Graffiti or pictographs?

August 25, 2005 12:07 PM

According to the LA Times, "[g]raffiti is a growing part of the landscape as taggers deface parks and canyons" in California. While the tone of the article was overwhelmingly negative towards the pictographs, people have been painting on these same rocks for millenia. Ancient pictographs and petroglyphs add to our understanding of what the people who lived before us were like; won't contempory pictographs help future anthropologists understand us?
posted by hellx (62 comments total)

Absolutely! Spraypaint will last for, geeze, a hundred thousand years easy. Anthropologists will puzzle over what the giant pictographs mean.... "YOU SUCK" is likely to be a deep mystery.

Millions of people travel thousands of miles each to see untouched natural beauty. By covering it over in eco-friendly spraypaint, people will stay home, staying with the graffitti they know and love. This will reduce impact on the parks and cut down on gasoline consumption, lowering the price a bit for those of us who use it for more worthwhile things, like driving to work at the spraypaint plant.
posted by Malor at 12:14 PM on August 25, 2005

Ack, and in my hurry to snark, I think I constructed the World's Longest Sentence. *sigh*.
posted by Malor at 12:15 PM on August 25, 2005

Nature hiking - TO THE EXTREME!! Do they bring their skateboards?

Also, what Malor said.
posted by billysumday at 12:18 PM on August 25, 2005

Uh, I think anthropoplogiests will have planty to go on.
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on August 25, 2005

How about I go to the tagger's houses and shit on their carpets? Won't that be a beautiful, artistic representation of what I think they're doing to the parks and canyons?

Pictographs were largely put on rocks as part of a sacred activity. They have historical value because they are some of the only permanent records of the people's presence. That was the point. In those times, that was the way to mark their history.

Taggers aren't interested in marking history; they're only interested in self-glorification. Okay, so maybe that is a generalization. But even if it is, why not tag somewhere else? Why not go and cover up some ugly-ass warehouses with something stunningly beautiful?
posted by Deathalicious at 12:26 PM on August 25, 2005

Only an idiot would think that defacing parks, canyons or other pictographs is a good or even tolerable idea for future anthropologists to learn about us. We have written records, we have monuments, we have disasters, we've even got a spacecraft that's departed our solarsystem with a gold record about us.
posted by substrate at 12:27 PM on August 25, 2005

It sounds like vandalism. I think graffiti is a great thing, when it's done in the right place - trains, overpasses, concrete walls, etc, and every graffiti artist understands this.
posted by iamck at 12:29 PM on August 25, 2005

i definitely expected some more reasoned answers to this. i definitely treasure the earth's "natural" landscape and cherish every part of increasingly-diminishing environment. that said, however, i do think there's a valid argument to be made for *why* people are spraypainting there. i mean, rich people never spraypaint because they pay for advertisements that hang up everywhere; huge displays of garbage that are treasured because of their value to the economy. when disadvantaged youth, lacking any public space to paint, or unleash their creativity, choose such arenas, it presents a complex problem to those who are environmentalists and backpackers (myself included) and those who want to argue for an articulate public space where *all* can express themselves.

after all, why can huge companies strip mine virginia mountains, killing rapidly all the attendant ecosystems, but a little spraypaint is denounced as the end of civilization? let's focus on the huge polluters, the GEs, the Monsantos (with their genetically modified crops that are spreading like fire, effectively demolishing many wild plants, weeds, and their food chains) instead of punishing a few spraypainters.
posted by yonation at 12:29 PM on August 25, 2005

posted by mishaco at 12:32 PM on August 25, 2005

Perhaps the urge to play devil's advocate has overwhelmed your senses, hellx, but if you can't see the difference between a few pictographs painted by those whose home was the desert and loads of spraypaint over national parks, then you are talking nonsense.

Put it this way; anthropologists might learn something from a giant Coca-Cola logo blasted into the face of El Capitan or Half Dome. Whaddya say?

How about if the taggers hit Rainbow Bridge? After all, the only important thing is the marks that people make, right? That, and making a B.S. argument for the sake of making it?

