Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things!
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Stacks of Tracks (in the Stacks)
Over the past two years, one hundred (or so) faces have popped up on walls around the city. Most were completed in stages: a quick sketch of a woman done one night in black paint might grow blue eyes, brown hair, and earrings soon after, provided she hadn't already been painted over. The work, especially the female sketches variously dubbed "the painted lady" and "the lady," gained many admirers, including us, but the artist behind them managed to stay anonymous even as the sketches grew in number and reputation.
But then, in January, the recently-opened Funktion Gallery announced a new show, and a familiar face graced the poster advertising it. The jig was up: the answer was Anser. And after months spent trying to pin the artist behind the faces down, Torontoist finally caught up with Anser near the Art Gallery of Ontario this past weekend to talk.
Torontoist: Did you start [drawing the faces] last year? Or were you doing it long before then?
Anser: I've been doing traditional graffiti for a really long time. Then I had a fall out where I wasn't into it. I wasn't really appreciating it as much—I still liked it, but it just wasn't me. And I had a bit of an epiphany after a while: I realized graffiti itself is very elitist...it's only meant for people within the graffiti culture to really participate. And after a while I just felt like, it's in the public realm, why not involve the rest of the public? Especially because graffiti gets such a bad rap because of that: people fear what they don't understand, and they don't really understand graffiti....I just felt like I wanted to put a friendly face on graffiti; that was the whole idea, basically, and I wanted to involve the whole public. I didn't want to just be another graffiti artist. And that's why I chose to do all these faces in spray paint, so that [the public] could see the medium, still see the link to graffiti, but all of a sudden say, "Wait, that's not a jumble of letters that I can't understand. It's a face. It's looking at me." And half the time it might be smiling.
[The faces] blew up this time last year. I started two years ago, but I didn't have the balls: once you stop doing it and you're out of the scene, and you try to get back in, it is fucking hard. It is shit-your-pants type shit, 'cause it's not easy under pressure to just bust anything out. I think that's one of the funniest things, when I get criticism for how a face might look. I just think it's hilarious because, I mean, give them a spray can, tell them in ten seconds to get a face done, and they'll see how the proportions go.
What was the first one you did?
The first one I did was overseas. I was travelling, and I was just painting with a bunch of friends. All of a sudden I just looked at the bombs they were doing, and I felt like standing out. And I don't even know where the fuck it came from. I just did an eye all of a sudden, and then another line led to an eye, and because I was trying to do it fast they would all turn into one line, and that was the start of it. It's kinda funny, though, because when I think about it, if everybody in the graffiti world did characters I'd probably be doing letters. But half the reason I'm doing the characters is because I want to stand out. I want people to notice [graffiti] in a different light.
I also noticed you don't tag your name, really, ever.
I try not to.
The brand is more the actual style of what you're doing, right?
Exactly. I kinda wanted it to be like that; I wanted people to recognize the face and not think, "Oh there's a whole other person behind this." It's like the face is the thing.
There was a definite process to the faces, too: it seemed like you would do them in stages....was that just because you wanted to get it done as fast as possible and get out?
My thing is I can't be seen. When I'm painting, I can't be seen, because if I'm seen it really ups the ante. With the graffiti artists, because people don't understand it as easily, there's a certain barrier of illusion there, there's a buffer zone. Whereas me, with the face, it's automatically recognizable. So for me, secrecy is the biggest thing; I gotta make sure I'm just not seen. So a lot of the times what'll happen is that I'll wait at a spot for like an hour and maybe get only ten seconds in three intervals.
Like, of actual painting in.
Yeah, exactly. But the stages are a funny thing. A lot of times it's purely situational: there was one at Yonge and Bloor, and I'd have to wait for the Blue Night bus, and I only painted this wall because I had to keep waiting for the Blue Night bus. And it had to be done in certain stages because I only had a specific amount of time.
Is it totally random—do you typically have cans of spray paint on you and then just go "oh, this'd be cool to do it here"—or do you scout locations out?
It's a bit of both....I did one around the corner that it was just like I looked around and all of a sudden it was dead, and I had a can, and I was like: "Holy crap, this is the perfect opportunity, I gotta do this." Moreso, I'd say it's I think of a spot, I pick it, I find the right day, the right time, and I just go and try and get it done. But I do do a lot of the coming back. I like people seeing the stages. I like leaving it black and white, and then coming back, finishing the hair, and then coming back and doing the eyes a certain colour.
What's the actual process? Do you spend like ten seconds each time adding stuff? Or you get any time in you can?
Any time in I can. I mean, if it's free it's free. If it's not it's not, and then I have to do it in intervals. Ideally it's all one go. Then again, sometimes I'll go out with only a black can. I've had a few nights where I've gone out and done maybe like five faces and then the next day it's like, "fuck, I've gotta put colours in those eyes so that they actually stand out." And I'll have to redo my route and just go add colour.
I saw, too, that some other artists have been adding to it: I saw Books made one of them a gypsy.
Oh yeah, yeah. But Books is an anti-graffiti artist. He's like the Dadaist of graffiti. He's like: "I hate graffiti, but I'm using its tools to make fun of it."
When you go back to the places [where you've put up the faces], are most of them gone now?
Graffiti moves so fucking fast. Especially in Toronto, it's done and it's gone. There are only really a few that are still left that I think are actually good ones or valid ones. The only one, actually, that I can think of is [at] Dundas and Spadina. There's a bit of an alcove; it's still there and I know it's gonna be there for a really long time...that one to me is the ideal form of graffiti, which is a mix between painting and installation. Because it's using the public space around it.
It belongs to the place it's set at...
