gristle said:
What is "fair" about it? It's vandalism. As for being "easy," one shouldn't give a pass to an idiot on such a presumption. It makes other people pine for security cameras to be installed everywhere or to have security guards roam around. I'd prefer that the few vandal idiots smarten up (or to have some of their fingers removed) over the installation of a panopticon environment.
Click to expand...


How are you going to protect every urban area from errant spray-cans? Round up all the 'artists'?

Now the question is...would you have been less annoyed if it's this guy who claimed the wall? Maybe they should give him a call and turn that wall into an artwork.


Jimboe!


A while ago


Pinky11
 
Last edited:
Ryan_T said:
How are you going to protect every urban area from errant spray-cans? Round up all the 'artists'?

Now the question is...would you have been less annoyed if it's this guy who claimed the wall? Maybe they should give him a call and turn that wall into an artwork.
Click to expand...

Did I say I was going to protect "every urban area" from vandalism? My point, the one that you missed, is that the arteeests who did such crap actually don't have a right to deface the property of others. You may be okay with that, but I'm not.

Much of that "art" is derivative. Snore.
 
You are missing the point: the arteests don't have a right to deface a wall that does not belong to them, or to deface one which they have no permission to scribble upon. This should be an object of common knowledge and respect.
 
I'm thinking more along the lines of that there's the law, and then there are people breaking the law. The cost of removing the vandalism falls to the owner of the property, so they get screwed twice courtesy of the immature twits finger-painting with spay cans.
 
I think what they mean is that there is very little reason for anyone to go out of their way to fight this. Either way, the owner spends his own dime to install security cameras (which will probably make the inhabitants wary and uncomfortable). Think of all that Ford did to fight this, and he hasn't made much or any progress that is going to stop vandalism graffiti (unless they are dumb enough to do it in front of a cop).
 
Critique said:
I think what they mean is that there is very little reason for anyone to go out of their way to fight this. Either way, the owner spends his own dime to install security cameras (which will probably make the inhabitants wary and uncomfortable). Think of all that Ford did to fight this, and he hasn't made much or any progress that is going to stop vandalism graffiti (unless they are dumb enough to do it in front of a cop).
Click to expand...

Of course there is a reason: defacing someone else's property is against the law. The owner has to spend money to clean the graffiti and tagging up, or risk having even more applied. No clue why you raised up Rob Ford, vandalizing property has been illegal for quite a while.
 
Looks like they got an extended welcome to the neighbourhood tag.

Pic taken Dec 3, 2012


Xdr8E.jpg




Pic taken Nov 26, 2012



GY9Zb.jpg
 
From cave dwellers to Romans and Greeks to the Russians occupying the Reichstag during the Second World War, graffiti as been a part of human culture from our earliest beginnings. Though it's true that property owners are unfairly on the hook for the damage, is that not more reflective of Toronto's silly legal idiosyncrasies than any reasonable attempt at eradication?

When one thinks of the many diverse capitals of Europe, is it the graffiti one recalls? Probably not. Cathedrals, piazzas, food and countless other cultural distractions often blind North American tourists to the grit and grime that is a large part of life in these burgs. Part of that lesser-recognized heritage (and this goes back centuries) is graffiti. Lots of graffiti. Diverse graffiti, from tags and throw-ups to more complex bombs and pieces. And it is lively and it is incredible.

To me it's more than just someone 'illegally' defacing a wall. It's a cheeky kickback at developers who cannibalize neighbourhoods then use the former buildings in their marketing materials. Hyperbole, perhaps, but there is something about the gleeful gentrification of areas like this one that worries not just me, but opposing parties such as gristle. Where it seems we differ is that while he thinks something additional has been lost, I see some of the more hardscrabble roots of the area clinging to what little life they have left.
 
ProjectEnd said:
.To me it's more than just someone 'illegally' defacing a wall. It's a cheeky kickback at developers who cannibalize neighbourhoods then use the former buildings in their marketing materials. Hyperbole, perhaps, but there is something about the gleeful gentrification of areas like this one that worries not just me, but opposing parties such as gristle. Where it seems we differ is that while he thinks something additional has been lost, I see some of the more hardscrabble roots of the area clinging to what little life they have left.
Click to expand...

ProjectEnd said:
To me it's more than just someone 'illegally' defacing a wall. It's a cheeky kickback at developers who cannibalize neighbourhoods then use the former buildings in their marketing materials. Hyperbole, perhaps, but there is something about the gleeful gentrification of areas like this one that worries not just me, but opposing parties such as gristle. Where it seems we differ is that while he thinks something additional has been lost, I see some of the more hardscrabble roots of the area clinging to what little life they have left.
Click to expand...

Really? That's what it is? You know for sure?

Interestingly, the Freed showroom is nearby on King Street. PSR, the realty company of Freed, is on Portland. The corporate offices are on Wellington Street. The cheeky hardscrabble kids who most likely have never lived in the neighbourhood, nor give much of a shit about it (be it new or old), haven't bothered to visit those locations to express their "kickback" resistance to the evil developers and their local building frenzy.

I think the effort to imbue guys armed with spray paint cans with some kind of noble or romantic qualities is rather amusing.
 
No big guy, I don't. That's why I started with 'to me.' And why would one take in the local sights if they're just there to deface things? Confusing complaint, no?

You can hide behind your wide brush and boisterous tone but it's consistently obvious (with this oddly aggressive response and in other threads) that you've really got no idea what you're talking about. Take it easy. No-one's here to fight.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top