And yonation, how about we punish polluters and vandals?
posted by argybarg at 12:39 PM on August 25, 2005

Self-glorification is the entire reason that Charles Cole carved his initials and date into a rock in 1864. We have monuments, first hand accounts, photographs and other sources of information from 1864, but that doesn't mean Civil War graffiti isn't interesting in its own right.
posted by hellx at 12:40 PM on August 25, 2005

when disadvantaged youth, lacking any public space to paint, or unleash their creativity

Last time I checked paper and markers were pretty darn cheap.

I do appreciate graffiti as an art, and some of the murals I've seen (contracted by shopowners, who would rather pay someone to throw up a piece they approve of, rather than a large piece which reads "ECO1 H.A.V. Hill Ave Vatos") are quite impressive. But tagging up pristine landscape is just ego driven immaturity (which, is the original reason people started tagging), not art.

i definitely expected some more reasoned answers to this. i definitely treasure the earth's "natural" landscape and cherish every part of increasingly-diminishing environment

Well... you just contradicted yourself there. I live in the city, and frankly, graffiti in the subway and on public property doesn't really bother me all that much. It's just part of the urban environment. However, if I decided to take a trip to get away from it all, and saw that the canyons and rocks around my proposed camp site were spraypainted with tags... I'd be pretty pissed. And I think you're mistaken with the "rich people never spraypaint" phrase... I know plenty of little shits of multiple ethnicities in my neighborhood who come from well off families who tag.. Along with wearing FUBU gear, listening to rap, and calling eachother niggas ...
posted by Debaser626 at 12:40 PM on August 25, 2005

i mean, rich people never spraypaint because they pay for advertisements that hang up everywhere

Yeah. If it weren't for all those billboards I just bought, I'd totally be spraypainting rocks in a National Park.

after all, why can huge companies strip mine virginia mountains, killing rapidly all the attendant ecosystems

Because they bought the land?

Seriously, yonation, are you joking? Because your post reads like satire.
posted by billysumday at 12:45 PM on August 25, 2005

When I lived in Albuquerque, then New Mexico Gary Johnson got in trouble with the locals by calling the ancient West Mesa petroglyphs "graffiti". Sad thing is, he was basically right.

Both ancient natives and contemporary youths are exerting power and expressing a relationship with their environment. Grafitti (or a petroglyph) says "I am a part of this place". Whether the art is mystic icons or gang symbols doesn't matter; both have strong, individual cultural relevance.

Perhaps giving the disenfranchised more ability to shape their own environment would reduce the desire to vandalize (i.e., tag private property). Public "graffiti space", perhaps. Give taggers a length of wall and let them paint over and over. There's evidence that some ancient wall carvings and paintings were ritually redone - again, cultural parallel.
posted by ToasT at 12:46 PM on August 25, 2005

Sorry - then New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
posted by ToasT at 12:47 PM on August 25, 2005

Ancient pictographs and petroglyphs add to our understanding of what the people who lived before us were like...

Because they didn't leave other records, this is all we know of how they thought, and so we cherish these few things they left behind.

...won't contempory pictographs help future anthropologists understand us?

Whereas I bet a majority of taggers can read and write, and can do it at home, and can afford paper and pen if they can afford paint, and can get their stuff published if they have anything to say worth saying, and otherwise can sit down in a library for free and make a blog for the whole world to see. They therefore do not need to mar the dwindling natural beauty around us by spraying paint on a sequoia.

I wish tagging would go out of style. It's the dumbest thing going. And the fact that big rich corporations also destroy natural beauty does not justify small poor vandals in imitating them.
posted by pracowity at 12:50 PM on August 25, 2005

Pictographs were largely put on rocks as part of a sacred activity.

Prove it. Ancient Roman graffiti has been discovered that's just as raunchy and insulting as anything you'd find scrawled on a bathroom wall today. I'm not defending vandals; I'm just playing devil's advocate regarding the spotless reputations of prehistoric peoples.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:53 PM on August 25, 2005

I'm not really sure why all the discussion here is about "the disenfranchised" or "disadvantaged youth." These are not the people who are spray painting in national parks, those are the people who are spray painting overpasses and abandoned buildings.

The people who are spray painting in national parks are largely rich college students who are trying to feel primal or something. These people have plenty of creative outlets that do not require them to ruin the parks the rest of us want to use.

