Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Clear at 10:00 PM EST on February 09, 2012
Clear
4°/-1°		 It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 10, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
5°/-9°		 It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Partly Cloudy
1°/-5°

50 Comments

news

Vandalist: Unplugged

By Posterchild

Once a week, Vandalist features the best street art and graffiti from around Toronto. You should contribute.
RCADE.jpg RCADE2.jpg

By RCADE

NEAR KING AND SHAW
PHOTO BY SIMON

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Report an error Send a tip

Comments

  • rek

    Sweet. First really good piece in weeks.

  • temporaryaccount

    Hurray, let’s glorify vandalism of CAMH’s brand new brick wall, paid for with your tax dollars…
    Dear Torontoist: you are miserable assholes to glorify the uglification and destruction of public and private property in Toronto. You really don’t get what a city blog should be about, at all.

  • David Topping

    For the record, here are some examples of the “uglification and destruction of public and private property” that some—not all—staff on Torontoist have liked. In reverse-chronological order!
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    I certainly haven’t liked everything featured on Torontoist, but calling us “miserable assholes” because some of us think street art is something great about the city rather than the bane of its existence—well, who’s really the miserable asshole? Though, credit where credit is due, temporaryaccount: your choice of commenter name was very apt.

  • atomeyes99

    ^^ actually, i think he is calling you a miserable asshole for glorifying graffiti, not for appreciating graffiti.
    Perhaps for your next series on Toronto, you should do a statistical analysis of:
    -the number of graffiti-related posts in 2008 (from Jan 1-July 26) vs the same period in 2007 and 2006
    -any possible correlation between your graffiti-related posts and the number of tags/street art in this city
    Topping, you yet again seem to miss the point: its not the art that people hate – its that the art isn’t on their property and, typical of cowards, cannot be traced to identify the actual artist.

  • davedave

    How come this guy didn’t put his cell phone number or home address on the wall so he could be tracked down and thanked?
    Because he’s a gutless criminal asshole without a shred of respect for the city or the people who live here, that’s why.
    But Torontoist thinks he’s cool because he fucks with other people’s property. Maybe some day you people will grow up.

  • james a

    I like it. Totally the good/interesting kind of grafitti!
    Also, why am I guessing that “temporaryaccount” is one of the people hit by that greasemonkey script?

  • Show&Tell

    “I like it. Totally the good/interesting kind of grafitti!”
    Agreed.
    To clear things up, the artist goes by the name Rcade and this is not on CAMH’s wall.

  • Show&Tell

    “I like it. Totally the good/interesting kind of grafitti!”
    Agreed.
    To clear things up, the artist goes by the name Rcade and this is not on CAMH’s wall.

  • Svend

    I’m not sure why torontoist celebrates this contempt for private property but doesn’t extend it to other possessions besides buildings.

  • rek

    If you really want to discourage Torontoist from posting so many stories featuring street art, stop clicking on the articles and leaving comments. That’ll show ‘em for sure.

  • atomeyes99

    ^ the best way to show disatisfaction is to remain silent, i guess.

  • davedave

    Rcade?
    Awww what an adorable trying-really-hard-to-B-street name for a little pissant vandal. Can’t wait until he’s arrested. Maybe it says Rcade on his drivers license that would make him ever cooler.
    ShowTell – so then, whose wall is it? Is it Rcade’s? Because he sure is acting like it is.
    And yeah, Sven – how come Torontoist doesn’t celebrate the keying of cars or the smashing of windows?

  • rek

    atomeyes99 – Page clicks = ad revenues.
    And it would also mean sparing the rest of us from the same old complaining.
    Street art and graffiti are part of the urban fabric (and have been for 50+ years at least). Torontoist would be remiss to exclude it particularly when it’s gained so much mainstream acceptance over the past ~5 years. Putting a weekly spotlight on it won’t encourage more of it, nor would writing a diatribe against it do anything to curb it.
    I’ll never understand why some of you are incapable of separating the legal status from the artistic merit (illegal = ugly, we get it) but you could at least try to come up with something new to say each week.
    Here, I’ll give you some topics to start with for next week: Why are property rights more important than freedom of expression? What other essential rights do they (or should they) trump? Analyze and justify the association of illegal with immoral, and give examples of how it applies here.

