Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Graffiti vs. Property rights

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.happyplace.com...

"Defacing" a sign put up by a business owner, or an advertisement that has been paid for, or a sign owned by the city is a clear violation of property rights.

- Should graffiti artists be prosecuted?

- Are they exercising a clear right to expression? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we aren't talking about people maliciously redirecting someone towards harm (the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument against free speech). The examples in the piece I've shown clearly don't cause any direct harm to the reader.

- How is society harmed or benefitted by graffiti?

- What could be done, if anything, to improve our state of affairs in this regard?
Rob
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 10:54:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 10:50:09 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.happyplace.com...

"Defacing" a sign put up by a business owner, or an advertisement that has been paid for, or a sign owned by the city is a clear violation of property rights.

- Should graffiti artists be prosecuted?

- Are they exercising a clear right to expression? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we aren't talking about people maliciously redirecting someone towards harm (the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument against free speech). The examples in the piece I've shown clearly don't cause any direct harm to the reader.


They cause direct harm to someone however as you just described.

- How is society harmed or benefitted by graffiti?

- What could be done, if anything, to improve our state of affairs in this regard?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 10:56:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
what i find interesting about graffiti is that if something you own gets tagged, the city won't clean it up, but they will notify you thats its illegal to leave your property defaced. i guess they have an application process for people who think they carry an unfair graffiti burden, but thats all based on the idea that a dirty tagged broken down looking neighborhood encourages more crime. which it does, as far as the studies have been done.

but just for a minute, imagine this on a smaller scale. you're in elementary school, you got a shiny new folder with power rangers on it, and someone comes with a marker and scribbles all over it so its ruined. is that part of their "self expression"? you could call it that if you want, but i doubt anyone would consider it a legitimate part.

why are you asking this question?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 10:56:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I love graffiti art but yes it's a crime and they should be prosecuted.

It neither helps nor harms society; some people like it and some don't.

I love Banksy -- there's an interesting documentary on him :)
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 10:56:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe that graffiti legality on public property should be determined with a town referendum and not coercive unilateral law by a governing body. I would vote against graffiti on public property purely because I think it makes places look run down and not respectable.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:00:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 10:56:12 AM, belle wrote:
but just for a minute, imagine this on a smaller scale. you're in elementary school, you got a shiny new folder with power rangers on it, and someone comes with a marker and scribbles all over it so its ruined. is that part of their "self expression"? you could call it that if you want, but i doubt anyone would consider it a legitimate part.

Who cares it's the power rangers, you deserve everything you get.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:02:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 10:50:09 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.happyplace.com...

"Defacing" a sign put up by a business owner, or an advertisement that has been paid for, or a sign owned by the city is a clear violation of property rights.

- Should graffiti artists be prosecuted?

- Are they exercising a clear right to expression? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we aren't talking about people maliciously redirecting someone towards harm (the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument against free speech). The examples in the piece I've shown clearly don't cause any direct harm to the reader.

- How is society harmed or benefitted by graffiti?

Decreased property value. If I have a $300,000 house, and you deface it with graffiti, the value drops and so I lose money. Like if you go and vandalize my car, it's value drops, and I have to pay to restore it.

If you do it to a store, it can negatively effect the value of the building and even the sales of the store, since some people may not be comfortable walking into a store that has, for all they know, been covered by gang signs.


- What could be done, if anything, to improve our state of affairs in this regard?

Allow public walls specifically for graffiti (so long as it is artistic and not just gang tags). Like here

http://matadornetwork.com...
http://www.romaniangraffiti.ro...
http://www.graffiti.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:03:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 10:56:20 AM, 000ike wrote:
I believe that graffiti legality on public property should be determined with a town referendum and not coercive unilateral law by a governing body. I would vote against graffiti on public property purely because I think it makes places look run down and not respectable.

But if rich people started buying graffiti art and it became a symbol of posh status then it would somehow be acceptable?