I'm not a huge fan of graffiti, but graffiti from rich white kids in Yosemite? That's the worst.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:56 PM on August 25, 2005

"i definitely expected some more reasoned answers to this.... after all, why can huge companies strip mine virginia mountains, killing rapidly all the attendant ecosystems, but a little spraypaint is denounced as the end of civilization?"

I'll take logical fallacies for $200, Alex.
posted by docgonzo at 12:57 PM on August 25, 2005

You so-called "ecologists" need to open your minds a bit. America's symbol-scape is dangerously underpopulated, and we all know what a lack of memetic diversity leads to: a dangerous susceptibility to infestation by virulent tropes and idioms, potentially resulting in widespread cognitive die-off (case study: Republican party.)

Our national parks and wildlife preserves are fortuitously free from the interference of the most prominent vectors, and would make ideal enclaves for the natural promulgation of tags which are Levenstein-distant from those found in urban areas, thus maintaining the natural diversity of our collective mindscape in the face of the advent of mass media :P
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:58 PM on August 25, 2005

If you have the means to get out to a park and tag the wilderness, then you have the means to do something better. Treating the "disenfranchised" as if they're not autonomous human beings capable of making choices is patronizing at best -- the sort of affliction you're supposed to leave behind in college.
posted by argybarg at 1:01 PM on August 25, 2005

i mean, rich people never spraypaint because they pay for advertisements that hang up everywhere; huge displays of garbage that are treasured because of their value to the economy. when disadvantaged youth, lacking any public space to paint, or unleash their creativity, choose such arenas, it presents a complex problem to those who are environmentalists and backpackers (myself included) and those who want to argue for an articulate public space where *all* can express themselves.

No one values gigantic billboards: they are an eyesore that most people will, however, tolerate. The reason that people tolerate them is because they change often, and they are put up with the consent of the people who own the land. In this respect, grafitti is markedly different than advertising: the people who make it really care if you remove it or paint over it, and it's done without the permission of the people who own the property on which the grafitti is put.

Viewing vandalism in a historical context is interesting, but it really doesn't help us learn about the past, especially since tagging stuff that doesn't belong to you is a sure way to get the tags removed, and then there's no record of it.
posted by 23skidoo at 1:05 PM on August 25, 2005

...then you have the means to do something better...
posted by idontlikewords at 1:08 PM on August 25, 2005

Taggers just want to be loved. I say they get some tough love and have to scrub their paint off the canyon walls with their faces.
posted by fenriq at 1:10 PM on August 25, 2005

Both ancient natives and contemporary youths are exerting power and expressing a relationship with their environment. Grafitti (or a petroglyph) says "I am a part of this place".

But they aren't part of the spaces they are tagging. I seriously doubt that the vandals in question feel any connection with the natural beauty they are defacing. They are not "taking back" private space and bringing it into some public realm - parks are already public and are meant to be shared as a common resource. To tag in parks is actually making the public into the private and is more reflective of a capitalist worldview.

Oh, I can't tell if sonofsamiam is joking or not. I've met enough college kids who talk like that and somehow manage to defend the stupidest of activities by sounding academic.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:13 PM on August 25, 2005

I'm an anthropologist and I think that pracowity got it right. Our society has written records (not to mention electronic ones) in spades. Rock art is usually the only "written" record we have for certain ancient societies. And it usually goes beyond just scratching someone's name in the sandstone. There is usually some cultural meaning behind it aside from "I was here."
posted by fossil_human at 1:17 PM on August 25, 2005

...then you have the means to do something better...

His earlier stunt with the shopping cart was kinda funny, but still made me shrug, overall.

These, however, are f'ing awesome.
posted by flaterik at 1:22 PM on August 25, 2005

fossil_human, yep. I can remember reading about a place in southern Africa that the San people had been using as a bulletin board for centuries. The thought of that record being oversprayed by some stupid kid makes my blood boil.

Its much more than I was here, its more like I was here, with these people, doing these things and here's where there's water, food and shelter.

