This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Graffitti at the Q Station - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Graffitti at the Q Station

2

Comments

  • emily
    emily
    djuoh wrote: Whyfi,

    I would gladly meet you in person to discuss all these questions with you. What do you think?
    Honestly, you're not doing a very good job of making any reader of this board want to meet you. I quite agree with escap. It astonishes me that posters on these boards continue the tired tactic of making assumptions about others' backgrounds in order to dismiss their opinions.
  • djuoh
    djuoh
    You mean to tell me that you never assume someone's identity? You take everyone as they come and assume that they are some "cyber neighbor" that doesn't represent a kind?

    Sure the debate was a heated one, but I wasn't dimissing the point at any time.

    If this is a neighborhood blog, then I want to meet a neighbor that wants to issue threats face to face. We will meet some day, and figure it out like "cyber neighbor beings" with no assumptions of who we are :D
  • emily
    emily
    djuoh wrote: You mean to tell me that you never assume someone's identity?
    Assumptions about someone's race? With zero information to indicate what it is, one way or another? As a reason to dismiss their opinions? I'd like to think I don't.

    If you took what WhyFi said to be a threat rather than an example (after all, he doesn't know about any physical property you own, only about your website) then, well, I don't know what to say. To me it was immensely obvious that he was just making a point, but perhaps that's because I've gotten to know and respect him.
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    djuoh wrote: Sure the debate was a heated one, but I wasn't dimissing the point at any time.
    Attacking anything BUT the subject matter isn't being dismissive? A debate consists of points and counter-points, I didn't see you attempting that.
    djuoh wrote: If this is a neighborhood blog, then I want to meet a neighbor that wants to issue threats face to face. We will meet some day, and figure it out like "cyber neighbor beings" with no assumptions of who we are :D
    Relax - Any rational person would see that I was illustrating a point. I thought that the
    Here, let me pose an analogous situation that you might understand -
    made that pretty plain. But evidently my example hit a little too close to home for your tastes. If it did, my apologies.

    So, what now? Do you want to make your point in favor of graffiti? I'm all for a discussion, but I don't have the time or desire for a pissing match.
  • muk
    muk
    Well, it's human nature to draw inferences about someone's identity in the course of any dialogue. However, creating a strawman that you can set up and knock down isn't winning you any points in the actual argument.

    Under your rules, for example, someone could invalidate your points by simply saying that you are the "kind" of person who cannot engage in rational discourse because of a predisposition to ad hominem attacks and cultural generalization.

    And we know that can't be right.

    And most importantly: HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO MOVE THOSE T-SHIRTS BY RILING UP THESE GOOD FOLKS??!

    (Fire your PR guy.)

    (Desi power in da heezy.)
    djuoh wrote: You mean to tell me that you never assume someone's identity? You take everyone as they come and assume that they are some "cyber neighbor" that doesn't represent a kind?

    Sure the debate was a heated one, but I wasn't dimissing the point at any time.

    If this is a neighborhood blog, then I want to meet a neighbor that wants to issue threats face to face. We will meet some day, and figure it out like "cyber neighbor beings" with no assumptions of who we are :D
  • homeowner
    homeowner
    I live on a block where a couple purchased a house for a LOT of money. They put a fair amount of work into the interior and exterior, however, they opted not to move in and instead rented out the basement apartment to a young guy. A few days ago I walked past the house and saw that someone had spray painted "dick" and then a tag on the front of the house outside the renter's windows.

    In my mind this is the type of graffiti that Why-Fi is complaining about. It is not art, nor is there any justification for it. The owners of the home now have to pay someone to remove it. Do I want the police to ignore the drug sales on the block to arrest the graffiti artist? Nope. But I think that if the person who painted it saw that cops were serious about policing, they might not have done it in the first place. And, as a life-long Brooklynite if I catch you tagging my house I'm gonna take it as an open invitation to beat that ass.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    homeowner wrote: And, as a life-long Brooklynite if I catch you tagging my house I'm gonna take it as an open invitation to beat that ass.
    I'll join you opening a can of whoop ass.
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    But what if the guy had done a cool pic instead of painting "dick"? Should the owners be less upset? I don't think so. In the end, altering someone else's property without their consent is always wrong. Whether it's a brownstone in the Slope or some old warehouse in Gowanus. I say this even though I think graffitti can be cool. And I'm always looking around for another Neck Face.

