5 ms·

How are you supposed to help people that want to spray their ‘art’ on other peoples property? People that want to vandalize other peoples property? Give them fr

How are you supposed to help people that want to spray their ‘art’ on other peoples property? People that want to vandalize other peoples property? Give them free paint?

orf 4y ago
Sure! and specific places to do it. Works for other countries.
- feet 4y ago
  Graffiti art is beautiful, I think you have a great idea. Another perspective is that people do what they can afford to, murals can be an inexpensive way to brighten an otherwise bleak area.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  In other news, all these great artists start out as great artists, not vandals who practice spraying ‘ass’ on a wall 5000 times before they are good enough to make a great work of art.
- hickvision 4y ago
  The naivite of this belief is precious. Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist. But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
  - feet 4y ago
    Intent of the artist does not matter, art is subjective and the production of the system of many artists layering their works over time has a beauty in itself It's some seriously privileged classist stuff to make the claims that you're making
    - hickvision 4y ago
      It's seriously privileged and classist to acknowledge that much graffiti is merely gang tags advertising territorial control over an area? It's "subjective" whether or not gang tags constitute art, rather than a danger to the community?!? Huh?!
      - feet 4y ago
        Dangerous art? I wonder which groups of people called art dangerous in the past It's crazy how some people think painted symbols present a danger to humans somehow
        hickvision 4y ago
        How much do you know about street gangs? Yeah, they're dangerous! Turf markings are extremely dangerous. They aren't put there to be art, it's like calling a "caution: floor is wet" sign "art". I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
        feet 4y ago
        I said the symbols. Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them, painted symbols existing is not an indicator of present danger. It's bizarre how you're conflating the two
        hickvision 4y ago
        >Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them. And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.
feet 4y ago
Investing in communities gives people things to do. People can't invest when they're broke, throwing police at them does nothing to help, in fact it does the opposite. Also your comment makes it sound like literally all people are just vandals who do graffiti. That's a disgusting view of humans that lacks perspective and nuance.
- hfourm 4y ago
  I feel like you didn't read the Wikipedia? Where are you getting your take.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    feet's "Classist bullshit" is a take on the Wikipedia entry, under "Class bias" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Class_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Class_bi... , which includes: > Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of the broken windows theory in policing as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crimes.
  - feet 4y ago
    I'm getting my take from how the idea is actually implemented and acted upon in reality in the US, not from how people claim it should be implemented as an ideology >It was popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose policing policies were influenced by the theory. Example of the absurdity of implementation: >Throughout the late 1990s, NYPD shut down many of the city's acclaimed night spots for illegal dancing. Tons of criticisms, not to mention it was partially popularized by an incredibly flawed study by the infamous Zimbardo >However, other studies do not find a cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and decreases in crime.[6][25] The decrease may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines from their peak in 1990, under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins. Other cities also experienced less crime, even though they had different police policies >Baltimore criminologist Ralph B. Taylor argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. His data supports a materialist view: changes in levels of physical decay, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but economic decline does. He contends that the example shows that real, long-term reductions in crime require that urban politicians, businesses, and community leaders work together to improve the economic fortunes of residents in high-crime areas.[42] >According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise on which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime are connected as part of a causal chain, is faulty. They argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space," is the actual cause of varying crime rates that are observed in an altered neighborhood environment. They also argue that the relationship between public disorder and crime rate is weak.[44] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory There are so many issues it's difficult to fit everything in one comment. Did you read the wikipedia article?

How are you supposed to help people that want to spray their ‘art’ on other peoples property? People that want to vandalize other peoples property? Give them free paint?

orf 4y ago

Sure! and specific places to do it. Works for other countries.

feet 4y ago
Graffiti art is beautiful, I think you have a great idea. Another perspective is that people do what they can afford to, murals can be an inexpensive way to brighten an otherwise bleak area.
tinus_hn 4y ago
In other news, all these great artists start out as great artists, not vandals who practice spraying ‘ass’ on a wall 5000 times before they are good enough to make a great work of art.
hickvision 4y ago
The naivite of this belief is precious. Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist. But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
- feet 4y ago
  Intent of the artist does not matter, art is subjective and the production of the system of many artists layering their works over time has a beauty in itself It's some seriously privileged classist stuff to make the claims that you're making
  - hickvision 4y ago
    It's seriously privileged and classist to acknowledge that much graffiti is merely gang tags advertising territorial control over an area? It's "subjective" whether or not gang tags constitute art, rather than a danger to the community?!? Huh?!
    - feet 4y ago
      Dangerous art? I wonder which groups of people called art dangerous in the past It's crazy how some people think painted symbols present a danger to humans somehow
      - hickvision 4y ago
        How much do you know about street gangs? Yeah, they're dangerous! Turf markings are extremely dangerous. They aren't put there to be art, it's like calling a "caution: floor is wet" sign "art". I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
        feet 4y ago
        I said the symbols. Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them, painted symbols existing is not an indicator of present danger. It's bizarre how you're conflating the two
        hickvision 4y ago
        >Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them. And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.

feet 4y ago

Investing in communities gives people things to do. People can't invest when they're broke, throwing police at them does nothing to help, in fact it does the opposite. Also your comment makes it sound like literally all people are just vandals who do graffiti. That's a disgusting view of humans that lacks perspective and nuance.

hfourm 4y ago
I feel like you didn't read the Wikipedia? Where are you getting your take.
- eesmith 4y ago
  feet's "Classist bullshit" is a take on the Wikipedia entry, under "Class bias" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Class_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Class_bi... , which includes: > Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of the broken windows theory in policing as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crimes.
- feet 4y ago
  I'm getting my take from how the idea is actually implemented and acted upon in reality in the US, not from how people claim it should be implemented as an ideology >It was popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose policing policies were influenced by the theory. Example of the absurdity of implementation: >Throughout the late 1990s, NYPD shut down many of the city's acclaimed night spots for illegal dancing. Tons of criticisms, not to mention it was partially popularized by an incredibly flawed study by the infamous Zimbardo >However, other studies do not find a cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and decreases in crime.[6][25] The decrease may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines from their peak in 1990, under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins. Other cities also experienced less crime, even though they had different police policies >Baltimore criminologist Ralph B. Taylor argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. His data supports a materialist view: changes in levels of physical decay, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but economic decline does. He contends that the example shows that real, long-term reductions in crime require that urban politicians, businesses, and community leaders work together to improve the economic fortunes of residents in high-crime areas.[42] >According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise on which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime are connected as part of a causal chain, is faulty. They argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space," is the actual cause of varying crime rates that are observed in an altered neighborhood environment. They also argue that the relationship between public disorder and crime rate is weak.[44] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory There are so many issues it's difficult to fit everything in one comment. Did you read the wikipedia article?