The irony of the graffiti issue is that some of it is extrordinary art by people who never studied at (and can’t afford) art school. And then there is the bullshit tagging which is just ego acting out to deface other people’s property. Artistic expression vs property rights aside, the high cost of cleaning to cities at a time of fiscal crisis makes this a difficult issue for all.
Graffiti: Free speech or vandalism?
In New York this week, seven young artists – backed by fashion designer Marc Ecko – filed a law suit against New York City over its strict anti-graffiti law.
The law, which took effect this year, bans people under 21 from possessing spray paint or broad-tipped markers.
The artists say the law violates their constitutional right to free speech.
But Gabriel Taussig, a lawyer for New York City, said it strikes a “constitutional balance between the First Amendment rights [to free speech] and the need to control the long-standing plague of graffiti”.
In Berlin, an international conference is under way to discuss ways of dealing with the city’s graffiti. Organiser Karl Henning, of the Christian Democrat Party (CDU), and his organisation Nofitti want all forms of graffiti banned and are aiming for the Scandinavian zero tolerance model.
PETER VALLONE, COUNCILLOR, NYC: However, it becomes a crime when you put that “art” on someone else’s property. I have a message for the graffiti vandals out there – your freedom of expression ends where my property begins!
FELIX, RECLAIMYOURCITY.NET: If current opponents of graffiti, like “Noffiti”, only associate damage to property with this art form, they misunderstand the meaning and importance of these urban signs.
So it’s illegal for anyone under 21 in NY to posses broad-tipped markers but kids can operate a rifle for hunting at 14?
Oh yes, that makes sense.
/sarcasm
Does anyone think New York City should be concentrating there time and money on more important issues than grafitti?
“Does anyone think New York City should be concentrating there time and money on more important issues than graffiti?”
First, it’s simply asinine when people argue that we should ignore small crimes. Statutes against crimes exist for a reason.
Second, graffiti is not a small crime. Having a building re-painted once costs a heck of a lot of money. Having it constantly re-painted costs a fortune.
Third, why don’t you do us a favor and post your home address. We could all come over and have a graffiti party so you could see first hand how petty and small the crime of graffiti is. Then we’ll laugh and call you a hypocrite when you call the police on us! Fun will be had by all.
Sheesh SN…lighten up dude. Geoff has a point you know.
You seem really put out by this site and it’s comments sometimes. Perhaps you need to move on to somewhere different….because when you start calling people “asinine” for making a comment and then suggest we vandalize their houses because they feel there are more important things in New York than graffiti….you’ve stepped over the line.
What do bans on markers and spray paint have to do with the First Amendment? The people filing this lawsuit should be fired. THey want to create a constitutional right to graffiti?
“Sheesh SN…lighten up dude. Geoff has a point you know.”
His sole point is that New York city “should be concentrating there time and money on more important issues than graffiti.” So I agree he has a point. However, I totally disagree with that point.
If you agree that the police should ignore graffiti enforcement, please feel free to let us know your address so we can have a graffiti party over there too. The fact that you won’t only proves that Geoff’s point is asinine.
“suggest we vandalize their houses”
And I’m not the person suggesting that graffiti is a good thing. Did you even read Geoff’s “point” or my response?! I’m the person who thinks it should be illegal and I think the law should be enforced. I was being sarcastic in asking him to let us come over. As I tend to say here quite often, the inability to recognize humor is a sign of a lack of intelligence. You might want to look into that if you genuinely took my graffiti party seriously!
Here’s the way it should be:
If the owner of the wall (or other structure) gives the “artist(s)” written permission to decorate it, it’s a mural and is legal. They should be allowed to get their supplies for the project.
Without permission, it’s vandalism, and the “artists” should be subject to arrest. The punishment should fit the crime–taking their vandalism (and anyone else’s) off the wall.,.and their names on a blacklist for buying supplies.
Free speech for an artist is a wonderful thing, but sometimes artists have to buy their own canvas, not just their own paint.
Maybe, and that is just maybe, if all graffiti “artists” were good, and they stayed away from decorating other’s property then this could be considered an art form. Unfortunately, only a few are any good and they have a tendency to vandalize private and public property. It might be wrong to ban people from possessing certain items such as the paint cans, but I can think of no justification for vandalizing property.
If you get caught, then fixing the damage at your own expense should be attached to any other sentence the Judge gives.
graffiti scumbags should be lined up against the wall and shot.
#7, Floyd, #9, Gary, #10, Fusion – Completely agree – I don’t care if some guy paints as well as Da Vinci, if he puts it on my property without my permisson, its vandalism, plain and simple – just maybe the Mona Lisa doesn’t quite fit in in my neighborhood. If they can’t afford to go to art school, but they are that good, maybe the school could give them a scholarship … just saying. Also, banning people under 21 from possessing spray paint or markers is completely ludicrous – what about 22 year old vandals? Or normal people painting their own stuff? – spray paint has other uses than vandalism. Its just completely arbitrary, and pointless – too harsh on the general public, and not effective enough against the criminals.
Thank you for bringing up the Mona Lisa. I would just love to wipe that grin off her face. It reminds me too much of another famous lying faced grin.
Blank, people discuss things here, and sometimes people disagree with them. But suggesting that some one move on because you disagree strongly with what he (or she) says indicates a certain blankness of mind, or inability to come up with a counter remark. Live with it, deal with it, grow some balls and fire back at the scoundrels.
Oh yeah, the graffitti thing: Build the aspiring artists some walls, make’em designated art walls, and if they paint anywhere else then it’s their ass.