  • David Topping

    The amount of ad revenue that we make for posts on an individual basis (which is negligible anyway—our most popular page on the site is almost always our front page) doesn’t determine what does or doesn’t get posted on Torontoist.
    What I’m confused about most—aside from the constant conflation of graffiti in alleyways or on abandoned buildings with things that are nothing like it, like keying someone’s car—is what the people who come to Torontoist and violently complain about graffiti and street art non-stop in the exact same way using the exact same arguments each time hope to get out of doing so, when it should be extraordinarily clear that those complaints are having absolutely no effect whatsoever in shaping the content of the site, save for one article which tried to find a middle ground.
    I think that street art and graffiti—not all of it, and certainly not, say, someone scratching their tag into the glass on a TTC bus—is a big part of what makes this city interesting and great (my list above includes some of my favourite pieces we’ve featured). Calling us “miserable assholes” or saying we need to “grow the fuck up” won’t convince me otherwise, nor are we going to fold Vandalist because the same three people don’t like it every week.
    So, an honest question for those of you who hate any and all (explicitly or implicitly unauthorized) street art and graffiti, regardless of its artistic merits: what goal do you hope to achieve by complaining here? What’s the point?

  • Show&Tell

    DaveDave -
    This is on the back of the Toronto Business Development Center. I have no idea if this so called “trying-really-hard-to-B-street (what does that even mean?) pissant vandal” owns the building but maybe you could go down there and offer to paint over it. That would definitely be more productive than bitching about it on the internet…

  • Show&Tell

    DaveDave -
    This is on the back of the Toronto Business Development Center. I have no idea if this so called “trying-really-hard-to-B-street (what does that even mean?) pissant vandal” owns the building but maybe you could go down there and offer to paint over it. That would definitely be more productive than bitching about it on the internet…

  • davedave

    I guess the anti-graffiti people’s complaints sound as annoying to you as your gushing praise of the crime does to us. While we’re all tired of our garage doors and walls being damaged by these people, you don’t think we have the right to complain about it because we should accept it’s just simply part of the charming hipster fabric of the city and our garage door or wall isn’t ours to control.
    ShowTell – Ha ha – that’s funny – in a discussion about graffiti and the damages it causes, you’d rather it be me that repairs the damage than the vandal.
    So I guess, yeah, each and every time you clowns post one of these stupid examples of graffiti vandalism, we’re probably going to bitch about it.

  • DaveH

    Seems like the vandals freedom of expression trumps our freedom to express dislike for it. Perhaps if I spray painted my dislike for it on somebodys wall or garage you`d be okay with that.
    What`s your address again?

  • Svend

    Saying nothing is the same as accepting it, and I can’t accept my neighbourhood going down the toilet because of a small handful of people who don’t want to live in a civilized world where respect is shown.
    I don’t see the difference between tagging and keying someone’s car.

  • Show&Tell

    davedave, I dont think you should clean it up. I think it adds character to an otherwise drab brick wall.

  • Show&Tell

    davedave, I dont think you should clean it up. I think it adds character to an otherwise drab brick wall.

  • davedave

    ShowTell – the decision to add or not add “character to an otherwise drab brick wall” belongs solely to the owner of the brick wall, not some asshole with a can of spray paint. This is indisputable.

  • rek

    davedave, you’re tripping over your own rhetoric here. Vandalist doesn’t offer gushing praise for the crime of damaging other people’s property:
    1. No article accompanies the posting so all commentary is left up to the readers. And even we the pro-street art/graffiti posters will point out when a week’s entry is lame, when it’s a kind of street art we hate, etc, so who exactly is providing these torrents of admiration for the art posted? And do you hold Torontoist responsible for the comments you disagree with in other postings?
    2. Vandalist doesn’t post a thing because the act leading up to it is worth noting, but because the end product, the art, is interesting. There are sites that make note of how difficult it is to reach certain locations, but Vandalist isn’t one of them. You may be unable to separate a piece of art (and it’s merits) from the act of creating it but some of us can. And there is no requirement that a piece shown here be the product trespassing or use of property the artist doesn’t own or have permission to use. It’s about the art, good or bad.
    3. Damage is just the wrong word: with rare exception surfaces and structures aren’t injured or somehow less capable of performing their intended function just because someone put paint, marker, stickers, or wheat paste on them.

