Graffiti a major problem in Atlanta? (pictures, great, walls) - Georgia (GA) - Page 6 - City-Data Forum

AtlJan · 01-24-2014, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

I see it more as visual interest than clutter. A lot of it is exceptionally well done. Go to Memmorial and Chester in Reynoldstown and tell me the three artists who worked on the condos on that corner are not gifted artists. I could say the same for numerous locations around town.

A friend of mine some years ago devised an idea (this was during one of the hissy-fits over graffiti that boils up in this city every few years) that all the taggers and street artists should go out and cover up every inch of graffiti, street art, and murals in the city. Paint it all grey or beige. The idea was to demonstrate that, even though a lot of it sucks, taking away all the street art would make this city look like a Soviet wasteland.

Actually you were referring to "every inch of graffiti, street art, and murals in the city" as you stated above. Not just property owner-approved. ..What we have on our warehouse building time and time again is gigantic ugly 30 foot long graffiti. We pay to have it re-painted each time, as we have found that a graffiti-covered building invites further vandalism. It is a nuisance and a drain. I'm all for murals and public art. . .but when it defaces private property . . .yes, it is a problem for the property owners.

And I also feel like glorifying graffiti art in public spaces encourages the outlaw vandals, but perhaps that is another conversation...

JPD · 01-24-2014, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlJan

Actually you were referring to "every inch of graffiti, street art, and murals in the city" as you stated above. Not just property owner-approved. ..What we have on our warehouse building time and time again is gigantic ugly 30 foot long graffiti. We pay to have it re-painted each time, as we have found that a graffiti-covered building invites further vandalism. It is a nuisance and a drain. I'm all for murals and public art. . .but when it defaces private property . . .yes, it is a problem for the property owners.

And I also feel like glorifying graffiti art in public spaces encourages the outlaw vandals, but perhaps that is another conversation...

Show me where I said otherwise.

AtlJan · 01-24-2014, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

I see it more as visual interest than clutter. A lot of it is exceptionally well done. Go to Memmorial and Chester in Reynoldstown and tell me the three artists who worked on the condos on that corner are not gifted artists. I could say the same for numerous locations around town.

A friend of mine some years ago devised an idea (this was during one of the hissy-fits over graffiti that boils up in this city every few years) that all the taggers and street artists should go out and cover up every inch of graffiti, street art, and murals in the city. Paint it all grey or beige. The idea was to demonstrate that, even though a lot of it sucks, taking away all the street art would make this city look like a Soviet wasteland.

Well, based on your first paragraph, that "it" is visual interest, I took your second paragraph as an endorsement of your friend's assertion that to cover up all graffiti would leave a city looking like a Soviet wasteland...And to endorse your friend's idea is to endorse graffiti.

In addition your calling the reactions of those who are against graffiti "hissy fits" made me assume you were pro-graffiti.

By definition, graffiti is illicit. When it is not against the law, it is no longer called graffiti.

JPD · 01-24-2014, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlJan

Well, based on your first paragraph, that "it" is visual interest, I took your second paragraph as an endorsement of your friend's assertion that to cover up all graffiti would leave a city looking like a Soviet wasteland...And to endorse your friend's idea is to endorse graffiti.

In addition your calling the reactions of those who are against graffiti "hissy fits" made me assume you were pro-graffiti.

By definition, graffiti is illicit. When it is not against the law, it is no longer called graffiti.

Again, your post is off the contextual mark. I was responding to Ansley Park who mentioned a specific Living Walls piece in his comment (the upside down alligator in S. Downtown) that I was respoding to, which was in the context of a larger conversation about Living Walls.

I'm not pro-graffiti. I think the vast majority of it sucks balls and the people who do it are talentless. However, as I said, some of it is very good, and some areas are more attractive than they would be if they were painted clean. Wylie Street in Reynoldstown being one example. The metal wall that runs between Wylie and the CSX yard would be horrifically ugly if it was just a grey or white stretch of flimsy metal.

0nyxStation · 01-24-2014, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bostonguy1960

While I've heard that Atlanta has a major graffiti problem (from somebody 15 years ago), I've also heard about a no-tolerance stance (from someone I met a only a few years ago).

In Boston, most tourists would find no graffiti problems, but I've been following it for 25 years. It's a shame that walls and backs of warehouses and ROOFTOPS! are such an eyesore while trying to enjoy a subway or commuter rail ride. The Mass Pike Extension near Boston is miles and miles of colorful but disgusting (to me) urban art. Most of the silver traffic control boxes downtown are clean, with some exceptions.

BACKS of stop signs (not only the front) and other signs with graffiti and/or stickers and decals are urban blight. Even the trunks of trees sometimes are tagged!

Is Atlanta aggressive in cleaning graffiti? Is it prevalent on highway walls and signs, as well as store facades and mailboxes?

I realize some people enjoy seeing it, and that it's a hip and urbane background for fashion shoots, but it so angers me!

Thanks.

I dont have a beef with actually skilled graffiti, Tagging is crappy, but I like the urban look and feel of it.