4 ms·

Most graffitis I've seen are on empty walls or buildings with no ads. Brick wall looks way better without them. And to me it looks more like it's the graffiti m

Most graffitis I've seen are on empty walls or buildings with no ads. Brick wall looks way better without them. And to me it looks more like it's the graffiti maker that thinks that they own the wall and can choose what should be on it.

helboi4 2y ago
Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. By that logic, graffiti artists as regular people who use public infrastructure in the area should as much right to paint on the wall as you do to paint the wall in your house. And you can paint over it if you hate it so much. But its all down to the community. It should not be a crime enforced by a ruling class who nominally owns the wall but doesn't use it, so is totally not actually inconvenienced by it being painted. You are part of the community. So is the artist. The person who owns the wall is mostly likely not. Stop pretending you're on the same side because you think you may also become a millionare by osmosis.
- kalaksi 2y ago
  I'm not thinking that I'm on some side or defending some class. As you said, I'm part of the community, the public. Why should the right to have wall painted override the right to have the wall as it is? I'm betting most would want it without graffitis, but apparently one person can decide themselves how it should look. It's a simple conflict of opposing tastes.
  - helboi4 2y ago
    Again, they have the right to have that taste and you have the right to hate it. You both should have equal ownership over the wall. Therefore you should also have the right to paint something they don't like on the wall. Or paint over their art. Or paint a different wall in a way you like. Nobody should be prosecuting anyone for the case of a minor disagreement over personal artistic taste.
    - kalaksi 2y ago
      What if I'm not skilled enough to paint it back to how it was? Or don't want to break the law. Or some other barrier. My point is that if given equal rights, it isn't clear cut if you should paint at all. For example, on dedicated graffiti walls the situation is different since people generally agree how they should be used. Sure, one way to solve a conflict is to let everyone do what they want and see what happens, but it's just a version of "might makes right", imo.
      - helboi4 2y ago
        If we decided on all public use of space collectively, then yeah sure that would probably be better since it would be fairer. Unfortunately, this is not the system we live under. Therefore graffiti is a legitimate way for the community to express themselves in the face of undemocratic rule.
- subjectsigma 2y ago
  Yeah this seems on-brand. Graffiti artist imagines himself as the hero in some epic class struggle, anyone who opposes him must be an enemy sympathizer! In reality we just want to live in a city that doesn’t have ugly graffiti all over it. It’s OK, when you grow up you’ll understand. Walking little kids past a wall that reads FUCK because “the community” (aka a single edgy teen) decided it should is not a comfortable experience.
  - helboi4 2y ago
    I have nieces and nephews and if I walked past a wall with them that reads FUCK i'd probably laugh and tell them its a bad word and move on with my life.
    - subjectsigma 2y ago
      Would it still be funny if it was a swastika? Or the n-word? Is that also a part of your glorious fight against evil capitalists? If not, why is it any less legitimate? Clearly the “community” must want it there if it was left up.
      - helboi4 2y ago
        If it was a swastika or the n-word I would be very concerned about the nature of the community in that neighbourhood and if I'm in danger. But in terms of how i'd deal with kids seeing it, I'd take it as a teachable moment. I don't have to hide my kids from everything I don't believe in (besides they probably see crazy shit online anyway), I just need to teach them how to deal with it. Anyway, theres a wall near where i live where someone has made a massive mural making a political statement. People keep defacing it with the opposite opinion, and people keep painting back over that. If you really need the authorities to tell your community that swastika graffiti should make them angry and call them to action, then your community is screwed already. Either way, yeah just as we have laws to deal with incitement to violence and hatespeech we can have that with walls if you'd prefer, it just has to be sth actually extreme and targeted.
- aloe_falsa 2y ago
  > Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. Not sure why that follows, or how it would avoid the tragedy of the commons, or why we should act as if that’s already the case. That all aside, how would you feel about people reclaiming public space, parks and public transportation, by blasting loud music in there?

helboi4 2y ago

Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. By that logic, graffiti artists as regular people who use public infrastructure in the area should as much right to paint on the wall as you do to paint the wall in your house. And you can paint over it if you hate it so much. But its all down to the community. It should not be a crime enforced by a ruling class who nominally owns the wall but doesn't use it, so is totally not actually inconvenienced by it being painted. You are part of the community. So is the artist. The person who owns the wall is mostly likely not. Stop pretending you're on the same side because you think you may also become a millionare by osmosis.

kalaksi 2y ago
I'm not thinking that I'm on some side or defending some class. As you said, I'm part of the community, the public. Why should the right to have wall painted override the right to have the wall as it is? I'm betting most would want it without graffitis, but apparently one person can decide themselves how it should look. It's a simple conflict of opposing tastes.
- helboi4 2y ago
  Again, they have the right to have that taste and you have the right to hate it. You both should have equal ownership over the wall. Therefore you should also have the right to paint something they don't like on the wall. Or paint over their art. Or paint a different wall in a way you like. Nobody should be prosecuting anyone for the case of a minor disagreement over personal artistic taste.
  - kalaksi 2y ago
    What if I'm not skilled enough to paint it back to how it was? Or don't want to break the law. Or some other barrier. My point is that if given equal rights, it isn't clear cut if you should paint at all. For example, on dedicated graffiti walls the situation is different since people generally agree how they should be used. Sure, one way to solve a conflict is to let everyone do what they want and see what happens, but it's just a version of "might makes right", imo.
    - helboi4 2y ago
      If we decided on all public use of space collectively, then yeah sure that would probably be better since it would be fairer. Unfortunately, this is not the system we live under. Therefore graffiti is a legitimate way for the community to express themselves in the face of undemocratic rule.
subjectsigma 2y ago
Yeah this seems on-brand. Graffiti artist imagines himself as the hero in some epic class struggle, anyone who opposes him must be an enemy sympathizer! In reality we just want to live in a city that doesn’t have ugly graffiti all over it. It’s OK, when you grow up you’ll understand. Walking little kids past a wall that reads FUCK because “the community” (aka a single edgy teen) decided it should is not a comfortable experience.
- helboi4 2y ago
  I have nieces and nephews and if I walked past a wall with them that reads FUCK i'd probably laugh and tell them its a bad word and move on with my life.
  - subjectsigma 2y ago
    Would it still be funny if it was a swastika? Or the n-word? Is that also a part of your glorious fight against evil capitalists? If not, why is it any less legitimate? Clearly the “community” must want it there if it was left up.
    - helboi4 2y ago
      If it was a swastika or the n-word I would be very concerned about the nature of the community in that neighbourhood and if I'm in danger. But in terms of how i'd deal with kids seeing it, I'd take it as a teachable moment. I don't have to hide my kids from everything I don't believe in (besides they probably see crazy shit online anyway), I just need to teach them how to deal with it. Anyway, theres a wall near where i live where someone has made a massive mural making a political statement. People keep defacing it with the opposite opinion, and people keep painting back over that. If you really need the authorities to tell your community that swastika graffiti should make them angry and call them to action, then your community is screwed already. Either way, yeah just as we have laws to deal with incitement to violence and hatespeech we can have that with walls if you'd prefer, it just has to be sth actually extreme and targeted.
aloe_falsa 2y ago
> Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. Not sure why that follows, or how it would avoid the tragedy of the commons, or why we should act as if that’s already the case. That all aside, how would you feel about people reclaiming public space, parks and public transportation, by blasting loud music in there?