Taggers who tag just to put their name places are doing nothing but exercising their own futility at infamy when those efforts could and should be much better used in actually doing something worthwhile enough to be recognized for. Not just spray painting some stupid tag on a tree.
posted by fenriq at 1:23 PM on August 25, 2005

when disadvantaged youth, lacking any public space to paint, or unleash their creativity...

I knew a lot a graffiti artists in my younger days. They did it because they liked the scene and the art, not because they were disadvantaged.

Also, I don't know many disadvantaged youth that go camping in National Parks.
posted by iamck at 1:24 PM on August 25, 2005

Taggers are scum.

There are some great graffiti artists. My neighbor will be painting some art on fake subway trains tomorrow (thanks to his lawyers). That will be art. Throwing up an initial or other such tag is the equivalent of pissing on a fire hydrant to mark your territory and takes about as much brains and skill.

Most graffitiests (word?) are low rent tagger scum, a few talented artists. Natural wonders are no place for either, but when a talented painter puts up a street mural on a rundown building I am all for it. It is all about the context. Sure it is better to get permission, but the clandestine nature of the work sometimes adds to its appeal. Just add something, don't detract.
posted by caddis at 1:33 PM on August 25, 2005

Most graffitiests (word?)

"writers"
posted by rxrfrx at 1:38 PM on August 25, 2005

caddis, maybe they're being graffeatist (graffiti taggers and defeatist) at the same time.
posted by fenriq at 1:44 PM on August 25, 2005

What fossil_human and pracowity said.

While archaeologists like myself rarely agree on WHAT they mean, petroglyphs and pictographs are nonetheless important records and clues into the prehistory of the region. While a comparison to modern graffiti is not entirely unfounded, to attach the same cultural (and scientific) importance to them is asinine. As stated before, rock art is often the only record of prehistoric peoples besides stone tools, as opposed to the scribblings of bored youths for whoms life and culture we are already quite learned about.

On a lighter note, near where I live, there is a place called Lagomarsino, a basalt quarry and petroglyph site. For a mile or so, the flat basalt cliffs are carved with hundreds if not thousands of rock art panels. The antiquity of the art is generally presumed to procede from one end to the other, with the "later" end having images of men on horseback and other more "modern" images.

There are also undeniably modern carvings, like an american eagle and the gecko icon that we used to see on clothing. They are, for the most part, however, created using the same means (and style) as their prehistoric ancestors.

For my part, I do not see such a respectul contribution as graffiti, rather a continuation of an ancient practice of expression.
posted by elendil71 at 2:01 PM on August 25, 2005

The people who are spray painting in national parks are largely rich college students who are trying to feel primal or something. These people have plenty of creative outlets that do not require them to ruin the parks the rest of us want to use.

Do you have any support for that claim, or did it come straight out of your ass?
posted by pardonyou? at 2:03 PM on August 25, 2005

I have a lot more respect for urban taggers than somebody who vandalizes a national park, in fact infinitely more because I have no respect for the vandal. Some graffiti might be immature, profane, insulting and some vandalism might be wonderful in it's own right. The bottom line is that I can repaint my garage or the city can repaint (or strip) the overpass. That isn't true for pictographs or even canyon walls.
posted by substrate at 2:06 PM on August 25, 2005

The difficulty is in determining exactly when "pristine" applies. In America—let's take Manhattan as an example—is it before the Dutch arrived? Before the Indians arrived? Or earlier still?

While I dislike graffitti anywhere except on canvas, man makes his mark upon Nature wherever we appear. I'm afraid that no appeal to preservation is ultimately going to stop us as long as population growth continues.
posted by cenoxo at 2:13 PM on August 25, 2005

Well, if I were there 10,000 years ago when some Indian was painting his hand into the wall of a canyon in Northern Arizona, I'd have said: "Dude, that's stupid. Knock it off." And then I would have considered using my primitive Lysol to clean it off.

But since it managed to last so long and has, through that duration, gathered some value as an artifact on its own, I say leave the old grafitti and study it.

But we can't look at every single thing we do today and say "this should be allowed and preserved because it will be of interest to a future archaeologist/anthropologist!" Down that path lies madness, or at least very cluttered living rooms.