Exactly. It actually fits. Cause this face is in the alcove, it's the way she's staring down, it's kinda hidden, mysterious.
It seems particularly like the one character, the woman, is everywhere. Is that based on a real person?
No, no.
So it's just...
Well, okay, we could get into so many different arguments here. It could be like subconscious, that subconsciously I started with a certain person. There definitely are times when certain people will come out in my face and I can recognize that. But then a lot of the times it's just a matter of chance, and a lot of it is how the face gets formed. All it really is a matter of lines, like I do the eyes a certain size...
And that's how the variations happen...
Exactly, it's all based on the moment. A lot of it might even have to do with how I feel, like sometimes you'll get a piss-off one, cause it's in the middle of the winter and I know it's gonna be buffed in four days. And sometimes you might get a happy one because I want people to look at it and smile or something.
And you try to incorporate the location into each one?
It depends. Ideally, I want all my things to be like that. But I gotta be honest that I'm doing the exact same things that other graffiti artists are doing, other bombers, which is: you take an image, you take an idea, and you plop it in a spot that it'll be noticed as much as possible....I mean, there are times where I definitely try to fit it in. But I'm not always able to do it. A lot of the time it's just like, gotta rock out with my cock out and just throw it up.
Were you always planning to do the show?
I'm friends with José[-Gabriel, Funktion's founder], and once he opened that gallery I wanted to help support him. And we talked about this as basically a money-making opportunity. Really, that isn't the type of publicity I want, because that's taking something out of its context completely. The face belongs in the street. Really, my art [in the gallery] is completely separate from my graffiti [on the street]. And that's the big difference: I'm trying to support the gallery.
But the show was interesting...it's taking the face and putting it in a safe place and saying, "just expand." Because under the pressure, a lot of the time I can only get a certain few ideas out, and I don't like to think too much about the face; I just like to do it. That is the special part about it. But in the gallery, it was really fun because I got to explore different things. In the future, I really want to do different ethnicities; I want the face to be the multicultural image of Toronto.
The one really neat one I saw on a wall [at the show] was the woman in the hijab.
Yeah, exactly.
And it extended past the boundaries of the poster [it was painted on] onto the wall, too.
Well that's the whole idea of the show. Almost everything in the gallery goes off the canvas. That's because the only real piece of art is the whole thing, and when you buy the canvas you're only buying a small little portion of a whole piece.
Is the [fundraising] logic behind putting it on t-shirts, too? Like "I'm gonna make some money for my friends and some for myself?"
That's not completely it; that incorporates another form of graffiti, which is advertising. The more people that have that shirt, the more people notice the face, the more it'll get out there.
And you want that.
I do kinda want that. But I wanted [the face known] more in the context of the streets, because I'm really trying to be the bridge between street art and graffiti, and I'm trying to get people to look at how it's not so scary.
I almost think of street art and graffiti not as two separate things but as sort of the same...
Oh, they're totally separate, they're totally separate. I mean you look at the mediums that they use. Street art to me is the more artistic, the more easy-to-access side of graffiti. Graffiti really is a totally different cultural phenomenon that people are participating in.
Like having a huge tag on a wall is more graffiti...
Oh, that is graffiti. And someone who does an amazing image and puts it on a poster and posts it up—that's street art. It's having a dialogue with a total different medium, total different people, total different space. And to be honest, I agree more with street art.
And that's why you moved a bit from graffiti to street art...
But I love graffiti. So that's why I'm in between these two boundaries. Personally, I do do some postering, I do do some other forms of street art. But really, I think the thing that attracts me so much to graffiti is that it's a moment in time that is a moment of creation, where you have to step to this spot, you have no time to think, you have no time to go "okay, this line's gotta go this way, and I have to make sure that this is perfect"...you have to just boom [snaps fingers] and do it. And that is why I think a lot of graffiti artists can't appreciate street art—because you're removing that instantaneous creation.
Because of all the prep work, right?
Yeah, exactly. It's like you're sitting at home and you made this amazing drawing, sure, and then you just went to the spot, you go buh-buh-buh-buh-buh, and it's on the wall, instead of you actually creating it there. And that's one of the reasons why I do the faces, because it's still using that tool of creating in the spot, which to me is a very very valid art form.
Did you choose the name Anser recently, for the show?
No no no, I've been known as Anser for a really long time....I was doing letter-based graffiti ages ago, like maybe six years ago was when I first started. Maybe a bit longer, I don't know. The thing is I just never got too into it, so my name never got known until this happened. José is the one who connected the face with Anser. Before this—you said it yourself—I never really leave a tag next to the face.
Yeah, and most people had no idea...
Who I was.
Not even the name you'd chosen.
Exactly, and that's the point. I wanted it to be anonymous, I wanted it to be out there. Anser is me; the face is "mysterious date"...it's like a little separate genre. There was this one guy, a photographer, who for the CONTACT exhibition around Toronto took photos of [the face] and then, you know those TVs in the subway station? They were running photography and one of them was all pictures of my faces. And he dubbed it "Mysterious Date." [That photographer was Michael D'Amico, whose photos fill this article: he followed the faces around Toronto last year, and named the collection "Mystery Date," after the board game.—Ed.] And that's how I got the name. I thought it was funny, I thought it was kinda true: you mysteriously walk into this moment with another person.
And that's what I like about the faces—it's one of the few faces in the world that you can stare directly into the eyes and the eyes will stare back. It's a moment where you can actually have a connection with something, even though it's not a real person. It's trying to create a connection, trying to create a dialogue. I think on the subconscious level, and maybe a romanticized, idealized level, graffiti is trying to put organic forms back onto an inorganic world. We live in gray, steel, concrete. And tags really are just organic colour, organic forms, and that to me is like creating a dialogue with each other. It's about communication.
