[HN Gopher] San Francisco Graffiti
___________________________________________________________________
San Francisco Graffiti
Author : walz
Score : 129 points
Date : 2026-01-26 10:02 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (walzr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (walzr.com)
| wumms wrote:
| Would have looked further, but scroll wheel finger cramped.
| Keyboard nav would be great.
| kg wrote:
| Enabling the browser's scrollbar would also be good.
| defrost wrote:
| As a suggestion,
|
| * Orientation - some images are sideways,
|
| * Option to walk through by date order, and by location ...
|
| There is an audience for the time ordered flux of images on
| particular sites (at least in Australia).
| ghuroo1 wrote:
| I like the concept, wish it was a vertical scroll with some safe
| margins between each picture (also to give them more stage time
| and removing the noise/distraction from many pictures stitched
| together)
| s_dev wrote:
| Fascinating, I do love street art and tastefully done graffiti.
| Some of it is obnoxious. I think it does add to the character of
| a city e.g. New York, Berlin, Montreal, Paris all have some
| amazing work etc.
|
| I submit Irish Graffiti I see here:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Graifiti/
|
| Though I think displaying these things as a map is more useful:
| https://streetartcities.com/cities/sanfrancisco
|
| There is a an Irish artist called Dan Leo and I have bought lots
| of his prints. https://www.danleodesign.com/ so they are dotted
| around my office and home.
|
| I think they're great! He does animals and I love the style,
| clean lines and bright colours, they remind me of US football
| team logos.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm probably the minority where I don't mind any graffiti,
| quality or not. As long as it isn't horribly offensive or
| impacting the functionality of something (over
| signs/glass/etc). Think I just prefer the look of a wall
| covered in even shitty tags and pasted posters over a
| completely blank slate.
|
| I particularly love seeing peoples stickers about.
| jasonkester wrote:
| I live near Paris, and it's a shame to see this sort of thing on
| every surface here. It's so easy and effortless to trash the look
| of a place, and so much effort and pain to get it back to a
| presentable state. It just seems hopeless trying to stop it.
|
| Sure, you can point to examples of graffiti that don't look all
| that bad, and I imagine some examples can even be considered to
| improve the look of a space. But taking this site as a random
| sample, the "good" ones are a vanishing minority. For every
| subtle Invader mosaic high on a building, you get dozens of
| effortless name tags that just wreck the look of a place.
|
| Adding frustration is the fact that there's no way to effectively
| dissuade people from doing this. You don't want to fine, jail or
| otherwise ruin the lives of thousands of kids to get them to
| stop. You just want them to stop spraypainting shit. It's really
| the only example I can think of where I'd support some form of
| corporal punishment. Catch kids in the act, 20 lashes in the town
| square to convince them not to do it again, then set them to work
| with a wire brush until they can demonstrate that it's back to
| the state they found it. Even still, I can't imagine it would
| really do much to dissuade.
|
| It's a shame.
| rimbo789 wrote:
| I like graffiti - even random tags over blank walls because
| it's a sign people are truly living and breathing in a space.
|
| As long as there have been walls there has been graffiti.
| Spaces without graffiti are artificial and antiseptic.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| Graffiti on things like trees (e.g. in urban parks) is awful
| and trees are the opposite of artificial and antiseptic. The
| main problem with graffiti is that most of it is made without
| thought or consideration, and that never ends well.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Yes, I think they should avoid covering other works of art,
| nature, information signs, and windows. But blank space
| should be fair game.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| Most graffiti is an ugly demoralising reminder of the
| existence of thoughtless people who have no consideration
| for others and are happy to degrade the shared public
| space for a few seconds of selfish enjoyment. For some
| reason it's got noticeably worse where I live, feels like
| over the last couple of years.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| most modern buildings are an ugly demoralising reminder
| of the existence of thoughtless people who have no
| consideration for others and are happy to degrade the
| shared public space for a few seconds of selfish
| enjoyment (or in this case, millions of dollars at the
| public's expense).
| chickensong wrote:
| I wish you'd stop being coy and just tell us how you
| really feel.
| InMice wrote:
| I like that part of it too - but feel that if I owned a
| building and had people spraying paint all over its exterior
| whenever they felt like it...maybe not so much.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Tell me your address so I can come tag your car or your
| windows or your laptop
|
| Graffiti is property destruction, pure and simple. I'm happy
| to come destroy your property. Complain and you're a
| hypocrite
| nemomarx wrote:
| Why windows and not their homes walls? People rarely tag
| windows in my experience, or cars.
