6 ms·
I’d rather look at some ornate tag than a billboard. Extra points for actually bombing a billboard! I didn’t choose to decorate my neighborhood with either. Th
by williamcotton 3y ago
I’d rather look at some ornate tag than a billboard. Extra points for actually bombing a billboard! I didn’t choose to decorate my neighborhood with either.
The real blemish on the cityscape is a half-finished luxury condo building, not the colorful paint job.
- willcipriano 3y agoYeah the real problem with the city is all that city.
- ben_w 3y agoYou don't need billboards for something to count as a city.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoCase in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoYep, perfect city lol https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Sao-Paulo https://www.numbeo.com/crime/in/Sao-Paulo
- ben_w 3y agoNobody even tried to claim it was a perfect city, whatever "perfect" is supposed to mean. It's just an example of a city with no billboards, no more, no less.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago... Does crime invalidate São Paulo's status as a city?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bko 3y agoSure, if you own the building, you can have it tagged however you want. However this is a property rights issue. When you accept some form of lawlessness or disregard to property, you can bet that it won't stop there. Who's to say your car doesn't need a colorful new paint job?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- weinzierl 3y ago"Sure, if you own the building, you can have it tagged however you want." Your HOA might disagree.
- RestlessMind 3y agoBecause HOA owns that community. So "if you own the building" condition is not met, by definition.
- Tostino 3y agoThat's not how that works. At all.
- JohnFen 3y agoIt kinda is how it works in practice. Seeing most of my friends who bought houses governed by an HOA constantly struggle with them has convinced me that HOAs are evil and should be avoided at all costs.
- RestlessMind 3y agoThat's pretty much how it works here in norcal. HOA owns the land under the community, the common places etc. Only thing a "homeowner" has control over is from "everything inside from color of the walls onwards".
- oh_sigh 3y ago
- pxmpxm 3y agoI'm sure you'll feel the same when someone paints "vote Trump" on your house.
- buran77 3y ago> the colorful paint job There may be a discussion about whether painting on someone else's things is justified or not, and in which cases. But another thing is that tagging is really the lowest form of graffiti, barely any "art" in it, certainly no creativity. It's usually the same low effort, low complexity "stamp" repeated over and over again by the same group. Where's the art in that? Because there's certainly vandalism.
- bondarchuk 3y agoHave a look at the article, they're actual pieces (I believe the kids call them).
- buran77 3y agoOf course I looked, I'm a big fan of (sanctioned) street art and was expecting to see 27 stories wonderfully engulfed in a creative dreamworld. Searching for "graffiti pieces" on your hint turned up some quite skillful pieces, nothing like 90+% of the tags in the article. Does anyone consider the words "SOUP" written in blue letters and pink contour (top left title picture), or "AKDE" in all black bold letters (top right), or plain white lettered "LOSTKA" (second picture middle), or the absolute jumble of plain green text right next to it as anything other than low effort spraying of paint on a wall? Nobody presumes some guy shouting in the park is a talented singer and the shouting is quality art. And someone kicking in your door wasn't actually a ballet dancer performing their art. Tagging your name or your crew on a wall is nothing different. People want their name on a wall because it makes them feel important or memorable. They are neither, and this "tag" art is in the same vein as someone drawing dicks on the side of library books. Low effort, low skill, just making the real artists look bad in the name of some short lived boost of ego and self-importance. Some decades ago I organized in my adoptive home town several yearly "celebrations" that were a combination of book-fest, food-fest, and street-art-fest. As a thank you for organizing this I was always invited to put my own "art" on the walls. Due to my distinct lack of talent in this area it was limited to a tag-style signature in a corner of some real art. So I managed to do the same level (albeit slightly smaller scale) of street art as these taggers with no preparation and two left hands. It was a punchline against the incredible art the others put on there. Random internet examples [0]. [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graffiti+art&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graffiti+art&iax=images&ia=images
- 4gotunameagain 3y agoYea but unilaterally imposing your sense of aesthetic to everyone else ? I do not find those graffiti attractive. It is not art, like a huge beautiful wall mural, it is rather the human equivalent of dogs peeing on trees to mark their territory.
- bondarchuk 3y ago>unilaterally imposing your sense of aesthetic to everyone else ...is what billboards do as well. And certainly they have more nefarious purposes than just "marking territory" or getting cred or just showing off your skill at writing stylized letters.
- anon291 3y agoI completely agree with you. If a billboard company puts up a billboard against the property owner's will and then claims they can't take it down because it's their preferred form of art, and it's really truly their right to place billboards wherever they want, I believe the company should be dissolved, its executives jailed, and the proceeds of the asset sale distributed to those wronged. Now lets apply the same standard to graffiti.
- bondarchuk 3y agoFor me it's not so much about the property owner who owns the place where the billboard or graffiti is put up, but the people who are forced to look at it when they walk around town. From that perspective I think graffiti and billboards are about equally lacking in free choice on the part of who has to look at them, and billboards aim to manipulate you, grab as much attention as possible, and make you spend money, while graffiti is mostly just sitting there. So as long as cities are full of billboards I will never complain about graffiti.
- RestlessMind 3y ago> but the people who are forced to look at it Those people have rights to vote for politicians, or run for local offices, who control such billboards. They should exercise those rights.
- spicyusername 3y agoI think I'd rather have neither.
- keiferski 3y agoI'd rather look at neither, and describing sloppy name tags as "art" is an affront to the concept. Why this is such a difficult position for people to take, I don't understand. I guess everyone has to either be for or against something, without any sort of nuance possible.
- pipes 3y agoNot liking the look of something does not give you the right to alter how it looks. That's a dark path set off on.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoHow do you feel about people illegally exerting their aesthetic opinion about your property?