Top: Os Gêmeos in São Paulo. Photo by amfdesigner. Bottom: SWOON in San Francisco. Photo by Heart of Oak.
It feels like there's an explosion going on [in street art in Toronto] over the past five years. There have been people who've been around forever, but I know so many more people are interested in it now and so many more people are doing it now, too.
Yeah, and I think it's important. But it's really sad because we're in the least prevalent graffiti scene...If you look at Montreal's graffiti scene, it's exploding, and it's incredible. Every corner you go around, somebody's commissioned a mural. And the graffiti itself is a lot better, and that has to do a lot with our cultures, with the way we perceive our environment. Here, it's like the tie's up; there, the tie's down.
I definitely sense that the debate is still going on about whether it's valid art or not.
That debate will always go on.
But it's funny because it seems like some people and some places are over that debate now.
Oh yeah, I mean, go to São Paulo. Even the London Tate has had a retrospective on graffiti artists. Os Gêmeos are these amazing brothers from Brazil, these two twins from Brazil...one twin is a graffiti artist, and the other twin is a street artist, so together they create this amazing team. When you see some of the pieces they've done illegally, you're just like, "What the fuck?" It's like a storey high and it's an amazing piece, and then you see the guys' characters and they're just genius. They're very very installation like, they're very quintessential, stylistic—but the Tate modern had an exhibition of them. Another artist is SWOON. She's a street artist. What's really going on is that street art is getting recognized. Graffiti will always be where it is, and that has very much to do with its cultural parameters. I mean, It's made for graffiti artists by graffiti artists.
Have you found the style that you wanna do? Or...
No no no. I'll always be doing the face. I'll always have that, just because I've created something that people notice, people appreciate, and it uses that same tools of graffiti, like, "Oh that guy's been here, oh that guy's been there." And I like that tool of graffiti, I like that recognition: it's like the world isn't that alone. You're not that alone. So that's why I would keep doing the face. But at the same time, everything gets stale, everything gets old, and as an artist I grow and change every day. But there already have been different movements. Me and a friend started invisible children. We both saw this documentary called Invisible Children, about the child soldiers of Sudan, and we've been doing wheatpastes and other things. I've been trying to do actual characters there; obviously it's a lot harder to a child soldier than to do a face of a girl that I've done a million times. But there are a lot of branches that I wanna change. I wanna expand. The funny thing is that I want to keep them slightly separate so that only a select few would even notice that it's the same artist.
Do you think your style is malleable enough that people won't notice? Even in the gallery show, I could definitely connect one piece [to another] even if it was of something totally different just because of the style you're doing it in.
Oh, the stylistics are very different. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't recognize that they're the same. There was one faction that I was doing for a little bit that I really wanna continue that I think is even more impressive than the faces, but it's a lot more hidden, a lot more subtle: the tree shadows....those were going up the same time as the faces.
You were doing those? I didn't know you were the one doing them.
Yeah, that's me.
That's awesome!
See, that's what I mean. I want to be able to have these different things going on, and people just notice them....I don't really want it to be like, "Oh that's the same dude; he's doing a lot of amazing shit." Who the fuck cares who I am? Are you noticing these things?
I love [the tree shadows], because they have a very different conceptual feel than the faces. The faces to me are talking to graffiti. The tree to me is talking about our environment, because it has this double life: it disappears at night time, because it copies the shadow that's already there. It slightly enhances it, but a lot of people can't even notice that. And then during the day time...it actually comes out for people to even know it's graffiti. Another reason why I love the trees is that it's been a year now since I did some of them, and obviously the tree's grown, so the shadow's changed. So it has this play between time and between permanence.
I was on the streetcar once, and I heard this lady as we were going by one of the faces go: "Oh, did you see that? That's the guy that does the faces! I love them!" And from that moment on I decided this is what I've got to do more of. Because people are actually starting to recognize it, and they're actually starting to appreciate them, and they're starting to not be so scared of graffiti, to feel like they're actually participating in this art form. It's happened to me where I've been painting on a street corner and I've just not given a fuck that this person is walking by, and they've actually stopped and gone: "Holy fuck! It's you!" And they stop and actually look out for cops for me. That to me is the amazing part of the face: it's that people actually are noticing it and appreciating it and wanting to actually participate in this whole dialogue.
"A Mysterious Date With Anser" runs until February 21 at Funktion Gallery (1244 Bloor Street West), with a student discount for pieces on the final day.
All photos, save for those of Os Gêmeos and SWOON's work, are from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Awesome. I just forwarded this to the police. Hopefully they'll nail anser or answer or whatever the jackass's name is.
I sort of agree with davedave. I don't feel that there is a valid reason to reward someone who commits civic wrongdoing (vandalism) with publicity and the prosperity of a gallery showing.
It reminds me of Margaret Keane's awful paintings of sad doe-eyed waifs. Maybe he should try painting on velvet.
I think this is great. Thanks for putting a name to the face.
Davedave:
Not sure what you wish to accomplish, maybe you didn't read the article, and you probably don't care, but even if you DID send this to law enforcement, there is nothing in that article they could even WISH to use to pursue and persecute anyone.
OMG MARGARET ATWOOD I LOVE YOUR BOOKS
HAHAHAHAHA
The dumbasses at the gallery are also posting anser's vandalism as if it's cool.
If you think anser can suddenly deny the connections when he/she admits guilt more than once in the Torontoist article, then you're a dumbass too.
The police have screenshots of this article as well as screenshots of the gallery website.
What am I hoping to accomplish? To get anser charged and fined for each and every blight he/she has imposed on property that doesn't belong to him/her. Bye bye now.
can we all just get along?
