4 ms·
My hot take: as long as the artists (or vandals I suppose, depending on your point of view) are talented, I don’t actually mind. It adds a “lived-in” character
by jibcage 2mo ago
My hot take: as long as the artists (or vandals I suppose, depending on your point of view) are talented, I don’t actually mind.
It adds a “lived-in” character to the space which I quite like.
Defacing small business owners’ property is obviously a dick move but if you’re at an abandoned warehouse, skatepark, or waterfront, I say go nuts.
- rayiner 2mo agoDefacing public property is worse. It's toxic individualism and self-expression. If people wanted to put up a mural, they'd collectively vote to do so. In a proper society, graffiti artists would face public punishment from the collective.
- jibcage 2mo agoIs it really toxic individualism if there’s a (mostly healthy) subculture dedicated to it, though? In a “proper society” we could pass around the talking stick to reach consensus on a whole grab bag of things. I’m not a tagger myself, but I do think there is something poetically democratic about people participating in the public forum in this way. At least, beyond the four-letter words and flying dicks, anyways.
- rayiner 2mo agoYes, because the subculture doesn't represent the majority. It's the opposite of "democratic"--it's a small group of people imposing their aesthetic on what you acknowledge is a "public form"--without the consent of the public. "Democracy" isn't about individuals or small groups making their voices heard. That might be a necessary factor, but it's not the purpose. Democracy is about the majority having the right to create the kind of society they want to live in. Maybe people in Sao Paulo like the graffiti (or maybe not, since the ban on other types of visual pollution seems popular). But it's the majority's decision to make.