Graffiti can't really be something that's voted on. The problem is that some of it can be easier classified as art if it demonstrates a social or political message, though it's easier to be seen strictly as vandalism if it's used to mark territory (say a gang) or personal inscription, like "Danielle wuz here."
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction. I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:47:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction. I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

Not on other people's property, nor on public property. If you want to "stick it to the man" (because spray painting a wall is going to get the government quaking in their boots), buy your own wall and paint it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:47:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction.

Yes they did.

I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

All of which can be done without property damage.

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

You have a very middle class view of graffiti, in truth it is generally the children of the working or the underclass who are simply bored and get off by destroying their enviroment. They are generally neither rebels not social commentators.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

This is true of a lot of graffiti though it's kind of idealistic. You've got artists like Banksy but then you've got the simple "Danielle wuz here" graffiti which is in fact technically graffiti. A lot of it constructs a social or political message or response, but some simply IS to declare gang territory, which isn't necessarily beautiful or artistic.
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:54:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
though it's easier to be seen strictly as vandalism if it's used to mark territory (say a gang) or personal inscription, like "Danielle wuz here."

This is an example of low-quality graffiti. If there was a beautiful scene painted on a wall, would you go up to it and scribble "Danielle wuz here" on it? No, you would probably go to the side, where the drab wall or the garbage can was, and write it on that. That is the nature of graffiti. We are surrounded by the ignorant; by the mundane; by the immoral powers that be. Graffiti is our expression in opposition to this that fails to be contained by police powers.

If you were to deface something that was already aesthetically pleasing, then you would be condemned: not legally, but emotionally by the entire community. This type of activity is not sustainable and would not be reinforced like "good" graffiti.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:56:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:47:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction. I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

Not on other people's property, nor on public property. If you want to "stick it to the man" (because spray painting a wall is going to get the government quaking in their boots), buy your own wall and paint it.

Not that I don't enjoy fapping to property rights, but asking artists to buy each part of the city that they wish to decorate is rather absurd. And you and I pay the price: drab, ugly cities. Art would serve to clean up our communities, and if you can't see that, well you're a capitalist :)
Rob
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:58:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:54:27 AM, Lasagna wrote:
though it's easier to be seen strictly as vandalism if it's used to mark territory (say a gang) or personal inscription, like "Danielle wuz here."

This is an example of low-quality graffiti. If there was a beautiful scene painted on a wall, would you go up to it and scribble "Danielle wuz here" on it? No, you would probably go to the side, where the drab wall or the garbage can was, and write it on that. That is the nature of graffiti. We are surrounded by the ignorant; by the mundane; by the immoral powers that be. Graffiti is our expression in opposition to this that fails to be contained by police powers.

If you were to deface something that was already aesthetically pleasing, then you would be condemned: not legally, but emotionally by the entire community. This type of activity is not sustainable and would not be reinforced like "good" graffiti.

Actually on an estate near me the authories set aside a wall for graffiti and that is exactly what happened, a brilliant work of art with various 'tags' scrawled across it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 11:59:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:47:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction.

Yes they did.

Let's discuss your specific examples.

I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

All of which can be done without property damage.

Oh I'm sorry, please tell the world's artists what the boundaries to their art are. I'm sure they will listen.

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

You have a very middle class view of graffiti, in truth it is generally the children of the working or the underclass who are simply bored and get off by destroying their enviroment. They are generally neither rebels not social commentators.

I was one of these children once, and I took marks-alot markers and spray cans to countless walls, signs, tomb-stones, school desks, and just about everything you could think of. Never once did I mark up something that wasn't repulsive in some way.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

?

!
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:02:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:54:18 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

This is true of a lot of graffiti though it's kind of idealistic. You've got artists like Banksy but then you've got the simple "Danielle wuz here" graffiti which is in fact technically graffiti. A lot of it constructs a social or political message or response, but some simply IS to declare gang territory, which isn't necessarily beautiful or artistic.