I think it was Carlsbad Caverns when we were touring and the guide pointed out some grafitti from the early 20th century. Then later she was takling about the work that went into correcting damage done by current visitors. I asked her about this and said "why is that other grafitti good and this bad?" She didn't really answer the question of why time accumulates value to grafitti but she did say that the general policy was that everything over a certain age (something like 50 or 70 years) was left in place and anything more recent they would attempt removal.
posted by obfusciatrist at 2:16 PM on August 25, 2005

Do you have any support for that claim, or did it come straight out of your ass?

It would be hard to prove without monitoring the places and conducting surveys -- "Pardon me, sir. Yes, you with the paint can. Are you a rich college student?" -- but I bet there aren't many poor Latino gang members from LA spending much time out in the middle of natural parks. And that's a shame, because they're missing the beauty of such places, but I wouldn't want them there if they brought their paint cans with them. When you leave a natural place, you should leave it as you found it, and maybe even pick up some of the trash the less thoughtful folk left behind.

everything over a certain age (something like 50 or 70 years) was left in place

After time, early graffiti becomes a part of the history of the place. You can point to a carving in a wall and say that travelers have been in this formerly remote cavern at least as early as whenever the graffiti dates back to. You may even be able to identify the person who left the initials and thereby add a little more to the local history. For instance:

More important to the long-term development of the caverns was the arrival of Jim White, a local cowboy, handyman, roustabout, and sometime guano miner who put Carlsbad Caverns on the map. For many years it was thought that White first explored the cave in 1901, but the recent discovery of a stone deep inside the caverns bearing the faint inscription "J. White, 1898" has caused park officials to push that date back. White wasn't a scientist or a promoter when he started, but he had more natural curiosity and dogged determination than anybody before him. He soon knew the caves better than any other man and began taking down tours of skeptical locals, all the time singing the praises of the site. For the next 40-plus years the caves were his obsession, and he promoted them tirelessly, eventually becoming the chief park ranger there.

But more than a hundred years later, when the place has become a national park and thousands of tourists are arriving every year to tramp through the same place, there would be nothing but harm done in allowing every teenager to scratch his or her initials into the walls.
posted by pracowity at 2:43 PM on August 25, 2005

Pardonyou?, I have plenty of personal experience to back it up, plus basic reasoning skills.

As a relatively well-off college student myself I know plenty of the people who are out there "tagging" parks.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to realize that truly disadvantaged youths are not spending their time in national parks. I love national parks as much as anyone, but these are playgrounds for the middle and upper classes, not poor kids from the inner city. It's a different story for smaller city or state parks, but national parks are largely inaccessible unless you have a fair bit of spare time and money.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:46 PM on August 25, 2005

no, homosapiens have outgrown their use, tip of the iceberg, there will be noone to remember us
posted by Satapher at 3:39 PM on August 25, 2005

> there will be noone to remember us

"...it ain't no good to pine..."
posted by pracowity at 3:49 PM on August 25, 2005

I'm with fenriq.
posted by Specklet at 4:22 PM on August 25, 2005

i definitely expected some more reasoned answers to this. i definitely treasure the earth's "natural" landscape and cherish every part of increasingly-diminishing environment. that said, however, i do think there's a valid argument to be made for *why* people are spraypainting there. i mean, rich people never spraypaint because they pay for advertisements that hang up everywhere; huge displays of garbage that are treasured because of their value to the economy. when disadvantaged youth, lacking any public space to paint, or unleash their creativity, choose such arenas, it presents a complex problem to those who are environmentalists and backpackers (myself included) and those who want to argue for an articulate public space where *all* can express themselves.

after all, why can huge companies strip mine virginia mountains, killing rapidly all the attendant ecosystems, but a little spraypaint is denounced as the end of civilization? let's focus on the huge polluters, the GEs, the Monsantos (with their genetically modified crops that are spreading like fire, effectively demolishing many wild plants, weeds, and their food chains) instead of punishing a few spraypainters.
posted by yonation at 2:29 PM CST on August 25 [!]