| rimbo789 wrote:
| There are tags all over my building, it's lovely. Please
| come add more
| s_dev wrote:
| I think there is a lot of nuance here. Just as councils and
| developers can construct ugly buildings artists can also add
| ugly work to walls.
|
| I agree there is a spectrum. On one hand you've Banksy or
| Basquiat adding to a flat grey wall and creating art that has a
| political voice or some artistic merit and the other you've
| some twat scribbling hate symbols on a historic monument. I
| don't have on ideas on how we can ensure one and not the other
| though.
| dkarl wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying the only thing ugly about
| tagging is when it contains objectionable political content.
| That's not really responding to the complaint here, which is
| that the vast majority of it is low effort, low quality
| tagging that makes things aesthetically uglier. It's easy to
| go out with a collector's eye, cherry-pick the good stuff,
| and put together a slideshow that makes it look like a public
| amenity, but that ignores the overall effect of wall after
| building after block of proof of Sturgeon's Law.
|
| Is it ignorable? Does all the terrible stuff just disappear
| into the background, or should we care about how it affects
| the experiences of people who have to live with it and walk
| past it every day? I think that's the question people are
| arguing.
| komali2 wrote:
| No accounting for taste, but, graffiti is important whether
| it's aesthetically pleasing or not.
|
| https://ancientgraffiti.org/Graffiti/
|
| Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their
| city. It's a very common form of countercultural resistance and
| therefore an important relief valve. It's a way for anyone to
| express themselves on their environment. A city only has value
| because it's occupied by many people, and those people need to
| express their autonomy and quite literally "leave their mark."
|
| Not to mention, it's lovely to be connected to a common thread
| of humanity over literal millenia. Just as I scrawled onto a
| bathroom stall in 2005 "Cameron takes it up the bum," so too
| did Salvius write of his friend on a wall in the House of the
| Citharist in the year 79, "Amplicatus, I know that Icarus is
| buggering you. Salvius wrote this."
| akomtu wrote:
| I suspect it's not the population's expression of ownership,
| but simply gangs marking their territory.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Why do you suspect that?
| komali2 wrote:
| Sometimes tagging is that, sure, or just some person
| indicating that they exist there. For some taggers, it's an
| addiction. I knew one that would tag at people's houses
| when invited to parties. I was outside smoking a cigarette
| with him after the owner had threw him out on his ass,
| asking why he did shit like that, and he said "I just feel
| like if I can tag someone's house, it's like I've won."
|
| I can kinda empathize since I'll have an addiction to
| getting the perfect photograph during a protest or whatever
| and will go to extreme lengths and burn through SD cards to
| get it.
|
| In my experience the majority of graffiti is artists just
| putting up art. Privileged folk pass down the propaganda
| that graffiti is dirty and gangster and so any street art
| is viewed as dirty, but in the end it's just a matter of
| taste.
| akomtu wrote:
| Art? There are some exceptions, indeed, where graffiti
| can be called art, but most of it is tasteless disgusting
| mess. It's borderline demonic in some cases. This
| especially applies to the list of pictures in the post.
| My theory is why ugliness is often considered beautiful
| is because ugliness invokes stronger and darker emotions.
| fwip wrote:
| > "Borderline demonic" > look inside >
| it's Calvin and hobbes
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| The most well known writers (this is their term, few if any
| graffiti writers I know refer to themselves as artists) are
| actually the ones who paint trains, not in metro areas.
| Yes, writers do paint all over metro areas, but that gets
| buffed out so quickly that the real holy grail is to get up
| on trains that go all over the country.
|
| Train graffiti allows your art to roam and writers from
| other cities see it and recognize it. Your creativity
| proceeds you when you go to other cities to write and
| expand where you're known.
|
| I live in a large metro and see very little if any gang
| graffiti. Also, most of the really good stuff? You never
| know its there because its under bridges, in aqua ducts and
| other areas few, if any people know about or venture to.
| ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote:
| >It's a very common form of countercultural resistance and
| therefore an important relief valve. It's a way for anyone to
| express themselves on their environment.
|
| So, what are these random scribblers resisting, exactly? It's
| like saying that defecating on the street is a form of self-
| expression and "leaving their mark". Even if it is, do we
| really need to tolerate it?
|
| >Not to mention, it's lovely to be connected to a common
| thread of humanity over literal millenia.
|
| There is nothing lovely about seeing all this garbage
| littering the walls of public buildings and historical finds
| do not justify this behaviour.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Resisting the ideology that only people with money can
| alter the city environment.
