Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Vandalist: Ripple Effect
Historicist: Life in Wartime
Toronto Will Host 2015 Pan American Games
Once a week, Vandalist features the best street art and graffiti from around Toronto. You should contribute.
Artist Unknown.
IN AN ALLEYWAY OFF KENSINGTONPHOTO BY SOPWITH.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge (79)
Over Time, How Fairly Have TTC Fares Fared? (37)
Enza Anderson Eyes City Council Seat (30)
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things! (22)
Sign of the Times (17)
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved (17)
Boo, Yeah! (16)- Newsstand: November 3, 2009 (15)
Reel Toronto: The Tuxedo (15)
Hog-O-Vision (15)
Not feelin' it, I have to say.
I guess it's difficult to ask the owner of the wall for permission to paint something on it since all graffiti jackasses only have the balls to do what they do in the middle of the night when there's nobody around.
davedave said:
You're putting words in my mouth, davedave. I didn't say property owners "should" be upset, I said nobody has argued they shouldn't. It's completely understandable why someone might not want something spray painted or epoxy-mounted or screwed into their wall without their permission. It doesn't change the artistic merit of the piece one whit, however. Some of us are capable of appreciating (or as my first reply above, not) independent of ownership, while you are not.
If you had any intention of debating this in good faith you would have understood that from my reply on the Artful Garager post, and not tried to pursue this disingenuous line.
You would be saying the same thing if the garage door was flat brown and covered in rust, so there's really no point arguing this. Your anti-graffiti position is not, and has never been, based on the premise of preserving other legal art already in place.Fine - you didn't say property owners should or shouldn't be upset. Hooray! You don't understand that your ambivalence is the problem: pro-graffiti people don't give a shit about property owners. To you guys, it's more important for you to be able to enjoy that stupid mural of the robot than it is for someone to have their property unfucked with.
By your logic, assholes who jump over the velvet rope to throw acid or paint on a masterpiece as an art project shouldn't be prosecuted but rather applauded and discussed over coffee and smokes in the town square.
I refuse to examine a piece of "art' by someone who clearly doesn't possess a shred of respect for those around them. Art has its place. Some people are too stupid, unevolved, immature or selfish to respect that.
You won't change your mind about graffiti for a few years yet. No big deal.
davedave
There was an "artist" in NYC last year called "the splasher" who threw paint bombs on "street art" all over the city.
The Irony of the outrage that gothamist and torontoist had towards it was hilarious! They were mad because someone ruined their graffitti. But the splasher was also making his own artistic statement!
Now the graffitt artists know how property owners feel when their property has been defaced!
I say, bring back the spalsher! Vandalize graffitti!
It's not as cut-and-dry as "pro-graffiti" and "anti-graffiti." I'm a property owner, and have also had my property tagged and stickered with shitty, lame graf and it was freakin' annoying.
I'd be pissed if someone tagged my property, but I can still see and appreciate the legitimate art, talent, and culture in much of it. Vandalist isn't saying that it's OK to deface property; it's rather examining the artistic uniqueness behind specific pieces or graf artists. Just because it may be illegal to do doesn't make it not art, and just because Torontoist writes about what we see with our eyeballs on walls around the city isn't an endorsement of vandalism.
Neither is anybody saying that every tag on every wall has artistic merit—most don't, and most are ugly as sin. But then again, I find used cigarette butts and ugly backlit dollar store signage vastly more aesthetically offensive.
It can be considered art and disrespect at the same time—the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, whomever painted the cyborg thingie in the photo was probably pretty annoyed that someone else sloppily tagged BLADES across it. Spraypainting someone's wall may be illegal, but why does that mean we can't talk about what they painted? What if it was a political message, like viva la revolución or Bush is a war criminal? That's illegal. And smoking pot is illegal, but people never seem to tire talking about that. And driving up and down Yonge after a hockey game hanging dangerously out the window of your car with a flag and screaming, "WOOOOOOO!" is illegal, but that's OK because it's "cultural pride"?
Like I said, it's not cut-and-dried. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean we can't appreciate the meaning behind it.
davedave - Why would I support throwing acid on the Mona Lisa or anything like that, and why — again — are you equating putting street art on an alley wall with the wilful destruction of existing art? That's not my logic at all, that's yours — again.
(And yes it's worth talking about, but it's a very short conversation that doesn't need to be repeated as often as artists of that variety think.)
Congratulations on ending your tirade with more ad hominems... something about being too stupid and immature, ironically.
We obviously have very different understandings of what art is and where it belongs, and that's unlikely to change, but you could put more effort into acting like a rational adult when you discuss it.
--
As for the Splasher, I think I've said it here before but graffiti has a shelf life and every street artist knows it. Eventually the buff will take it down or someone else will cover it up, and until that happens you'll get crappy tags scrawled across it. Such is the nature of street art.
I pretty much totally agree with what Marc just said. I think there's plenty of ugly graffiti (and plenty of ugly tags). My opinion on street art is not so cut and dry as to think that every single time someone picks up a spray can or a stencil, good, truth, and beauty are neccesarily what's coming next. That's why both the violently anti- and violently pro-graffiti stances have never made much sense to me. It must be really awesome to not have subtle or nuanced views about things.
By the way, matty, you just said:
Really? I know Gothamist covered it, but I can't find a single mention of it in any article published on Torontoist, except for in the Elsewhere in the Ist-A-Verse posts. Heck, it only ever seems to have even ever been mentioned in one comment thread in two comments—and one of them was rek, (sortof) defending the guy. I'm not sure myself if I like the Splasher or not, but I definitely found it interesting.This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that some of the people arguing against graffiti—all graffiti—are really making themselves look bad: want to prove a point (like, say, that Torontoist is hypocritical, which would be easy enough to prove given how we have a staff of a few dozen people who don't all agree on everything)? Don't worry! Just make something up and hope no-one calls you out on it!
My point still stands. You wouldn't want someone fucking up your "Street Art" (which ain't graffitti - it's something graffitti co-opted by middle class white people). And, likewise, a property owner does not think that putting up something on his or her property is worthwhile either.
The splasher made all of you're kind look like hypotcrites. Which you all apparently are.
Excuse me "your" not "you're" and "graffiti" not however I spelled it.