Historic subway cars vandalized

[TKTKTK]

Once they allow people to spraypaint their trains, the next move will be to spraypaint the stations, the seats. Many artists have restraint, but of course their will be those who take things too far and, for example, spraypaint the seats and windows. Those trains were also designed by someone.

Don't fool yourself, our modern trains were extruded out of some giant industrial cost-analysis machine. At best, they were approved by someone.

Anyway, people need to separate vandalism from graffiti. They aren't the same thing, and they're not even really done by the same people. If you define what's in play and what isn't, then you can go after the real culprits and not have to waste time vilifying the whole. Graffiti is about expression, not rules breaking - but in the absence of sanctioned outlets, you invite the rule breaking.

 

[whatever]

Sanctioned outlet? Name one other art form where the denial of a 'sanctioned outlet' justifies the breaking of criminal codes. And why is the onus on society to provide a sanctioned outlet in the first place? Why can't the grafitti artist provide their own canvas?

 

[TKTKTK]

Sanctioned outlet? Name one other art form where the denial of a 'sanctioned outlet' justifies the breaking of criminal codes. And why is the onus on society to provide a sanctioned outlet in the first place? Why can't the grafitti artist provide their own canvas?

What, like build a wall? Or draping buildings in great Christo-inspired canvas graffiti cloaks?

 

[junctionist]

What, like build a wall? Or draping buildings in great Christo-inspired canvas graffiti cloaks?

Yes, build a wall, or get some aluminum, glass and some industrial artists, recreate the side of the subway car. Or buy it from some transit agency that's scrapping cars. Then spraypaint it. That's the kind of creativity and hard work I could appreciate. It's not absurd in the context of the arts to spend incredible amounts of time on a piece.

 

[adma]

The TTC should be encouraging this sort of thing, rather than vilifying it. Why can't we have graffiti-covered cars?

I dunno, I just can't get riled up over this. It's just paint. It's even nice looking paint.

Why can't we? Because it's no longer the 1980s, when that sort of thing was "cool" and "edgy" and "grassroots expression".

You might as well be longing for the return of body-rub drug-den sleaze to Yonge/Dundas...

 

[Hipster Duck]

So?

According to the picture it exists.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most disingenuous arguments I have ever heard on this forum and I've been here for 6 years. There has not been an instance that a TTC subway car was covered with that amount of graffiti and was pressed into revenue service. Everybody knows this. If you aren't being facetious, I can only hope you're embarrassingly ignorant.

So graffiti is only FUCKFACE on your living room window? Yeah, just like public transit is only full of dweebs and poor people.

I don't care if they paint Picasso's Guernica on my front window. If it was done without my permission it is a crime.

If you are going to successfully debate your side to a legion of opposing forumers you are going to have to do better than resort to flimsy, reductionist arguments that would not be worthy of a five year old brat.

 

[adma]

Anyway, people need to separate vandalism from graffiti. They aren't the same thing, and they're not even really done by the same people. If you define what's in play and what isn't, then you can go after the real culprits and not have to waste time vilifying the whole. Graffiti is about expression, not rules breaking - but in the absence of sanctioned outlets, you invite the rule breaking.

If somebody spraypainted, say, Old City Hall or Union Station with what you call "graffiti" as opposed to "vandalism", would it be any more excusable? Honestly, as such it'd be as twerpy as the ROM Crystal OCAD bomb guy.

As I indicated, "graffiti art" is an old hat concept now--as "street expression", it's become almost as kitschy as mime artists. At best (i.e. least "vandalistic"), you're dealing with a more anarchic version of BIA-style wall murals...

 

[jaborandi]

Perhaps we need a death-threats thread so these people can work through their problems? We haven't seen Benito and Clara doing their Sankai Juku "hanging event" for some time ...

We haven't seen Sankai Juku doing their Sankai Juku hanging event for some time either!

Back to the Gloucester cars, it looks like they needed a good repainting anyway (when glossy turns to matte and all that) and perhaps this incident will spur the owners to raise the funds to restore the cars to their former glory rather then let them slowly fade away like an old tomato. From reading this thread, there seems to be enough keeners who would like to contribute to such a worthy cause and maybe throw in an electrified fence as well or at least a bad dog with nasty intentions.

 

[whatever]

What, like build a wall?

Well, actually, yeah, like build a wall. Freedom of expression doesn't entail a right to an audience, or the means necessary to reach that audience. If the artist doesn't have a wall society is not obliged to provide them one, and the artist certainly isn't entitled to just appropriate one.