|
| When you see an impressive sculpture or skyscraper you know
| a lot of resources were spent, you know the rich people
| here are rich. When you see an area with lots of graffiti,
| there may be many good or bad things about it, but you know
| the citizens are free.
|
| I would hope graffitiers have respect to only draw on the
| mundane parts of the city, not on cool sculptures. And in
| my experience, that is true. Also they should not obscure
| windows or information signs.
| ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote:
| I think the cultural barrier preventing me from
| understanding this way of thinking is impenetrable to me.
| What a strange world, huh?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what
| you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.
| ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote:
| >Are you American? Freedom means the ability to do what
| you want. It doesn't mean owning guns.
|
| No, I am not, and I haven't mentioned guns or even hinted
| at the topic. Do whatever you want, but trying to
| purposefully destroy and smear the environment around you
| and claim it's an expression of freedom is ridiculous.
| It's just malicious, disgusting behavior that helps no
| one, serves no cause and has nothing to do with freedom.
| recursive wrote:
| I don't think most graffiti writers are trying to destroy
| their environment.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| I'm not American, but I doubt being pro-graffiti is a
| universal American value. I suspect many Americans aren't
| that into it, given it makes the place look bad. Many
| Americans might think instead that you should only deface
| things you own.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| I think it makes the place look like a place where people
| are free and not oppressed, which is nice.
| lostdog wrote:
| They are oppressed by their neighbors, who can scribble
| all over their home without consequences.
|
| Have you had to clean off graffiti?
| socalgal2 wrote:
| I'm surprised you don't understand it. Put your money
| where your mouth is. Let me come over and tag all your
| property.
| komali2 wrote:
| > So, what are these random scribblers resisting, exactly?
|
| The idea that the city is owned by the uppermost caste of
| that society.
|
| > There is nothing lovely about seeing all this garbage
| littering the walls of public buildings and historical
| finds do not justify this behaviour.
|
| Massive cathedrals to the rich would be erected and made
| holy, and individuals upon whose back society is build
| would demonstrate that though entrance is barred to them,
| they still can make the thing their own.
|
| Nowadays there's plenty of such things in a city that
| closes its doors to many people that live in said city. San
| Francisco is a great example of this, where rising costs
| are pushing anyone not working in tech. Graffiti is an easy
| way to spit in the face of the rich that are trying to take
| a city away from you. Clearly, it has an outsized impact on
| their sensibilities.
| ZpJuUuNaQ5 wrote:
| To me personally, it sounds really bizarre. I cannot
| understand this way of thinking, but I guess it's just a
| matter of cultural differences.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| I suspect most graffiti doesn't actually have this
| twisted motivation. It's just selfishness by thoughtless
| people wanting to advertise themselves, like dogs marking
| their territory. This intellectual rationalisation is
| more of a projection by resentful people with a poisonous
| worldview.
| fwip wrote:
| I think you may have agreed with them a long time ago,
| when you chose your username. Have you perhaps become
| wealthier, in the interim?
| browsingonly wrote:
| Maybe just more mature.
| dole wrote:
| Commentary is graffiti. We're all selfish dogs marking
| our territory, advertising that we exist.
| stickfigure wrote:
| That explains why I see graffiti in all the rich
| neighborhoods and none in the poor neighborhoods </s>.
| culopatin wrote:
| You really think that the majority of taggers are
| thinking this deep? It's mostly teenagers in high school
| that are mimicking others thinking "I'm so cool". It
| fights nothing regardless. We can assign it value out of
| our asses all day and take some documentary as the truth,
| but if you think a kid writing a random scribble on the
| bart window or a bar bathroom, or a small business's door
| deserves to take any of that back from the "caste" what
| are we talking about? The city is everyone's, the tagger
| claiming a wall is as selective as what you claim the
| city is doing. Why do they think some random surface is
| more theirs than everyone else's? I find tagging more
| selfish than what the city is doing.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Even if it is, do we really need to tolerate it?_
|
| People not only tolerate, but I'd argue most people
| _prefer_ it. I think, unlike Singapore or Tokyo, Americans,
| in cities, largely prefer a little lived in grime.
|
| The Mission Bay is a relatively new neighborhood in San
| Francisco - mostly free of graffiti and is pretty much
| sterile, and most people would prefer to live in the
| Mission rather than Mission Bay. OpenAI likely pays a huge
| premium to HQ in the mission rather than settling in the
| more corporate offices of Mission Bay or even the Financial
| District.
