4 ms·

What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law". It is black and white: someone is defacing something that doesn't belong to t

What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law". It is black and white: someone is defacing something that doesn't belong to them. You can call the result whatever you want ("art","expression" etc) but the fundamental issue doesn't change. Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too?

nicolas_t 2y ago
I think I’d be relatively happy if I woke up one day and saw a banksy or an invader mosaic on my wall. I’ve seen graffiti art that definitely improved grey ugly walls and barriers. I’ve also seen ugly tags that are nothing more than letters. It’s relative
- LoganDark 2y ago
  Honestly, I would too. Illegal or not, whether it's "defacing" is definitely subjective.
- highcountess 2y ago
  Is not relative at all to rational people. Let me just put it this way, do I get to just move into your home and take it over simply because I believe that I can make it a better home than you can? Do I get to steal your car/property because I believe I can make better use of it? Stop rationalizing narcissistic behavior and people trying to impose themselves on others. It’s not relative at all. You or the narcissistic graffiti vandals have no right to impose themselves on others.
  - nicolas_t 2y ago
    The nice thing is that in democracies you can influence what is done against graffitis. Don't like graffitis? try to push your local representatives etc to be stricter on them or move to a country that has no graffiti like Singapore. One of the most sterile, boring city in the world. For whatever reasons, Germany is rather lenient towards graffiti artists which, in my eyes, makes Berlin more enjoyable than it would be otherwise. I've lived in a lot of places and I've learned that I hate grey boring walls a lot, I much prefer it when they're covered by colorful graffitis. It seems I'm not the only one so some localities tend to be rather lenient towards graffiti artists and even invite them, other places are much stricter and so you can enjoy bleak concrete walls unblemished by any graffitis. As to your example about homes, well, in France and in some other European countries, in the 90s there was a bit of a left leaning political push for "right to lodgings". This movement made squatting much easier (in France, it was extremely difficult to get rid of squatters if they moved in past 48 hours). I've always personally thought those laws were stupid and they were eventually repealed and amended recently. But that's the way it is with governments, you don't get to agree with all the decisions made. If it's a democracy you have some measures of influence.
    - broken-kebab 2y ago
      >or move to a country that has no graffiti like Singapore. One of the most sterile, boring city in the world. People who pretend to make art on walls are absolute minority compared to those who'd prefer to keep walls clean, or painted, or whatever (there are plenty of options between gray, and wannabe artists spraying smileys). But somehow you offer the majority to leave. I don't think that's how it can work really
      - nicolas_t 2y ago
        I don't offer the majority to leave. Like it or not, currently in most European countries, the law and application of laws is done so as to either encourage or at least not discourage graffitis. A lot of cities even give space to graffiti artists to paint and try to entice them. If the actual majority wanted to get rid of this problem, then it would be stopped, I'm not the one making the laws or deciding whether to apply them. As for grey walls, there are plenty of gray boring walls in any city in the world, usually those tend to be painted on, in my experience, not colorful walls nor brick walls nor older buildings.
        broken-kebab 2y ago
        >If the actual majority wanted Well, no offence, but you idea of how society works is not particulatly correct. Both individuals, and institutions have to prioritize thousands of issues against limited resources. Because of that majority opinions doesn't necessary become policies. Only those urgent/emotional/tribal enough to become election fuel. Apparently, graffiti cannot compete with plenty of pains citizens experience now. >A lot of cities even give space to graffiti Try researching where it came from, and you'll see it's an attempt to civilize behavior cities found impossible to control. So reality is that graffitists are active, and numerous to extent it's hard to fought them off the walls so to say, and while majority doesn't like it, it's not ready to re-allocate resources from other issues. This leads to equilibrium we are in at the time. >plenty of gray boring It makes a good excuse in the internet discussion, but it doesn't correspond to street reality. I'm in a nice medieval quarter now, and see lots of graffity across buildings which neither gray, nor boring. It is as if people who do that don't care about beauty, other humans, and all those good things usually claimed to legitimize the phenomenon
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    What are property laws if not an imposition? Do I get to decide what laws to follow because I don't like being imposed upon?
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  It only emphasizes the problem. There's only one Banksy, and millions prolific wall-defacers. You are unlikely to get the former, and almost guaranteed - the latter
user_7832 2y ago
> What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law" Just because something is illegal, does not make it immoral or unethical by itself. I do understand the argument against graffiti, but there’s also something to be said about any kind of expression that’s inherently rebellious and counter-culture. > Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too? Correct me if I’m wrong but the vast majority of graffiti is on public walls and facades, and not on houses or cars. At least here in the Netherlands that’s what I’ve seen.
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  Graffiti tends to appear on every surface which is not actively guarded. Including beautiful historical buildings, and including private properties. "Public" walls are just a visible example of a property which nobody cares about strong enough, and nobody is held responsible for (compared to a private owner who often can be fined for keeping vandalized facade as it is).
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    Where do you live that you see that? I see it in places that are isolated, and as a proportion of urban surface area, very small.
    - broken-kebab 2y ago
      You apparently read only part of what I wrote really. You see it in places which are not guarded, or cleaned. So if there are not a lot of them - kudos to you city administration, and businesses. It's not because grafffiti is inherently benign. It isn't, and cost if keeping public spaces tidy is higher because of it
tichiian 2y ago
An ugly beton brut building defaces the landscape and the view that should belong to everyone. A beautiful graffiti can improve that view and landscape. Under those circumstances, a graffiti can be legally wrong but morally right. However only very few graffiti "artists" rise above the skill level where their work could be considered beautiful. Usually it's just plain old dick measuring contests like spraying political slogans and overspraying the opposition's, putting your name on as many places as possible or proving their "worth" in the danger of getting caught, with no aesthetically relevant outcome whatsoever.
- broken-kebab 2y ago
  If it should belong to everyone as you claim, then every aspiring graffiti maker must ask everyone's opinion before starting spraying.
  - tichiian 2y ago
    Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority. Graffiti is (partially) just the consequence of not living in that ideal world, but because of all the other problems with graffiti, I'd rather just treat it as the vandalism it usually is in all cases. No sense holding an election before every prosecution or clean and paint job.
    - close04 2y ago
      People wouldn't need to outright show they're bigots, they can just vote your house too ugly to be on their street...
    - rangestransform 2y ago
      > Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority This sounds like the words of a “community oversight” committee obstructing the construction of housing, and we already know the effects of that on the housing market. Society has swung too far into allowing other people to tell someone what to do with their property already.
wolverine876 2y ago
People tend to apply such hard-core legal standards to those they don't like. As the corrupt dictator says, 'For my enemies, the law! For my friends, everything!' Law-and-order leaders almost exclusively mean it for people they dislike. Let's apply some strict law-and-order to the wealthy and powerful, to corporations, to government officials. Then to all adults. Then I think it would be reasonable for kids with spray cans.

