Walmart ads, fast food ads...
ETA: Assuming it was just a picture. Was there something about it that was particularly destructive?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that the degrading of the space is dependent on the content of the "tag", not on whether it's technically legal or not. A bunch of swear words in a bathroom is more degrading than a billboard with a gecko. But stuff like this is not more degrading than a bunch of girls in thongs.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the best things about the evolution of tagging culture is that there's a huge emphasis on art-to-exposure. If it's high public visibility, let a dedicated artist go at it and don't deface that. Do public walls, overpasses, roofs, etc. If you get caught defacing someone's home in a neighborhood, etc., they'll kick the crap out of you.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Boy, I can. Cigarette ads, beer ads, lottery ads, Walmart ads, fast food ads...
ETA: Assuming it was just a picture. Was there something about it that was particularly destructive?
There are obviously subjective aspects to it, but as the person in the bathroom I can say I would much rather have looked at any of the cigarette, beer, lottery, Walmart, or fast food ads that I'm familiar with than that particular graffiti. For what it's worth, it was more than a simple depiction; it was fairly misogynistic.
My point isn't that graffiti can't be more uplifting and edifying than commercial billboards; it obviously can. But I think comparing the sort of art that Samp's linking with inane commercials misses the point. Just as I've occasionally found billboards amusing, informative, and perhaps even artistic (having a hard time coming up with an example of that one), I've also found certain graffiti to be degrading and offensive.
I'm also not sure to what degree muralists acting illegally (which, for me at least, is inherent in the idea of "graffiti") should be treated differently than muralists working legally. The subject matter may be edgier, but the artistic value isn't that different. So if the question is "are street murals less degrading to the public space than billboards" I'd be more likely to say yes, in the same way that non-commecial art is generally more uplifting than advertising. Although even in this case I can think of plenty of counterexamples where, for instance, arsty short films I've seen are significantly less uplifting than well done short-form advertisements.
<edit>Or, to take a different tack, I recall a wall in Enschede center that for the 7 months I was there had graffiti on it saying (in translation) "Make all Jews dead" with a swastika underneath. Perhaps it's unfair to categorize that graffiti with the types Squick and Samp are talking about, but I'm not clear on how to separate the two.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
a lot of graffiti is just going to be inane vandalism. like, a lot of it. However, it's got to be taken into consideration that unlike billboards (which can be waved away by city councils), it is an inevitable death-and-taxes phenomenon for any sufficiently large city, so the best thing to do is encourage positive tagging culture rather than going ALL GRAFFITI IS BAD AND WRONG ARGLBLARGL.
Some places have great tag culture (Boston, most of NYC, Denver, etc) and some places have terrible tag culture (Cleveland, Detroit, Maryland, most of Chicago) but then again terrible tag culture is just sort of a byproduct of your city sucking anyway.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all graffiti is bad and wrong in the sense that it defaces something that is not yours. That there can be positive aspects to it doesn't change the vectors in which it is bad and wrong. But that's not really the question Squick posed.
From a pragmatic perspective I absolutely agree it would be good to encourage those illegal activities which uplift local communities rather than the ones that degrade them. I'm not sure that changing public opinion from a "that's bad and wrong arglebargl" to a "yes, please grace my store wall with your Shepard Fairey-esqe work of art" is really that likely to increase the one over the other, specifically because I think tagging culture is pretty immune to public approbation. I imagine (and it's nothing more than idle thought) that increased engagement with the less illicit artistic community is a greater determining factor than public approval.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tagging is a culture which reacts greatly to the attention that it garners, since tagging is done primarily for the attention that the display of art receives.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: tagging is a culture which reacts greatly to the attention that it garners, since tagging is done primarily for the attention that the display of art receives.
Except, I doubt (but could of course be wrong) that attention from the bourgeoisie would have quite the effect one wants. If, for instance, people were to start saying "That Shep Fairey; he's almost as good as Thomas Kinkade. If you're half as good as him you can paint all over my bodega" I don't know that it would have quite the ameliorative effect your imagining. Which is why I suggested that greater integration with the licit local art scene might go further than changing the general population's opinions.
Now, personally I'm a big fan of bourgeoisie values, and maybe capture of the tagging culture really would promulgate the sort of cultural elevation your espousing. But I have my doubts. It seems more likely to morph into something that is not dangerous, not edgy, not illicit, which is what I think gives it the cachet it has today that makes it admirable to you and Squick and others.
