Graffiti – Good or Bad?

It lowers property values and increases crime according to a Local Voices writing by Tim H in the Royal Oak Patch. The author wrote his piece on April 1, 2013 calling on city hall to do something. Interesting is that almost two years earlier, June 2, 2011, Lynn Cobb wrote an opinion piece about the same.

Public graffiti is a subject that has crossed my mind often and given rise to many social gathering debates over the years. My current residence is in a city where if you stand still too long someone may tag you with paint. Previously I lived in a zero tolerance for graffiti city. In traveling to different areas of this Earth my mind registers similarities and differences where this public display of expression exists and where it doesn’t.

Why do people create graffiti?  Gang marking is one reason for painting walls. They do it to mark their territory as an animal would do in the wild, but with a different substance. It doesn’t take research reports to tell people that a city allowing gang markings gives power to the gangs and works against the better interest of the people.

Political statements are something I frequently see in foreign countries. Politicians are called names. And I have seen way more “Gringos go home,” type messages than I like.

Love - Really does defacing property demonstrate your love for another person more than spending the money on flowers or a gift rather than paint? Maybe I am off base here, but do women really feel more love toward a guy who breaks the law to show the world his sentiments?

My wife believes that some graffiti is by people wanting respect for what they call art. But how do they expect to get respect for it if they do not respect the property of others?

People do it just to be destructive. They purposely want to create chaos and disorder. Often what they put on walls and other things means nothing except to them. It is vandalism, destruction of property; a crime. The perpetrator gets hit for the cost of the paint and gains nothing except a boost to his ego for illegal activities. The public taxpayers pay for much more. One has to wonder if that person will really be a contributing member of society in the future.

Does paint cause the problems?  Now does the application of paint to private and/or public structures for any of the above reasons reduce property values or increase crime. No, paint does not do that. However, the belief in the minds of people does cause these detrimental events to happen along with such other deteriorations as littering. In areas where graffiti is an approved art form these negative things do not happen. In fact some government approved graffiti actually helps improve and promote places. But what we are talking about here is the difference between approved legal paintings and illegal paintings.

One proponent of graffiti, when I mentioned about the art being bad, told me that some architecture is bad and they still allow that. He further contended that graffiti is a social expression that is just a part of culture and has been done for many years. He also disagreed with me that it was destruction of public property. “Modification,” he said.

Indeed graffiti artists have made their mark across nations. Blek le Rat might be considered the godfather of today’s purveyors of the art. He started in France and has had exhibits around the world as well as published books.  It is believed that he inspired the British graffitist Banksy, who also reached international acclaim for his work. In fact a piece of his graffiti was removed from a wall to be auctioned and the neighborhood went crazy demanding its return.

 In early April 2013 the Russian graffitist known as P183 died at the age of 29. His work had reached international acclaim. His demise was reported in publications across the world. When asked in an interview why he engaged in graffiti he said, “Put simply, I want to teach people in this country to tell lies from the truth and to tell bad from good.”

What are some places doing about it?  In Fresno, California the penalties are strong for graffiti. Also they had (and may still have) a city truck with apparatus to remove graffiti or paint over it. Residents could call and a worker would come soon and clean up the illegal painting. Part of the idea is to help property values. But as one person commented, Wall Street bankers hurt home values much more than graffiti and nothing happened to them.

 In Singapore you see zero graffiti. In my opinion it is not so much the laws that keep it from happening but the respect the people have for each other.

 In Bogotá the government authorizes places for graffitists to place their art.

 My opinion  Does this mean that I approve of the practice of defacing places with paint? That is a yes and a no. I believe in the promotion of art and that the consideration of what is good and bad is subjective. However, the global manifestations of allowing the crime are much greater than allowing some punks to blow off steam or make a statement. It is blatant subversion of the laws. There are other methods for one to put forth their political or love message or demonstrate their artistic talent.

 The difference in all of this is whether what is being painted is allowed or not allowed. For instance my neighbor has a wall. Some young people came and asked her if they could paint it. She gave them permission with the provision that it had to be tasteful according to her taste. On the other hand tagging on public signs and bridge structures is illegal. Rather meaning if you do not own it 100% or if you do not have permission then do not paint it.

Cities should promote art, but they should take a hard stance on illegal painting. Even the famous graffitist Blek le Rat got hit with a hefty fine and promised jail time if he paints another wall without authorization. Perhaps walls can be designated in the city to be decorated by approved graffitists, as Bogotá has done. However, those committing the offense of illegal painting should be taught there are other methods to express themselves and/or get their message heard. And if graffiti is done just for the sake of vandalism then severe punishment should be administered. The crime is a difficult one in which to catch the person; therefore punishment should be sufficient to discourage it. Letting perpetrators get away the crime hurts everyone.

After two years of public complaints what exactly the Royal Oak city hall will do (if anything) will be of interest.