|
| I also noticed the same in Berlin - Kreuzberg, Neukolln,
| and other neighborhoods in East Berlin attract the most
| people, despite being drenched in graffiti.
|
| If ever move to a city in America and tell people you live
| in the generally clean, spick and span, neighborhood in
| that city, half the people will look at you like you have 3
| heads or simply assume you have no personality. Graffiti
| has largely become an accepted, or even valued, feature of
| a neighborhood. I believe internally it separates the
| "cool" city inhabitants from the "losers" out in the
| suburbs.
|
| Edit: I just looked through all the images in the OP and
| one of them is a _banksy_. It 's been there for over a
| decade. Graffiti isn't just tolerated, its practically
| protected.
| -_- wrote:
| What do you mean? OpenAI's main offices have been in
| Mission Bay since 2024
| nurettin wrote:
| They should work as plate cleaners and civil park workers 100
| hours a month. That will teach those entitled teens to leave
| their mark while autonomously cleaning those plates and
| planting flowers.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their
| city.
|
| I think this is the heart of it, and where cities and
| suburban towns differ.
|
| It's admittedly very hard to articulate in words. The walls
| of buildings in a city are part of the greater, broader,
| "face of the city." They are in a sense both part of a
| general "public space" yet also still privately owned. The
| walls of single family homes in suburban neighborhoods don't
| really compare. There's much more of a shared sense of "ours"
| in a city than there is out in the country, where
| everything's fenced off in little discrete boxes of land,
| each with someone's name on it. This greater sense of shared
| agency over the aesthetic of the broader "city" makes street
| art more justifiable there than it is in single family home
| places.
| jakobnissen wrote:
| Oh I disagree completely. Precisely because city spaces are
| more shared, vandalism, including graffiti, is Mitch more
| destructive in cities.
|
| It really undermines the sense of community when vandals
| deface public spaces and community centers and apartment
| blocks.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| consider that it's a symptom of a community fragmented by
| the result of the profit motive rather than a cause of
| the fragmentation
| BryantD wrote:
| If you're a cinema person, I strongly recommend Agnes Varda's
| documentary on LA street art at the end of the 1970s, Mur
| Murs. (That's a pun: murals as an expression of the murmurs
| of the community.) It takes graffiti as an expression of
| ownership as the central thesis and I found it really lovely.
| Thanks for this comment.
| mahrain wrote:
| One of the most startling differences between Chinese and
| European cities is the lack of grafitti in China. I wonder if
| it's explained by laws, norms, enforcement?
| brador wrote:
| It's explained by punishment.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| If you execute everyone who commits a misdemeanor, crime
| rates are extremely low.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Yeah, a city with a population of zero has zero crime.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| If you simply eliminate all criminal laws, the crime rate
| goes down as much as is possible, immediately.
| jerlam wrote:
| Also probably a lot of surveillance. Not just cameras, but
| by people in the community.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| People underestimate the tattle-tale culture in China.
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| Also culture. There's just no culture of it.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Tons of people unfortunately see this as ok. My response to
| them is always "let me tag your car, your house, your laptop"
| and if you complain you're a hypocrite
|
| I like "Street Art" where permission has been given. I don't
| like tagging and property destruction. Maybe when I get a
| little older I'll find some graffiti exhibit at a museum and go
| tag it.
| mmooss wrote:
| To include the obvious in this discussion, it's your opinion
| that street art / graffiti makes things ugly; others feel
| differently. I think it brings places alive, brings human
| expression into the otherwise highly controlled environment.
| There's a spirit to it, and I love to see kids who have no
| voice take the step of speaking up. I love to see it,
| generally. To me it's a sign of freedom and very democratic.
|
| As for it's quality as art, I don't buy that's a purely
| subjective, arbitrary opinion (meaning, I think it's reasonable
| to use some judgment). But people still differ greatly: look at
| their responses to abstract expressionism, for example; some
| people think it's trash, others pay tens of millions.
|
| There is plenty of ugly in cities: There is a lot of ugly
| architecture; buildings are much more visually prominent and
| for aesthetics I would remove the ugly ones much sooner than
| removing the street art. There is ugly advertising and
| marketing; there are ugly industrial sites on beautiful
| waterfronts and in neighborhoods.
|
| Should those be subject to the same judgement as some kids
| expressing themselves? The people who make the buildings, ads,
| sites have far more power and resources, including enough to
| make those beautiful. They seem much more responsible for the
| results than the kids, who may have nothing else.
