Graffiti -Art or Vandalism?

 

Sat Aug 02 14:41:00 -0700 2008
Depends on whether you are the guerrilla urban artist or the wall owner. That's been the operating discussion for a long time, but now that it is getting violent, is it politically correct to just call it all vandalism, and that any societal "benefit" is outweighed by the nature of the art and the artist's behavior?
"We have seen a marked increase in these graffiti-tagging gangs taking to weapons and fighting to protect their walls, their territory, their name," said Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Robert Rifkin. ed.z.: Oh darn, I am forced to be non PC about this..oh well... enjoy your culture!

Everyones alleged "culture" has good points and bad points to it. All of us, no exceptions. You have to take all of it, not just bits and pieces of it and just ignore and wish away those pesky bad parts of it.

Here in bubba land we have drunk and methed out rednecks, with the associated crime and misery and depair that goes with that, and no one is trying to ignore it, it is just reality and we can talk about it and it isn't racist or being insensitive. It's just reality.

In areas like LA and a lot of other big cities across the nation you've got 100,000+ *real* terrorists, with numbers rising fast and a lot of them are now third generation serious criminal gang bangers, who get a mostly a free skate and a dodge in "sanctuary" areas, and graffiti is the mildest of their anti social crimes. Unless it is your wall and you have permission, nothing you spray paint on them is going to work like those pills advertised in SPAM emails, it is not enhancing your name nor your "machismo".

And let us not confuse anonymous bill posting in the past against a rogue and exploitative King and his minions versus gang bangers tagging what they claim as "their" turf, one is an act of political resistance against tyranny, the other is just..stupid crime, now apparently getting even stupider.

I think about this stuff when I am stuck at the railway crossing here and watch west coast box car after boxcar and containers going by all tagged with that inane graffiti. And I stare at it and stare at it, car after car, and I just can't see a single cool or societally enhancing thing about it. Just a waste of time to create ugly, it isn't even nice to look at, about as ugly as overly riced out cars, just lame. But! that is just my opinion, I would welcome a defense of graffiti and "protecting turf" and "your name" and fighting over scribbles and swirls on walls. Show me any good from it all, I'll reconsider. I will. Not the nice artwork I have seen where it is quite elaborate and was commissioned or authorized, I mean this gangbanger stuff.

Is there a defense for it at all? What am I missing here that makes this so culturally important that the needs of that "community" should supersede the needs and wants of the actual wall owners and the other people in the community who have to look at it? Note: I feel the same way about big giant neon corporate logos advertising to the sky and the space aliens, and like with billboards as well, I see no cultural good from it at all, just pure waste and machismo organ waggling. There's a technical legal difference in that one set of what looks ugly to me is legal, put on property owned by the folks or they contract to use it, but the overall societal benefit..not seeing it.