I was going to agree with everyone else and their 'hell no' attitudes til I read this. I don't really think people should be spraypainting 'CALL 612 284 3950 FOR A GOOD TIME' on the side of the Grand Canyon, but I don't think there's a clearcut distinction between what constitutes damage and what constitutes merit. It's all relative, man. That's art, especially if it pisses you off.
posted by angry modem at 4:25 PM on August 25, 2005

A few months ago, a couple of genius Chileans spray painted a very important and gorgeous stone wall in Cusco, which has stood from the time of the Incas.
Their excuse? "We were expressing ourselves".
They're still in jail in Perú, where I hope they stay for a long, long time.
Fuck taggers, fuck vandals, people with no appreciation for sacred places can hardly consider themselves artists.
posted by signal at 5:13 PM on August 25, 2005

elwoodwiles: But they aren't part of the spaces they are tagging. I seriously doubt that the vandals in question feel any connection with the natural beauty they are defacing. They are not "taking back" private space and bringing it into some public realm - parks are already public and are meant to be shared as a common resource. To tag in parks is actually making the public into the private and is more reflective of a capitalist worldview.

I actually think this is an astute comment. In my experience, tagging tends to be seriously concerned with the idea of denying the concept of public, communal space, not celebrating it; asserting the primacy of taggers, and to hell with everyone else.

Tagging is a form of contempt for the object that gets tagged, and, from looking at what gets tagged, you can get a fairly good idea of a hip-hop/taggers' theory of value. What gets defaced? Well, public parks; public transport; public amenities; low-value properties. Ever seen a new BMW or Hummer covered in tags? This is different from Trump-style capitalism...how?
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:22 PM on August 25, 2005

I don't think there's a clearcut distinction between what constitutes damage and what constitutes merit.

Oh, well if there's no "clearcut" distinction there must be no difference whatsoever.

And if a few cases blur the distinction between self-defense and murder then there is no difference. And if you can't always tell the difference between a mild joke and disgusting racism there must be no difference. And if anyone's blurred the line between assertiveness and too much force in sex then rape doesn't exist.

What exactly, aside from a primitive sense of cleverness, are you people arguing for?
posted by argybarg at 5:45 PM on August 25, 2005

What Sonny Jim said, twice.
posted by caddis at 5:46 PM on August 25, 2005

"..from looking at what gets tagged, you can get a fairly good idea of a hip-hop/taggers' theory of value."

this is just completely wrong. Tagging is no more complicated than a quick means to an end....getting your name out there. Virtually any surface will do but cars have historically been off limits to taggers. Why? Well, that person will go home and immediately clean it off. The fact something is being defaced is secondary to the need for visibility. If they could get better visibility on an old rusted bypass sign, believe it they'll be going there first.

Taggings history is a bit sorted. Old schooler's typically hate these guys. Most of them aren't particularly talented with a spray can and could never bust out a serious piece. To the older guys, hitting the yards and spending a hours on a freshly cleaned MTA car took huge balls and the finished works were always a source of pride. But like every art form, once it got cool, every dick jumps on board and this is what gets pooped out.
posted by j.p. Hung at 5:59 PM on August 25, 2005

Bears repeating:

once it got cool, every dick jumps on board and this is what gets pooped out
posted by caddis at 6:02 PM on August 25, 2005

Sonny Jim :: What gets defaced? Well, public parks; public transport; public amenities; low-value properties. Ever seen a new BMW or Hummer covered in tags?

here in atlanta i've seen many privately-owned box trucks, trains, shipping containers, tractor trailers, automobiles, and buildings covered in graffiti. i saw the same in the bronx. so it's not necessarily just public assets or low-value property that gets tagged; it seems to be industrial property and anything associated with it that takes the brunt of the tagging.

in my experience, most of the graffiti tends to accumulate on objects that are stationary for long periods of time, especially overnight; so a box truck or parked train loaded with containers are prime canvasses. buildings seldom move. i've never seen brand-new bmws and hummers with tags, probably because they are generally better sheltered than anything else either of us have listed. i don't agree with j.p. hung's assertion that cars are somehow "off limits," i've even seen churches that have been tagged. absolutely nothing seems to be sacred.

