Respek! ^{(^)}

9 freakin' years chasing him?

I was in Harvard Square a few years back when there was a big disturbance in the subway station beneath. My friend said the police had just arrested a major graffiti artist they had been watching for a long time. I wonder if it was this guy.

You'd think he'd grow out of it after 9 years.

the government should sell licenses to groups of geezers that allow them to:

1. form clubs that paint over or sand-blast graffiti off walls, leaving nice blank canvases
2. purchase stun guns
3. lurk, under cover, waiting for graffiti punks
4. videotape themselves zapping the punks as they deface the clean walls
5. bag and tag the punks and call for police pickup.
6. post the hilarious videos on my new site, taggingpunkcomeuppance.com

flucto: the government should sell licenses to groups of geezers that allow them to:

1. form clubs that paint over or sand-blast graffiti off walls, leaving nice blank canvases
2. purchase stun guns
3. lurk, under cover, waiting for graffiti punks
4. videotape themselves zapping the punks as they deface the clean walls
5. bag and tag the punks and call for police pickup.
6. post the hilarious videos on my new site, taggingpunkcomeuppance.com



I think instead they ought to just liscense the artists. If you're amazing, you get free reign to tag whatever you want, if you're ok, there are more restrictions.

If you suck? That'd be a stabbin'

/likes GOOD graffiti
//thinks good graffiti will be studied more in the future than lots of modern art.

FreeCrime: /likes GOOD graffiti
//thinks good graffiti will be studied more in the future than lots of modern art.

People own the things these punks ruin. Taggers need incarceration, not encouragement. It's not art, it's vandalism.

Legendary Boston graffiti artist vandal arrested

FTFY subby

I'm sorry, that's not a hair question.

Like taking this guy's drivers license will actually do anything. He's a douchebag that destroys other people's property. He needs to be in prison for a VERY long time.

Errk: vandal

This.

FreeCrime: If you're amazing, you get free reign to tag whatever you want

They're already free to draw all over anything they own. If they're any good at selling themselves, they can get others to commission their art on their property.

flucto:
People own the things these punks ruin. Taggers need incarceration, not encouragement. It's not art, it's vandalism.

Incarceration just gives artists plenty of practice (drawing) time, keeps them out of trouble in jail, they get out early for good behavior. Not to mention a book full of new ideas for works.

I've seen some fantastic graffiti art, I'm all for anything creative like this, but only if the artist has permission from the property owner. Like everything else, there are always the wanna be's that ruin it for everyone else.

Especially the morans that cant spell. 'SOUTHSIDE CIRPS' was my favorite.

take his drivers license? he tags the subway, i don't know if he needs to drive to do that

flucto

Or, if that's too much trouble, they could just hire them to paint "is gay" after the tag.

Godscrack: flucto:
People own the things these punks ruin. Taggers need incarceration, not encouragement. It's not art, it's vandalism.

Incarceration just gives artists plenty of practice (drawing) time, keeps them out of trouble in jail, they get out early for good behavior. Not to mention a book full of new ideas for works.

I've seen some fantastic graffiti art, I'm all for anything creative like this, but only if the artist has permission from the property owner. Like everything else, there are always the wanna be's that ruin it for everyone else.

Especially the morans that cant spell. 'SOUTHSIDE CIRPS' was my favorite.

We got a skatepark back in davenport that we allowed legit people to paint up, because there was so much gang graffiti (as in they painted over it). It looks awesome now, and no more gang tags.

Well, for the park.

FreeCrime: //thinks good graffiti will be studied more in the future than lots of modern art.

Who were these "Ballas" and why was there so much strife concerning "deez nutz"?

taking away his license will really restrict him. now how on earth will he travel from one subway station to another?


/his work is pretty gorgeous though

tagging != graffiti

Good riddance!

El Barto?

FreeCrime:

//thinks good graffiti will be studied more in the future than lots of modern art.


/already is (but not more than modernism, silly)! My school offers a class, actually.

Bolt cutters
finger
snip

game over

The city should use a medium sized vacant lot, with perfect smooth concrete walls around it... fence it and put up a sign that says "No Graffiti"

...Then use an array of overlapping claymores that will remotely trigger at the first sign of movement.

FreeCrime:

I think instead they ought to just liscense the artists. If you're amazing, you get free reign to tag whatever you want, if you're ok, there are more restrictions.

If you suck? That'd be a stabbin'


Agreed. Part of the art of graffiti is doing your work in a spot that is paid a lot of attention. Most modern art (it seems) are abominations. Ridiculous every day things arranged in a certain way, with everyone pretending they understand the deeper meaning behind it to comfort themselves that they "get art". Graffiti is one of the few modern art styles that actually is more than the sum of it's parts, one of the few that actually is able to express ideas in a way that can transcend mindsets.

Also, as an aside, in my opinion these master graffiti artists generally make things look better with their work. I'd much rather see a giant image painted to look 3-d than a big blank wall. If these guys were putting holes in the wall or painting over windows I'd understand. How can you complain over a snazzy paint job though?

Who gets the reward?