 

[TKTKTK]

I'm sorry, but this is one of the most disingenuous arguments I have ever heard on this forum and I've been here for 6 years. There has not been an instance that a TTC subway car was covered with that amount of graffiti and was pressed into revenue service. Everybody knows this. If you aren't being facetious, I can only hope you're embarrassingly ignorant.

I don't care if they paint Picasso's Guernica on my front window. If it was done without my permission it is a crime.

If you are going to successfully debate your side to a legion of opposing forumers you are going to have to do better than resort to flimsy, reductionist arguments that would not be worthy of a five year old brat.

\/\/|-|4†3\/4®.

 

[TKTKTK]

I think it's really unimaginative of us, as a society, that we don't offer up more chances for public artistic expression. That even while we talk up a free and public space, we try to obsessively control how its managed and how its presented.

It's hard to define in what contexts we should allow, or encourage, graffiti. I just think it's myopic to dismiss it out right because it's no longer trendy, or once it was vulgar, or done somewhere inappropriate, or historically inaccurate.

 

[Hydrogen]

Anyway, people need to separate vandalism from graffiti. They aren't the same thing, and they're not even really done by the same people. If you define what's in play and what isn't, then you can go after the real culprits and not have to waste time vilifying the whole. Graffiti is about expression, not rules breaking - but in the absence of sanctioned outlets, you invite the rule breaking.

If a person chooses to create graffiti on an object or surface that they own, they can call it their art if they so wish. If they carry out their activity without any permission on property or on surfaces that do not belong to them, and in the process deface or damage those surfaces, that is vandalism. So yes, graffiti and vandalism can be the same thing and done by the same person.

People have used freedom of expression as an excuse to carry out all kinds of stupid activities. Many individuals who have uttered racist remarks, threats and messages of hatred have tried to hide within a declaration of freedom of expression. Freedom entails responsibility - and consequences when expressed with ignorance or poor judgement. You appear to have neglected this point (or don't quite understand it).

That we persist in keeping everything pristine and in like-new condition is a bit pathological.

Can you actually explain what you mean by this?

 

[ShonTron]

The subway cars are the property of the Halton County Radial Railway and sit on their own private property.

There have been public commissions of graffitti art. The Wallace Street footbridge is one example of this, where it actually looks attractive. The alleyway of Sam's is another example. That's about as far as it should be "encouraged".

What happened here was criminal. While some people might advocate summary executions, I like the idea of forced community service - clean up their mess and spend the summer dealing with historical enthusiasts, rail geeks and transit foamers (I hope they're supervised by the oh-so-boring foamers who rhyme off engine types and show off the 3/4 shots of every streetcar they've seen, rather than the quite normal historical enthusiasts) and fixing up their collection.

 

[TKTKTK]

If a person chooses to create graffiti on an object or surface that they own, they can call it their art if they so wish. If they carry out their activity without any permission on property or on surfaces that do not belong to them, and in the process deface or damage those surfaces, that is vandalism. So yes, graffiti and vandalism can be the same thing and done by the same person.

Are you using graffiti and vandalism separately because i did? Or because you recognize a difference between the two?

Freedom entails responsibility - and consequences when expressed with ignorance or poor judgement. You appear to have neglected this point (or don't quite understand it).

I haven't even sought to address it. So far I've been trying to moderately, and generally, defend the idea of graffiti against increasingly hostile personalities. You'd think I'd taken some radical position here.

Can you actually explain what you mean by this?

I'm not saying that I don't share the same pathology, I protect my car from scratches and dings with obsessive vigilance. But isn't it really just a power struggle of sorts? That we want objects to stay in exactly the same state we, umm, 'want' them to be in? We want a white wall to stay a white wall - even if there's no real reason it's white?

 

[whatever]

It doesn't matter if it is obsessive, as the owner of the wall you have the right to whatever you want with it. If you want to whitewash it daily then by all means, go ahead. Who are you, or anyone else, to be so enlightened as to have the wisdom to dictate how people ought to relate to what is theirs?

You've mentioned your car, and wanting to keep it in pristine condition. How would you feel if you woke up one morning and came out to find that someone had scratchitied an intricate tag on the hood of your car? Hell, how would you feel about a near perfect recreation of The Kramer? If you told me that you would be overjoyed at this wonderous artistic expression I would say that you're full of shit.

Honestly, do property rights mean anything to you, or is all this nonsense stemming from some half-baked, quasi-anarchistic streak?