| lostdog wrote:
| Please post your address. I'd like to help make your home
| "feel alive."
| dcposch wrote:
| > You don't want to fine, jail or otherwise ruin the lives of
| thousands of kids to get them to stop. > You just want them to
| stop spraypainting shit.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/qaFgSm7.png
|
| You have it backwards. It's the act of NOT fining them, NOT
| calling their parents, of ignoring small destructive acts that
| ruins lives.
|
| Almost everyone doing a 10 year sentence for a serious crime
| started out by getting away with a lot of small ones.
| guywithahat wrote:
| I agree with everything you said but I don't understand the
| imgur reference
| lelandfe wrote:
| That you "want to have your cake and eat it too," is what
| they're saying.
|
| Yon dog does too.
| zahlman wrote:
| I consider corporal punishment inherently barbaric. An
| appropriate fine or short stay in jail ought not be life-
| ruining.
|
| Also, I think there are other effective approaches in some
| circumstances. People (including "the kids"), locally (Toronto)
| and other places I've heard of, have been paid (not a super
| common thing, but it happens) to do actual artwork. There's a
| mural I consider quite well done, not too far from my place,
| that isn't getting defaced even though it's in a place where I
| would otherwise ordinarily expect strong temptation to
| "tagging" and other graffiti.
| jjmarr wrote:
| I've heard real estate people call this legalized extortion,
| since you have to select a graffiti artist with enough
| reputation that others don't mess with the piece.
| tristor wrote:
| I really enjoy graffiti murals, and I go out of my way to
| photograph them in my own city and when I travel. I will see
| them when I driving or walking around and stop to look for a
| moment and try to understand the perspective and message of the
| artist and take a picture if I can.
|
| That said, I don't much like tagging, tagging is generally not
| art in my opinion even if you can say artist styles are used
| within it. Tagging is all about ego and selfishness, it's there
| purely for the sake of saying "I was here", as if you are the
| most important person in the city that you should claim to put
| your name on that wall.
|
| I've met quite a few graffiti artists all over the world in my
| travels, and the people who tag and the people who paint murals
| are by and large /not/ the same people. The folks who paint
| murals are trying to say something, the folks who tag have
| nothing more to say than to try to create a monument of some
| kind to themselves. I don't respect taggers, I do respect
| muralists.
| AngryData wrote:
| Are there places people can legally grafitti there? In a number
| of small towns there are unofficial grafitti rocks or walls in
| public view that redirects a lot of peoples mischief and desire
| to display public art. Nobody is in any actual trouble if they
| are caught painting it although you will lose your paint.
|
| It might not be a total solution, but it could have a
| significant impact on grafitti other places.
| secretsatan wrote:
| I think mostly here in switzerland, it's tolerated in certain
| areas, and even directly sponsored, in Lausanne, nearly every
| pedestrian underpass is completely covered in pretty good work,
| every bit of street furniture has unique designs that seem to
| be left alone by taggers, areas that might otherwise be run
| down are covered in colourful murals that are regularly
| refreshed, i think this is the right approach.
| secretsatan wrote:
| Oh, i just saw the 20 lashes thing, rather have graffiti than
| fascists
| senfiaj wrote:
| I wish there were more of this:
| https://stfu.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/sf-graffiti/696...
| metalman wrote:
| If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal.
|
| It's ok
| direwolf20 wrote:
| It is illegal. It gives the population the idea they have the
| right to alter their environment, and that's dangerous.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Alter other people's property.
|
| Agreed, that is a dangerous concept
| direwolf20 wrote:
| *in ways that don't harm that person
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Nonsense. The owner almost certainly doesn't want
| someone's "art" to adorn his wall, and will then have to
| pay to restore the wall to its desired condition. That is
| material harm done to the building owner.
| browsingonly wrote:
| Not all harm is physical.
| InMice wrote:
| Cool, but why lay out the images in such an annoying way?
| Whatever happened to simple, functional photo galleries? I miss
| them.
| guerrilla wrote:
| It works great on mobile. That's more than I can say for most
| things.
| InMice wrote:
| Turn your phone to landscape, does it sitll work for you? Or
| are you stuck viewing only the top half of the images and
| unable to scroll down.
|
| Side scrolling in portrait is not my opinion of working
| great. It does work to view them at least. Youre trapped in a
| vertical scroll, no way to get back to the beginning but
| scroll all the way back.