  • davedave

    rek – How come I am not allowed to have my property free from the damage caused by graffiti vandals?
    How come graffiti isn’t “damage”?
    -Its existence has rendered the structure it has been placed upon less valuable. (but you’re fine with that)
    -Its existence requires that the owner spend money to clean it off. (but you’re fine with that)
    -Its existence interferes with the structure owner’s indisputable right to enjoy his own property free from people fucking with it. (You don’t believe people have that right)
    Hey, tell us where you live and I’ll gladly spread the word that you welcome graffiti on your property.
    Obviously by gushing praise I meant the people who posted their gushing praise of the vandalism. Obviously I don’t hold Torontoist responsible for what people post here. I do, however, hold Torontoist responsible for glorifying vandalism in the city.

  • rek

    davedave – It’s not damage because there’s no damage done, simply put. The only way it could negatively impact the value of the property is if the owner is unwilling to paint over, sand down, scrape off, or otherwise remove the art. If they’re unwilling to do that then they’re also unwilling to do basic maintenance on the weathering and regular wear/tear on the building. If you have some documentation showing drops in property value that can be attributed directly — and only — to the graffiti present at time of assessment/sale, I’d love to see it.
    And again if you can point out this “gushing praise” for vandalism I’d like to see it. I’ve seen some rather restrained appreciation for specific pieces of art here, but none (let alone “gushing”) for vandalism.

  • malmo

    Oh, please. Rek, Topping et al—
    You are trying to justify illegal and yes, damaging behaviour (there are numerous kinds of damage besides material destruction) by claiming to be appreciative of art. But whether or not you like graffiti, and whether or not it is well-crafted, interesting in concept or supposedly “makes the city great,” it remains an illegal, disrespectful, discourteous infringement of the rights of others.
    That graffiti has existed for many years “as part of the urban fabric” is no justification. Slavery, bicycle theft and professional wrestling existed a long time, too.
    Why do anti-graffiti posts here continue? Because you continue to promote graffiti by both giving the vandals increased exposure and defending what you erroneously call “freedom of expression.” By refusing to remain quiet about it, your readers will at least know that your views are not shared by all.

  • kmaryan

    T.Rek, normal maintenance on a brick wall is minimal. Some suggest using a sealant every 5-10 years, but most residential buildings downtown don’t even get that. However, the cost of cleaning up someone’s tag can be pretty high. A gallon of exterior paint is $20-40, plus the hour or two of time it takes to get the supplies and paint over it ($30-50/hr for lost free time for me to do it, admittedly, ~$10/hr if I hire some local kid). If it’s not a painted wall (as in the picture) sandblasters and power washers are considerably more expensive (rent the gear, get someone experienced, etc., can easily be $200+)
    So why should the owner fork over that money to fix something that someone else did to his property?
    If anyone is willing to do this, or simply willing to let their property get covered in vandalism, by all means, post your address.
    On your other note, I doubt statistics on it exist for the simple reason that most property owners will repair vandalism damage prior to sale, but a quick survey of people around me suggests that people are less likely to consider purchasing a property that has been damaged by graffiti. Supply-demand… lower property price.

  • Svend

    You can’t fully remove spray paint from bare brick without blasting it. If you like speeding up the deterioration of a neighbourhood then yes, graffiti is a good thing.

  • AdamSchwabe

    Well said, malmo and davedave.
    And Dave Topping, I can assure you it’s not just the “same three people” who dislike the Vandalist series – they’re just the most vocal.
    I find the series to be pretty irresponsible and whether or not you agree with it, or however much you like street art (and I do too, just not damage to others’ private property), you’re still glorifying the act of vandalism. These artists want their work to be seen by more eyeballs, and you’re providing that conduit permanently with these posts.

  • kmaryan

    Torontoist editors: if you want to cover street art in a responsible way, cover exactly that: street art. There’s no shortage of murals put up by property owners around the city, and a bunch of other installations that are done legally without damaging someone’s property.

  • bigdaddyhame

    Curious how David would feel if the front door or wall of the building where he works was graf’d, or perhaps the side of his house (if he owns one) – more specifically if something that he owned personally or had a stake in, was ‘vandalisted’.

  • sniderscion

    I’m curious to know what the anti-grafitti people think about publicly funded wall art such as the example here:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sniderscion/2665648815/

  • Solex

    I think that we’ve found our solution to bland & boring big box retail-put graffiti on all the walls of them! Eventually, they’ll be driven out, and people will be able to have their neighborhoods back. An excellent way to protest.

  • Gloria

    @29: Uh, what?