<edit>c.f. hip-hop in the early 80s vice hip-hop in the early 90s.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the values or promulgation of 'bourgeoisie values' is at all how I would deal with trying to culture a more preferable graf culture. Though having some lowbrow/street art demos in your art scene helps.
What you DO do is have the city essentially abandon parts of the city's industrial/infrastructural fronts to unmolested graffiti production, then play broken-windows theory where you absolutely DO NOT want graffiti.
"encouraging" it is the wrong word. It's going to happen whether you want it or not. The strategy is to direct it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "encouraging" it is the wrong word. It's going to happen whether you want it or not. The strategy is to direct it.
I guess I was misunderstainding you; I had envisioned the mayor standing up and saying "let's hand it to our taggers!" and everyone clapping because they were doing such a great job of making our city beautiful. That sort of approach doesn't seem to provide the sorts of incentives that would work toward making the sort of graffiti art that is being made today.
Your suggestion seems a bit like European red light districts, or urban ghettos of the 70s and 80s. I don't know that ceding territory to the activity necessarily directs it in a good way; it seems to have worked well with skate parks, from what I've seen (or, rather, not seen), but it didn't seem to work well with drugs (based on my brief experiences in Rotterdam and Amsterdam). But maybe that's because the broken windows policies weren't followed with sufficient force, or because drugs are just so much more seductive than tagging.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drugs are the counterexample? we're busy ceding 'lost ground' on that front in our country right now, and it's actively for the better.
Really with tagging, by directing it, you are advancing ground by allowing your city the limited ability to cull tagging largely from the areas where you really do not want it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was "directing it" hasn't worked well for drugs in Europe because they have the habit of not staying where you've directed them.
My point was not that "eliminating it" has worked well here in the US. I agree that it hasn't, although I think the "actively for the better" is a bit blithe and insufficiently nuanced.
<edit>Meaning "eliminating it" with regards to drugs. Also, note that I'm undecided whether graffiti is more like drugs (which, in my experience, aren't particularly direct-able) or more like street skating (which I mention seems to have been directed by creating skate parks). If I had to make a guess, I'd choose the latter, which I guess means I agree somewhat with your recommendation. But I'm just not that familiar with the culture.</edit>
posted
Graffiti is trying to say something against the powerful--in the cracks--through the cracks--while there are cracks left.
Once the powerful let you tag up, you're playing another game, within the system that legitmizes the power, the one that also wants to wear its cultural sensitivity like a jewel to the gallery opening. Most 'graffiti' has been channeled into a commodity form, whether as a vector for viral marketing, as 'real-life' fashion backdrop, as nostalgia.
Billboards, at least, suffer less from bad faith. They reflect with more integrity who we are, what we've become, what we care about. The only reason to hide them is because we prefer the illusion it isn't true, especially on the way to the cottage. The average low-income, inner city (or worse those nightmareish burbs that have taken the socio-economic place of the 'inner-city')is festooned with ads on every square inch, right down to the sponsored lunchs at the schools.
Once they let you start write the graffiti, it's not graffiti -- it's management.
Grab a spraycan and hit a bank. Write in Spanish. Find out what graffiti means: they hunt you down.
posted
On a barely related note -- how would someone go about getting in touch with the type of graffiti artist samp is posting about if you wanted to hire them to create a mural on private property? I was thinking a craigslist ad, but that can't be the best way, and I'm not even sure what catagory I'd put it in.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, nevermind that. If you are in/near a metropolitan area, let me know which one. I will probably be able to forward some relevant contact info.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Six bottoms is pretty PG-13. Especially for Vegas.
Isn't Six Bottoms a Vegas-based amusement park chain?
Maybe in Pahrump. (about an hour outside of Vegas) Prostitution is not legal here in Vegas, though I wish they would legalize it so we could get some tax revenue.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I just realized that Intermedia Arts would probably actually be a good place to start. And it looks like they have a graffiti mentoring program, what do you know.
If you happen to have any information, samp, I'd still appreciate it, but at least now I have a local starting point if you don't.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Some places have great tag culture (Boston, most of NYC, Denver, etc) and some places have terrible tag culture (Cleveland, Detroit, Maryland, most of Chicago) but then again terrible tag culture is just sort of a byproduct of your city sucking anyway.
Hey! The city doesn't suck!
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of mixed minds. I've seen a fair number of billboards that were irritating, invasive and even distracting to drivers who really ought to be watching the road. Likewise I've seen some graffiti sufficiently artistic that it actually improved the overall visual quality of the area.
