That particular blog was written with the intention to dissuade taggers from continuing their practices. If they chose to be artistic, by becoming graffiti artists instead and painting only where they were asked or paid to paint, this blog post defended that choice and I believe I even confirmed it as a valid art form. A key point that the following reader hiding behind his anonymity chose to ignore or didn't even bother to read before he opened his gasbag. (From this point on I will refer to the commenter as a HE instead of he/she. As witness by his tendency to jump to conclusions I would be dismayed if he thought I was inferring he was a hermaphrodite.)
Don't forget to read the original blog post first!
November 17, 2008 10:12 AM
Wow. I love how you people THINK you know why people "tag". You come to this little forum and metaphorically circle jerk each other about how "ugly" and "stupid" graffiti is, and how taggers are "idiots" and meaningless", yet the reasons listed in the posts before me are hardly correct. When you come to these forums and post all your little generalizations togehter, you sound ignorent. Plain and simple. Granted, some graffiti is ugly and done by kids just wanting to vandalize property, but for fuck sake, shut the hell up.
Right from the top.
1. This is not a forum. Its a blog. Blogs are meant for people to express and discuss personal opinions.
2. I did not say a single thing about graffiti being ugly and stupid. I specifically said tagging was ugly and stupid. Do you know the difference between what you think you are trying to defend?
3. The reasons we post for tagging being ugly and stupid are "hardly correct?" How so? Writing a name you made up for yourself over a stop sign is pretty and smart? Explain this.
4. Again, this is not a forum nor is it a generalization. Tagging is stupid. It is a statement. But yes, I can see how YOU would think I sound "ignorent."
5. You then proceed to concede that what we say is sometimes true BUT to "shut the hell up." How does this make any sense to you? Do you smoke marijuana? Just asking.
Anyone who reads (key word: reads) my blog posts knows that I can be very opinionated. They should also know that I DO concede when a commenter makes a better point or a counterargument. But for me to grant a poster that recognition there has to be a counterpoint. This user said absolutely nothing. All I got from it was that he saw our disgust over the vandalism of our neighborhoods as "ignorent."
I could see where he was getting at if it were about a specific art form or demeaning a racial group or something similarly evil but he really is trying to defend something that is both illegal and pointless. Territory markers. Really.
Or do you all agree with him?