  • rek

    malmo: But whether or not you like graffiti, and whether or not it is well-crafted, interesting in concept or supposedly “makes the city great,” it remains an illegal, disrespectful, discourteous infringement of the rights of others.
    So you propose any appreciation of the artwork be banned because it was created illegally? Or it should only be mentioned with disclaimers? Or we ignore it, so it’ll go away? What exactly is your point?
    That graffiti has existed for many years “as part of the urban fabric” is no justification.
    It’s a justification for Torontoist covering it here. A city blog should cover city things, as I concluded in the sentence after the one you pulled ‘urban fabric’ from.
    Because you continue to promote graffiti by both giving the vandals increased exposure and defending what you erroneously call “freedom of expression.”
    Do you honestly believe this column has done anything to increase the amount of graffiti or street art in the city by even a marginal degree? Perhaps everyone should stop reporting murders too, because glorifying murder is no good and giving murderers that kind of exposure will surely come back to bite us all in the collective ass. No?
    kmaryan: So why should the owner fork over that money to fix something that someone else did to his property?
    Because no one else will and the owner would seem to have an interest in doing it. Who should be responsible for cleaning bird shit off the windows and leaves from the gutters?
    I’d have no problem at all with making people on community service do it for property owners at no cost, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that would decrease the amount of graffiti for more than a few days at most.
    Torontoist editors: if you want to cover street art in a responsible way, cover exactly that: street art. There’s no shortage of murals put up by property owners around the city, and a bunch of other installations that are done legally…
    If you want to see legal murals, take pictures and send them to Posterchild. He only posts what he does because that’s what’s sent to him. Vandalist is a user-supported column.

  • bigdaddyhame

    the thing with murals and publicly funded graffiti alleys and such is that they’re voluntary.
    I would have no problem with graffiti of any kind if the guys who did it came back and cleaned it off a couple of weeks later.

  • atomeyes99

    David Topping: you ask for a response, so here is mine:
    What I’m confused about most—aside from the constant conflation of graffiti in alleyways or on abandoned buildings with things that are nothing like it, like keying someone’s car—is what the people who come to Torontoist and violently complain about graffiti and street art non-stop in the exact same way using the exact same arguments each time hope to get out of doing so, when it should be extraordinarily clear that those complaints are having absolutely no effect whatsoever in shaping the content of the site, save for one article which tried to find a middle ground.
    then I guess that Torontoist will either sink or swim by its addiction to graffiti. you’ll either turn more readers off or turn more readers on. in the end, its a numbers game. this site won’t run if no one’s coming to read it. if your cybertree falls in the forest, does anybody hear if no one’s around to listen?
    I think that street art and graffiti—not all of it, and certainly not, say, someone scratching their tag into the glass on a TTC bus—is a big part of what makes this city interesting and great (my list above includes some of my favourite pieces we’ve featured). Calling us “miserable assholes” or saying we need to “grow the fuck up” won’t convince me otherwise, nor are we going to fold Vandalist because the same three people don’t like it every week.
    the fact that its being debated clearly shows that more than 3 people do not approve of the glorification and promotion of graffiti.
    people like me will challenge you to show what the difference is between scratching glass on a TTC shelter (which i think is awful and a crime) and someone firing a fire extinguisher at a warehouse wall to stain the bricks (which i think is awful and a crime). I’ve stated before that I have snickered at and, admittedly, enjoyed the Kevin Bacon heads that were plastered downtown years back. but…it doesn’t mean that i condone it or that its right. art is self-expression. the minute that the “self” part unwillingly involves others, including other persons’ properties, it moves from being “art” to potentially being criminal. a different example: a gentleman gets a hotel room at the Renaissance Hotel. He thinks that his room, which overlooks the Skydome’s baseball field, has tinted glass. He decides to express himself and jerks off while watching the ballgame. Masturbation (in canada) is not an illegal act. When the tens of thousands of people at the Jays’ game can see this gentleman’s form of self-expression, and someone complains, then he has crossed the line, offended people and is then charged by the police.
    you damage someone else’s property – whether its a hit-and-run with a car, smashing their windows with a rock or tagging the side of a business – its a form of self-expression that the property owner usually does not approve and therefore crosses a line. going back to the Kevin Baconheads, i did find it funny but i recognize that it crossed a line, was likely done without the property owner’s permission and, therefore, should not be allowed. now if the Baconheads were placed on property and could be easily removed or if they had the property owners’ permission, that would be a different story. and public art (for example, the installations along the 401 near the airport) is an excellent way to add flavour to a bland city. go to Prague and you will see many examples of LEGAL self-expression via art.
    what goal do you hope to achieve by complaining here? What’s the point?
    i think our goal is much greater than your goal to introduce (less-than) fabulous art to Toronto residents. Our goal is to stand up and to make Torontoist accountable for its actions (glorifying and likely encouraging graffiti by creating a weekly feature that anonymously displays tags, etc) and to hopefully get through to people like you to say “maybe you should think twice before glorifying graffiti.” Its like that poem “The Hangman” but on a much smaller scale. if we don’t speak up, voice our opinion and show displeasure, then perhaps you will think EVERYONE loves your Vandalist section and that EVERYONE loves street art and that tagging a person or persons’ property is absolutely AOK since its in the name of art and self-expression.
    I find it interesting that I am able to see the pros and cons of street art and am able to understand the argument for it. but logic and social code make me side towards respecting someone else’s property, something that you seem to forget. you’ll probably say something like “they’re not spraying paint on the front of the ROM or at Queen’s Park! Its on back alley walls and old warehouses.” So what’s the message and what’s the medium? and because its old or hidden, we shouldn’t hold the same level of caring or standards? and why not tag Queen’s Park instead of tagging a hidden alley? if you want your art to be seen, find the most grand of venues, right? its akin to thinking that some wrongs are worse than others;while that is true, a wrong is still a wrong. That’s something that you seem to fail to see.

