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!
Anonymous said...
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?
6 comments:
I think there are some people who simply don't understand the concept of "opinion". I meet these people on a daily basis. I refuse to take them seriously. :)
I think that tagging is pointless as well. I also think that guy's argument achieved nothing and you totally proved that.
>Docteur: I want everyone who takes the time to post to be heard. Hopefully this spotlight will entice them to return with a better argument. Perhaps there is something I missed and they really do have a point but just forgot it in their rage.
>Andrea: Thank you. I'm not saying he had nothing to say or didn't perhaps have a point. It just did not come across and didn't really say anything. Hopefully "Anonymous" will try again.
First I don't get why HE is so pissed. If you put your "art" out there for people to see you are going to get both negative and positive reactions. Second tagging or graffiti isn't art. It destroys people's property. How about I come to your place and tag it up. I'm not artistic so it would look like crap but then again so does yours.
True a lot of tags are butt-ugly, but there are also lots that many people find to be artistically pleasing, and street art is a logical medium considering how difficult it is to get your own art show. its free exposure, and by the way most of these graff kids just steal their paint. where i live the city doesn't pay for graffiti removal with taxes, but they fine businesses up to 2 or 3 grand for NOT removing the graffiti within two weeks. Personally I don't think paint can 'destroy' anyones property unless it's on a window or something.
- a canadian
I think we have a different understanding of the definition of tagging. The difference between tagging and graffiti is grand.
In the comments of the original post I linked two images. One graffiti and the other, tagging.
Tagging as far as I understand it is when you scribble a name you made up for yourself on walls, windows, trucks, freeway signs or anywhere that people could see it and you can claim infamy.
If you want an art show, you have to have talent to begin with. I'll tell you right now that I haven't seen a single "tag" worthy of an art show. I'm willing to bet that art is not their goal. Recognition and fame is their only mission.
Businesses don't clean the tagging off street signs, emergency yields, public transportation or school walls. Taggers frequently carve their "names" into glass, mirrors and anything they think would be permanent. That sounds like destruction of property to me. Besides, even if those business take the cost, you don't think that money comes out of the pockets of the rich owners do you? They pass the buck onto the people of the city they provide the services to. They just increase their prices or go away.
Its a stupid thing to do in any country you must admit.
Post a Comment