Didn't they try to arrest the Batman in the Dark Knight? who is batman anyways?
hey that was a great interview, it really gave me a better appreciation and understanding of graffiti, street art, and the people behind them. i really like the ideas behind these images well done and good for you.
i really appreciated this interview. anser has a lot of very interesting things to say and i'm glad they were said. thanks for sharing with us.
davedave: i dont see how that will solve any of the problems YOU have. jackasses and dumbasses? you are really unimaginative. deal with your hate dude.
I'm tired of repainting my garage door because assholes like anser feel they can just spraypaint their garbage anywhere they please. Hate? Yep. But the last thing I have to do is explain myself to someone who uses "hate" and "dude".
The last thing you need to do?
Apparently the first thing you needed to do, was to respond to that comment.
trying to have people charged isn't going repaint your garbage door or stop others from painting it again...
surely someone as intelligent as you has figured this out already.
Having anser charged will cost anser money, which in turn might make him/her stop breaking the law. Not sure how many fines anser would be up for paying. Nor do I care.
It would be an honored to have Anser paint on anything i own.
You'd ruin an artistic young life for a garage door? What kind of person are you.
No one gives two shits about your boring garage door.
Margaret Atwood writes
The only way to combat this? Pay a well respected traditional artist to paint a mural of YOUR choosing (heck, you could have a bunch of teddy bears mounting eachother if thats your thing, whatever makes you happy buddy)
And it doesn't need to be a graffiti artist either, pay some 50 year old woman who rocks paint brushes to paint you some landscape scenery or something.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
-------
You've got to be kidding. I don't want ANYTHING on my garage door and you're telling me I have no choice but to put something there.
Why is that? Whose door is it? Mine? Or anser's?
What retarded worldview tells you this is the way thing should be?
Don't hate the player hate the game?
What a ridiculous stance. They're one and the same. I hate both, and have taken steps to fight both.
As I've stated before, as soon as anser and all his/her little buddies allow me to go spraypaint anything I want on anything they own, I'll become 100% in favour of graffiti.
IrritatedVagina writes:
You've got to be kidding. I don't want ANYTHING on my garage door and you're telling me I have no choice but to put something there.
Why is that? Whose door is it? Mine? Or anser's?
What retarded worldview tells you this is the way thing should be?
As I've stated before, as soon as anser and all his/her little buddies allow me to go spraypaint anything I want on anything they own, I'll become 100% in favour of graffiti.
-------------
Keep painting over your door then, its not going to stop all the other graffiti artists out there from tagging it. I'm not sure you're aware of the fact that Anser isn't the only one out there painting on things.
Also, if you want to go out and paint on things, no ones stopping you, sounds to me like you would actually enjoy it, so why don't you?
I agree with the panda, I'm willing to bet that you live in a high traffic area, who's garage is situated in an alleyway where its not the ONLY one that gets tagged on a lot.
Re-painting your garage after every tag is just leaving a fresh, new, blank canvas that graffiti vandals just can't resist.
The only way to combat this? Pay a well respected traditional artist to paint a mural of YOUR choosing (heck, you could have a bunch of teddy bears mounting eachother if thats your thing, whatever makes you happy buddy)
And it doesn't need to be a graffiti artist either, pay some 50 year old woman who rocks paint brushes to paint you some landscape scenery or something.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Ahhhhhhhh, 20-something renters in the big city. You're all the same. You'll change when you actually own something of value.
This is one of those weird occasions where I agree with you. I don't want to reproduce a Group of Seven painting on my hypothetical garage door (which, given my university degree, I can only assume I will be living under in a tent-like fashion) just to deter taggers. I do wish there were a sprayable or paintable coating one could apply to their newly painted garage doors that would make the inevitable graffiti significantly easier to remove. (Is there?) I also wish that taggers and street artists, if they're gonna target someone, would target corporations instead of residential homes. Not because corporations are evil blah blah blah, but because they've got more money and time to remove it.
That said I also agree with the others that street artists like Anser are really the minority and not really the problem. Nevermind whether their stuff is good or not; they tend to need bigger walls and want more visibility, so they use the sides of apartment and commercial buildings instead of residential homes. Unless you live in Kensington Market, most of the people vandalizing are just taggers. It's the same crime, objectively speaking, but a different breed of criminal.
I will let you know, when I buy my first garage door, how I fare, and if I do end up giving a shit about graffiti. Probably, if I hang my Georgia O'Keefe on it.
have this slight feeling that this anser buisness is on some Dread Pirate Roberts tip. its not about the man/woman behind the face its about the idea. if you pay attention to the street art culture youd notice these faces have influenced a whole new breed of painters rocking faces and characters of different styles..
and as for batman he was Lewis Wilson, Robert Lowery, Adam West, Michael Keaton, val kilmer, and on and on..
point is no matter who is cast, we can all play the roll.
and the fans are still buying tickets to ride
Good stuff!
So, this is an ANSER too?
http://torontoist.com/2008/12/vandalist_child_soldier.php
Posterchild, No that image is actually the other participating artist, ORDER, most the images of invisible children are his, Got some catching up to do
ORDER, eh? Thanks! I'll be updating the Vandalists soon.
Any tips are appreciated! : vandalist@torontoist.com
Great article!
But I have to say: isn't a gallery show a good way to get arrested? Sheppard Fairey and Poster Boy were both recently arrested at their own gallery showings for their illegal installations elsewhere. Of course it comes with the territory, and I'm sure davedave will be ecstatic for a few minutes and then go back to bitching and moaning when he realizes that doesn't stop the graffiti and street art from flowing freely.