| greeniskool wrote:
| Having a bit of a cultural shock at how English doesn't have a
| separate name for the "cruder" graffiti (such as tags) vs the
| more socially accepted street art. The former is typically called
| "pichacao" [1] in Portuguese, and I was taught this distinction
| when learning about modern art movements back in elementary
| school.
|
| [1] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picha%C3%A7%C3%A3o - I
| recommend looking into a machine translated version of the
| Portuguese Wikipedia article, as the English Wikipedia article
| reads far more biased
| garbawarb wrote:
| Is "street art" not the name? Like how "comics" are low but
| "graphic novels" are respectable.
| kingkawn wrote:
| English does, and definitely invented it before the rest of the
| world caught on to this culture. Try watching "Wild Style" from
| 1983, documenting some of the earliest beefs between the types
| of graffiti artists. Portuguese speakers did not invent this
| distinction.
|
| Throw ups are the quick ones and Pieces are the long ones.
| rconti wrote:
| Graffiti is the catch-all, but "street art" vs "tagging" have
| pretty clearly distinct meaning.
| pimlottc wrote:
| There are terms within the scene - tag, throwie, piece, burner
| - but they are not generally known by the wider public.
|
| https://www.kmuw.org/beautiful-city/2014-08-04/what-were-tal...
|
| https://www.instagram.com/p/COrxyrCMkOx/
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Some of these are great.
|
| I expect the mundane "wildstyle" tagging on train cars but have
| been surprised a few times to see trains roll through town with
| much more complex graffiti. I'm happy to see examples of some of
| that more artful work in this post.
|
| If you've seen the film, "Brother From Another Planet" you might
| look at graffiti a little differently as I do. :-)
| mvellandi wrote:
| This collection is a bit ordinary and unremarkable. There are
| many great large format, new/used print books on street art
| tieze wrote:
| That is arguably the point. They are taken from the SF city
| website and are placed in arbitrary order. I personally love
| this unfiltered take.
|
| There's more to get from these than just aesthetics, precisely
| because they're not curated.
| walthamstow wrote:
| As an aside, the Financial Times (yes, that one) did a great
| interview a couple of years ago with prolific London graff artist
| 10FOOT.
|
| The comments were predictably howling with rage and injustice
| ("he's a criminal!!", says employee of cartel laundry HSBC), but
| I enjoyed it a lot.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/45a184ee-b7d9-4c16-b1c2-71def32cc...
| xnorswap wrote:
| He is indeed incredibly prolific, anyone taking a train around
| london will recognise 10FOOT.
|
| But he is not an artist, he literally just tags 10Foot in what
| could be described as looking like it was done with a marker
| pen.
|
| something like this is very typical:
| https://ldngraffiti.co.uk/graffiti/writers/flash?pic=152931&...
|
| I enjoy good graffiti, but 10FOOT does not fall into that
| category.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Your link describes him as an author or writer, which is a
| kind of artist I guess. I'm not bothered about the
| nomenclature.
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| Beautiful and disgusting at the same time.
|
| It's vandalizing public property in the same way that human shit
| vandalizes a lot of public property in SF. I don't know which one
| is worse. One can be beautiful, the other is done because he has
| no choice.
|
| For graffiti I'm in support of lashing or whipping the people
| that do this. It's effective in Singapore. But then we lose all
| this great public art.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| If they're not covering windows, signs or art, what is being
| vandalized? A blank slab of concrete performs its function
| equally well no matter the color.
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| Bro a lot of these aren't beautiful quotes. Gang signs,
| immature shit from kids who do most of this stuff. Some is
| beautiful art most someone just signed their name.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| At what age would you suggest whipping or lashing kids?
|
| Would you personally be prepared to do it? Or, the owners
| of the property
|
| Should it be public lashings, or pay-per-view, or witnessed
| only by a select group of people, you place your trust in?
|
| If it's a caught female, can men whip her?
|
| How would you phrase the job application?
|
| I see a few flaws in your idea. Does Singapore still not
| allow males with long hair?