  • malmo

    rek: good grief.
    So you propose any appreciation of the artwork be banned because it was created illegally? Or it should only be mentioned with disclaimers? Or we ignore it, so it’ll go away? What exactly is your point?
    My point was to call you on your earlier post claiming art appreciation but no acknowledgement of crime.
    That graffiti has existed for many years “as part of the urban fabric” is no justification.
    T-rek: It’s a justification for Torontoist covering it here. A city blog should cover city things, as I concluded in the sentence after the one you pulled ‘urban fabric’ from.
    But Torontoist does not merely “report,” it promotes. It says, “Ooh, look at the cool, hip graffiti that adds so much to our otherwise boring city.” You just keep insisting on ignoring the crime and the disrespect.
    Do you honestly believe this column has done anything to increase the amount of graffiti or street art in the city by even a marginal degree?
    Absolutely. “Dude, my tag got posted on Torontoist!”
    Perhaps everyone should stop reporting murders too, because glorifying murder is no good and giving murderers that kind of exposure will surely come back to bite us all in the collective ass. No?
    Dear god. News coverage of murders do not glorify them as art. What a stupid argument.
    kmaryan: So why should the owner fork over that money to fix something that someone else did to his property?
    T-rek: Because no one else will and the owner would seem to have an interest in doing it. Who should be responsible for cleaning bird shit off the windows and leaves from the gutters?
    More terrible arguments. First, suggesting that anyone who is a victim of crime is responsible for their losses. Second, asserting that human criminals with conscious choice are as innocent as the birdies and trees.
    If you want to see legal murals, take pictures and send them to Posterchild. He only posts what he does because that’s what’s sent to him. Vandalist is a user-supported column.
    And we are users, too. Damn, rek, you just told us to see it your way or you’ll take your ball and go home. I’m starting to think you are either a troll or an ass. Aw, now look, you got me all emotional. Phooey.

