Graffiti in London

[bolognium]

I've decided to make a topic after reading the comments in the photothread. Since most of us appreciate urban places I'd love to hear everyone's opinions on graffiti.

I've become good friends with a few graffiti artists since moving into my building, and I'm finally wrapping my head around the graffiti community. The problem with graffiti is that all of the good pieces generally wouldn't exist without the terrible tags and vandalism. Tagging all over the city is a way for young artists to learn can control, practice their styles and discover the community. In many cases these are kids in their early adolescent years, and are not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Eventually some of these kids will get bored with tagging and move on, but others will stick with it and start developing real artistic talent. They'll start to respect other artists and think more about how their work will affect other people. For example, most adult graffiti artists won't bomb the front of a beautiful historic building. Instead they'll spend five hours creating something truly impressive under a bridge somewhere.

A lot of people (and police) view graffiti in black and white, and that makes it really difficult for a true community to develop. That's when legal walls, murals and other outlets such as indoor wall art take over. Unfortunately, there have been a few cases in London where legitimate commissioned murals have been buffed by the city (authorities deciding what's art?). Cities need to start accepting graffiti and instead start channeling it into appropriate areas. Let people go wild at skateparks and make it legal for kids to paint under bridges. Provide legal art walls in parks and public areas and encourage building owners to have graffiti murals done. The city should always fight against taggers and vandals, but a tremendous amount of talent is being wasted by treating the experienced artists like criminals as well. These artists aren't just good at writing their name, most of them can also work together to cover an entire building in an amazing mural. As is the case with the back of my building, the Boys' and Girls' Club and many other buildings around our city.

Parents who see their kid showing an interest in graffiti should encourage it. However, instead of letting little Johnny head out each night with a backpack full of rattling paint cans they should be setting them on the path of practicing in notebook and in the backyard on a sheet of plywood. After gaining experience at home, these kids will naturally gravitate towards legal outlets offered by the city. In the end we'll have a more colourful city and likely save money on the way.

I'd imagine there's a reason Montreal has such high quality graffiti in abundance, and I doubt it's strictly a talent thing. Here's a few off the top of my head:

- They have such a massive community that the authorities can't keep up with the pieces and basically prioritize their buffs/cleaning
- Its citizens appreciate the graffiti a little more, so good pieces stick around longer and begin to build up
- Laws are a little more lax so people feel more comfortable doing it

London definitely has its share of problem taggers, too. With the most recent outbreak downtown being "elle." This person has been all over the core, and has hit some really new areas down by the river (in some cases on decorative stonework). Now this is the type of graffiti I hate. This person doesn't care about graffiti art, he's strictly vandalizing property and encouraging more of its kind. In one spot they even wrote "elle. do you love me yet?"

The world of graffiti is really more complicated than people realize. There are many different facets and people, so it really shouldn't be painted with such a broad brush.

[Symz]

bolognium, hey, interesting thread and I'm kind of glad you brought this up. I'll try to keep it short and say that I do appreciate graffiti art BUT only if it's at least tasteful, or represent some actual talent.

I like the picture that you posted, it's decent art.

My BIG problem with graffiti is this. Where I live I've been seeing a lot of graffiti and it's more of the 'tagging' type. Some punk or punks is going around and just tagging EVERYTHING with the words 'THC' or 'PURE'. It's on front facades of newly stucco'd buildings, building walls reachable only by climbing the building next to it, on every damned light post I can see down a few main roads and pretty much on every sign I see.

This type of graffiti to me is garbage, nuisance graffiti. It has no artistic merit and looks like garbage, making the surrounding area look like garbage, it drives me up a wall I wish so much their little fingers will freeze off this winter.

On the other hand I think that a well done artistic urban graffiti mural is really cool and can really add something to an existing space.

[bnk]

Sorry not to read a word of what both of you has posted, but what is Banksy up to now a days?


Edit

Ha I thought the OP was from a real city. London England.

wooh for a moment here I thought that this thread was something important. Do you really need to capitalize the L in london canada ? It is good thing you live in DT london vs living on the side of it.

Ignore my comments made here, this is only a bout canada...





and here I am a simple man thinking you
Canuks were talking about real art.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

[Symz]

Wow, you just made yourself look like an ass.

[bolognium]

It takes a pretty special person to wander into a Canadian Local and then start bashing the forumers because they're not from England.

Piss off, ass.

[Blitz]

I don't see much value in it. I have a hard time calling them "artists", in my eyes they're vandals who have no respect for others. I know cities have experimented with legal walls but in many cases this has resulted in a further spread of graffiti into the surrounding neighbourhood. Cities need to invest more time in cleaning it up as soon as it appears - if the vandal knows it won't last long they'll eventually give up and move on. I remember when I was first in Montreal I was shocked at how terrible the city looked because it was everywhere.