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| In Asia it's done as young as 5. Maybe that's why they're
| ahead.
|
| > If it's a caught female, can men whip her?
|
| Yes. Men and women are equal. Your question implies you
| are sexism. Do you believe women are superior to men?
|
| > How would you phrase the job application?
|
| Whatever term they use in Singapore.
|
| > I see a few flaws in your idea. Does Singapore still
| not allow males with long hair?
|
| There's tradeoffs for either idea. San Francisco is
| covered with human shit while Singapore isn't and you can
| get whipped for shitting in the streets.
|
| Remarkably in both systems not very many people get
| whipped. Nearly zero. Because the possible consequence is
| what enforces the rule, not the actual consequence
| itself. As long as people know they will be whipped, they
| then act in ways that will prevent the whipping from
| happening. In the beginning a few people will be whipped
| but that number will drop dramatically very shortly.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| You didn't answer the question.
| threethirtytwo wrote:
| The failure is in your own comment.
| toephu2 wrote:
| Most graffiti is just tagging, scribbling their name on
| something. I do not consider this art. It makes the
| environment you live in lease appealing (looks more ghetto).
| toephu2 wrote:
| A 'blank slab of concrete' isn't just a structural element;
| it's a signal of stewardship. When you ignore tagging on that
| slab, you create a permission structure for more intrusive
| vandalism. It's the 'Broken Windows' theory in practice:
| tagging leads to broken glass, which leads to copper theft,
| because the physical environment signals that the space is
| unmonitored and ownership is absent.
|
| High-trust societies rely on the shared maintenance of the
| commons. If the community can't even agree to keep a wall
| clean, it's a leading indicator that the city has lost the
| ability to enforce the social contract on larger issues.
|
| Sadly this is partly why SF will never be a high-trust
| society.
| rib3ye wrote:
| I'm the early 2000s I worked as an assistant producer on a San
| Francisco graffiti documentary featuring several of these artists
|
| https://youtu.be/7Ub8uRFzUCQ
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Why did you leave San Francisco?
| rib3ye wrote:
| I didn't.
| mergy wrote:
| Lasercats that was briefly on the old theatre on Divisadero
| remains a favorite. This was like 15 years ago.
|
| https://mergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/xndqw-full.jpg
| themark wrote:
| I scrolled pretty far and didnt see Borf in there. Was that Web
| 2.0 ?
| comrade1234 wrote:
| We have places in Zurich where anyone can spray (I'm sure most
| cities have designated areas like this) but they still come out
| into the neighborhoods and do it. Its usually in areas with poor
| refugee/subsidized housing but the people doing the graffiti are
| local young swiss, making areas where they don't live shittier.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Well yeah, of course they do. Contrary to what what some in
| this thread are claiming, the modal graffiti isn't self
| expression or a yearning for freedom. It's tweaking people's
| noses by altering the property without permission. You can't do
| that on a designated spray area, so those people have to go
| into the neighborhoods to get their jollies by pissing people
| off.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| The thing that really gets me about graffiti is that you don't
| own the canvas. It's just vandalism. If you're commissioned to do
| it one someone else's wall, I'd call that a mural instead, and I
| see quite a few aesthetically pleasing ones around. Why can't you
| paint on stuff you actually own, instead of making it someone
| else's problem? You might as well just shit on someone else's
| lawn and say it's fine because it's art
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| > You might as well just shit on someone else's lawn and say
| it's fine because it's art.
|
| Are you referring to 'tagging' (putting your, or your gang name
| on something)?
|
| I agree.
|
| Referring to well-crafted, or political (think banksy), images,
| i agree less. Unless i don't like the image/style _then_ it 's
| only lawn-worthy.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| I don't agree with the political graffiti either. See imgur
| as where this leads. imgur used to be interesting images. Now
| it's 90% images of text as political statements. The site is
| effectively ruined.
| nipponese wrote:
| If a graffiti artist believed shitting on a lawn was art, they
| would, but they don't.
|
| The problem and solution are similar to OSS:
|
| The problem: the artists have something to say, they want as
| many people as possible to see it and use it.
|
| The solution: make it free, and put it where as many people as
| possible can access it.
|
| Yes, I just compared graffiti to github.
| deadfall23 wrote:
| I did a similar pet project about 12 years ago called Graffiti
| City. It was very simple map that displays pins where reported
| cases of destruction of property with paint, aka graffiti art,
| throughout the city of San Francisco. This uses public data
| available at data.sfgov.org.
| asveikau wrote:
| I'm surprised to see so many anti-graffiti comments here. Some of
| these are crude or ugly (and I'm aware that this is subjective),
| but a few of these are really good and don't deserve a citation.
| Meanwhile this thread is SCANDALIZED that there is GRAFFITI
| (clutch your pearls!). It really goes to show the ongoing slide
| into total conformity that is the tech industry. I remember when
| tech had more of a nonconformist, countercultural bent, but it
| has been dying for quite a few years.
| browsingonly wrote:
| I don't know anyone in tech who enjoyed watching gangs mark
| their territory with tags in their neighborhood.