But I've also seen graffiti that was the equivalent of feral dogs marking their territory. Given a choice between an advertisement and something that makes people feel less safe to walk the streets, I'll take the ad.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: On a barely related note -- how would someone go about getting in touch with the type of graffiti artist samp is posting about if you wanted to hire them to create a mural on private property? I was thinking a craigslist ad, but that can't be the best way, and I'm not even sure what catagory I'd put it in.
Look. At the risk of patronizing such a rebellious character as yourself...I have a daring suggestion! An inspiring suggestion!...OK...here it is: Buy yourself some spray paint and do it yourself! Find out what you really think of the house! that lifestyle! those promises! Let it happen for real....OK...OK...Details..We all need details:
Step 1: acquire mind altering substance/activity (this ranges the full spectrum of things and well beyond the cliched but perfectly acceptable bottle of tequila. e.g. meditation, staring into space...anger...fear...sadness...dancing...etc.)
Step 2: Buy the paint cans...
Step 3: Locate appropriate music (this may include and probably should be pure, adrenalin fueled silence...or, if you live close to downtown, merely open windows and the sounf od the city after midnight).
Step 4: Choose the right night. One of those nights. You know what I mean.
Step 5: Gather the stuff together and at the right time with the right noise walk into that room and do it.
Step 6: Note - you may need a mask, depending on the ventilation available...or risk suffering the inscrpition of an irreversible mental graffiti...
That's nice, deerpark. I've painted with spray paint before. You know what? I'm fairly decent at it. But I've done enough artistic stuff to know that I'm competent but not inspired, so this is not a case where practice makes perfect.
I consider graffiti an art form like any other. Some of the stuff is inspired and beautiful. I don't live close to downtown, I live downtown, and I have a walled patio with a 20' x 8' block wall that's painted beige. I would happily let a group of 16 year old taggers go at it for an afternoon, and that would be better than how it looks now, but if I can find someone who this is their art form and will do something beautiful with it? Even better. And I would much rather have that than some half-assed imitation I tried to do myself without developing the necessary skills to do it right.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Step 126: In daylight it might look a little raw but,
Step 127: it's only trauma, you'll get used to it!
Step 128: Having a shower and scrubbing off the little bits of colour, watching the greenish water swirl down the drain, you feel releived.
Step 129: Except, the room's still out there.
Step 135: Primer.
Step 201: A first good night's sleep and the prospects of bacon and eggs send you to the washroom where you see yourself in the mirror and notice a faint splotch of fluoresent orange on your temple. It happened.
Step 359: Somehow, with time, it's faded into background, the experience (that is)but, every once and a while, staring fetchingly over the top of your cocktail glass at a friend sitting on the sofa, you catch a bubble of colour or half a word squirting out from behind a picture frame.
edited to add (Wow we cross posted!): But, I can't let you discount inspiration (yours) so casually! I merely take it for granted!
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this, deerpark: If you're ever in Minneapolis we can paint it together. I'll supply the paint and the tequila.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look. Do this: -Get a projector that you can attach a PC to. -Fire up HR or SR on a thread that's engaging -Project it onto your wall, your self etc. -Write your replies on the wall (and yourself) -If you feel like it, video the proceedings and post via U-Tuberoonie. A testimonial of sorts.
The cliched but nevertheless beautiful conflict of materialities will provoke something inspired and unexpected.
Unfortunately, I can't be in Minnesota for this--but, from my canoe in Wabakimi park--approximately 400 miles north, I'll be rooting for you!
(Note: the exquisite and I think market driven conflation of the 'out there' and the 'in here' renders this space..in the beam of light and on your body/wall both public and private, and, I think, provides the material locus of graffiti...consider the tattoo as symptomatic, or, as pointing in this direction...)
It will be beautiful 20 years from now, when it matters (to you)...
posted
Light. What it lands on. What it keeps us from knowing.
Inspired, I in fact got my projector and turned it on in my freshly painted and perfectly white room. No way to attach a PC, but, the effect is quite distracting (to say the least). There is a pile of empty coconut juice cans in the corner with the inevitable cloud of fruit flies hovering above it. Caught in the properly adjusted beam of light, their magnified but sharply figured shadows are projected onto the walls. The simple allusive weight of Drosophlia, what with all the genetic discoveries hinging on this creature's set of chromosomes leads me to speculate that they have a great future as part of a contemporary video art exhibition. Think of the images as the reverse of the now popular pinhole camera effects...instead of the outside world naturally projected upside down on the wall of a darkened room (Camera Obscura)...we have (with proper prompts) something posited as an index of the genome project floating in the raw, artificial light of an empty white room
It's perfect. Even fruit flies.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
