Hopefully it will be recognized and acknowledged at this meeting that graffiti can beautify public space, and that when well done, it often marks an improvement on the bland sterility of unadorned surfaces which lack the architectural attention to detail that used to grace public works half a century or more ago.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)
Then, we will need to establish a Department of Graffiti Art, to determine if the stuff on the wall is "well done" and to be preserved!
Marcy
Excellent Marcy. Don't forget the regulations on acceptable colors as well.
And the environmental impact on spray paint means the city needs to
subsidize taggers with soy based paint, organic brushes and buckets paid for
via the sugar tax. And all graffiti on private property must be well lit at
the owners expense and not obscured by any signage. And.
Behalf Of lpsfactivists
What!!! No workers compensation insurance to take care of those that fall off their stool while "painting"!!!
Marcy
Why not just let the market decide, by leaving it up to other artists what to paint over and what to leave be?
The many colorful murals in the Mission District are a significant tourist attraction. If graffiti artists were allowed to paint more public surfaces -- the sidewalks, for instance -- the city's public art could become even more of a tourist draw. The quality of the art would likely improve as well -- many "tags" look bad because they're painted in a sloppy "hit-and-run" manner by people trying to avoid being caught. If people would rethink their anti-graffiti prejudices and work with the artists instead of criminalizing them, it could be a win-win, live-and-let-live situation of the type libertarians supposedly favor.
But nah... better to just continue doing what they've been doing, spending over $20 million a year of the taxpayers' money on cleaning up graffiti, not to mention hundreds of thousands in legal fees pursuing "scofflaw" property owners who don't clean up graffiti on their property.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Oh, I forgot to include the link documenting the $20 million plus annual SF government anti-graffiti budget. Here you go -- http://www.stencilarchive.org/node/385.
When was the last time anyone was injured by a painted surface?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Because I do not believe "the market" to which you refer would bother to paint over unattractive graffiti. My counter proposal to your well taken point that the City spends gobs of money painting over graffiti, would be to bring back the tradition of chain gangs to keep the City clean, including walls free from defacement; which is bound to cost the City less than union painters making $80 an hour.
Marcy
Marcy,
Chain gangs!? Come on! 
I think the more libertarian solution would be for you, if you didn't like the choices that the existing artists were making as far as which graffiti to paint over and which to leave alone, to go invest in some paint and brushes and get to work on your own artistic vision! 
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - One person's "defacement" is another person's "beautification!" In the public square -- and unlike those adhering to a pure propertarian version of libertarianism I do think there should be common space in society where rights can be exercised and people can do their own thing without asking anyone's permission so long as it doesn't violate life, liberty, or private property -- the majority or plurality vision should not be be enforced by law at the expense of other visions. Let the majority take up their own cans of spray paint (or paint thinner and scrub brushes as the case may be), and see which group is more invested in their vision, or what mutually acceptable accommodation can be reached by the interested persons!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Seriously Starchild? Assuming so, I think this is wrong on various levels.
First of all, are you are promoting the tragedy of the commons as some sort
of true freedom land in contrast to the prevailing 'Propertarian'
libertarian solution? Sounds more like chaos, which gives real anarchy a bad
name.
Second of all, if painting public property is okay in your view, why not
allow all types of defacement? For example, maybe I'm a sculptor with a jack
hammer and believe that swiss cheese sidewalks are neat. Is that okay? Or
maybe I'd like to recreate an IED death scene from Baghdad with real blood
or something. Are there limits to what I can do with my art? Who decides
this?
Thirdly, are you suggesting that legalizing graffiti is going to marginalize
tagging related to gang turf wars? I'm having trouble believing that people
in suits are going to stop by the mission after work and paint daisies over
gang symbols - and live.
And lastly, how does democratizing the commons relate to freedom? Hasn't the
majority voted against graffiti which is why it's illegal already?
I'm not anti-art by any stretch. I appreciate the numerous murals around the
city, especially those funded by private sources. But I think promoting
graffiti chaos is neither practical nor just.
d
David,
You raise good points and interesting questions. My responses below...
Seriously Starchild? Assuming so, I think this is wrong on various levels.
First of all, are you are promoting the tragedy of the commons as some sort of true freedom land in contrast to the prevailing ‘Propertarian’ libertarian solution? Sounds more like chaos, which gives real anarchy a bad name.
I disagree that this is a "tragedy of the commons" situation. That phrase referred to over-grazing of common land, which ruined it for everyone. But allowing lots of graffiti to flourish doesn't render common space unusable for anyone, it merely renders the common environment more colorful, and less aesthetically appealing to some. That's a huge difference!
Second of all, if painting public property is okay in your view, why not allow all types of defacement? For example, maybe I’m a sculptor with a jack hammer and believe that swiss cheese sidewalks are neat. Is that okay? Or maybe I’d like to recreate an IED death scene from Baghdad with real blood or something. Are there limits to what I can do with my art? Who decides this?
I think the standard should be whether the beautification substantially interferes with other uses. So your hypothetical "swiss cheese sidewalks" might be okay if the holes were very small (heck, it might even help with drainage runoff!), or just on one part of the sidewalk, but if the holes were covering the entire walk and large enough to make it dangerous for people to navigate the space, then maybe not.
