Chicago graffiti, skeletons on pavement, Robots, etc. (Rio: crime, living in)

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Graffiti also encourages bums,hookers,and other assorted **** to move on in.

Let's see some sources on this too.

[DatsThaBadGuy]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Graffiti also encourages bums,hookers,and other assorted scumbags to move on in.

Well then hopefully it encourages transplants, suburbanites, uptight yuppies and other assorted boring, wound up jackasses to NOT move in. A new condo structure is 10x more ugly and damaging to a city's landscape than a piece of graffiti ever will be- which in many cases could actually look quite nice. Ever been to NYC? For the sake of your health and heart exploding, I hope not.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

...It created anger in you. Is that not an emotion?

All emotion is not created by art.

Not everything that creates emotion is art.

Not all art creates emotion.

Not all graffiti is art.

Not all art is graffiti.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

...Art is self expression. Graffiti is self expression, though it also has the purpose off communication, which places it into the artistic side of the graphic design continuum...

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

Why don't you just back up what you say with some evidence? You claim to know some pretty interesting facts about Chicago graffiti, and all I'm asking for is a link or something to an article or study to back up your claims. You had to learn these figures and stats from somewhere, right? I mean, you wouldn't just make them up would you? You either have proof or not. You've lost all credibility until I see something other than a random figure thrown into your posts as a way to feign expertise...

I have more credibility instantly on the subject than you since I live in Chicago and grew up here.

You do not live here and for all I know you have never been here one time yet you act as though you are an expert.

As if I have the time or am required to back up every single one my statements with links from the net. I was not asking for "proof" from you. You are the one that needs to prove your case. You brought up alleged facts to begin with. WHY DON'T YOU find some examples of LEGAL GRAFFITI in Chicago. You will not find many. Like I said before 99% of graffiti in Chicago is ILLEGAL. Whether the actual number is 95% or 99% is immaterial. The fact remains a conclusive vast majority of graffiti in Chicago is illegal.

Now I have to spend all kinds of research time to win a stupid net argument?

================================================== =================================

I already posted a link for one article about Chicago graffiti-perhaps you missed it:

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Splat. What a waste.


2004
"...she never knew of his trips through tunnels where trains sped by, or how he climbed a 200-foot crane to write his name on the top, or found the strength to mount an overpass on the Stevenson Expressway just so he could leave his mark on steel."

"A longtime fixture among Chicago's group of graffiti taggers who illegally write their names on walls, buildings, platforms, buses and trains, ***** was killed in the early morning hours of Aug. 16. He was hit by a northbound CTA Red Line train near the Morse Avenue station. The death was ruled accidental. He was 22.

Taggers death sheds light on graffiti dark world (http://nograffiti.com/grafnews/9_04/taggers_death_sheds_light_on_gra.htm - broken link)

================================================== ====

"This year (2008), "Graffiti Blasters" is celebrating its 15h anniversary and has cleaned more than 1.6 million instances of graffiti vandalism."

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/w...lName=HomePage
================================================== ==============

Want examples of illegal vandalism you call "art" that cost taxpayers millions per year in Chicago?

https://www.city-data.com/forum/chica...andalized.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj3q...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQUZz...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38EHOjh_co#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/senor_codo/sets/72057594136309153/ (broken link)

http://www.artisticbombingcrew.com/press.asp

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

I don't think art is always meant "to create emotions in the beholder," there's a lot of different art and a lot of different reasons for making it.

What else could it be for? Making sales (requires emotion), making people angry to go to war (emotion)....what else could it possibly be for?

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Only a 20 year old who grew up in a life of special leisure would come up with such drivvel.

Not necessarily; could just as easily be a 20-year-old who's into graffiti. They always have excuses for what they do. I haven't run across one yet who can't justify their vandalism somehow. Once they learned that some pretentious apologists called it 'art,' they were all over that one like white on rice.

I'll say it again: when someone tags your house or your car, look me in the face and tell me it's art.

[SDBorn]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

Who taught you these little "facts" about graffiti? The tooth fairy? Everything you said here is 100% false. Gang culture and graffiti culture come from the same place, but they aren't coterminous. Graffiti attracts a more eclectic, artsy sort of crowd. They doodle in notebooks for hours. Can you seriously picture some crazy hard ass thug who shot someone last weekend curled up on his bed testing out new markers? It would be unrealistic to say it's impossible, but I think it's obvious that the two cultures are close to oil and water.


For those who really have no clue: THIS is gang graffiti





And THIS is non-gang graffiti:








I think if we can somehow channel the frustration that you people feel over graffiti towards violent crime, we might be able to actually improve the quality of life in our city.

Art is subjective. I looked at these pictures and have not changed my mind about "tagging" or "graffiti". I hate both, it turns my stomach every time I see it because I think it is ugly and it is defacing someone's private property. It is disrespectful to deface the property that someone worked to obtain, just to have someone else come along and paint it is wrong. It is wrong! I think it ruins property values and it ruins whole neighborhoods. My opinion. If any artists out there read this, please think about how you would feel if your property was painted without your permission. How would you like to have to continually buy paint to go out and paint your garage, or your fence or your building? Geeze. It isn't right.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

You assume that people who are looking to invest are clueless until they actually look at the locations. I also feel that empty lots and open drug deals are a far better indicator of social breakdown for a particular location.

There are also some glaring exceptions to your little theory here. New York City and Paris have far more graffiti in their streets, even in the wealthier areas, yet people seem to not have problems investing there.

Are you old enough to remember what the average American urban landscape looked like in the 70s and 80s? Because I am. Back then, cities like Chicago and New York were all but written off as ungovernable. Crime was rampant, and so was capital flight out of the cities. You could barely give away real estate. Even long-standing upscale neighborhoods were threatening to destabilize. And these cities were covered from top to bottom with graffiti.

Fast-forward to the mid-1990s. Investment started trickling back into the cities. And one of the first things they did to set a new tone in the newly invested neighborhoods was address quality-of-life problems like litter and graffiti. The message was "we care about this neighborhood and anti-social behavior will no longer be overlooked or tolerated." Tons of investment capital flowed back into the cities. Many previously derelict neighborhoods are now thriving, and not coincidentally, they have far less graffiti today than they did 20 years ago.

Empty lots and open-air drug dealing are indeed good indications of a breakdown in social order. And you're more likely to see these things where graffiti goes unchecked. This is not a coincidence.

No matter how eloquently its perpetrators try to justify what they do, the bottom line is that they are a nuisance, a plague on a civilized society, and they are low-life loser dirtbag vandal criminals who should be thrown in jail. Period.

[DatsThaBadGuy]

Originally Posted by Drover

No matter how eloquently its perpetrators try to justify what they do, the bottom line is that they are a nuisance, a plague on a civilized society, and they are low-life loser dirtbag vandal criminals who should be thrown in jail. Period.

I think my over-taxed Chicago dollars would be better spent on locking up a pedophile, not a graffiti artist. There are more important things out there to worry about, even Chicago cops would vouch for that.