| asveikau wrote:
| Sometime in the last 30 years I realized the "gang territory
| marking" thing is mostly made up and basically not to take
| anyone seriously when they say this.
| throwforfeds wrote:
| I'm surprised and also not. We're a long ways away from 90s
| hacker culture, and even then there were plenty of upper class
| kids that were just in it for good pay working for the giant
| tech corps. We like to romanticize everyone dropping acid and
| being part of the counter culture, myself included, but reality
| is different.
|
| The saddest part to me is that the aesthetic of street art has
| been totally consumed by major corporations and spit back out
| on to the streets here in Brooklyn. I laugh to myself whenever
| I walk by a tourist taking a selfie in front of some mural that
| is really just some brand advertisement.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| >I'm surprised to see so many anti-graffiti comments here.
|
| I'm not. HN trends toward the most suburban conformist mindset
| possible.
| molsongolden wrote:
| Scraping these from the city violations DB was a cool idea.
| jameslk wrote:
| I wish I could say this evoked a nostalgic feeling, but having
| lived in SF, the literal memory that came to mind immediately
| seeing these is the repulsive smell of urine and the sight of
| dirty, trash-laden sidewalks. While graffiti itself could be
| viewed as artistic expression on its own, I liked looking at some
| of it, in my mind it seems so often correlated with decay
| toephu2 wrote:
| For a small business owner, graffiti is an unconsented, recurring
| tax that provides zero ROI for the neighborhood. In SF if you own
| a business that gets tagged, you have X number of days to clean
| it up yourself otherwise YOU get fined.. the city does nothing to
| go after the criminals. They only go after law-abiding tax paying
| citizens cause that's where the money is.
| nipponese wrote:
| This site scrapes the city efforts to document who is doing
| "how much" damage/art.
|
| Once they catch an artist in the act, they will use these
| archives to recommend a punishment.
|
| But your point in valid - San Francisco likes graffiti.
| guywithahat wrote:
| Did he argue SF likes graffiti? I don't think he does, and
| the people living in the city certainly don't. These are
| criminals tagging buildings, and city officials who either
| don't care or are too busy with other things. I'm not aware
| of anyone who actually lives there who likes graffiti, and
| logically there's no reason anyone should. If someone wanted
| a mural they would have hired a real artist to do it.
| nipponese wrote:
| He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything
| about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF
| residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic
| expression argument.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| But not sympathetic to corporate expression via renegade
| spray-painting. (Justin Bieber, now ASAP Rocky)
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-city-attorney-
| goi...
| bradlys wrote:
| Hated this shit in NYC too. It's a fucking blight.
| Nothing but people spray painting their IG handles trying
| to become a clout goblin.
|
| Ads everywhere. Can't even look down.
| bradlys wrote:
| > SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic
| expression argument.
|
| SF residents are incredibly snobby when it comes to
| street art. The typical tagging, 2 minute stencil sprays,
| and so forth are not up to posh standards of SF
| residents. I don't think most SFers think those are
| "renegade artistic expression". Maybe some of folks in
| Berkeley would but not SF.
|
| There's a huge disconnect from the city residents and a
| lot of what happens by the government. SFPD is a prime
| example of this. Almost none of the cops live in SF. A
| lot of the people committing crime _also don 't live in
| SF_. It's a weird city.
| secretsatan wrote:
| I think there should be distinction between tagging and
| graffiti
| boblawbomb wrote:
| generally speaking- it is frowned upon by people in graffiti
| communities to tag peoples homes, cars, private property etc.
| This doesn't really cover "mom and pop" business'. Not justifying
| it per se, Although I am more on the favorable side of graffiti.
| gabrieledarrigo wrote:
| Old time graffiti writer here.
|
| There's nothing so wild, anarchic and energetic than painting
| illegally on some surface without any permission.
| roughly wrote:
| There was an article that came through here a little while ago
| describing the process by which commercial property owners and
| banks collude to keep storefronts boarded up and vacant because
| otherwise they'd have to adjust the loan terms or take a loss
| somewhere, but sure, go off about how the graffiti artists
| tagging the boarded up windows are the ones making the city ugly.
| y-curious wrote:
| It's all Banksy and "wall art" til you get an ugly stick figure
| drawing sprayed on your storefront/door. Also commercial
| property owners doing bad stuff and vandalism are not mutually
| exclusive bad things
| project2501a wrote:
| no "fuck /u/spez". I'm disappoint.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-26 23:00 UTC)