streetartgoodness
November 9, 2006 6:00 PM Subscribe
reclaimyourcity.net is somewhat similar to this previously posted site. reclaim offers refuge on the web for those among us in love with street art.
I love the art, but where the fuck do people get the idea that owning land is a legal, ethical or moral right?
I don't remember giving it to them. I don't remember any sort of democratic process where we divided the Earth up into arbitrary parcels and said "You and yours now own this abstracted legal fiction as physical property in perpetuity". I'm pretty sure all of the original land was stolen either by force, by hook or by crook.
I really do love the art, though. I would like to know where people get the fucking idea that painting it all blank is a good idea.
posted by loquacious at 6:49 PM on November 9, 2006 [2 favorites]
I don't remember giving it to them. I don't remember any sort of democratic process where we divided the Earth up into arbitrary parcels and said "You and yours now own this abstracted legal fiction as physical property in perpetuity". I'm pretty sure all of the original land was stolen either by force, by hook or by crook.
I really do love the art, though. I would like to know where people get the fucking idea that painting it all blank is a good idea.
posted by loquacious at 6:49 PM on November 9, 2006 [2 favorites]
I mean really. How is yet another beige/white/slate blank wall any more aesthetically pleasing, except perhaps as a blank canvas? Hell, man, put up some color or something. Try purple.
< -not a tagger. ;) situationist, perhaps, but not a tagger./small>
posted by loquacious at 6:52 PM on November 9, 2006
< -not a tagger. ;) situationist, perhaps, but not a tagger./small>
posted by loquacious at 6:52 PM on November 9, 2006
although i understand current property laws and respect them myself, i do believe this there are situations which might be interesting to consider.
these situations involve private property (like the sides of buildings) and the influence the public has over that property.
i'm not quite sure legally, but i do believe there have been instances where the interest of the public has overridden private interests in terms of property and speech. are there cases where a city or governmental org has forced a private property owner to remove something from their property in order to soothe public discontent? i think i've heard of such cases, but would appreciate specifics.
anyways, in the case of good graffiti, graffitti where it could be proven that more often than not the public prefers a graffitied wall to a non graffittied wall, why should it be assumed that the public has no rights or influence on a private property owner's holdings?
//i guess what i'm saying is that i'm a socialist and don't really believe in many forms of private property. if something is art and beautiful, i find no reason to object to it. above paragraphs simply try to justify that within our system//
posted by localhuman at 6:58 PM on November 9, 2006
these situations involve private property (like the sides of buildings) and the influence the public has over that property.
i'm not quite sure legally, but i do believe there have been instances where the interest of the public has overridden private interests in terms of property and speech. are there cases where a city or governmental org has forced a private property owner to remove something from their property in order to soothe public discontent? i think i've heard of such cases, but would appreciate specifics.
anyways, in the case of good graffiti, graffitti where it could be proven that more often than not the public prefers a graffitied wall to a non graffittied wall, why should it be assumed that the public has no rights or influence on a private property owner's holdings?
//i guess what i'm saying is that i'm a socialist and don't really believe in many forms of private property. if something is art and beautiful, i find no reason to object to it. above paragraphs simply try to justify that within our system//
posted by localhuman at 6:58 PM on November 9, 2006
I like the art, but where the fuck do people get the idea that they own the walls of private buildings?
Actually, some areas are designated as "pro-graffiti" areas. Shop owners, artist's collectives and studios will sometimes allow walls and frontages to be tagged. This serves a number of purposes, from free decoration to keeping other areas graffiti-free.
posted by lekvar at 7:52 PM on November 9, 2006
Actually, some areas are designated as "pro-graffiti" areas. Shop owners, artist's collectives and studios will sometimes allow walls and frontages to be tagged. This serves a number of purposes, from free decoration to keeping other areas graffiti-free.
posted by lekvar at 7:52 PM on November 9, 2006
I was amused by the snippet in Rohinton Mistry's book, Tales From Firozsha Baag, in which somebody commissioned a mural of Hindu gods, in order to prevent people from using his wall as an open-air urinal.
Unfortunately, a lot of the street art that you see around seems to have the opposite effect on people.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:59 PM on November 9, 2006
Unfortunately, a lot of the street art that you see around seems to have the opposite effect on people.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:59 PM on November 9, 2006
I love the art, but where the fuck do people get the idea that owning land is a legal, ethical or moral right?
It comes out of the idea of being a sovereign citizen. If you don't own your land, you are a slave to those that do. If 'everyone' owns the land, then you are subject to the whim of the majority. At one time, property borders were clear and bright lines over which the government and other people could intrude against the owner's will only in very limited circumstance. That has, sadly, declined in modern times, but strong property rights are one of the linchpins of freedom.
