Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Will Vinton's Coming!!!!! | January Gloom »

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

I’m Usually Pro-Graffiti

posted by on January 29 at 11:53 AM

Really I am. But I call bullsh*t on this, over on First Hill, by the Frye Art Museum…

tagged-tree.jpg

RSS icon Comments

1

Does graffiti become vandalism when you don't like it?

You can't be pro and anti graffiti at the same time.

Posted by Mike | January 29, 2008 12:07 PM
2

Well, there's a new low.

Posted by Gloria | January 29, 2008 12:08 PM
3

@1

Indeed.

Posted by Judah | January 29, 2008 12:09 PM
4

Er, when did Slog become the sort of blog where the contributors are scared of the word "bullshit?"

Or is calling "bullsh*t" something different than calling bullshit?

At any rate, I call bullshit on Kelly O's chickenshit attempt to call bullshit on some ugly tree graffiti.

Posted by robotslave | January 29, 2008 12:11 PM
5

That's spray paint is fucking tacky.

Posted by Catman | January 29, 2008 12:11 PM
6

That "artist" should have the first three fingers on each hand slammed in a car door.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 12:13 PM
7

How could one be "pro-graffiti", and can I come over and spray paint your stuff?

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | January 29, 2008 12:15 PM
8

If someone had used a knife to carve "Kelly Loves Dan!" into the tree, then would that also be considered tree graffiti? Would carving the tree be more acceptable than painting the tree?

Posted by stinkbug | January 29, 2008 12:17 PM
9

Anyone who is pro-graffitti should post their home address so we can come right over and show our appreciation of your appreciation of our art!

What say Kelly?

Posted by Graf Bomb | January 29, 2008 12:21 PM
10

Holy crap, you people are so judgemental and hyper-crytical. The blogger is simply stating that sometimes graffiti looks cool-like on the sides of trains- and sometimes-like when it messes w/ nature-it's not.

Posted by mishmash | January 29, 2008 12:23 PM
11

Duuuuuuuuuuuudes. How about all of you assholes stop bitching about the "Pro-Grafitti" contradiction. You're fucking adults. You're not that dumb. You get it. Stop being argumentative just to be argumentative.

Posted by GW2 | January 29, 2008 12:23 PM
12

Most graffiti is profoundly ugly, it's primary purpose being self-aggrandizement at the public's expense. The vast, vast majority of these "artists" are just garden variety criminals, uninventive taggers and talentless egomaniacs. Are you really surprised that someone from this low group thought it would be cool to deface a tree?

Posted by Matthew | January 29, 2008 12:27 PM
13

next they'll tag dogs & kids in strollers. don't stand in one place too long.

the ents will fuck them up if they get wind of it.

Posted by max solomon | January 29, 2008 12:29 PM
14

@6 - i heartily agree, but i would up it to 4 fingers each.

as a horticulturist i would love to assist with said finger slamming personally.

the paint really can fuck up a tree's ability to stay healthy.

i'll bring the car door.

Posted by jezbian | January 29, 2008 12:32 PM
15

This graffiti, despite damaging a tree, is no different from all the graffiti I've seen in this city: uncreative, ugly, pathetic cries for attention. All of the "taggers" I've ever met here were juvenile little douchebags who craved attention.

If anyone can point me to examples of graffiti that isn't just obnoxious vandalism for the sake of obnoxious vandalism, I'm completely willing to reconsider my position.

Posted by Hernandez | January 29, 2008 12:36 PM
16

I think those are SDOT markings.

Posted by DOUG. | January 29, 2008 12:42 PM
17

I'm pro-graffiti regardless of what it is painted on and I think merging art and nature is a good thing. A little spray paint on a tree doesn't do a damn thing to it... Shit, the city spray paints orange crap on 'em all the time.

However...

I am VERY anti-shitty graffiti. And this picture is of some REALLY shitty graffiti. Therefore, I am anti-this picture of graffiti on a tree. So I agree with Kelly O...

I guess I'm just wondering now if she's anti-graffiti on this tree because she thinks graffiti shouldn't be on trees or because the graffiti on this tree suck?

Posted by Queen_of_Sleaze | January 29, 2008 12:44 PM
18

Is there an etiquette among grafitti artists? For example, is it frowned upon to tag living things, (trees, etc.) personal property (homes, etc.)? Or is it really all anarchic?

I'm really curious about this.

Posted by Brad | January 29, 2008 12:46 PM
19

Uhhhm, anyone who is "pro-graffiti" clearly doesn't routinely pay to have it removed from their property.

...and just where is the "art" in the shitty etchings in my plate glass windows?