---

anyway, a ranger once told my elementary school class that carving your initials or other messages into trees makes them susceptible to catching disease and pestilence, which would weaken their integrity and cause them to fall prematurely. i can't imagine spray paint has any more of a beneficial effect on trees.

also, when i visited the petrified forest, i recall there being signs everywhere for visitors to not take any rocks, because if every visitor to the site took even a small rock home, there would be nothing of the park left in a matter of years. i think etching would cause the same effect; if everybody etches their silly message into the face of an important rock, combined with the acidity of rain eventually it will erode prematurely and there will be no important rock left for future generations to appreciate.
posted by Ziggy Zaga at 6:14 PM on August 25, 2005

Graffiti, graschmitti.

Future anthropologists will have enough to do sorting out why we valued our infants' poop so much that we enshrouded it in plastic proven to stand the test of time. Once they solve that mystery, they will move on to our religious practices at the altar of the Two Arches.

Really, we don't need to give them any more material, but I think there's some sort of primal urge that says "Hey! I'm gonna draw on this rock!" because man, we've certainly been doing it for long enough.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:16 PM on August 25, 2005

Pictographs JPEGs were largely put on rocks Internets as part of a sacred activity.

In 1000 years, how will they know any different? Ever read Motel of the Mysteries?
posted by cenoxo at 6:29 PM on August 25, 2005

Ziggy, it's not some source of honor or some sacred bond, it's simply that they are cleaned off quickly. Spraypaint is relatively easy to get off a car. I mean how many cars do you see with tags on them? This isn't about anything more than rep. Churches are hit because they are high-value targets and create a lot of quick rep simply for the fact it takes balls (and even more stupidity) to tag up God's house.
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:54 PM on August 25, 2005

Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to realize that truly disadvantaged youths are not spending their time in national parks.

Your argument might make sense if the world was actually divided into "truly disadvantaged youths" and "rich college students who are trying to feel primal or something." Even the article attributes it to "middle-class suburban youths."

What I couldn't figure out were the "rich" and "trying to feel primal" parts. I was wondering whether you had conducted a survey of the income status and motivation of national park taggers.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:36 PM on August 25, 2005

let's focus on the huge polluters, the GEs, the Monsantos

Who make spray paint, yes? And spray paint isn't exactly the most environmentally-friendly product, no matter how you use it.

rich people never spraypaint

They don't?
posted by Vidiot at 10:02 PM on August 25, 2005

posted by mosch at 10:09 PM on August 25, 2005

j.p.hung: Virtually any surface will do ... the fact something is being defaced is secondary to the need for visibility.

OK, I called it contempt, you essentially call it disregard for the object being tagged. I'd argue that it amounts to much the same thing. As to cars, I've seen a number tagged in my own neighbourhood; they tend to be older models whose owners don't have off-street parking.

I guess when I came up with the BMW/Hummer thing, I was responding to the more millenarian graf celebrists who try and position themselves as striking some sort of blow against hegemony (i. e. no-one in this thread). To me, though, tagging still inscribes the old economic and social hierarchies onto the tagged object, and it's pretty contemptuous of the idea of a public sphere (which God knows has enough enemies as it is).

And seriously, are tags really that easy to get off a car's paintwork?
posted by Sonny Jim at 11:16 PM on August 25, 2005

I've seen a lot of really great graffitti art, even in places I wish they hadn't done it (I don't care about the alley or the side of a train, but I do mind when it's on the side of a church or otherwise beautiful building). What puzzles me is why some of this art isn't done onto canvas instead - some of these people would actually have a lucrative career.
posted by agregoli at 9:58 AM on August 26, 2005

Is this vandalism? Is any of the stuff that Andy Goldsworthy does a form of vandalism?
posted by spudsilo at 10:18 AM on August 26, 2005

Of course not. Andy Goldsworthy uses only natural materials he finds in the area, and all of his creations are achingly temporary. I see no comparison whatsoever.

Also, if everyone on earth had the same respect for the natural environment that Andy Goldsworthy had, we'd have a much more beautiful planet right now.
posted by agregoli at 10:57 AM on August 26, 2005

agregoli, some graf artists paint on and/or sell canvases. (Some stuff comes up on eBay as well.)
posted by drstupid at 11:14 AM on August 26, 2005

I'm aware of that - I just don't understand why more people don't do that - I really doubt that the artists in question are also still painting the really awesome things I'm seeing on my neighborhood walls.
posted by agregoli at 11:31 AM on August 26, 2005