nicolas_t 2y ago

I think I’d be relatively happy if I woke up one day and saw a banksy or an invader mosaic on my wall. I’ve seen graffiti art that definitely improved grey ugly walls and barriers. I’ve also seen ugly tags that are nothing more than letters. It’s relative

LoganDark 2y ago
Honestly, I would too. Illegal or not, whether it's "defacing" is definitely subjective.
highcountess 2y ago
Is not relative at all to rational people. Let me just put it this way, do I get to just move into your home and take it over simply because I believe that I can make it a better home than you can? Do I get to steal your car/property because I believe I can make better use of it? Stop rationalizing narcissistic behavior and people trying to impose themselves on others. It’s not relative at all. You or the narcissistic graffiti vandals have no right to impose themselves on others.
- nicolas_t 2y ago
  The nice thing is that in democracies you can influence what is done against graffitis. Don't like graffitis? try to push your local representatives etc to be stricter on them or move to a country that has no graffiti like Singapore. One of the most sterile, boring city in the world. For whatever reasons, Germany is rather lenient towards graffiti artists which, in my eyes, makes Berlin more enjoyable than it would be otherwise. I've lived in a lot of places and I've learned that I hate grey boring walls a lot, I much prefer it when they're covered by colorful graffitis. It seems I'm not the only one so some localities tend to be rather lenient towards graffiti artists and even invite them, other places are much stricter and so you can enjoy bleak concrete walls unblemished by any graffitis. As to your example about homes, well, in France and in some other European countries, in the 90s there was a bit of a left leaning political push for "right to lodgings". This movement made squatting much easier (in France, it was extremely difficult to get rid of squatters if they moved in past 48 hours). I've always personally thought those laws were stupid and they were eventually repealed and amended recently. But that's the way it is with governments, you don't get to agree with all the decisions made. If it's a democracy you have some measures of influence.
  - broken-kebab 2y ago
    >or move to a country that has no graffiti like Singapore. One of the most sterile, boring city in the world. People who pretend to make art on walls are absolute minority compared to those who'd prefer to keep walls clean, or painted, or whatever (there are plenty of options between gray, and wannabe artists spraying smileys). But somehow you offer the majority to leave. I don't think that's how it can work really
    - nicolas_t 2y ago
      I don't offer the majority to leave. Like it or not, currently in most European countries, the law and application of laws is done so as to either encourage or at least not discourage graffitis. A lot of cities even give space to graffiti artists to paint and try to entice them. If the actual majority wanted to get rid of this problem, then it would be stopped, I'm not the one making the laws or deciding whether to apply them. As for grey walls, there are plenty of gray boring walls in any city in the world, usually those tend to be painted on, in my experience, not colorful walls nor brick walls nor older buildings.
      - broken-kebab 2y ago
        >If the actual majority wanted Well, no offence, but you idea of how society works is not particulatly correct. Both individuals, and institutions have to prioritize thousands of issues against limited resources. Because of that majority opinions doesn't necessary become policies. Only those urgent/emotional/tribal enough to become election fuel. Apparently, graffiti cannot compete with plenty of pains citizens experience now. >A lot of cities even give space to graffiti Try researching where it came from, and you'll see it's an attempt to civilize behavior cities found impossible to control. So reality is that graffitists are active, and numerous to extent it's hard to fought them off the walls so to say, and while majority doesn't like it, it's not ready to re-allocate resources from other issues. This leads to equilibrium we are in at the time. >plenty of gray boring It makes a good excuse in the internet discussion, but it doesn't correspond to street reality. I'm in a nice medieval quarter now, and see lots of graffity across buildings which neither gray, nor boring. It is as if people who do that don't care about beauty, other humans, and all those good things usually claimed to legitimize the phenomenon
- hgomersall 2y ago
  What are property laws if not an imposition? Do I get to decide what laws to follow because I don't like being imposed upon?
broken-kebab 2y ago
It only emphasizes the problem. There's only one Banksy, and millions prolific wall-defacers. You are unlikely to get the former, and almost guaranteed - the latter

