art crime

A video created by the Graffiti Research Lab, hits on an issue that has always irked me. If you paint a train with graffiti and get caught you can kiss much of your life goodbye. You will likely be jailed, fined and otherwise punished by the government. Yet, if you pay a large sum, your graffiti is allowed. That is, graffiti in the form of advertising.

As the video shows, the Graffiti Research Lab, with their ever-brilliant ingenuity, took cut outs and pasted them over advertisements found on television monitors at subway stops in NYC. Two of the signs read, “NYC’s true graffiti problem” and “Advertising = graffiti.”  

Why is it that Americans tolerate advertising in their faces all day, but are vehemently opposed to graffiti art? I’ll choose art over marketing any day.

Frustrated by a proliferation of ugly, talentless graffiti in his San Francisco neighborhood Mission District, Brandon Baunach of DesignCrack, came up with a way to critique the art — giving praise to worthy pieces, and failing grades to lesser-quality art.

Inspired by a similar idea from Drew Heffron, a New York-based graphic designer, Baunach created a simple PDF form (shown above) and encourages visitors to his Web site to print it out and paste it up by graffiti they critque. He calls it “The Graffiti Report Card: Ugly Graffiti Haters Unite. Baunach even created a Flickr group for people to post photographs of the tags they critque.

According to the WebUrbanist blog, some graffiti artists are less than pleased to have their work reviewed. But, as the blog writer notes, if a graffiti artist can claim the right to decorate a public surface one way, how can they expect to deny the public the right to add to their public composition?

Street art has become so accepted by the mainstream that even The New York Times can write a story referring to illegal tags as art without so much as a mention of the darker side of graffiti.

Instead the paper calls graffiti “uncommissioned, uncommercial forms of expression,” and encourages readers to spend the weekend looking for street tags, rather than blocking them out as noise and New Yorkers become accustomed to doing on their busy streets.

In the “Weekend in New York” travel column this week, reporter Seth Kugel does a great job of explaining graffiti in the most common terms – what it is, where to find it and how (not) to judge it.

He writes, “Finally, judging street art is not like judging a coin collection: just about nothing is in mint condition. But that’s part of the charm. Pieces are supposed to decay over time, either naturally or sped along by human hands. A years-old image half torn down or covered with other images (often in homage) is part of the experience.”

The best part about the story is, unsurprisingly, photos taken around the city of NYC graffiti. The NYT presents them in a slideshow with captions so informational you don’t even need to read the story to understand and appreciate the art.

If you just knew a little bit about graffiti, it would be easy to think that there were some young punks who scribble and one talented artist named Banksy. Banksy’s book proliferate shelves, thank you Urban Outfitters, and his work has been catching major media attention as it auctions for hundreds of thousands of dollars. While I am not in any way discounting Banksy’s obvious talent and amazing artwork, it is frustrating that he is the only graffiti artist in the mainstream.

Graffiti art does not begin and end with one man.

However,  as this article on “the Banksy effect,” says, most people need entry points to become comfortable with things that are new. And for millions of people, Banksy is the entry point they need in not only seeing art in a new way, but in accepting art as a part of their daily lives.

So I guess many artists out there can thank Banksy for bringing graffiti art into the mainstream – but hopefully, with time, more artists will come to be appreciated in this way. Along this theme, this Web site compiled a list of some of New York City’s best graff artists, some very famous, like Swoon, and some lesser known or appreciated, like Goya. Some other artists of note: Claw (New York), Pose (Chicago) and Revs (New York).

— 

Additional info: There is also a great New York Times article from a few years ago on Swoon that features a slideshow of her work.

When most people think of graffiti taggers they might instinctively picture ‘young punk, gang members’ with nothing better to do. The typical stereotypes abound. And while these so-called ‘punks’ may be responsible for much of the graffiti tags spread around every country in the world, many taggers do not fit into these stereotypical descriptions.

Many are very talented artists, some classically trained at the best art schools in the world. Some are middle-aged, or at least in their 20s and 30s. Many do not support illegal activities, and instead, strive to make their work legally-marketable.

Here are a few examples of taggers who break the mold –

While this woman was arrested for posting illegal tags, she hardly fits the typical mold: 43-years-old and female. Despite what you might first believe, many graffiti artists are women — and very talented women at that.

A 36-year-old New York man, Craig Costello, tag name Krink, hasn’t painted graffiti illegally in years, but he has found a way to make his skills marketable. Under the Krink brand, he sells a line of quality inks and markers, his artwork and merchandise. Want more information or a peak at his work? See his Web site: krink.com.

Malcolm Mobutu Smith, now an associate professor of ceramic arts at Indiana University, began his interest in graffiti at age 12.

And, of course, no list of non-traditional graffiti artists would be complete without mentioning Banksy. His work often features politically or socially charged messages and he makes top dollar by auctioning his work.

Two of the Bay Area’s largest cities have launched new attacks on graffiti this week — and each is hoping to crack down on the illegal art form in a distinct way.

Last Friday the City of San Francisco announced it will give $250 to anyone who can provide police with information leading to the arrest of a graffiti artist. Last year, without the reward as incentive, the city arrested 238 taggers.

Neighboring San Jose, is taking a different approach. As part of it’s “Graffiti Eradication Week” the city is giving out free graffiti removal kits. The kits include a paint can with solvent spray, protective eyeglasses, sponges and rags.   

With both cities trying to get at the problem in a completely different way, I wonder which method will work best?  