Key word: "gang"

Gangs are the result of oppression, and by extension property rights. Gang graffiti is often very artistic. They use their own fonts which they work tirelessly on, trying to perfect to look as pleasing as possible. Uglier stuff gets done, of course, but a) the surface it was done on was probably drab in the first place and b) it can just get paint-rolled over and redone by someone who is better.
Rob
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:54:27 AM, Lasagna wrote:
though it's easier to be seen strictly as vandalism if it's used to mark territory (say a gang) or personal inscription, like "Danielle wuz here."

This is an example of low-quality graffiti. If there was a beautiful scene painted on a wall, would you go up to it and scribble "Danielle wuz here" on it? No, you would probably go to the side, where the drab wall or the garbage can was, and write it on that. That is the nature of graffiti. We are surrounded by the ignorant; by the mundane; by the immoral powers that be. Graffiti is our expression in opposition to this that fails to be contained by police powers.

If you were to deface something that was already aesthetically pleasing, then you would be condemned: not legally, but emotionally by the entire community. This type of activity is not sustainable and would not be reinforced like "good" graffiti.

Again this is a really idealistic over-simplification. If there was a beautiful park and I decided to paint a huge political mural in it that was awesome graffiti work, but then some other person decided to spray paint ugly black circles all over it and ruin my mural, is one form of "destruction" worse than the other? You're trying to disregard low-quality graffiti as if it doesn't exist or that everyone will be considerate of what they do and where. Yeah right.

You might not think low quality graffiti is relevant or significant, but you can't say what the "nature of graffiti" is because it's up to the individual person doing it at any given time and what their intentions are. Some of it is just self-hype and doesn't even have a particular message except for "look how bad a$s I am for writing my name here... you better know me." My friends and I personally enjoy reading the retarded random sh!t that people scribble in bathoom stalls (except for stuff like D + M 08/31/08 til forever, lol) but whatever. I wouldn't necessarily want to see it all over everything.

To answer the ultimate question about whether it should be a crime though basically comes down to what one's values are and if their ultimate value is self-ownership (and by extension to some, property ownership). Also note that for leftists there is a difference between possessions and political property (that's kind of OT but it might be relevant to your views).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:02:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Gangs are the result of oppression, and by extension property rights.

I know where you're going with this and to an extent I agree with you; however, not entirely -- I'm not naive enough to assume that things like gangs (and crime in general) wouldn't exist in a world without property rights. I mean that of no offense; I just know people who feel that without capitalism everything would be pretty much perfect and everyone would share all the time and whatnot -- and from what I gather you seem to sort of endorse that -- but I disagree.

To quote a speech by Omali Yeshitela, he says "But the reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got." I think there is merit to this statement, but that the reality is that would be haves and have-nots even without property rights. Ergo there would be crime by extension.

Gang graffiti is often very artistic.

I would venture to say not often; they're more concerned with symbols than artistic merit... but this isn't really important.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:10:47 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Some of those images were absolutely hilarious. Brilliant. Don't stifle creativity, that's what I say.

Yeah, until they write sh!t on your boat/cars :P

Also, sure some of those are funny -- but I bet if it were people writing "God hates f@gs" or other offensive stuff then you wouldn't be so excited about people's "creative" messages.
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:14:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:58:22 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Actually on an estate near me the authories set aside a wall for graffiti and that is exactly what happened, a brilliant work of art with various 'tags' scrawled across it.

Sounds like "the authorities" botched that plan from the beginning. You don't set designated graffiti zones and expect it to turn out perfectly. If I was in charge of that project, I would have had the artist put a picture up that was expected to get tagged, since it's the only legal spot in the known universe to do so. Paint a brick wall scene with phrases already on it or something like that. Don't put up a woods scene with bambi running around... It sounds like this project was just as suspect as any other billboard or BS corporate crap I've seen. In Green Bay, actually, they did just what I said here: they put up a colorful picture that was made in the style of graffiti in the middle of one of our downtown parks. Scrawling tags on a wall of graffiti only adds a sense of genuine-ness to it.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:15:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:01:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Graffiti IS property, just like any art.