And, while you can argue (incorrectly) that all land was originally 'stolen' from someone, having clear titles and property prevents FURTHER violence from taking place. When was the last time you saw someone in America forced out of their house at gunpoint by a jealous neighbor? (although eminent domain abuse comes pretty close.)
Painting on someone's property without permission is vandalism. It's one of the purest expressions of selfishness I can think of. Doing it with permission, on the other hand, is cool. I wish there were more places where street artists could legally and ethically do their thing.
A lot of the resistance to it, of course, is that the vast majority of graffiti is total crap, ugly and tasteless. Pink lawn flamingoes for the inner city. You only see the good stuff on sites like this. The routine, butt-ugly crap is no improvement.
posted by Malor at 10:03 PM on November 9, 2006 [1 favorite]
It comes out of the idea of being a sovereign citizen. If you don't own your land, you are a slave to those that do. If 'everyone' owns the land, then you are subject to the whim of the majority. At one time, property borders were clear and bright lines over which the government and other people could intrude against the owner's will only in very limited circumstance. That has, sadly, declined in modern times, but strong property rights are one of the linchpins of freedom.
And, while you can argue (incorrectly) that all land was originally 'stolen' from someone, having clear titles and property prevents FURTHER violence from taking place. When was the last time you saw someone in America forced out of their house at gunpoint by a jealous neighbor? (although eminent domain abuse comes pretty close.)
Painting on someone's property without permission is vandalism. It's one of the purest expressions of selfishness I can think of. Doing it with permission, on the other hand, is cool. I wish there were more places where street artists could legally and ethically do their thing.
A lot of the resistance to it, of course, is that the vast majority of graffiti is total crap, ugly and tasteless. Pink lawn flamingoes for the inner city. You only see the good stuff on sites like this. The routine, butt-ugly crap is no improvement.
posted by Malor at 10:03 PM on November 9, 2006 [1 favorite]
Costs us lots to clean up as well, money I'd rather see go to public goods or tax cuts rather than the display behavior of juvenile male primates.
posted by alasdair at 11:30 PM on November 9, 2006
posted by alasdair at 11:30 PM on November 9, 2006
Costs us lots to clean up as well, money I'd rather see go to public goods or tax cuts rather than the display behavior of juvenile male primates.
So spend the money on schools already and maybe you wouldn't have juvenile male primates running around.
Also, not all graf artists are juvenile, male, or primate. (Primate? Is "primate" some kind of fucked up code talk for "possibly brown, or even darker" or something? Or are you just acknowledging the generally primate nature of collective humanity?)
Perhaps the vast majority of crappy taggers with no ideas and nobody home are likely to be juvenile and male, but I bet the vast majority of the good artists aren't.
but strong property rights are one of the linchpins of freedom.
I'm not entirely certain I can agree with that. Despite what the sanctified versions of history say it often seems to me that property ownership - specifically land ownership - has been the birthplace of one form of slavery after another, not the birthplace of freedom.
But this is not the thread for this debate.
posted by loquacious at 12:52 AM on November 10, 2006
So spend the money on schools already and maybe you wouldn't have juvenile male primates running around.
Also, not all graf artists are juvenile, male, or primate. (Primate? Is "primate" some kind of fucked up code talk for "possibly brown, or even darker" or something? Or are you just acknowledging the generally primate nature of collective humanity?)
Perhaps the vast majority of crappy taggers with no ideas and nobody home are likely to be juvenile and male, but I bet the vast majority of the good artists aren't.
but strong property rights are one of the linchpins of freedom.
I'm not entirely certain I can agree with that. Despite what the sanctified versions of history say it often seems to me that property ownership - specifically land ownership - has been the birthplace of one form of slavery after another, not the birthplace of freedom.
But this is not the thread for this debate.
posted by loquacious at 12:52 AM on November 10, 2006
Where do these morons get the right to impose their "art" on property owners and pedestrians?
And don't even get me started on taggers.
Reclaim your city? Fuck you, man, it's not yours, it belongs to all of us, and most of us don't want your amateurish "art" on it.
posted by signal at 3:19 AM on November 10, 2006
And don't even get me started on taggers.
Reclaim your city? Fuck you, man, it's not yours, it belongs to all of us, and most of us don't want your amateurish "art" on it.
posted by signal at 3:19 AM on November 10, 2006
Just as long as the unspeakable twat Banksy isn't involved.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:36 AM on November 10, 2006
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:36 AM on November 10, 2006
Costs us lots to clean up as well, money I'd rather see go to public goods
Hey, you're right - they should stop cleaning it up.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:00 PM on November 10, 2006
Hey, you're right - they should stop cleaning it up.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:00 PM on November 10, 2006
« Older How Democrats can make themselves useful. | Giving a face to biodiversity Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kickstart70 at 6:26 PM on November 9, 2006