/He'll just have Aunt Patty make him another driver's license...

EngineerBob: Bolt cutters
finger
snip
game over

For *taggers*, YES. For "Bombers"? NO. There IS a difference. Taggers are disrespectful little miscreants who deface & destroy anything they can reach; Bombers tend to stick to walls and trains, which do no real harm to anyone.

I was an early "bomber" in the '80's; I never grew out of it, but I found better mediums. I assure you, noone ever gave a flying fark that I made a beautiful Rustoleum™ mural out of my name on the backside of the abandoned malls, or the pavement of pedestrian overpasses.

CHAKA

"Brandt, if convicted, could face up to two or three years in prison for each charge that he faces. He could lose his driver's license and be forced to pay restitution to his alleged victims. Some in Salem are already lining up for what they believed they are owed."

RTFA. It's more than losing his license.

He's 27, works in a lumberyard yet has a lot of talent. Maybe he should become one of those graphic designer people? I hear it pays more than stocking drywall screws.

Ahh, yes, another anti-graffiti thread: a bunch of boring people living in their mass-produced beige McHomes with "safe" neutral-colored interiors, who drive their identical vanilla white cars to their ordinary, boring McJobs where they sit in a plain gray McCubicle argue about what is and is not art.

stiletto_the_wise: Ahh, yes, another anti-graffiti thread: a bunch of boring people living in their mass-produced beige McHomes with "safe" neutral-colored interiors, who drive their identical vanilla white cars to their ordinary, boring McJobs where they sit in a plain gray McCubicle argue about what is and is not art.

Riiiight..

Sudlow: RTFA. It's more than losing his license.

He's 27, works in a lumberyard yet has a lot of talent. Maybe he should become one of those graphic designer people? I hear it pays more than stocking drywall screws.

This is how he stayed invisible for so long! Most of the best artisits in the community are pushing their 30's or 40's; the cops are out looking for teen Black kids, when the artists tend to be a bit more of a mixed bag. We hide behind the illusion of respectability, because it works. We use the police's own prejudices against them, and unless caught red handed, we always get away. Sadly, the taggers know this as well, so there is a down side. Just for the record: Bombers HATE taggers, in case you hadn't figured that out yet.

Ahh, yes, another pro-grafitti thread: a bunch of glassy eyed art school dropouts with backpacks full of sharpie markers, "My Name Is" stickers with scribble on it and half full cans of spray paint bought by their older brother because art stores won't sell it to them. Art is not destruction of someone else's property. If you want to destroy someone's property, you're a criminal, simple as that. You can be an artist and a criminal, but you're still a criminal.

/get off my lawn

stiletto_the_wise: Ahh, yes, another anti-graffiti thread: a bunch of boring people living in their mass-produced beige McHomes with "safe" neutral-colored interiors, who drive their identical vanilla white cars to their ordinary, boring McJobs where they sit in a plain gray McCubicle argue about what is and is not art.

And I suppose if you came out one morning to find your car had been completely covered with spray paint, obscuring your windshield, your only reaction be "ooh goody, art has been bestowed upon me." Or is it only OK when it happens to "the man?"

al_gorithm:this whole "postmodern" thing must be pretty new to you still

al_gorithm: Ahh, yes, another pro-grafitti thread: a bunch of glassy eyed art school dropouts with backpacks full of sharpie markers, "My Name Is" stickers with scribble on it and half full cans of spray paint bought by their older brother because art stores won't sell it to them. Art is not destruction of someone else's property. If you want to destroy someone's property, you're a criminal, simple as that. You can be an artist and a criminal, but you're still a criminal.

Nice stereotyping there! Hope you are just trolling. Art comes with a price, and while it is true that some of the younger kids don't always know how to choose the best canvas, decorating a blah blank wall with something outstanding is not destruction, it is enhancement. Art is not a crime.

Now if you're talking about "tagging", then yes, that ususally is destructive, is NOT art, and is therefore a crime.

al_gorithm: Ahh, yes, another pro-grafitti thread: a bunch of glassy eyed art school dropouts with backpacks full of sharpie markers, "My Name Is" stickers with scribble on it and half full cans of spray paint bought by their older brother because art stores won't sell it to them. Art is not destruction of someone else's property. If you want to destroy someone's property, you're a criminal, simple as that. You can be an artist and a criminal, but you're still a criminal.

Testify, brother.

thespindrifter: Art is not a crime.

Doing it without the permission of the owner of the wall certainly is a crime, whether you agree or not. Asserting that something should be legal because it happens to agree with your point of view doesn't change anything.

thespindrifter: Now if you're talking about "tagging", then yes, that ususally is destructive, is NOT art, and is therefore a crime.

The relative artistic nature of a piece has no bearing as to whether or not it's vandalism. Spraypaint your own stuff, art. Spraypaint someone else's without permission, crime.

Simple.

flucto: Or is it only OK when it happens to "the man?"

I'm "the Man", so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies!

/Bombed my own car, just to increase the overall value. And no, I didn't do the windshield or windows. I save those for use as dry-erase boards.