    It's kinda like downloading someone else's music/film. It's always wrong, even if it gets a free pass a lot of the time. Believe me I spent some time on Napster back in the day but every time I did it I knew I was stealing.
  • escap
    escap
    If someone scratched a picasso into my car's paint job (not that I have a car, but if I did), I'd be pretty ticked off. Oh, and I'm born and raised in Fort Greene Brooklyn, since that's all that's really important here, right?
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    escap wrote: If someone scratched a picasso into my car's paint job (not that I have a car, but if I did), I'd be pretty ticked off. Oh, and I'm born and raised in Fort Greene Brooklyn, since that's all that's really important here, right?
    if they did that to my car and i seen them doing that. well they'll be eating a mouth full of teeth.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    BigGuy wrote:
    It's kinda like downloading someone else's music/film. It's always wrong, even if it gets a free pass a lot of the time. Believe me I spent some time on Napster back in the day but every time I did it I knew I was stealing.
    Not sure about this. I see a difference between "wrong" and "against the law". Graffiti might be a crime against property, but does that make it always "wrong"?. Property rights are a cornerstone of civil society but I'm not sure they're always "right" if theft was also a part of how they got that way.

    From a purely consumer perspective: if a good piece in my estimation raises the aesthetic character of a monotonous, brutalist or decrepit cityscape, it makes my day happier. If it lowers the standard of a well-maintained, historic, or more interesting structure or otherwise generally sucks in my opinion, it's an artistic crime. As for the infringed rights of the generally more empowered property owner vs. the generally less empowered graffitist... not my problem. Take it up with the law if you want, but this small fry on the scale of anarchic threats to society. And if it happened to me and I didn't like it, I'd be annoyed but able to afford it or have insurance.

    I'm impressed by solutions I've seen in some cities with much higher historic and aesthetic standards than New York. The city identifies substantial amounts of property it regards as monotonous or decrepit by comparison with its more presentable areas, and says "go for it". And they do and it's good. This is win-win.
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    Regarding the downloading, I agree that there can be a difference between wrong and illegal. I believe it's both.

    Regarding graffitti, I don't think the 'sticking it to the man' theory really floats. Everyone one is "the man" to someone else - would you mind if someone tagged something you owned, because they perceive you as higher on the chain? Also, no one is going to trace the provenance of a building to determine if the owner's ancestors gained their money in an acceptable fashion (in their opinion) before tagging it. Nor should they have the right to. Remember that those "montonous or decrepit" buildings belong to someone.

    There's no rational basis for defending things like tagging and downloading. It boils down to two simple principles that seem pretty solid to me:

    1. Altering somone else's property against their will is wrong.
    2. Copying somone else's creative work against their will is wrong.

    These are also generally illegal.
  • drano
    drano
    BigGuy wrote: 1. Altering somone else's property against their will is wrong.
    2. Copying somone else's creative work against their will is wrong.
    Seems straightforward enough, doesn't it? But prepare yourself for more rationalizations...ya know, just in case.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    Drano wrote: [quote=BigGuy]1. Altering somone else's property against their will is wrong.
    2. Copying somone else's creative work against their will is wrong.
    Seems straightforward enough, doesn't it? But prepare yourself for more rationalizations...ya know, just in case.image
  • homeowner
    homeowner
    There is also a piling on effect with graffiti where one tag leads to another then another and another and before you know it the side of a building is covered in "non-artistic" tags.

    While its great to rationalize that the property owner has insurance and more power, that may not be the case. Lord knows we've beaten the subject of property rich, cash poor people to death on this board. There may be people who can't afford the deductible to clean the crap off the front of their houses. Then they, and we, are stuck with it.

    Over on the CH board there have been plenty of complaints about "Why don't these people clean the graffiti off their buildings?" Its interesting to me that the perspective is so different just a few blocks away.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    homeowner wrote: There is also a piling on effect with graffiti where one tag leads to another then another and another and before you know it the side of a building is covered in "non-artistic" tags.

    oh man you are right, the piling effect isnt cool at all. its like when there is a broken window and junk. people will continue to throw stuff in and break new windows and other things. its not cool.

    when i got the building that i'm in now. there was garbage in the front yard. even after i clean out the garbage. people from all over the place kept bring garbage anyway. took like litterally months to get rid of the dumping problem.


    everyday there would be new garbage, i take it away and than next day new ones. i gotten tickets for it. and i clean it up and people will still do it. to a point me thinking of just staking out the house with a bat and catching whom ever is doing it and giving them a good ole fashion beat down.


    now i get a diffrent problem after i clean it out. i get tons and tons of flyers :(. they throw six of each cause there is 6 bells installed. hehe thank the gods i havent install the one bell for myself yet. would be 7 of each items.
  • djuoh
    djuoh
    If you live near a commercial street, the culprits are the crack-heads, no joke. There is a racket where the crack-heads are paid to take garbage from the commercial spaces and dump them in residential spaces.