  • David Topping

    Thanks everyone for the responses—I am surprised but glad that people answered my question and that there have been more than the same few people taking part. I don’t have time to address everything, but I have always accepted that there is a legitimate argument to be made against graffiti (Robin Rix’s argument was basically the best I’ve ever read, even if I didn’t agree with the solution he proposed). The problem is that what I usually see and am responding to in these kinds of posts are ad hominem replies against Torontoist or me or Posterchild or whoever else. If you think I’m an asshole simply for liking something, there’s really no wiggle room, ya know?
    Anyway, my reason for liking street art and graffiti—and again, not all of it, just like I don’t like all music—is more of an aesthetic than a free speech issue (I know rek feels differently, but “freedom of expression” just isn’t as big of a reason for me for why I care about or like street art). So: I like street art based largely on how cool or beautiful or awe-inspiring I think it is, independent of its legality but also considering other merits like—yes, I swear—the degree to which it infringes on private property. I don’t think, for instance, that I’d be cool with graffiti sprayed on the front of someone’s house, no matter how cool it looked. (It also means I don’t like most tags.) But this or this or this or this or this or this? I love it, and I don’t see it as egregious at all.
    If an artist wants to paint something on the wall of my house (why always this example??), that might be a slight problem as I’m moving into a condo I’m leasing in a few weeks—but yes, if and when I actually settle down and buy a house, yes please. Posterchild and Fauxreel and Teeth and the person who does the lady (and anyone else) are totally welcome to it. If I don’t like some of their work (something tells me I won’t like DaveH’s pieces), I’ll get rid of it, or I’ll wait for time and other artists to take care of it themselves.
    If you can’t see any legitimacy to any street art that’s not explicitly legal, there’s not much I can do to convince you otherwise. Vandalist, and to a larger extent any post on Torontoist about street art, is intended to be a place to discuss individual examples of art, not the validity of the form as a whole (we don’t post articles about music and expect people to trash the entire idea of music, for instance). As rek pointed out, Vandalist is user-driven, and gets better based entirely on the quality of submissions. But if any submission is automatically disqualified from your liking it because it is illegal, regardless of where it is, how destructive it is, and how pretty it is, I’m sorry; we’ll have to respectfully disagree about the place for that on Torontoist and in Toronto, and accept that there is a fundamental difference of opinion. If we fall in a forest, that’s the site’s problem. (Though I distinctly remember telling someone something like “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else” about Torontoist, that was dumb and I don’t actually think that way. The proof is on our front page today.)
    Those of you who don’t like street art or this feature don’t have to give up and pretend to like something you don’t—I never intended that—but it’s also just not alright to tell me to “grow up” or to say that Torontoist is composed of “miserable assholes,” or—worse—”hipsters,” just because we don’t see eye to eye on whether this one category of thing is good for Toronto or bad for it. It’s not fair, and it’s also hypocritical: if your argument against street art is that it is contempt for someone else’s property and tantamount to keying someone’s car or pissing on their living room floor…well, you’re a guest on Torontoist, and we don’t particularly like it when you piss on our floors either.

  • rek

    malmo: But Torontoist does not merely “report,” it promotes. It says, “Ooh, look at the cool, hip graffiti that adds so much to our otherwise boring city.”…
    Where does it say this? No articles accompany the postings. What’s posted is what PC considers the “best” of what he was sent.
    …You just keep insisting on ignoring the crime and the disrespect.
    I’m not Torontoist staff.
    rek: Do you honestly believe this column has done anything to increase the amount of graffiti or street art in the city by even a marginal degree?
    malmo: Absolutely. “Dude, my tag got posted on Torontoist!”
    I didn’t ask how someone might respond to seeing their graffiti in this column. If you want to invent anecdotes you could start with “Dude, I’m going to tag everything so it gets posted on Torontoist!”
    More terrible arguments. First, suggesting that anyone who is a victim of crime is responsible for their losses.
    As you guys are quick to point out, street artists don’t leave behind their phone numbers so they can’t be tracked down and made to clean off the walls. So who does that leave? The owner. I wasn’t talking about crime in general.
    And we are users, too. Damn, rek, you just told us to see it your way or you’ll take your ball and go home….
    Actually that’s the opposite of what I said. Vandalist posts what people send. If you want to see legal murals, bombard Posterchild with pics of them. How the hell is that me telling you to like regular street art and graffiti? Where did I threaten to take my ball (what?) and go home?
    … I’m starting to think you are either a troll or an ass. Aw, now look, you got me all emotional. Phooey.
    I’m starting to realize you aren’t worth further replies. You seem confused about my responsibility for this column, you invent anecdotes to justify your beliefs, you construct nonsensical accusations to be offended by, and you take things out of context to create monsters. Good day to you.
    David – Just to clarify, I don’t like street art because it’s “free speech”, but I do see it as such. There’s some graffiti/street art I like and some that’s meh and some I hate (tags in particular). Some are impressive just because of the difficulty accessing the spot, and some and some are inconsiderate and regretable in context.

  • torontothegreat

    >if your argument against street art is that it is contempt for someone else’s property and tantamount to keying someone’s car or pissing on their living room floor…well, you’re a guest on Torontoist, and we don’t particularly like it when you piss on our floors either.
    there you have it folks…
    you’re not welcome here as a friend… just a guest.
    REK, what is your address? I have some great art to paint…
    >if and when I actually settle down and buy a house, yes please. Posterchild and Fauxreel and Teeth and the person who does the lady (and anyone else) are totally welcome to it.
    nice!
    unlike everyone else, you wouldn’t have a choice in the artist either, that’s an unfair argument.
    How about I’ll get BEER to come and paint up your house, would THAT be okay? You can’t pick and choose the artist that vandalizes your house, no one else is given that luxury.