Anser mentions Os Gémeos; they're featured in the graffiti documentary Bomb It. It was hilarious to see them convince a police officer they were commissioned to paint a giant piece on the side of a ramp or embankment (don't remember what it was now).
Oh and I would kill to see a time-lapse of the line work that goes into the face.
Time lapse graffiti!! That would be awesome to see.
Google
If I had a garage, I'd be tempted to paint my own design, or pay a good artist to paint it. But then I'd be afraid someone like anser would scribble all over it. So then I'd buy a house in a gated community.
If I have a garage it means either I've come into loads of money or I am living in a garage. In either case graffiti would be the least of my concerns.
I am of the same opinion as Davedave. Whether I find his work aesthetically pleasing or not is not the question, but whether I, as a property owner, have the right to have my property free of other people's pigmented expressions.
The one photo of the yellow sandwich shop particularly bothered me. It is obviously a small business, and they probably don't have the money to continually paint over the constant tagging that makes their business look shady and unkempt. Why do all of you feel that Anser has more of a right to spray over their walls than they do to have a wall free of graffiti or tags?
Graffiti is a crime. It is defacing other people's property without consent, and costing those people real world money to fix. Just because you think it might be pretty is no excuse.
I wish they'd asked Anser for his opinion on this fact, it would make for a more interesting discussion.
Graffiti is not a crime! Defacing private and public property is in most cases a crime. This well written article is about an artist and graffiti as art, not as Davedave and fantasygoat would like it to be an article about vandalism.
Maybe if we had less police generating revenue from illegally parked cars or with expired meters there would be enough police effort to help Davedave get over his anger.
you may want to re-think that one:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/graffiti/partnerships.php
Graffiti by definition is a crime, as it must be on property to be graffiti, otherwise it's just crappy art on a wall.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graffiti
Dictionary intrusion! Graffiti (according to the OED) comes from the word meaning "a scratch," and means "A drawing or writing scratched on a wall or other surface"—it carries no implicit negative or illegal connotation.
You may now resume arguing your firmly-held beliefs about graffiti that allow for no middle ground or compromise!
Most people see street "art" as an indication that their neighbourhood is going down the toilet.
Shopkeepers are getting fined for not removing graffiti from the exterior of their stores.
Why should they take the brunt of this vandalism?
pretty stupid to use the OED and then 'paraphrase' the meaning to fit your argument. Here is the ACTUAL entry:
"Unauthorized writing or drawings on a surface in a public place."
I never asked anyone for the origin of the word, I said by DEFINITION...
Re: "You may now resume arguing your firmly-held beliefs about graffiti that allow for no middle ground or compromise!"
What an idiotic comment. Where is the compromise exhibited by the artist in painting wherever s/he chooses? How does that take into account the legitimate gripes of property owners that their property should not be canvases upon which anonymous artists can seek self-fulfilment and (later, following the inevitable gallery show) enrichment? Your idea of compromise is that property owners make their surfaces available to anyone who wants to use them. That is not compromise, it is complete capitulation.
No one cares that you rented a condo and would invite the artists to spray the hell out of it. To suggest that is the same thing as an artist covering someones garage with his/her trite work under the cover of night without permission (indeed, if the work is being painted over, one might reasonably assume that permission has been denied) is obviously deluded. Yet you trot out this argument - that you would consent to it if asked, therefore consent is tacit - as if it somehow applies to property that is not yours.
One of your more thoughtful correspondents tried to sketch out such a middle ground months back. Although I had my disagreements with that argument, its considerably more valuable than the cretinous dreck you trot out here and elsewhere to scold the "tiresome" graffiti opponents. Wake up - your advocacy is just as tiresome, and the opponents are at least on the right side of the law.
"You may now resume arguing your firmly-held beliefs about graffiti that allow for no middle ground or compromise!"
I was addressing both sides. I've made it pretty clear in the past that I believe there's a middle ground.
I can't believe you made me read that again.
To summarize, you have "been pretty clear in the past" that you do not advocate graffiti on the front of someone's house. By your promotion of this article and the pictures you have included, you appear to have no problem with graffiti on the side of houses, adjacent to operating businesses or other concrete or brick surfaces. Congratulations on a very nuanced view of the issue and deepest apologies for grouping you with the pro-side, you have achieved a balance and equanimity the rest of us can only aspire to.
>I wish they'd asked Anser for his opinion on this fact, it would make for a more interesting discussion.
Good luck getting any of the pro-graffiti zealouts to answer that one. They avoid it at all costs.
hi torontothegreat. i'm looking into the uneven enforcement of "illegal signs" in toronto and why that is happening.
i'm interested in talking with you through email if possible.
wcsl.05@gmail.com
thank you.
http://torontoist.com/2008/07/vandalist_unplugged.php#comment-1421370
case in point. All the zealouts LOVE graffiti SO MUCH, but won't give up their own addresses to have some 'art' on their own property. Pay particular attention to David Topping's response(s).
This is silly, torontothegreat. I didn't paraphrase, I quoted, straight from the OED's official, full website (not the pocket or abridged entry you're likely citing). Here's a screenshot of the "graffiti" entry, with etymology and all. I did miss the new draft definition of the word that was added about a year ago: "Words or images marked (illegally) in a public place, esp. using aerosol paint." But that doesn't adjust the word's primary definition, or its original one, and that means that when you say "Graffiti by definition is a crime, as it must be on property to be graffiti, otherwise it's just crappy art on a wall," you are objectively wrong. Legal, encouraged, commissioned graffiti exists, and it's still graffiti. Sorry!