Is the best practice a preventative approach – by removing graffiti artists from the streets they tag and putting them behind bars? Or is it better to use a reactive approach — by arming community members with the ability to take care of tags as quick and easily as possible?

Last week the arrest of notorious Boston-area graffiti artist, Spek, was big news in the street art world. If San Francisco’s approach leads to an increase in arrests, I would suspect it would have a greater impact among taggers than San Jose’s method. But with community members most concerned with removing the eye sores as soon as possible, San Jose’s approach may be favored by locals.

A new exhibit at the Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C. marks an important step in the showcasing of graffiti art as fine art. Other museums and galleries have shown graffiti art in the past, but this particular show is hosted by none other than the Smithsonian Institute. And, it doesn’t get much more mainstream then the Smithsonian.

“Recognize! Hip Hop and Contemporary Portraiture” exhibit features photography, paintings and videos influenced by hip-hop. Street artists Tim “Con” Conlon, 33, of Washington, D.C. and Dave “Arek” Hupp, 34, from Baltimore, were asked to paint four large panels tracing the history of graffiti from its roots in the 1970s until today.

“We are not glorifying the illegal activity, but we are acknowledging the larger impact this street tradition has had in contemporary art,” says Frank H. Goodyear III, one of the exhibition’s curators.

The exhibit marks an important step in the artists’ careers as well – it is the first time either of them have been featured in a major gallery, according to Smithsonian Magazine’s article on the exhibit. For Arek, who in the height of his career painted about 400 trains a year, having his work showcased in the museum is a chance to change people’s perceptions.

“People who think it is just vandalism are amazed when they see what we can do with spray paint,” he said.

This blogger’s post on the exhibit has attracted quite a lot of comments on both sides of the graffiti debate.

My favorite comment? Posted by JG:

“Simply put; graffiti is an ART form.
Where it is placed determines its legality.”

Boston and Salem-area community members are understandably pleased with the arrest of Spek, real name Adam Brandt, a 27-year-old graffiti tagger who has reportedly cost the community millions in damages. If they view his actions as a public nuisance and a form of destruction, then his arrest would be worthy of their praise. What I am not happy to see is the attack on the man behind the tags.

In one case, an editorial in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette News resorted to name-calling. It says, “The aesthetic crowd may consider graffiti an art form, but the decade-long tagging spree across eastern New England by a loser — self-styled “Spek” — illustrates the appallingly destructive nature of graffiti vandalism.”

Really? A loser? Is that all they’ve got? Aren’t newspapers editorials supposed to add fodder for intellectual debates and foster understanding? What does name calling accomplish or add to the public forum?

Law enforcement officers in Salem, Mass., are lauding the arrest of notorious graffiti tagger Adam Brandt, tag name Spek.  According to a Boston Globe article, Brandt, 27, has been tagging in and around the Boston and Salem area since the mid-1990s. City police estimate his graffiti crew, Illustrate Total Destruction or ITD, has caused nearly a million dollars in damage to Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority — and that Brandt himself is responsible for a good bit of that total.

He is charged in Salem with 16 counts of tagging and 16 counts of malicious destruction of property. Boston police and Transit Authority police will follow with their own charges. If convicted, Brandt could face up to two or three years in prison for each charge that he faces.

Some photos of Spek’s work are here and here. It saddens me that such obvious talent couldn’t have been channeled into a legal art form.

This blogger makes a very good point. He says, “Graffiti writers get arrested every day in cities throughout the USA and the World. Yet, we are bombarded by it in fashion, television, and advertisements. How else would corporate America look “hip, dope, fresh, ill, etc.” if they couldn’t pay some kid off the streets a few g’s to lace up their boring logo?”

I think that is one of the most frustrating issues surrounding graffiti. It is viewed by some as great art, showing at galleries and museums. It has made it’s mark in the business world with some artists finding a way to make their art profitable. It is omnipresent in society in advertisements and other forms of media. But, yet, the creators of this work, for the most part, must remain hidden or face arrest, jail and large fines. 

What is praised as art in some cases, is targeted as crime and vandalism in others. Will the two sides ever meet?

Nevermind real graffiti tagged illegally on walls, this politician wants graffiti removed — from an aluminum can.

Cans of All City NRG, a new energy beverage made by the AriZona Beverage Company, feature graffiti-influenced designs with tag-like writing and vibrant colors. But New York council member Peter Vallone Jr. said the label promotes graffiti and should be changed, as reported by The New York Sun.

The beverage name All City — “is a term used to describe New York street artists who have made their mark in all five boroughs,” Vallone Jr. said.

He is calling for local shops to remove the cans from their shelves. The Staten Island Advance said he held a press conference at a store in Queens that already agreed to pull the beverage from their shelves.

“This product shamelessly glorifies a culture of vandalism and lawlessness,” Vallone Jr. said. “If this drink was called ‘pickpocket pickup,’ and had pictures of criminals lifting wallets, wouldn’t people be offended?”

The beverage company defended their design, calling graffiti “a worldwide type of art form” and said the can’s design is not intended to encourage vandalism.

One reader’s comment on the article defended graffiti as a art form, saying, “Graffiti is ART, legal graffiti art exists all over the world, get your facts straight, graffiti isn’t just an illegal art form, but also a LEGAL ART form…..”

The reader also mentioned that graffiti-influenced designs are used in advertising worldwide. Here are a few examples of graffiti-influenced designs making their way into advertising: The new Rambo movie, Coca Cola and McDonald’s ads, and even an advertising company that specializes in outdoor graffiti murals as ads.

Do any of these incite you to pick up a spray can?