Gothamist: Before and After on the Williamsburg Bridge

charlie brown

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:50:14 -0500

Why was the DeuceSeven piece taken off? BECAUSE HE IS A SNITCH! the bs about never being caught isn't true. ask any minneapolis graffiti writer. He's going to continue to have his stuff crossed out and gone over.

Still Not Amused

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:23:48 -0500

I've stated this from the beginning . Graf. is stupid unless you do it right ! Defacing property is going about it the wrong way . Then again, Most graf. artist have a problem with authority anyway .

Brightliner

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:44:05 -0500

"Actually probably not. That is one reason store owners and warehouse owners get grafitti artists on purpose to paint their outside facing the street walls in order to keep away the taggers." Now that's BS. We've seen Jake's posts here where he's lamenting that some no-talent hack dared to mess up something he liked.

Dude

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:18:28 -0500

I agree there are laws and rules that even owners of properties have to abide to, but show me where there's a consensus from the "public" to vandal properties, private or public because the vandal thinks it's not "aesthetic" in his/her mind. If the vandal takes the time to apply for a permit and gets the community's approval to paint over a sign then that's fine, otherwise he's commiting a crime, period. There's no universal consensus of what is "art" so again the argument that one piece is more pleasing than another is irrelevant in this case. p0ps, whatever your building's owners decide to do with its walls are their business, I suspect that the owners are probably sick and tired of the cost and effort of painting over the street arts and gave in to the vandals.

bob

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:34:44 -0500

I second putting all these posts on graffitist.com instead.

p0ps

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:38:35 -0500

While Dude's tone is hardly worth taking seriously, I'd like to add a little on the point of ownership. If a building owner paints a their public facing walls a loud color which is objectionable to the community, the owner can be forced to repaint in an acceptable color. If the owner desires to lease space on "their" walls to an advertising agency, they must apply for a permit. This is how the community exerts it's aesthetic standards over the rights of the property owner. This is a local political process where the property owner has a voice, but not the final say. BTW: The public facing walls of my building are decorated with street art and every one is welcome to add further decoration. I will not give the address because Dude sounds a little unhinged and may want to do something other than art.

Lara Wechsler

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:41:11 -0500

"Anyway, don't you think BS would have tagged over the first picture if it had still been there? Probably.." Actually probably not. That is one reason store owners and warehouse owners get grafitti artists on purpose to paint their outside facing the street walls in order to keep away the taggers.

.

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:10:15 -0500

I wish the jackoffs on my street with the booming car stereos believed this Or Nextels for that matter. constantly changing public art may well be desired over buffing or mass-produced commercial advertising. It just so happens I see advertising and tagging as one in the same; just because someone paid for the space doesn't mean I asked to see their ad. There seem to be a lot of jerks on extreme opposing sides of this issue. I think MT is correct that as cool as some art can be, they should leave historical locations alone (that's just really fucking rude). I'm definitely not going to complain about graffiti on some locations, but it's still all fair game whether you're an "artist" or "splasher."

Tucker

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:27:26 -0500

"I may not like other people's taste in music, but I'm not about to drive down the street in a speaker truck "enlightening" them with my own selections, because that's not what we do in a civilized world." I wish the jackoffs on my street with the booming car stereos believed this.

otomboy

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:20:30 -0500

Jake, are you f'ing retarded? Forcing "art" down people's throat via vandalism will never be accepted. Just because your idea of a "striking painting" is not a scribbly mess doesn't mean it has any right to cover up public property. I don't care if Van Gogh traveled to the future from his time and painted a portrait on my store front, if he didn't ask my permission, I'm going to be pissed that he f'ed up my store front and throw his one eared ass in jail.

Dude

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:48:35 -0500

The point is that you cannot use a graffiti has artistic merit as an argument for vandalism. I do enjoy the first mural but I am sure there are also people who enjoy the Splasher's works, but enjoyment is irrelevant since it's still public domain shared by the public, and no one vandal has the right to say what should be there. The bronze plaque serves a function to show that they are standing on the Williamsburg Bridge, and graffiti on it defeats that purpose.

MT

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:33:27 -0500

While that first painting is hella cool, graffiti artists really should leave historic monuments alone. That bronze plaque is a piece of public art in it's own right and the person who painted over it is no better than the splasher.

Dude

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:23:25 -0500

I also agree with #1 that the question at the end is the stupidest comment I have ever read on Gothamist for a long time.