Anyway, since you pointed people to that old Vandalist comments thread, this is how I feel about graffiti (and this whole argument), and this is what I said then about my own property:
I said it'd be a "slight problem" to paint on my walls because I'm on the eighth floor of my building. I'll let you all know when I'm closer to the ground.I also said:
8th floor is not a problem for my friends who endeavor in 'street art', neither is t-rex's front door. Especially considering this is the first time you've brought this issue to light after I made my offer many many months ago. You did however give reasoning in your first post which is not matching what you're now saying.
"as I'm moving into a condo I'm leasing in a few weeks"
Both of you failed to provide your addresses when asked. You have my email addy, shoot me an email with it or ask me for it and I'd be happy to oblige on my offer.
Also, using an outdated definition doesn't make your use of the outdated definition any clearer or logically reasonable. You omitted the revised definition, for reasons that I can actually imagine (as previously pointed out) to fit the mold of your debate.
"outdated
Adjective
old-fashioned or obsolete"
Agree to disagree? I s'pose. When you get off your 'lease' and actually BUY something, let's continue this discussion.
Tell you what, torontothegreat: when my front door is my front door and not my landlord's, I'll let you know. Until then you'll just have to be satisfied with the knowledge that Saint and Brief and various other taggers have already 'damaged' it several times. Three different shades of white paint testify to that.
Youre all talking talking talking. meanwhile people ages 8 to 50 are out there tagging bombing scratching etching pasting painting piecing and vandalizing, no matter what you say or do.. especially on a forum, its not going to stop, leaving a mark on your surroundings has existed before any forms of writing.
you dont like graffiti.. go out and get rid of it yourself. get up a team of friends and take some paint and go buffing.. maybe you too can start a movement of such world wide epic proportions where people from all cultures and ages from all wakes of life go out and beautifully paint maliciously vandelized walls white and grey and beige, and everyone will start doing it because its the thing to do and everyone is rapping about it and politicians are toasting off it.
graff writers dont talk.. they rock
you are all talk...
stop your baby playground bitching and take some action .. make your mark in society not on society.
>make your mark in society not on society.
The irony of your last sentence is awesome!
moron.
He's actually referencing a line from a 1980's anti-graf campaign in New York that was featured in the documentary Style Wars.
The irony of his last sentence actually is kind of awesome.
Moron.
...and CONTEXT is important. moron.
In the context of his post, and the greater context of this discussion, I fail to see how his reference isn't applicable.
What chemicals do they put in spray cans, and how much of them do you figure you've inhaled?
Captain Picard - in your semi-illiterate post you fail to make a single mention of private property rights, which leads me to believe that you don't own any property.
Explain why it is I who must allow a complete stranger to destroy my private property rather than the complete stranger who must leave it the fuck alone?
"make your mark in society not on society" - thank you for this incredible comedic gift.
Street art is not destruction. You aren't going to change anyone's mind by calling it that.
But it can be and mostly is. Etching into glass, spray painting on structure. What exactly is that, if it's not destruction?
Etching is one of the rarest forms of graffiti by proportion (and unheard of in street art, in my experience), but I'll give you that one as destructive; but paint and stickers and wheat paste do not destroy the surface or structure. Depending on the original state it can be difficult to clean, but it's not destructive.
aerosol spray paint isn't destructive? Sandblasting a wall to remove graffiti isn't destructive? Using more paint to keep covering up more paint (and the cycle continues) isn't destructive?
You sure about that one? I think you might just be reaching for sake of argument?
We've had enough dictionary cites in this thread already, but no, aerosol paint doesn't destroy the surface or structure. Sand-blasting is a restorative act, and not one the street artist or graf writer performs anyway.
How about the environment, economic destruction (property values, business value etc), social destruction etc.
Destruction of property isn't just exclusive to the surface that's being defaced. I should have been a bit more clear.
Fourth voice to say that the nested comments just aren't working. They don't even follow the reply they are supposed to follow (see above, rek is nested under kungfu panda even though he replied to a comment from davedave and so on and so forth).
davedave is King Canute.
so do people that do or love graffiti (particulary, aerosol spray paint) also mean (by default) that they hate the environment?
I mean the application to make graffiti is HORRIBLE for the environment and the application(s) for removing graffiti are also horrible.
Since when did the human race give a shit about the environment???
So do people who own or support private property (particulary physical structures) also mean (by default) that they hate the environment?
I mean the materials used in the construction of physical structures is HORRIBLE for the environment and the externalities of private property are also horrible.
not 100% of the time. Whereas, aerosol spray painting IS 100% of the time. Also, for you to make such a point, I'm guessing you live under a tree in a public park?
Building a structure out of the necessity to shelter ourselves, isn't at all the same as defacing property, public or private.
This pussy interview failed to ask anser a single tough question. Given the past debating on Torontoist one would think an interview with a graffiti perpetrator would at least tackle a couple of basic issues.
Here are a few questions - perhaps Torontoist can pass them along to anser, who can answer them if he/she has the balls:
1. What gives you the right to damage someone else's private property?
2. With the proceeds of your "art show" will you be reimbursing any property owners for the money they spend to remove your graffiti?
3. Will you be sharing the proceeds of your "art show" with property owners whose property you used to promote your "art"?
4. If a wall has a sign on it that says "please no graffiti" would you respect it? Or would you paint on it anyways? And if you did choose to paint on it despite the request from the property owner, why?
Them's is actually some good questions
=================================================
YOU ARE ALL BUFFOONS
=================================================
This article is NOT about whether graffiti is art or not.
This article is NOT about whether YOU whiney bitches like graffiti or not.
This article is NOT about how to stop graffiti
This article is NOT about the definition of graffiti
==================================================
This article is about HOW and WHY the anser movement does what they/him/her do.