Posted by david | January 29, 2008 12:53 PM
20

this is ridiculous. graffiti on private property = good, graffiti on public property = bad?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 1:02 PM
21

Someone needs to cap that graffiti "artist". I recommend using a steel bar, personally, shatters the kneecaps.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 1:02 PM
22

do taggers get upset if someone shoots one of them for tagging their property?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 1:09 PM
23

So, if that was spray painted on a wall instead of a tree you'd be all for it?

That's fucking stupid.

It would still be shit. Things like this are just egocentric and selfish. Who the fuck gives a shit about this loser's stupid nickname painted in balloon letter? Anything would have been better. Even painting an old cliché like "Fuck the Police" would have been better. At least there would have been the pretense of a premise or a message. But no, another fucking bunch of balloon letters.

I know that it's romantic to think that there's some Basquiat-esque youth out there, struggling to express his vision of urban life through the only medium available to him. Some poet challenging conventional thought, spreading a deeply personal message to the city at large. Someone creating something.

But no. These are just selfish splatters. Vandalism.

I've said this before whenever some Stranger writer professes to be a fan of graffiti: Show me the art. Where is it? Stickers don't count. All I see are these immature scribblings that do not speak to anyone.

Show me the graffiti that you admire so much.

Posted by JC | January 29, 2008 1:12 PM
24

#1 is right. That is the conflict.

I think I selfishly do like some graffiti because it makes Seattle feel more urban - like London, San Francisco, or New York. Or maybe I'm just homesick for the urban ruins park that is Detroit, where I'm from. There's lots of graf there - and it's often really good, well thought-out, and super colorful. It adds something to that shitty, I mean city.

Or... maybe because I'm broke and don't own a business, condo, house, car, or even a tree - I'm just not as offended. I don't have anything that taggers can destroy. I guess they could hit my apartment building, but that would just hurt my landlord, not me.

I do see the other side too - it must be awful to own something, anything - and have the same dumb ass who tagged this tree show up at your address.

Posted by KELLY O | January 29, 2008 1:12 PM
25

You're right, it does suck when someone tags your property. Just like when someone smashes your car window to grab the 87 cents in your ashtray. Or when steals your wallet.

Sorry, I fail to see the rest of your point. You're "pro-graffiti" because it gives you some warm and fuzzy childhood memory? Grow up.

Posted by david | January 29, 2008 1:28 PM
26

Agree with the vast majority of comments.

You can't like some graffiti and not others. That makes no sense...

And, @11...no, I don't get the contradiction, and don't think one can minimize the distinction. I'm all grown up, thanks. :-)

Posted by Timothy | January 29, 2008 1:34 PM
27

A few months ago some brilliant individual tagged, (tried to tag,) a bush around 12th and John. I bet the artist/perpetrator thought he or she was being really clever. Groundbreaking, even. I guess it did get a reaction out of me, though--I laughed. Idiot.

Posted by matthew e | January 29, 2008 1:36 PM
28

"You can't like some graffiti and not others. That makes no sense..."

I like some kind of graffiti and not others and I agree, it doesn't make any sense at all. Face it, some of the shit is hillarious - take writing on bathroom walls for example...

Some of it, like tagging brushed metal in an elevator or metro bus windows, is a offense that should be punishable by death. Some jackass scratched their tag into the brass elevator button panel in my last apartment. It cost the landlady about a grand, and two days of no elevator, to have it polished away.

But still... some stuff just cracks me up. For example the drunk idiot who spray panted "I have no idea" on the Bellevue ave side of the former wing dome. The people who use a stencil to spray some deranged heart on the side of new paper boxes. And trains are fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Dont ask me how I live with this internal contradiction. It remains one of life's great mysteries.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 1:43 PM
29

Kelly O, you don't see how the tagging of your apartment hurts your landlord and not you? that is a cost that wasn't accounted for, that must be paid from somewhere by the landlord and presumably from your rents.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 1:45 PM
30

also, how can the reason you like some graffiti and not others depend on whether it happens to a property owner or a fucking tree that nobody owns? that is the definition of absurd!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 1:47 PM
31

Great, a resurgence of gangster "urban art" defacing living things.

These little punks should be castrated and hung.

Posted by ecce homo | January 29, 2008 1:54 PM
32

It might be obvious, but... all tags are graffiti but not all graffiti is tags. I think some people above are using those terms interchangeably.

Posted by stinkbug | January 29, 2008 1:55 PM
33

Don't graffiti trees. Trees are natural graffiti, beautifully blemishing the concrete, over-developed landscape. Leave 'em alone!

