6 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIntent 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 agoIt'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 agoDangerous 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 agoHow 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 agoI 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 agoI understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art Also stating again: intent does not matter
- hickvision 4y ago>I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?
- feet 4y agoWhat I don't understand is how you seem to be equating graffiti with gang violence. Removing a tag won't stop any violence because painting a symbol is not violence, even if it is tangentially related. That almost sounds like treating a symptom and pretending the problem goes away. If you really want to stop gang violence, people in poverty need opportunity and investment. Preventing gang members from painting things does nothing to solve the problem of violence, that's an absurd conclusion.