If you guys want to continue bitching about tagged up walls and shitty ass garage door bombs, then go for it. It has nothing to do with Anser as an art form - which is what this entire article is about. (Whether you agree with that statement, is again, completely irrelevant)
Save the complaints about graffiti for your weekly community watch meetings. If you really have a problem with graffiti IN GENERAL, then do something about it.
For now, enjoy this rare, in depth look into the brain of an established, respected, and hard working entity. And maybe even gain some respect for the fact that they drop actual characters around the city, as opposed to jumbled, indecipherable "tags" that 99.99% of the graffiti population does. (Again, which is why this article was written.)
Which would you rather encounter as you walk around the city? A sweet artistic face, or a bunch of scrawls that only taggers can read? Which do think evokes more of an emotional response? Why do you think Anser's faces pop out at you so hard??
They are both unstoppable. So move on with your lives.
/end of my outside opinion on the matter.
i have inhaled many pheumes.. but still
graffiti is pretty rad.. maybe spend a few days with a graffiti writer and find out what they are really about.
and as for revieling an adress... You first and i promise you can know my rel name and home adress/
but im the gingerbread man..... catch me if you can... and if you cant... then i apologize if i sprayed your proporty... otherwise goodluck changing things bra!
Why do property owners have any more right to dictate a city’s aesthetic than graffiti artists? What just because they pay higher taxes/have larger bank accounts they can demand that the city be maintained to their standard? In my opinion your shitty stucco facades, ticcy tacky town houses and armadas of garages are visual pollution so does that give me the right to tell you to tear it down and erect a Dadaist fantasy playground in it’s wake?
Small businesses have no problem dictating the city's aesthetic and the pedestrians' street level experience when they let garbage heap up in the streets and alleys, leave their patrons' hundreds of cigarette butts sit on the sidewalk just beyond the door, block sidewalks with their signage, and leave puddles of greasy garbage water sit stagnant underfoot. 'Broken window theory' is often cited when graffiti is the broken window, but where are the business association reps (and their acolytes) when it's the businesses breaking windows?
When did shop owners stop sweeping the sidewalk out front?
What a hilarious little post you have assembled.
If you want to have dictate how a property looks, then you have to save up some money and buy one. Let me guess: you're under 25, and you rent - so I guess you're going to have to wait to control your own little slice just like the rest of us had to.
Your lack of respect for things other people have bought and paid for is appalling.
Why do you even live in a city if you want to “control your own slice”? I thought that’s what suburbs were built for, so you could avoid shit like graffiti, and community and opinions that differ from your own. As much as you think the city doesn’t respect you, it’s clear that you don’t respect the fact that you live in a city, and graffiti has been going on way before you ever signed your mortgage.
Oh and if I decide to purchase property in the downtown core, I’d probably be smart enough to paint my garage with many of the anti-graffiti primers available on the market. I mean, It’d just be a matter of hosing the shit down and using a sponge. If you want to take pride in your property take pride and quit bitching.
Re: Why do you even live in a city if you want to “control your own slice”? I thought that’s what suburbs were built for, so you could avoid shit like graffiti, and community and opinions that differ from your own.
What a false dichotomy. I hate the suburbs. I also wouldn't want my property (if I owned any) covered with amateurish spray paint or trite tree shadows. Do you know what the level of property ownership is downtown? Do you know what it would be if your property rights included the caveat that anyone could do anything they wanted to do to your property in the name of art and their personal fulfilment?
The essence of a property right is the ability to exclude others. Thats not me, that is 1000 years of philosophical and legal inquiry. Your response is that those who believe it are closeted suburbanites.
Some of the commentors here (rek) are at least honest enough to admit they don't believe in private property (however atavistic that belief). And if the basis for your objection is that you don't believe in private property, the easiest answer is: everyone else does, and the law reflects that.
Some of the commentors here (rek) are at least honest enough to admit they don't believe in private property...
I don't recall saying that.
I really wish the nested replies thing could be turned off. It's impossible to tell where the new messages are.
I agree, rek.
Let's go back to having comments in the order they are written.
Thirded, especially since the "recent comments" banner on the main page doesn't work.
Whew! What a argument going on here! I was going to say 'debate,' but the ad hominems are ridiculous ("you defend graf which makes you stupid and since you're stupid, your point is stupid"...ugh!).
Anyway, I would much rather live in a city that has graf than live in a city with none. People seem to think that graf looks 'run-down,' messy, and signifies crime and danger. I wonder why that is. Would totalitarian orderliness be any better!?
Take a trip down 'memory lane' (the alley just south of Queen and runs west from Spadina).
what constitutes public space vs. private space?
in a structured urban environment its a huge debate. however it seems to go both ways: the public is private but the private is extremely public. deal with it?
People can debate it all they want. If that's what helps them justify their idealistic view of a world that no one else lives in except themselves, cool!
However, the law is pretty damn clear on this particular subject.
Interesting reply. You might find it interesting that no one really knows what 'reality' is, and 'reality' is likely the most 'ideal' of concepts. For thousands of years some very smart people have sought to figure out 'reality.' In any case, I'd suggest that the 'reality' that you claim to live is not shared by anyone (I don't mean that it's 'wrong').
The law may be 'clear' on this, but laws change.
Well until the law changes, it's a moot point. That IS reality lol.
To say that "until the law changes," my point that laws can change is not moot at all - quite the opposite. That laws can change is relevant to a law being changed...
Breaking the law doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong, while there are plenty of legally protected things that are unethical and immoral.
>Breaking the law doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong
:/
Hey kids, paint fumes can and will affect your brain.
I can count the number of times I've used spray paint on one finger.