I hope you can understand my amusement though, that you, an anarchist, would ask me "who decides this?" In your model, you might respond, "Whoever owns the property"; in my proposed model I might similarly respond, "Whoever 'owns' (figuratively speaking) the property by proving themselves to be the greatest stakeholder as measured by persistence and effectiveness of effort."
Thirdly, are you suggesting that legalizing graffiti is going to marginalize tagging related to gang turf wars? I’m having trouble believing that people in suits are going to stop by the mission after work and paint daisies over gang symbols - and live.
Gang turf wars, as we know, mostly stem from the War on Drugs, so the ultimate solution to that issue and its manifestations lies elsewhere. But I think my proposal could have some positive effects on gang tagging. Since graffiti is at present treated as a criminal act, only those disposed to break the law engage in it. Thus if it were legal, gang members -- already responsible for only a small portion of all the tagging out there -- would probably make up an even smaller portion.
With city officials no longer engaged in removing graffiti and persecuting graffiti artists, I think the amount of graffiti would rapidly proliferate to a point that things would be getting painted over frequently, and this would be so common that I don't think gangs would have any particular animus toward someone painting something of theirs over unless it were done as a deliberate provocation by a rival gang or something.
And lastly, how does democratizing the commons relate to freedom? Hasn’t the majority voted against graffiti which is why it’s illegal already?
I'm not talking about *democratizing* the commons -- that's more or less what we have now. The majority's views on how the commons should be used, as poorly implemented by the representatives who make a career out of pandering to those views enough to win elections, are enforced by law at the expense of other views.
I want to *individualize* the commons, making it more of a free space for each *individual* to do his or her own thing so long as it does not prevent other uses, regardless of whether the majority likes it or not. That imho is a more libertarian approach.
I’m not anti-art by any stretch. I appreciate the numerous murals around the city, especially those funded by private sources. But I think promoting graffiti chaos is neither practical nor just.
I understand you're not anti-art. But maybe you don't fully see graffiti as art? I admit that some of it is marginal to me too, but like the Internet which also contains much shlock, I'm willing to give the overall culture a chance to be free and flourish and see what it produces.
Ever notice that the nicely done murals, like truly beautiful and ornate buildings, do not tend to get tagged? Graffiti artists generally avoid tagging such surfaces, and instead concentrate their skills on surfaces that are plainer and uglier to begin with. This indicates to me a theory of the commons that "good art drives out bad," and that what we could expect from decriminalizing street art in the commons is actually a much more beautiful city over time.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
"I’m having trouble believing that people in suits are going to stop by the mission after work and paint daisies over gang symbols..."
Me too, actually. I think they'd be slow to join the street art movement, but once it really started gathering steam, I think they'd be more likely to organize beautification projects in places like the Marina on weekends, and I think the results would tend to feature fewer bright pastels, countercultural themes, and ethnic celebrities, and more earth tones, modern art, and bucolic landscapes. But I could be wrong.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy, Chain gangs might be good if they were populated by those actually guilty of real crimes against others, but as most are victims of unconstitutional laws against consenual entrepreunial activities or common testilying, as I have never heard of a cop going to jail for perjury, or for that matter, a wall street banker for fraud, so lets leave the chain gang ideas to the neo cons.
Sorry, but gotta disagree with you on that one, Starchild. Most of those "hit-and-run" taggers are far more worried about being shot or beaten up by a rival gang than getting a police citation.
Of course, legalize the drugs, and the gangs disappear almost overnight (such as after alcohol prohibition was ended), along with most of the tagging, leaving only the "street artists" who I think most people wouldn't mind.
Huuuuummmm, don't like your solution of my painting over the graffiti myself. I will just keep pressuring the government to take care of it!!
Marcy
And who pays for this space where people can do all that stuff? If a private individual chooses to purchase and set aside a piece of his/her property for that purpose, I would not object. However, if the space is paid for with my money (taxes), then I have a say so; the tax-paid space should reflect the wishes of the majority of those who paid.
Marcy
Hi Phil,
The "Justice" of our criminal system is subject for a whole lot of new discussion!
Marcy
Marcy,
So you favor a "winner-take-all" system for use of public space, rather than proportional representation? "Winner take all" hasn't worked very well in politics, where minority views like ours get shut out. What makes you think it's a better approach for what occurs in common space controlled by government and maintained with tax dollars? If the principle is that "he tax-paid space should reflect the wishes of the majority of those who paid," what happens to the First Amendment?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I'm sure many people who prefer not to be directly involved with charity, supporting the arts, educating children, etc., would say much the same thing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Okay fair enough. I'm not going to respond to all of your points
specifically, but as a libertarian I like to promote privatization of all
common areas, not better ways to manage them or make them more equitable.
So my comment about 'who decides this' was more rhetorical, as of course it
would be the property owner and not a board of art equalization or 'two
wolves and a sheep' deciding what type of art is valid. I like your idea of
homesteading public property as long as it's perpetual and not just
transient or 'I own the tag that is layered under 5 other tags' etc.
All good though.. d
Btw - I think I'm more of a minarchist with anarcho-capitalist leanings