Posted by Ryan | January 29, 2008 1:57 PM
34

Also, I think for every 1 tagged tree, someone should paint 10 trees onto buildings.

Posted by stinkbug | January 29, 2008 1:59 PM
35

Stinkbug,

That is semantics though. All graffiti, by my definition, is visually altering property that isn't yours using a sticker, marker, diamond or paint. Most commonly, this visual alteration was done without asking the property owner for permission. It is thus a form of vandalism that is rightfully a crime.

Despite the fact I personally know people who have to clean up after these kids, I'd be lying to say I get a laugh of some forms of it. Again... dont ask me why that is.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 2:01 PM
36

And to all the people whining about how you must love all graffiti or none of it... piss off. There's awesome graffiti and there's terrible graffiti. It depends on the intent and motivations of the vandal - those factors determine whether graffiti is good or bad.

Posted by Ryan | January 29, 2008 2:04 PM
37

Kelly O @ 24 - so now when I see all of the graffiti in this city and despair the dead-end lives of the "artists" whose big joy is the acknowledgment of some other dead-end "artist" - and despair the parents and the education system that are partly to blame - I can add you to my lament.

You, for whom the desecration of roads, buildings, landscape, public art (seen a mural around town that doesn't have the signature of these "artists"?) is immaterial mostly because it didn't happen to anything you own...

Please oh please use your energy insead to find another outlet for these "artists" or to work for the education system that might give them a better life.

Posted by sad sad sad | January 29, 2008 2:05 PM
38

And KELLY O, you always pay for it. Your landlord passes the (sometimes very high) cost of graffiti removal to you. Restaraunts and other businesses pass the cost on to you through higher prices. The city passes it on to you through higher taxes, or cutbacks in other services.

The idea that "litter just creates more jobs" or "vandalism creates more jobs" is bunk. Please dont promote it anymore.

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 2:05 PM
39

Oh, and by they way... thanks for being honest Kelly O. I'm pretty sure I rationalize it that way to...

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 2:10 PM
40
Posted by stinkbug | January 29, 2008 2:17 PM
41

To all the taggers out there: fuck you and your bullshit 'art.' You want to share your message with the public? Get a Goddamn job, make enough money to build a big wall, and then tag it to your heart's content. It's still going to suck, but hey, it's your property.

Posted by Greg | January 29, 2008 2:25 PM
42

nowadays, who sells a hoody-wearing teenager with paint-splattered baggie pants spray paint?

isn't there a law or something? we gots so many i lose track...

Posted by max solomon | January 29, 2008 2:42 PM
43

"The idea that "litter just creates more jobs" or "vandalism creates more jobs" is bunk. Please dont promote it anymore."

it is called the fallacy of broken windows.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 3:09 PM
44

it took far to long to realize that "Fixing Broken Windows" is not the same as "the fallacy of broken windows". Thanks for forcing me to use wikipedia to know there actually is a difference between the two :-)

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 29, 2008 3:19 PM
45

#1 is absolutely right. I'm pleased to see Slog commenters are in solidarity on this. Taggers are the scum of the Earth. Tagging trees is full on sociopathic. You can't paint over it!

Posted by chris | January 29, 2008 3:24 PM
46

They often tag an elementary school near my home, right there where the 5 year old kindergarten girls jumping rope at recess can admire their...uh...work. That's almost as bold and daring as tagging the tree.

Posted by homage to me | January 29, 2008 5:09 PM
47

Yeah, but, what about Stop For Me, It's The Claw ?

That is some priceless graf.

Posted by kerri harrop | January 29, 2008 5:15 PM
48

@47: That is my favorite, as well. Made me laugh a little bit everytime I saw it.

"Stop for me, it's the CLAW!"

I'm laughing a little bit right now, actually.

Posted by Mike | January 29, 2008 6:32 PM
49

I can like some graffiti and not others, because some of it is art, while the rest of it is produced by some drunk kid scribbling his name over anything he sees. Graffiti refers to the medium rather then to content.

When I see actual stencils, pictures, or colorful murals instead of a blank wall I can appreciate it. Whether painting that object was legal or not. (see: Banksy)

When I see ugly tags, I can hate them as much as any ugly painted object that is perfectly legal (see: the Vancouver whale and bear statues)

Posted by Cinders | January 30, 2008 12:48 PM
50
Posted by CK | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM
51

"People say graffiti is ugly, irresponsible and childish.... but that's only if it's done properly."

Banksy

Posted by ctrl+z | January 31, 2008 4:34 PM
52

I'm wondering how that poor Mini Cooper is going to be able to get out of that parking space without a can opener.

Posted by James | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).