Wooster'd
i wish i'd thought of this before the end of anser's show. next time there's a graf artist's gallery show, i'ma show up with spray paint. could still hit up the gallery that showed her/his stuff...
I think it's funny that these debates continue to go on. This same art/vandalism argument has been happening for 30+ years. To an artist / appreciator it's art. To someone who perceives it as vandalism it's not art. But just because it's a crime doesn't mean it's not art and just because it's art doesn't mean it's not a crime. Graffiti artists paint because of a compulsion to do so. If I see a blank white wall. I'm sorry if your the property owner but I see that as a canvass and my compulsion to paint is stronger than my empathy for you or my moral integrity to obey the law. Just as if I was to get caught painting on your property, your contempt towards me is stronger than your willingness to sympathize with my need to paint.Therefore you send me to jail. It's an addiction, some people just need to create art at any cost. To me, restricting myself to only painting on canvas "which I paint and sell hundreds of" is like telling a musician they should only create in a recording studio. It's not that simple. We will paint on your property and continue to do so. You will call the cops on us and continue to do so. It's all a game. We are all participants whether we like it or not. I understand that jail time and a criminal record is the consequence of my actions. I'm sorry it has to be that way and I'm truly sorry for any hardships I may have caused. My compulsion to paint and "in my eyes" beautify the city is just so overwhelming that no matter what you threaten me with. I will never stop. Graffiti gives a city character. If you are sick of your property getting tagged, Commission or even just allow and artist to paint a mural. Artists don't EVER paint over other respected artists work.
Oh and to anyone who says they will come to my or any other artists gallery show and spray paint over the walls and the work. Give it a try. If you can get away with it. Good job!! But if I catch you. I'm calling the cops and making damn sure that you spend a night in jail and get a criminal record, because that's the name of the game. p.s graffiti is not something a city can stop, but it is something a city can adapt to.
what an odd reply...
Could I apply the same logic to shooting you, assaulting you, raping a family member etc?
what you propose is that your compulsions outweigh others' well-being?
Imagine living in a world like that... Wasn't that like the entire basis for the Judge Dredd comic series?
It's also funny to me that you would call the cops on someone defacing your own property. No one is playing the 'game' as you call it. YOU are playing a game, others are simply REACTING to it. They're not on board with you. Don't try to 'paint' that sort of picture. The two are entirely unrelated.
adapt :
What a steaming pile of shit you've typed in.
While I despise your immature and disrespectful attitude toward other people's property that they work hard to pay for, at least you acknowledge you deserve to be punished for being an asshole.
Then in an insult to people with actual addictions, you make the ludicrous claim that your gutless little hobby that impresses your friends is some sort of addiction, as if we're all supposed to support your habit.
Then you write "Artists don't EVER paint over other respected artists work." which is hilarious. Graffiti clowns paint over each other's garbage on a daily basis. Ironically (or appropriately) the disgraceful disrespect graffiti clowns have for private property is matched by their laughable disrespect for each other.
And spare us your stinking bullshit about being sorry for the destruction you cause- you clearly aren't sorry because you're still doing it.
It really would be great/fun to show up at your stupid "art" show with a sharpie and write all over your "art". According to your own words, you have no right to stop me from doing so, because I can always claim it's my "addiction", which apparently absolves me of any responsibility to respect anything you own.
Here's hoping you get arrested/fined again and again and again until you grow up.
adapt said= it's "like telling a musician they should only create in a recording studio"
No. It's like telling a musician they should not play in a library. There are appropriate and socially kind and respectful places to create, whatever your art.
The reason graffiti isn't truly art is because the risk of getting caught and the high you get from the rush of adrenaline is the primary drive to create it. If you really need to create in a pure art sense, and you feel the need to do it outside, then you certainly can... on something that belongs to you. But that isn't what you're after. You want the thrill of a hormone rush.
So comparing yourself to an addict might actually be quite accurate. Gambling is as addictive as cocaine because very similar physiological things go down in the body. Studies haven't shown it (to my knowledge,) but I'm sure doing illegal things like tagging is as addictive as gambling for very similar physiological reasons.
So now we know you DO have a problem. You care more about getting that high than about the social consequences of your actions or the well-being of those sharing your city. Four letters: CAMH
You're right that bombing your shows would be playing your game but I want no part of your game so I'll leave your shows. I want your game/addiction to end.
The problem with graffiti is the perception that goes along with a vandalized property. A vandalized property in the eyes of many means seedy, dangerous, if people got away with vandalizing the place, others know it's a place where they can get away with doing other illegal things. Because of this it will affect business and/or property value if not promptly removed. I really do feel for the small business and residential owners who are working hard to make ends meet and move up in life.
Although i appreciate and admire the artistic merits of graffiti,unless the entire city is blanketed by it and the negative connotations are disproved to the public i don't think it's fair for property owners to be punished by vandalism.
Artistic merit does not mean it should be legal. This article shows many of the merits of graffiti and the ideas that go into it. But it is not advocating whether it is good or bad for society.
I hope that people can understand this.
Its self righteous assholes like davedave and other “concerned citizens” that make it so easy for graffiti artists to burn over people’s hard earned property. Whether or not it’s right or wrong is something property owners can waste their time arguing. Either way vandalism is happening. And the fact is most graffiti artists just don’t give a fuck (pardon my language). People who get their panties in a bunch over it give writers another thing to laugh about. It doesn’t matter how many bylaws or fines you throw at people, someone is still going to write their name on a wall. So next time you’re huffing and puffing over the shitty tag in your backyard take a second to think about more constructive ways to battle your problems. Instead of attacking all of this negative destruction with more negativity, maybe we should find ways to promote more positive creation.