Arts Forum statement and Stan Goldberg interview

Discussion
1

Two more School Board items here. I missed the Arts Forum, but submitted a candidate statement for them to publish on their website and to members of the arts community (see below). In writing this statement, I was able to use verbatim much of the proposed Arts plank I wrote for the Libertarian Party platform, and added some material modified from my ballot statement about my general campaign priorities.

  Also online is the interview I did a couple weeks ago with Stan Goldberg, who goes by "Senior Dad," sponsored by Parents for Public Schools. It's a pretty broad-ranging interview of an hour or so, although Stan himself talks for much of that time, playing the role of advocate as much as that of interviewer. He comes across as a moderate (Democrat or Republican is hard to tell); we agree on a number of things, and disagree on others. The sound quality isn't the greatest; I was calling in by phone, and am soft-spoken, and he had a tendency to talk over me. But at least there was more time to get into substantive issues than with the candidate forums where you get like a minute to answer each question.

  I tried to attach the interview as an mp3 file, but that wasn't working so well, so you'll have to go to the website if you want to listen to it -- http://srdad.com/SrDad/SFBoE/SFBoE.html. They also have interviews with many of the other candidates for School Board (not that you'd *want* to vote for any other candidates with yours truly running, lol!).

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Arts Forum Statement

2

Brilliant statement Starchild...well done.

3

I like that statement a lot, Starchild. Thank you for doing all you do. PS I an not really in favor of graffiti artists being role models, but that is just one sentence I disagree with in so many that are right one.

Marcy

4

Thanks, guys!

  Marcy, if I use the term "muralists" instead of "graffiti artists", does that make you view them more favorably? Just curious. I could call them "outdoor painters", but simply painting the outside of a house or building does not require as much artistry as being a talented graffiti artist. Check out some of these pieces beautifying our streets -- http://www.ilovegraffiti.com/graffiti_gallery/San%20Francisco/ -- as well as examples of other street art celebrated in many cities around the world.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

5

Dear Starchild;

Regarding your graffiti artists based on the amount of time spent by just Rec
and Parks of some 3,500 hours of time and some $300,000

cleaning graffiti at public parks to remove swatiskas profanities and so on so
the parents of the children playing at those sites wouldn't be offended or have
to explain to their children what those obscenities are all about.

Are you advocating graffiti artists be given free rein to smear up privately
owned property or is it just taxpayers funded public property or is it both. And
what about those clean up costs private property owners are forced to undergo or
get fined by the city for having unsightly graffiti stained property whether a
house or an apartment building or a commercial property.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Futuristic-coating-could-repel-graffiti-102933664.html

Jsut where do you draw the line as it were on these " artists " smearing daubing
and defacing privately owned property or property bought with taxpayer money or
taxpayer money having to be used to clean up the work of the " artists"

As the article notes the City is having to look at buying a special paint that
graffitti artists can't draw on. What about that cost and the cost of the time
for the painters and their pay.

Ron Getty

6

Hi Starchild,

No, can't sell me on "muralist" or "painter" either. No matter what you call them, people who use my property as they see fit never get my approval.

Marcy

7

Ron,

  I think swastikas and profanities constitute a very small percentage of graffiti. But even such offensive materials constituted a large percentage of street art, you wouldn't want to judge the rest of it on that basis (i.e. treat artists as members of a group rather than as individuals), or practice guilt-by-association, would you?

  It's not the artists' fault that the Rec & Park Department chooses to waste so much money on graffiti removal, or that the city government is paying extra to buy special paint that graffiti artists can't draw on, rather than pursuing more sensible policies, is it?

  No, I'm not advocating that graffiti artists be "given free rein to smear up privately owned property". And I certainly oppose private property owners being fined for having graffiti on their property, or forced to remove it.

  The appeal of any particular piece of art is an aesthetic matter, and consequently is largely in the eye of the beholder. Terms like "defacing", "unsightly", and "stained" are largely subjective perceptions. Objectively speaking, applying paint to an outdoor object gives it an extra layer of protection against the elements, so any presumption that graffiti is automatically harmful seems unwarranted.

  It is relatively uncommon to see graffiti on art or architecture that is beautiful to most people. Most often you see it on surfaces that are plain, unartistic, and arguably "ugly" to begin with. This is not a coincidence. I think the best way to handle graffiti is to make things more beautiful, so that graffiti artists won't see "tagging" them as an aesthetic improvement, and also to provide public space for free artistic expression, so that artists have enough surfaces where they can paint legally and have their work seen and appreciated by the public that they are less tempted to use other surfaces.

  It's a travesty that local government spends millions of dollars of taxpayer money a year removing graffiti works painted by members of the public from surfaces that belong to the public, without even bothering to hold any public hearings or inquiries into the merits of the particular graffiti. When all graffiti is targeted indiscriminately for removal, this obviously does not improve the quality of street art. Focusing removal efforts on the work that a committee deems least aesthetically pleasing would incentive graffiti artists to paint works that more people would like. Even those who don't like most graffiti should be willing to concede that government is going about this stupidly and that there are many ways this money could be better spent.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

8

Dear Starchild;

Small point of order and some FYI the obscenities and swatiskas and other such
offensive graffiti was on playground equipment for children. This is why Rec and
Parks so efficiently removed it and seek specail paint to use so it won't be
done again and again. Then children wouldn't be forced to see it and read it and
also have to have their parents explain to them what is was all about.

How do you plan on 'splain away " graffiti artists " deliberate willful and
malicious attack on the sensibilities of children and their parents?

Ron Getty

9

Ron,

  If I was with kids who saw the graffiti and asked about it, I'd use it as a "teachable moment" to tell them about free speech. I remember seeing graffiti swastikas when I was in elementary school, and I didn't grow up to be a Nazi, nor do I think it would have traumatized me had I been Jewish -- unless I found it traumatic due to the reactions of adults.

  But the Rec & Park Department's graffiti removal efforts are hardly limited to swastikas and obscenities on playground equipment, are they? According to this August 3 article, SF city government spends *$20 million a year* on "graffiti abatement" -- http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-08/citys-struggle-against-graffiti-tries-rewards-murals-and-profiling.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))