    Commercial spaces are required to hire sanitation services and keep a dumpster. The issue is that Bloomberg's administration has made it a policy that one can not keep a dumpster in front of most properties even if there isn't an alley. So these businesses pay for rubbish removal and then get fined for keeping a dumpster.

    It ends up in your yard and the city doesn't care. They just want to fine everyone. The sanitation police are ruthless and the locals used to threaten them when they used to come around.
  • drano
    drano
    djuoh wrote: If you live near a commercial street, the culprits are the crack-heads, no joke. There is a racket where the crack-heads are paid to take garbage from the commercial spaces and dump them in residential spaces.

    Commercial spaces are required to hire sanitation services and keep a dumpster. The issue is that Bloomberg's administration has made it a policy that one can not keep a dumpster in front of most properties even if there isn't an alley. So these businesses pay for rubbish removal and then get fined for keeping a dumpster.

    It ends up in your yard and the city doesn't care. They just want to fine everyone. The sanitation police are ruthless and the locals used to threaten them when they used to come around.
    So what does our buddy Armchair do? Is he screwed any way you cut it?
  • djuoh
    djuoh
    Call 311 and complain. Or wait for the crack-head to do it and catch them in the act and tell him/her not to do it. There isn't much else you can do.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    yeap i was boned when it was happing for months.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    BigGuy wrote:
    There's no rational basis for defending things like tagging and downloading. It boils down to two simple principles that seem pretty solid to me:

    1. Altering somone else's property against their will is wrong.
    2. Copying somone else's creative work against their will is wrong.

    These are also generally illegal.
    Generally also illegal. But not always wrong says my moral compass. We have a difference of opinion. Property is theft; not meaning that theft is right or property is wrong, but that the world is shades of gray and we're all ultimately renters not owners. This might reflect a difference in our respective heritages: e.g. a nation founded by puritans vs. founded by thieves ;)
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    I think we do have a difference of opinion, or perhaps more likely a difference of contexts.

    Ultimately, it'll all be swallowed up by the sun (if it has enough mass to go red giant), and we are clearly renters, not owners. But in the context of human relations on this little planet, I think it's wrong to mess with someone else's shit like that. I understand that all of the non-hydrogen atoms in my car were created inside of a star somewhere. And of course they will be re-allocated in the future. But please don't tag them while they're part of my car.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    BigGuy wrote: I think we do have a difference of opinion, or perhaps more likely a difference of contexts.
    Subtext über alles.
    BigGuy wrote:
    Ultimately, it'll all be swallowed up by the sun (if it has enough mass to go red giant), and we are clearly renters, not owners. But in the context of human relations on this little planet, I think it's wrong to mess with someone else's shit like that. I understand that all of the non-hydrogen atoms in my car were created inside of a star somewhere. And of course they will be re-allocated in the future. But please don't tag them while they're part of my car.
    You mean to say you _own_ a _car_ ?? Man, that's waaaay too phreaky for me. You win; your logical positivism kicks my ethical relativist butt. I'm taking my balls home so I can play with them by myself.

    But seriously folks... if someone's property has been defaced against their will, granted it's generally the Wrong Thing (TM) to do, the least we can do is appreciate the aesthetic in the moment when it's good. Otherwise it were all for naught.


    image
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    BigGuy wrote: I think we do have a difference of opinion, or perhaps more likely a difference of contexts.

    Ultimately, it'll all be swallowed up by the sun (if it has enough mass to go red giant), and we are clearly renters, not owners. But in the context of human relations on this little planet, I think it's wrong to mess with someone else's shit like that. I understand that all of the non-hydrogen atoms in my car were created inside of a star somewhere. And of course they will be re-allocated in the future. But please don't tag them while they're part of my car.
    HA! You're a nerd!!!

    When are we going to the next LAN party?! :twisted:
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    WhyFi wrote: HA! You're a nerd!!!

    When are we going to the next LAN party?! :twisted:
    Try to maintain some decorum...........Minister! :evil:
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    Oh man I am so aching for a LAN party. Pizza, beer and guns.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    BigGuy wrote: Oh man I am so aching for a LAN party. Pizza, beer and guns.
    wait wait i always thought i was pizza beer and girls?
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    BigGuy wrote: Oh man I am so aching for a LAN party. Pizza, beer and guns.
    Never been... not that I have anything portable enough... nor have I put in a ton of hours on an FPS.
  • whyfi
    whyfi
    Carnivore wrote: Try to maintain some decorum...........Minister! :evil:
    Sure are prudish for being incestial... :twisted:
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    Nah - anything portable probably sucks anyway. You bring the whole thing, and stay all day & night.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories