What do you think about graffiti in the city?

[demtion35]

Some work under bridges and supports are really cool. Sides of train cars can get very interesting and fun to look at.

This sort of thing has had a long history going way back. Early inhabitants (Nativive Americans) used graffiti as saying much the same thing. Such as Johb was here, or the deer camp is over this way. Its called Pictographes (sp)??

The canoe areas in Northern MN. and the Canadian Park of the Q and The Woodland Caribou Park north of the Q are great places to see some of these pictographs. These have been here for houndreds of years, true art and they are signs of communication being boundry food or we live in this area. This is the way to go... stuff like that.

In southern MN. there are graffiti also but carved into the rock and having different names not pictographs. Still the same principle way of marking religion or this is our home.

Thanks

[Isabel_009]

When I visited Evanston, IL I decided to take the subway to Chicago and en route I saw a tag on the side of a building that said "F*** it's cold!" It made me chuckle to myself quite a bit.

Anecdotes aside, I'm not a fan of graffiti of any kind really. I don't like the "artistic" mural form (not my taste) and the random tagging bothers me. I think it's a complicated issue. My negative feelings about it have, in part, to do with what I perceive as a lack of respect on the part of the tagger -- for the city, for the owner of the house or business they tag, etc. On the other hand, graffiti is a sociocultural phenomenon that no doubt came about for many reasons that I can't enumerate, but I imagine urbanization and poverty are relevant. And seeing as it has its roots in "hip hop" culture, more insight can be gained by understanding more about the origins of that phenomenon as well.

Thinking about it that way makes me feel that it's misguided somehow to get angry about the actions of individual taggers. Nevertheless, my gut reaction is the same, and I think it's linked to a subconscious feeling (perhaps misguided) that on some level one's safety in the short or long run is being threatened. People might see encroaching graffiti as an indicator that the safety of their neighbourhood going down hill, which in turn makes them feel unsettled. Afterall, we are human/animals and we are alert to cues that indicate threats to safety. This might explain why younger people tend not to see it as problematic -- they are more fearless. They also have grown up in a culture where urban styles have become increasingly popular and thus tend to see it as cool or at least no big deal.

[Isabel_009]

Oh, and for anyone who is interested...

Graffiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[icewater]

Graffiti in the city, to me, indicates maybe a vibrant area with lots of warts and all energy. All cities want to be world class with some quasi-special type of synergy happening- whether that's achieved with life affirming architecture or corporations or downtown revitalization- but the world's classiest of 'em all is also the graffiti grandaddy. Yep, NEW YORK CITY. Most of the graffiti you see aspires to the NY model. The gang graffiti is a different animal altogether. The New York getting up goes from tags to throwups to pieces to full on productions. The people producing the tags are also usually aspiring to competently execute pieces. It goes hand in hand.

A city without graffiti would be a disappointing one. It would not have the underbelly needed to attain true greatness. Minneapolis is very cold, but the same residential artistic disposition that produced Prince also lends itself to graffiti. The funk of the city does not come without a visual aspect. This also allows Minneapolis to be considered in the upper tier of U.S. cities. Less graffiti would mean it's a cold Omaha. The graffiti reflects the city's greatness. Young people want to be there; the city is attractive enough that musicians and artists and progressives and beats and aging hippies and gangs are drawn to it. And Minneapolis is admired in many circles. The government programs and arts promotions are one thing, but true art (which graffiti mostly isn't) consistently comes from an individual's beliefs and spirit. Often great artistic creations are a product of their environment. Ugly as it may be, the graffiti feeds and results from the city's behemothness. It is as it should be.

[C0zE212]

honestly, im a graffiti artist...and thinking that its just crap is ridicoulus. what makes graff any different from art like picaso or someting like that...its all a stereotype saying that graffiti is vandalism and nothing else, and insert name here is tottaly right, from a famous graff artists mouth" a kid would come up to me and say, look at all this crap, tags are so ugly, and i would say, without thos chicken scratches u wouldnt be peicing today"

[uptown_urbanist]

I wouldn't want Picasso writing or drawing all over my wall without my permission, either.

I hate graffiti. Grafitti-like murals are okay sometimes, but in general I agree with Isabel_009; it shows a lack of respect.

Graffiti, and especially taggers (even the funny ones) remind me of Borf in Washington, DC; he was active when we were living there, and his stuff was everywhere. It's like he couldn't walk past a single thing without whipping out his pen. He got caught, and (this is from Wikipedia: "At his sentencing, the judge said, "You profess to despise rich people. You profess to despise the faceless, nameless forms of government that oppress. That's what you've become. That's what you are. You're a rich kid who comes into Washington and defaces property because you feel like it. It's not fair. It's not right.'" Turns out he was a kid who drove (that got covered a lot, too; the driving in from his ritzy suburb really irritated people) into the district and scrawled his name and sayings all over my neighborhood (and others) instead of his own. To me, people like Borf are all that's wrong with the image that graffiti is somehow noble and authentic.

[City Data Guy]

I don't live in Minneapolis so I don't care that much.
However, when I go to Minneapolis and I see graffiti, I just think that there might be some gang activity. I wouldn't want to live in an area with buildings plastered with graffiti; I would feel unsafe. Luckily for me, I live in the suburbs.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

I don't live in Minneapolis so I don't care that much.
However, when I go to Minneapolis and I see graffiti, I just think that there might be some gang activity. I wouldn't want to live in an area with buildings plastered with graffiti; I would feel unsafe. Luckily for me, I live in the suburbs.

If it makes you feel any better, most graffiti is not gang related. And if it makes you feel any worse, the suburbs aren't immune.

Little tags with a nickname or short phrase on a sign or utility box are generally not gang related, random profanity is just random profanity most of the time, and drawings, "pieces," and anything else that would have taken more than a few seconds to "write" or "throw up" are generally not related to gang activity. This comprises the great majority of any graffiti you're likely to see in the twin cities area.

Gang-related graffiti has its own telltale non-artistic "style" that sticks out like a sore thumb, even compared to most graffiti. It's usually big, obvious (placed on a blank wall or other large surface in plain view of a street or alleyway), fast (usually only one color, looks sloppy and looks like it was put up in a hurry--because it was), and probably has an abbreviation and/or symbol that most people wouldn't recognize unless they pay attention to gangs, or are a gang member themselves. If you see something like that in the suburbs, relax!--it's only there to make their safe house "in 952" easier to find when they're on the run.