Dude

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:11:00 -0500

p0ps, what kind of bullshit is this? Graffiti is vandalism whether is a tag, splash of paint or "art-quality" mural. Property owners have ALL the say sbout what can display inside and out of their properties, that's what they paid for. If you believe in what you siad you better let people know where you live and have them come over to paint and splash the outside of your property, otherwise shut the fuck up!

p0ps

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 05:04:25 -0500

The public owns the publicly visible spaces in the city and acts through it's agents of government to maintain their appearance consistent with community standards. Property owners do not have the final say on the appearance of public facing walls. Community standards are changing. Street artists are challenging the old concepts of what is art and how art is made. As new interest in public visible space reach government representatives, collaborative, constantly changing public art may well be desired over buffing or mass-produced commercial advertising.

tyler

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:19:12 -0500

because, of course, there is one universally agreed upon concept of good art.

Kevin Bracken

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:12:33 -0500

I agree Jake, and sometimes the commenters are just ridiculous. Imagine a city covered in art, good art that we could all agree had merit and beauty like the first piece in this post. I think the line between tags and murals is very clear and I would like to see tags disappear from the urban landscape. I would also like to see murals take over every bland wall and even, sometimes, an historic plaque like this one. Come to Toronto. Best graffiti in the world.

anon

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:50:13 -0500

the bridge was already bombed with a zillion tags before his earlier hit in winter 2006. people are acting like this was a pristine spot.

16hero

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:32:36 -0500

#16 = my hero. end of comments.

Brightliner

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:35:55 -0500

How is it collaboration? If a property owner doesn't want your "art" on its property (and the Port Authority clearly doesn't), then you're not "collaborating" with it, are you? You're just out to vandalize. How is it "collaborating" with an audience that may not want to see your graffiti? This is just another example of how stupid graffiti writers are, that they don't even realize how wrong they are. Good artists never painted where they weren't wanted. Da Vinci never did. Neither did Monet, Picasso, even Jackson Pollock. If you want to buy your own property and plaster it with junk, that's your business and nobody will stop you. But doing anybody else's property shows you're nothing but a selfish asshole. I may not like other people's taste in music, but I'm not about to drive down the street in a speaker truck "enlightening" them with my own selections, because that's not what we do in a civilized world.

Matthew

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:57:02 -0500

www.graffitist.com

anonymass

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:09:40 -0500

p0ps - what's your address again? I feel like expressing myself in public.

tyler

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:54:43 -0500

street art is indeed a collaboration. however, the argument against the washing off of public art is contradicted when we deny artists that make art that is considered inferior the same protections that we offer the "good artists" with the "good pieces." may i pose this question: why buff a "bad" piece, then?

p0ps

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:38:03 -0500

Street art is about collaboration and public service, not ownership or isolation. People can do both public and private art, but they are not the same.

Brightliner

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:43:22 -0500

Here's a crazy idea: If you want your work to be more permanent, put it on a canvas you paid for. Hey, you might just get some money out of it, too. "Street art" is about nothing but ego. "Look! Isn't my art awesome? I said LOOK AT IT! Too bad if have no taste and don't like it. I'm not giving you a choice anyway."

robin.g

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:32:20 -0500

The first piece is beautiful, but how about sticking it on an abandoned warehouse instead of a plaque on a bridge that means something?

p0ps

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:22:05 -0500

The slasher has a right, as all of us do to create for the public. However he (she, it) chooses to make an unattractive expression. That is what is sad.

867-5309

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:15:07 -0500

i saw this awesome "street art" in the bathroom stall. it said "for a good time call jenny 867-5309"

tommyill

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:05:13 -0500

If you believe your own point, Jake, than the Splasher has just as much right to deface others' pieces as these two. It's offensive that an (albeit talented in the first case) street artist looks at a decades-old artisinal iron work and says to himself - this would make a great canvas for my work. Why don't we allow visitors to the Met to get up on the artwork inside?

p0ps

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:04:53 -0500

Why buff a great piece, indeed! I agree with you, Jake. Public art is a gift to enjoy not to destroy. Those who volunteer to decorate our visual public spaces are to be thanked and supported. Public spaces are open for any of us to try our hand to make it prettier. To those who don't like the graffiti, I say make some of your own.

edEx

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:55:31 -0500

they should have left the first piece.

stewart

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:07:11 -0500

Jake, your graffiti comments are boring. I second #3 and think they belong on another site. Also, I agree with #1. I find it amusing when graffiti artists get upset when their work is removed. It's a hazard of the medium. Anyway, don't you think BS would have tagged over the first picture if it had still been there? Probably...

manyhighways.com

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:55:55 -0500

I agree with comment #1. That last sentence is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I'd suggest: have some respect for the historic structures of our city and vandalize something else please. And while we're at it: put ALL the graffiti entries on a different site. It's getting boring.

smitty

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:45:05 -0500

I like the original sign, plain, best.

come on

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:26:14 -0500

That question you pose at the end is ludicrous. How about: why deface a sign in the first place if your effort is going to get erased?