Chicago graffiti (Davis: credit, house, live in)

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Which one is it? Old man, or someone who needs to grow up?

No, someone who has the potential to be a very entertaining crotchety old man. It's a goal I have for myself, as well.

[sharkylittleton]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Nope, still not cool. It's unoriginal crap. Pretty much the equivalent of a giant gothic letter tattoo across your chest. And that Harold Washington portrait is just creepy, man.

Don't let your ill feelings for graffiti give you the impression that the works lack originality. In fact, it's safe to argue that not one "true" works of graffiti is alike. For example, people have been painting human portraits since 1000 B.C. (compared to graffiti for about 30 years) but you don't hear people calling modern portraits unoriginal just because the style has been around for a while.

[lenniel]

The bottom line is, unless you own whatever you're defacing or have permission to deface it, you are doing nothing but vandalism. No smart person thinks graffiti is good for a neighborhood. It basically says "thugs and poeple that don't respect or care about their property live around here. So come on in, many an investment in our crappy neighborhood and watch your investment decline".

People that like or 'appreciate' graffiti probably also have several shiney things dangling out of various places on their face, a nice neck tattoo and possibly bright red or purple hair highlights.

[Costa Rica Chica]

Originally Posted by lenniel

The bottom line is, unless you own whatever you're defacing or have permission to deface it, you are doing nothing but vandalism.

Agree.

No smart person thinks graffiti is good for a neighborhood. It basically says "thugs and poeple that don't respect or care about their property live around here. So come on in, many an investment in our crappy neighborhood and watch your investment decline".

Disagree. I think we need to make a difference between illegal grafitti and grafitti-style public art. Grafitti and public art often go hand in a very legal, positive way. For example, there are neighborhoods which you would probably consider "crappy" already, with illegal gang grafitti everywhere, vacant lots, boarded up buildings, etc. There are several organizations and initiatives that pay teens to paint these ugly areas, providing them with jobs and something constructive to do. Whether or not you like grafitti-style art, most people would think it is an improvement from what was previously there. I'm not saying that this art would necessarily be a good fit for Northbrook, but it is a part of urban culture and an accepted art form.

People that like or 'appreciate' graffiti probably also have several shiney things dangling out of various places on their face, a nice neck tattoo and possibly bright red or purple hair highlights.

Hey, I don't have a neck tattoo!

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by sharkylittleton

Don't let your ill feelings for graffiti give you the impression that the works lack originality. In fact, it's safe to argue that not one "true" works of graffiti is alike. For example, people have been painting human portraits since 1000 B.C. (compared to graffiti for about 30 years) but you don't hear people calling modern portraits unoriginal just because the style has been around for a while.

99.9% of the graffiti out there lacks originality. It's heavily stylized, and is more in tune with other stylized crafty stuff like rosemaling and quilting. Sure, there is a creative outlet there, but it rarely rises above style to become true art. For every Jean-Michel Basquiat there are about five million hacks just trying to be cool.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Costa Rica Chica

Disagree. I think we need to make a difference between illegal grafitti and grafitti-style public art. Grafitti and public art often go hand in a very legal, positive way. For example, there are neighborhoods which you would probably consider "crappy" already, with illegal gang grafitti everywhere, vacant lots, boarded up buildings, etc. There are several organizations and initiatives that pay teens to paint these ugly areas, providing them with jobs and something constructive to do. Whether or not you like grafitti-style art, most people would think it is an improvement from what was previously there. I'm not saying that this art would necessarily be a good fit for Northbrook, but it is a part of urban culture and an accepted art form.

Those damn street murals are almost as bad as graffiti. Nothing says "This is a crappy neighborhood" more than some garish mural painted under a bridge overpass. Usually they have some lovey dovey unity theme or something political a picture of Angela Davis or Che Guevarra. This is a terrible use of public art money.

[Costa Rica Chica]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Those damn street murals are almost as bad as graffiti. Nothing says "This is a crappy neighborhood" more than some garish mural painted under a bridge overpass. Usually they have some lovey dovey unity theme or something political a picture of Angela Davis or Che Guevarra. This is a terrible use of public art money.

That's your opinion. I think the bright colors pep up otherwise run-down areas, and I don't think it's a waste of money. A lot of those "garish" murals on underpasses were created by children in public schools who have had their art funding cut and nonprofits like the Chicago Public Art Group, Urban Gateways, and other groups organize the creation of murals with these kids, or with other community members. But now you are criticising murals in general.

[Venom]

This guy just hates everything.
Leave him be.
Sad sad little man.

[MyssaTx]

I love everyone!
Party when I get to town and everyone is invited!

[Venom]

Score.