False. Art is only property in a capitalistic society. I know it's hard from you to break your conditioning...

So what you really mean to say is:

Property vs. Property rights.
Rob
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:16:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:14:09 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:10:47 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Some of those images were absolutely hilarious. Brilliant. Don't stifle creativity, that's what I say.

Yeah, until they write sh!t on your boat/cars :P

True enough.

Also, sure some of those are funny -- but I bet if it were people writing "God hates f@gs" or other offensive stuff then you wouldn't be so excited about people's "creative" messages.

Fair point I suppose - you can't allow graffiti just so long as it's funny.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:18:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:16:44 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Fair point I suppose - you can't allow graffiti just so long as it's funny.

To some people "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is really hilarious :P
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:32:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:03:23 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:54:27 AM, Lasagna wrote:
though it's easier to be seen strictly as vandalism if it's used to mark territory (say a gang) or personal inscription, like "Danielle wuz here."

This is an example of low-quality graffiti. If there was a beautiful scene painted on a wall, would you go up to it and scribble "Danielle wuz here" on it? No, you would probably go to the side, where the drab wall or the garbage can was, and write it on that. That is the nature of graffiti. We are surrounded by the ignorant; by the mundane; by the immoral powers that be. Graffiti is our expression in opposition to this that fails to be contained by police powers.

If you were to deface something that was already aesthetically pleasing, then you would be condemned: not legally, but emotionally by the entire community. This type of activity is not sustainable and would not be reinforced like "good" graffiti.

Again this is a really idealistic over-simplification. If there was a beautiful park and I decided to paint a huge political mural in it that was awesome graffiti work, but then some other person decided to spray paint ugly black circles all over it and ruin my mural, is one form of "destruction" worse than the other? You're trying to disregard low-quality graffiti as if it doesn't exist or that everyone will be considerate of what they do and where. Yeah right.

Consideration is inherent in the artistic process. If you paint a picture that is truly beautiful, then logically the community is going to enjoy it. If I go and deface that, then what have I accomplished? "Hey guys, look what I did!" I'd get my a55 kicked from every person who enjoys that art. If my name or my tag was on it, then people would track me down and make me answer for it. It's just like if you go out buffing tags (drawing a line through the center of the tag to disrespect the original artist); if I buff "ruckus" and write "Berserker" in it's place, then ruckus is going to ask around who this Berserker guy is and possibly come and kick my a55.

Gangs and graffiti artists don't truly have the goal of destroying their community. However when the state owns so much of the community then they really have no choice. If there were, like you said, beautiful murals all over the place, then we really aren't dealing with a community that's oppressed any more in the first place and it's not likely that people are going to feeled obliged to continue to deface what they see. It's obviously more complicated than that, but the point is that there's a reason for everything and we can address these reasons without throwing up our hands and saying that we have no problem and these troublemakers are just always going to be destructive no matter how good a job we do.

You might not think low quality graffiti is relevant or significant, but you can't say what the "nature of graffiti" is because it's up to the individual person doing it at any given time and what their intentions are.

What molds these intentions?

Some of it is just self-hype and doesn't even have a particular message except for "look how bad a$s I am for writing my name here... you better know me." My friends and I personally enjoy reading the retarded random sh!t that people scribble in bathoom stalls (except for stuff like D + M 08/31/08 til forever, lol) but whatever. I wouldn't necessarily want to see it all over everything.

Bathroom stalls are absolutely disgusting and I personally think we should rethink our entire concept of how we create them. When I'm in there, I enjoy any writing, no matter how crude or base.

Yes, some people tag out of pride. But like I said, if we actually let artists shape our communities, it will make it more difficult to express that pride through vandalism. If we get to "know" who you are through our favorite mural being destroyed, then we are going to know you by breaking your face. You see, the power of the community, which now takes the forms of gangs, can be harnassed through smart policy.

To answer the ultimate question about whether it should be a crime though basically comes down to what one's values are and if their ultimate value is self-ownership (and by extension to some, property ownership). Also note that for leftists there is a difference between possessions and political property (that's kind of OT but it might be relevant to your views).

