Maybe put it on a canvas instead of someone’s property, and we can all be happy.
who paying for these canvases or the art programs so these kids can have that? Why should it matter if these run down buildings that never get fixed up anyway get graffiti’d?
Therein lies the issue. Art programs, both visual and performance based, are the first programs to be cut. Canvas ain’t cheap. Neither are the supplies. Much of the graffiti that takes place IS on buildings that are run down. The gov’t didn’t place any value on these properties and yet get pissy with dudes “vandalizing” their shit. You can’t have it both ways, ya dig.
My father was a garment contractor in LA. In the late 80s, he owned the building where he had his factory. He thought it would be a cool idea to commission local graffiti artists, usually young Black and Latino men looking to stay out of trouble, to paint murals on his buildings. After all, he runs a garment design/manufacturing company, and creative signage is great advertising.
One day, he showed up to the building and the city just painted over the murals without permission or notice.
First, the city told him he couldn’t have graffiti art on HIS building because it brought down property value. After he complained, then they said: ok you can do this, but you need a permit. After he got the permit, then the city said: ok, but you can only use these artists. Of course, these artists were all White graphic design students from USC, and of course they charged 3x more.
There is a prejudice against this type of art, and it’s racial. Banksy vandalizes folks buildings all the time, and folks treat him like the Messiah. He ain’t doing nothing new that Black and Brown folks haven’t done for decades.
This whole post…I just find it really interesting! And sad, too, but good thing to read.
YOU KNOW WHAT. THIS PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF. Who exactly is “THEY”??? Because it seems like “THEY” in the first picture is strictly artistic snobs, but then the “THEY” in the second picture is the SAME people. This is WRONG. Stupid, annoying artist snobs DO think that the simple work of art in the first picture is considered “art” but they ABSOLUTELY think that the graffiti in the second picture is also art. Artists believe that EVERYTHING considered art IS ART. The people that think graffiti is not art are CLOSE-MINDED, SIMPLE, STUPID, IGNORANT PEOPLE. These are the SAME PEOPLE that think the work of art in the first picture is not art, WHICH IT IS. Art can be simply defined as work created to receive a reaction. BOTH OF THESE WORKS OF ART DO THIS. So I think that the word “THEY” should be more strictly defined. Because this is making high-end artists seem naive and uncomprehending to other worlds of art, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, and I think this is extremely judgmental and dumb.
I LIKE DAT LAST NOTE ^ Please don’t define other people’s art