STOP HATIN': New Mural on 24th and Capp Covered Up

Remember that new mural on 24th + Capp we internets about on a couple of days ago?  Apparently some dick property owner or the DPW painted it over and now the taggers of the bay have united to make this building ground zero for vandalism.  Seriously bad move property owner.  First off, what went up actually looked nice; way better than the orgy of amateur penmanship that has graced that building for at least the last 2.5 years.  What did you really achieve by painting it over?  Being dicks?

Comments (4)

I don’t see how you can blame the property owner. DPW, yes - but maybe the property owner is just following citation instructions. Or shit - it’s his building. Graffiti isn’t a free-for-all. I respect taggers, but to whine about it when your shit gets painted over is akin to crying when someone takes the $20 you left on the street.

Graffiti is visual and artistic assault. It’s subversive. And it’s awesome. But to whine and bitch when unsanctioned pieces get painted over is 1) hypocritical, 2) Blind to obvious fact that just as the owner didn’t ask for permission to paint over the mural, the artists didn’t ask the owner either, and 2) fucking ruins the point of it. What’s the use - and motivation - of graffiti if you feel entitled to the building walls you use? Complaining about entitlement to the wall/canvas only neuters your final fucking product. You gonna whine and bitch if you get caught now too? If that’s your prerogative, go paint some fucking watercolors and sell them in a gallery. Real taggers know the game and art sphere they’re playing in. And they don’t bitch about their culture when the real subject at hand is whether or not the mural is sanctioned.

Considering the tag went up in the middle of the day on a busy intersection, I doubt it was “unsanctioned.” Maybe there was a miscommunication that could have easily been worked out. I just fail to see how this situation of tagger vs. property owner + repeated tagging (that doesn’t look good) makes the property + aesthetic of the corner any better.

True - there likely was miscommunication. But if you’re worried about the aesthetic, the onus falls on the tagger to either find a space that WILL sanction his work, or put up and shut up. In the end, the property owner has a legal (and I’d say moral) right to his property - the final decision is up to him. The tagger may not like it, but he’s doing his muralist and tagger peers a disgrace by pulling a lame culture card. Besides - if you consider yourself an artist and you sell or give a work to someone (in essence, what the tagger did by painting on the owner’s property), you relinquish all rights to it once you transfer the ownership. He has little right to complain.

Plus, I’m more disappointed in the blogger/author. If the tagger has beef, he has beef, but what’s the author’s problem? Calling the property owner a dick for asserting his right over property he has control over? A little harsh on Kevin’s part, considering no one knew why the property owner covered it up (did anyone bother to ask, or did you just trust what the graffiti says?), and considering he has the ultimate right to decide what art goes up on his wall.

Post New Comment