  • torontothegreat

    >that might be a slight problem as I’m moving into a condo I’m leasing in a few weeks
    Sorry I missed this point.
    So why not spray paint the condo you’re leasing?
    I hope it’s not because it’s someone else’s property that you’re leasing, is it?
    Or perhaps cause the condo ‘laws’ wouldn’t allow it?
    maybe cause it’s not your property?
    am I missing anything?

  • rek

    There’s already some ‘great art’ in the form of a SAiNT tag at my door, torontothegreat, but feel free to cover it up with yours.

  • torontothegreat

    cool… Address?
    I have some balloons that require hot air btw, I’ll need to borrow your windbag…

  • rek

    Why is ‘damaging’ property with art so offensive to you guys, when being a total dickbag directly to a person is so obviously acceptable?

  • torontothegreat

    I’d rather have someone directly be a dickbag to my face rather than be a dickbag behind my back (spray paint my wall and run away)… I guess we can’t all be passive/aggressive, Rek.
    So where is that address you were promising? Or were you just trying to save face on the issue? I know many people who love to creatively express themselves…
    Really interested in seeing how D. Topping is going to field the questions I asked him, however I have this sneaking suspicion he’s going to avoid this thread till it gets pushed into the archival abyss, seems to be his M.O.

  • davedave

    Issue at hand, entirely relevant: graffiti vandalism
    Not the issue, laughably irrelevant: complaints about how people are treating you on the internet
    Topping – Name me one piece of graffiti (painted on private property without permission) that is not inconsiderate. Just one.
    You pro-graffiti clowns won’t even acknowledge that it’s illegal, putting forth some ridiculous position that a person’s yearning for self-expression overrules someone’s right to not have his garage door fucked with. You don’t even hold the perpetrators responsible for the clean up. I guess it’s more cool and hip to be part of an asshole free for all where all private property is your little spray paint wank material.
    Maybe as the weeks go by and these stupid vandalist posts continue, one of you will become the victim of some graffiti vandalism on your house or car. Then your tune will change.

  • andrew

    As a tangent here – kind of a time out because whoa you guys are angry about this [rek included] – I get really upset at graffitti scrawled on rock faces beside highways that have no function other than to record the mere existence of the author, the sexual activity of various associates of the author, the romantic inclination of the author, and the occasional memorial to someone. I don’t own very much, so maybe there is some kind of class difference as to why I just cannot muster any outrage over the vandalism of the built environment. I guess if someone slapped a sticker for their band on my guitar without asking me I’d be irked. But the only way I can find any common ground with your chorus of indignation, righteousness, and intimidating rage is to remember my feelings coming across “______ was here” and “Fuck _____” and “_________ loves ________” somewhere along the Transcanada, written on the Canadian Shield.
    I don’t own my dwelling. I don’t own a car. My parents never owned real estate, and leased a car. Maybe there is some lack of respect for private property engendered by this state? I mean, I know that a lot of graf artists these days are not poor black or latino kids like they were in NYC when hip hop started. But is there some kind of sudden sea change people experience when they become the owner of property, or is this a set of values learned earlier? I guess, if the latter, your response would probably be that it’s only what is decent and right and moral.
    I try to think about the issue of private property and apply some critical thought to it, but I can only appreciate it in an abstract way. I just don’t have a sense of ownership about it…to make a really bad pun of it. To me, it just kinda feels like stuff. The people who live in the stuff, or use the stuff, are so much more important that I can’t really perceive the stuff.
    Christ I’m a fucking hippy.

  • mantisory

    I happen to like good graffiti from an asthetic view, but am on the fence because of the criminal aspect. My folks used to live in a place with lots of foot traffic and my father spent much money and time washing over graffiti because he didn’t happen to like it.
    I don’t really think it’s fair for anyone to assume that it’s their right to abuse an asthetic someone else has worked hard for, and I further think it’s wrong for Torontoist to glorify it by the weekly ‘vandalist’.
    As a previous poster asked, why doesn’t torontoist cover the legally done murals and other street art around the city? Is it because they’re not illegal, and by some twisted logic, uncool (in Topping’s hipster world)? :)

  • http://undefined rek

    The image for this entry is no longer showing…