Let's take a look at some beautiful concrete walls, boring and devoid of life:




Really, making me look at something that ugly by putting it in a public space should be illegal.

Anyone else seen the art on the tunnels near the abandoned subway station here in Toronto? I didn't know they were there until I was down there exploring. Really great stuff, some painstakingly carved into the concrete in a process that must have taken many days.

thespindrifter: I'm "the Man", so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies!

OK, so you have a sense of humor. That's something.

stiletto_the_wise: Ahh, yes, another anti-graffiti thread: a bunch of boring people living in their mass-produced beige McHomes with "safe" neutral-colored interiors, who drive their identical vanilla white cars to their ordinary, boring McJobs where they sit in a plain gray McCubicle argue about what is and is not art.

I agree, because I have seen so many masterpieces by Monet and Matisse that are stylized versions of their written names.

/taggers are immature miscreants who should all be kicked in the nuts

Monkey Hoooouuuuse!

/Mighty Horse of D-Sippers
//noon to three

flucto: And I suppose if you came out one morning to find your car had been completely covered with spray paint, obscuring your windshield, your only reaction be "ooh goody, art has been bestowed upon me." Or is it only OK when it happens to "the man?"

If it looked like this,


No problem!

If it looked like this,



Problem.

If you can't see the difference, I feel sorry for you. Judgment, people, judgment.

al_gorithm: If you want to destroy someone's property, you're a criminal, simple as that.

The world is not black and white. There are no absolutes. The need to reduce everything down to a simple "It's right" or "It's wrong" is the sign of a simple mind with a limited world view.

thespindrifter:Nice stereotyping there! Hope you are just trolling. Art comes with a price, and while it is true that some of the younger kids don't always know how to choose the best canvas, decorating a blah blank wall with something outstanding is not destruction, it is enhancement. Art is not a crime.

Now if you're talking about "tagging", then yes, that ususally is destructive, is NOT art, and is therefore a crime.

Regardless of how skilled or pretty, when a person, company, or the government has to pay to remove it it's vandalism. I own a business and pay taxes, and don't particularly care for the fact that I have to pay to have this crap removed.

mediaho: The relative artistic nature of a piece has no bearing as to whether or not it's vandalism. Spraypaint your own stuff, art. Spraypaint someone else's without permission, crime.
Simple.

Walls aren't prized personal posessions. A little colour never hurt anyone. What you call vandalism is highly subjective. Do we arrest little kids for coloured sidewalk chalkings? Do we arrest restaraunteurs for re-arranging our food into delightful shapes, even though it is meant solely to be eaten? No. Give the creative, visionary people a break, and enjoy the beautification of an otherwise grimy, filty, ordinary & generic thing.

flucto: thespindrifter: Art is not a crime.

Doing it without the permission of the owner of the wall certainly is a crime, whether you agree or not. Asserting that something should be legal because it happens to agree with your point of view doesn't change anything.

That is how "laws" and "morality" come into existence in our postmodernist society. A handful of brave freedom fighters strike out with works of passion to change the majority opinion, so that the majority rule over "law" will create positive change.
What once were crimes are now commonly accepted activity. All it takes is one person making a stand, or sitting where they want to on a bus, or signing people up for a Union, or making passive resistance speeches wherever they go.

We are the new freedom frontier for art; when the people with my opinion outnumber the people with yours, what then? Your opinion is just that, just another opinion, so there is no crime here.

I don't want some fark's name scribbled on the side of my house. Sorry if that offends anyone.

When I was younger, I loved it all. Now that I am an old fart, anything but tasteful, thought-provoking pieces are just a nuisance.

If you think all graffiti is an eyesore, and you haven't had this name shoved down your throat by the media yet, go google "Bansky" Check out his pieces, both indoor and out. A good portion of what most would call a nuisance is honest-to-god art.

Graphic Design jobs usually suck. People usually become graphic designers after they realize that their minimalist/abstract art isn't going to fool anybody these days. They need a real job, and graphic design seems to provide this while still allowing the artsy-fartsy thing.

Then they find out that working as a graphic designer is all about volume, speed, a fair bit of con-artistry (never apologize for your work), and lots of ass kissing. Generally your artistic talents will not be used when you're hyperpasting "SALE! 50% OFF" into different sized boxes and trying to make them fit on one sheet of news print without any blank spaces. This is typically what a bachelors degree will get you.

The logo designs, billboards, full page Black Velvet subliminal mind control attempts etc., are technically done by graphic designers, chosen by God for reasons unintelligible to mere mortals. But you'll probably slave your whole life over a light table and a t-square just for the crap-ass managed "health care" and "iffy" pension. Deadlines deadlines deadlines, and if you're lucky enough to be freelance and actually keep busy with paid jobs, you still will find that people want to hire your hands for their (deluded) creative vision. Any actual input from you is a compromise of their artistic integrity and disregarded.

But hey, like my father says, "Welcome to reality. life is unhappy, unfair, and too expensive, then you drop dead, and thats too expensive."

sucks. Go postal

"Graffiti is the small man's grasp at immortality." -Heidi Julavits