user_7832 2y ago

> What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law" Just because something is illegal, does not make it immoral or unethical by itself. I do understand the argument against graffiti, but there’s also something to be said about any kind of expression that’s inherently rebellious and counter-culture. > Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too? Correct me if I’m wrong but the vast majority of graffiti is on public walls and facades, and not on houses or cars. At least here in the Netherlands that’s what I’ve seen.

broken-kebab 2y ago
Graffiti tends to appear on every surface which is not actively guarded. Including beautiful historical buildings, and including private properties. "Public" walls are just a visible example of a property which nobody cares about strong enough, and nobody is held responsible for (compared to a private owner who often can be fined for keeping vandalized facade as it is).
- wolverine876 2y ago
  Where do you live that you see that? I see it in places that are isolated, and as a proportion of urban surface area, very small.
  - broken-kebab 2y ago
    You apparently read only part of what I wrote really. You see it in places which are not guarded, or cleaned. So if there are not a lot of them - kudos to you city administration, and businesses. It's not because grafffiti is inherently benign. It isn't, and cost if keeping public spaces tidy is higher because of it

tichiian 2y ago

An ugly beton brut building defaces the landscape and the view that should belong to everyone. A beautiful graffiti can improve that view and landscape. Under those circumstances, a graffiti can be legally wrong but morally right. However only very few graffiti "artists" rise above the skill level where their work could be considered beautiful. Usually it's just plain old dick measuring contests like spraying political slogans and overspraying the opposition's, putting your name on as many places as possible or proving their "worth" in the danger of getting caught, with no aesthetically relevant outcome whatsoever.

broken-kebab 2y ago
If it should belong to everyone as you claim, then every aspiring graffiti maker must ask everyone's opinion before starting spraying.
- tichiian 2y ago
  Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority. Graffiti is (partially) just the consequence of not living in that ideal world, but because of all the other problems with graffiti, I'd rather just treat it as the vandalism it usually is in all cases. No sense holding an election before every prosecution or clean and paint job.
  - close04 2y ago
    People wouldn't need to outright show they're bigots, they can just vote your house too ugly to be on their street...
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    > Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority This sounds like the words of a “community oversight” committee obstructing the construction of housing, and we already know the effects of that on the housing market. Society has swung too far into allowing other people to tell someone what to do with their property already.

wolverine876 2y ago

People tend to apply such hard-core legal standards to those they don't like. As the corrupt dictator says, 'For my enemies, the law! For my friends, everything!' Law-and-order leaders almost exclusively mean it for people they dislike. Let's apply some strict law-and-order to the wealthy and powerful, to corporations, to government officials. Then to all adults. Then I think it would be reasonable for kids with spray cans.