Graffiti

[MetroMan]

If I were the owner of a building adjacent to a laneway (with graffiti), I'd buy me a large tin of paint and within a day have all graffiti removed.

Taggers and rogue graffiti painters only do it because they know it'll be there for somebody to see. If they're aware that it'll be gone in the morning, they won't waste their time and precious cans of paint.

... and that's the principal behind the TTC's graffiti policy: tagged cars don't leave the yard. They're cleaned first. How many subway cars do you see with graffiti painted on? ... Answer: none.

The city had an idea that I liked and never heard from again. They were going to institute a policy whereas business owners had to cover graffiti on their properties within 48 hours and could apply for a refund on the work. Not cleaning up graffiti on their properties would result in the city sending their own crew and fining the business owner (much like snow removal).

 

[ducati0000]

you really are a pretentious little person aren't you?

parone your idea of a workable city is painting walls?...those who are commissioned to paint fine,those wannabes gangster should stay away from PRIVATE property.Is that too hard for you to understand?

 

[Hydrogen]

how do you figure? If I own a building and commission an artist to paint a mural on one of my exterior walls how is that anything to do with property standards?

From the Toronto Municipal Code Property Standards Section 629-18:

"Markings, stains, graffiti, painted slogans, smoke damage or other markings or defacement appearing on any exterior surface shall be removed, and, if necessary to maintain the exterior surface, the surface of these areas shall be restored, resurfaced and co-ordinated to the exterior finish of the building or structure."

The outside wall is part of the public space. Some people may not want to look at what has been painted all over it - regardless of whether it is a commissioned piece of graffiti or not.

If the person wielding the paint can comes in and sprays up your living room wall as commissioned, however, then it is within your private space and for your own private viewing. You are no longer forcing other people to have to put up with your tastes, but can enjoy them in the privacy of your own home.

 

[ducati0000]

Couldnt agree more Hydrogen...some how those supporting "creativity tagging" thinks every wall is a canvas.If there was some racial overtones to the tagging like "white Power" the crap will be removed asap.What kind of "high" these taggers get by spraying a wall?..do they think they own the area if their signature is left there?..honestly give the money to the beggers on Queen St rather than spend your money on cans.At least its helping someone in need.

 

[paraone]

parone your idea of a workable city is painting walls?...those who are commissioned to paint fine,those wannabes gangster should stay away from PRIVATE property.Is that too hard for you to understand?

where do you get the idea that I have ever once defended someone tagging someones building illegally? They should be arrested, it's a crime, I've never said anything to the contrary.

What I don't agree with is the idea of that someone who paints in that style in that medium, legally, is some how not considered an artist. this work is being displayed in many galleries around the world, yet there are still people who cannot separate legal works of art from simple vandalism.

 

[ducati0000]

%99 of the crap on the walls are not art.I seen some wonderful projects on some of the local business but then a tagger goes and writes his signature on it.The only people who likes the taggers are the ones selling the cans and those who are contract to remove the graffiti.There is absolute no positives about tagging walls and those who thinks its a "freedom of expression" needs their heads examined.

 

[paraone]

%99 of the crap on the walls are not art.I seen some wonderful projects on some of the local business but then a tagger goes and writes his signature on it.The only people who likes the taggers are the ones selling the cans and those who are contract to remove the graffiti.There is absolute no positives about tagging walls and those who thinks its a "freedom of expression" needs their heads examined.

I agree with you.... there is a lot of crap out there. Maybe 99% of what you see every day is total crap and shouldn't be there, the kids doing it should be caught and charged.
I've never defended tags, I don't tag, I tagged a bit when I was about 14 till my dad caught me.... since then I have done only legal murals, ok and maybe the occasional freight train(ok, let the floggings begin now) which got me jobs with Sony, Toshiba, City of Toronto(surprise surprise, your tax dollars), Canadian Tire, Much Music, Tim Hortons, Jean Machine, HMV, Murad, Paramount Pictures, Alliance Atlantis.... which eventually led me to where I am now.... a broadcast designer for CTV/TSN.

Tagging didn't lead me here but being involved in graffiti did, and there are lots of other artists who had their start the same way I did.
You can't paint everyone with the same brush.

 

[paraone]

no a broadcast designer is not a "lighting guy"... I develop the visual brand for our properties.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Art isn't defined by painting in a certain style or in a certain medium - it is defined by talent. You can tag the word "art" onto the end of the word "graffiti" and pretentiously claim that professional art galleries all over the world are showing it ( some did, for about 5 minutes, back in the early '80s ) but that won't elevate what's being sprayed on walls above the level of puerile, derivative, adolescent imagery.

 

[paraone]

wonk wonk wonk.....

I was going to keep replying to your elitist BS but then thought to best leave it alone. You'll always think of yourself as some sort of authority on what is to be considered talent/creative/artistic.

 

[egotrippin]

Art isn't defined by painting in a certain style or in a certain medium - it is defined by talent. You can tag the word "art" onto the end of the word "graffiti" and pretentiously claim that professional art galleries all over the world are showing it ( some did, for about 5 minutes, back in the early '80s ) but that won't elevate what's being sprayed on walls above the level of puerile, derivative, adolescent imagery.

I don't think anyone here is defending what people are illegally spraying and tagging public property, but rather that there are examples of legal "graffiti" that can be considered art. Which is true, artists like Banksy are very talented and creative. And while I know there are more talentless punks, there are examples of talented individuals as well.

Also I'd say you're rather out of date when it comes to what defines art. Art is a human expression, that can be created through many different mediums, and is completely subjective. What does and doesn't qualify as art can't be so easily categorized, as everyone perceives and appreciates different qualities.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The art world defines artistic excellence, not self-appointed experts skulking in laneways armed with spray cans and claiming to be the next Michelangelo.

 

[paraone]

wonk wonk wonk......

 

[Urban Shocker]

... and honking like geese.

 

[egotrippin]

The art world defines artistic excellence, not self-appointed experts skulking in laneways armed with spray cans and claiming to be the next Michelangelo.

Art as a definition, pre-19th century, once defined art as artistic excellence. Perhaps this is still true under fine art definitions, but art as a whole is much more encompassing and doesn't follow the strict boundaries of a narrow-minded definition. However I'm not sure if you're referring to visual arts strictly here, as that may increase the validity of your argument by a bit. However, like everything, visual art evolves.

Your problem is with the aesthetic of graffiti art, which I can understand you disliking. I dislike 90% of it that I see plastered everywhere, but to deny that there is a skill and artistic quality required for some of the works is incorrect.