I'm not familiar with this distinction.

LOL - Rob's extremism: making Danielle blend in with the righties since 2007
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:56:25 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:47:07 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction. I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

Not on other people's property, nor on public property. If you want to "stick it to the man" (because spray painting a wall is going to get the government quaking in their boots), buy your own wall and paint it.

Not that I don't enjoy fapping to property rights, but asking artists to buy each part of the city that they wish to decorate is rather absurd. And you and I pay the price: drab, ugly cities. Art would serve to clean up our communities, and if you can't see that, well you're a capitalist :)

Art is subjective, so no, "Art" would not serve to clean up our communities, unless we apply a community accepted definition of "Art," in which case, you need an authority to enforce that definition to prevent/remove the non-art and/or punish those that make it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:40:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 11:59:27 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:47:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/30/2011 11:43:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
OK everybody is talking about destruction here; the examples in the piece I provided do not represent destruction.

Yes they did.

Let's discuss your specific examples.

They were your examples?


I'm not talking about walking up and sh*tting on your face and calling it "expression;" must everybody use extreme margins as the basis for argumentation on every subject? I'm talking about:

- attempts at sarcasm and hilarity
- art
- resistance to authority

All of which can be done without property damage.

Oh I'm sorry, please tell the world's artists what the boundaries to their art are. I'm sure they will listen.

Graffiti the side of my house and I'll hit them with a golf club. Why does the label 'artist' give them a right to violate my rights?


This is what graffiti is about. Graffiti is a response; it is almost never its own impetus. Authoritative signs are defaced to show resistance to being told what to do by people who have no real (as opposed to legal) business telling us what to do. Drab, rundown bridges and concrete walls are decorated by colorful pictures and messages. Signs, made by people with no aesthetic sense or sense of humor, are scattered all over the city and those who do actually have a personality take them to task with sarcasm.

You have a very middle class view of graffiti, in truth it is generally the children of the working or the underclass who are simply bored and get off by destroying their enviroment. They are generally neither rebels not social commentators.

I was one of these children once, and I took marks-alot markers and spray cans to countless walls, signs, tomb-stones, school desks, and just about everything you could think of. Never once did I mark up something that wasn't repulsive in some way.


Shouldn't the people have a right to graffiti? I'm not talking about the act of performing it, I'm talking about the right to enjoy the end-result of it: art. Putting a standard of property on the artist seems self-defeating. Property destroys our ability to construct our communities aesthetically, scientifically, and ethically.

?

!

I did not understand that paragraph at all!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 12:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 12:09:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 12:02:51 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Gangs are the result of oppression, and by extension property rights.

I know where you're going with this and to an extent I agree with you; however, not entirely -- I'm not naive enough to assume that things like gangs (and crime in general) wouldn't exist in a world without property rights.

Well they certainly wouldn't exist in a world of equity... if property rights were replaced with some other form of oppression then yeah.

I mean that of no offense; I just know people who feel that without capitalism everything would be pretty much perfect and everyone would share all the time and whatnot -- and from what I gather you seem to sort of endorse that -- but I disagree.

I've pretty much given up that train of thought, since I've come to the realization that it's not capitalism that's killing us, it's our own greed. Capitalism is the form our greed takes, and suddenly switching over to utopian communism overnight is not going to solve the problem of greed. The answer isn't political development, it's social development.

To quote a speech by Omali Yeshitela, he says "But the reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got." I think there is merit to this statement, but that the reality is that would be haves and have-nots even without property rights. Ergo there would be crime by extension.

The problem I see is that the haves and have-nots are actually the same people - greedy a55holes who will take anything they can if given the chance. The only difference is that one group actually has the resources at this very moment. Poor people are just as materialistic - look at black culture, for instance. The key is to convince people that the things we own don't actually produce happiness.

Gang graffiti is often very artistic.

I would venture to say not often; they're more concerned with symbols than artistic merit... but this isn't really important.

I enjoy it.
Rob