[Snark]

Yes there are places where it makes a contribution - where it is in an appropriate location and well done. This is very rare however. Very rare. I can appreciate what you are trying to say bolognium, but I can agree only to a very limited point. I do fully agree that channeling it into something acceptable to the majority is the thing to do.

98% of the city-wide total of it is nothing more than defacement and vandalism of public and private property by a handful of adolescent-minded social misfits. It defaces property, makes the community look ugly, and most importantly leaves the impression to many that the neighbourhood is in decline and that undesirables are roaming the streets uncontrolled - and thus is a dangerous place. I'm afraid that the opening image only reinforces this argument: every point of opening on the building with the graffiti on it is protected by iron mesh or a shatterproof metal door. To people who are not familiar with this environment (which is by far and away most people) it screams "this is a very sketchy place". This may not even be the case with the location in the image, however show that image to a typical suburbanite who doesn't know much about inner city culture and the vast majority answer is going to be words like "ghetto", "scuzzy", and "I wouldn't want to be caught there after dark".

And this leads to the economic side of the issue. It has been unequivocally proven in study after study that "nice middle-class (or better) suburban folks" (with the money to spend) will not live in or visit a portion of the city that has been over run with graffiti and looks like "the hood". This phenomenon is not debatable. Their impression may be an over-reaction, but that's what it is nevertheless and they have the money, not the graffiti "artists". It can literally harm a neighbourhood economically if it gets out of control. It is why some cities declare war on graffiti - it can become an economic threat. It is why a few years back the police went to great lengths to catch the handful of individuals responsible for a large portion of the graffiti in the city.

Some people (not necessarily on this forum) have called this 98% "art" and "public expression" and somehow claim it a right of free speech - somehow similar to a free press.

I have a challenge to those types: I'll agree with that philosophy, as long as I can do the same thing to your home, car, television, computer, or perhaps tattoo "I'm a pussy" on your forehead. After all, if you don't like it, you can pay to have it removed, and it's my right to free expression.

And that's the crux of the issue: someone's personal belongings have been defaced and devalued. To remediate the damage, property owners must pay out of their own pocket or live with a devalued or ruined possession. That is in the simplest of terms, a crime committed by one individual against another.

[Symz]

Originally Posted by Blitz

I don't see much value in it. I have a hard time calling them "artists", in my eyes they're vandals who have no respect for others. I know cities have experimented with legal walls but in many cases this has resulted in a further spread of graffiti into the surrounding neighbourhood. Cities need to invest more time in cleaning it up as soon as it appears - if the vandal knows it won't last long they'll eventually give up and move on. I remember when I was first in Montreal I was shocked at how terrible the city looked because it was everywhere.

@ Blitz, I contacted my local council member here in Windsor and made mention of the recent rise of graffiti in the Riverside area of town (where I'm located) and I got a reply that sounded very rhetorical and non engaging about how it costs municipalities thousands of dollars a year to clean up vandalism and that it's in part a private property owner's responsibility.

So basically it was a long winded way of her saying that I'm shit out of luck and it won't be getting cleaned.

I was a bit surprised. The councillor never even made mention of possibly getting the area policed a little more, or that maybe lack thereof could be a contributing reason to the rise in graffiti.

I was dissapointed and every day I still have to look at this useless crap. The strange thing though is the city is going through a process of 'beautifying major road arteries'. they are reconstructing all the medians along Wyandotte etc. yet the road itself is like driving over a bombed out afghanni road with graffiti on every light post and every 3rd or 4th building, how does that all make sense?

[MolsonExport]

It's bnk. He can't help himself.

[ForestryW]

I love this stuff. It adds positive character to any city. Keep it up!

[Whisper09]

I love the idea but I also think there are bridges that need to be painted too! I would love the train tracks on Oxford near Richmond to be covered in different art pieces. I know it would be a little harder with the small trusses, and how the hell are you going to get up there?... But at least paint the darn thing and have legal graffiti shown in a better location.

BTW bolognium, yours and Yogi Bear are my favourites

[bolognium]

Just a little bump:

[worldwide]

Great stuff here. I'm really impressed with what Mahy has built this artfusion thing into. I grew up with a lot of these guys. I graduated from Beal in 2004 and spent a lot of time hanging out with the guys who are responsible for this movement. I can't wait to see some of it in person. you guys are lucky, not a lot of cities have anything like this going on.

[bolognium]

Very cool, worldwide. And thanks.

Some new pictures:

[manny_santos]

None of that is "graffiti", this is some awesome art. I especially like the pixelated monochrome train, looks like an image from a 1984-era Macintosh.