"Reverse Graffiti": Should Selective Cleaning Be Illegal?

[Kilgore Trout]

from the ny times magazine:

December 10, 2006
Reverse Graffiti (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-7.html?ex=1323406800&en=97e5eaa062c8c7e6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
By RICHARD MORGAN

The British artist Paul Curtis is not sure what to call his version of vandalism. “People call it ‘reverse graffiti,’ ” he says, “but I prefer something less sinister: ‘clean tagging’ or ‘grime writing.’ ” Curtis, a k a Moose, selectively scrubs dirty, derelict city property (tunnel walls, sidewalks) so that words and images are formed by the cleaned bits. “It’s refacing,” he says, “not defacing. Just restoring a surface to its original state. It’s very temporary. It glows and it twinkles, and then it fades away.”

To pay for industrial scrubbers, he has sold some of his reverse graffiti as advertising. But mostly he sticks to his own art. Critics, like the City Council in Leeds, have accused him of breaking the law, but for what? Cleaning without a permit? “Once you do this,” he says, “you make people confront whether or not they like people cleaning walls or if they really have a problem with personal expression.”

there's also an NPR story here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3379017).

http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/jul/graffiti/gallery/gently.jpg

http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/jul/graffiti/gallery/bigbrother.jpg

http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/jul/graffiti/gallery/hype.jpg

http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2004/jul/graffiti/gallery/xbox.jpg

more examples of moose's work here (http://symbollix.com/main.html).

[tackledspoon]

I've long been a supporter of intelligent street art and this guy seems like one of the most intelligent. He's doing something unique and his pieces have a very subtle beauty to them. In all of the situations pictured above, the scene is more beautiful for his work.

[Saddle Man]

this guy is kickass

[CGII]

That's awesome.

[brian_b]

Very interesting. I don't like graffiti of any kind, but at least his kind of graffiti is easy to "clean"

[Cleveland Brown]

very smart indeed :tup:

[keninhalifax]

Wow; this certainly makes me think a lot more than most graffiti art. Neat link, KT!

[someone123]

Very interesting. It should still be illegal if he does it without permission though, since these surfaces are not his property.

[SHiRO]

Cleaning should be illegal?

[niwell]

This is incredible

[Zerton]

i like graffiti we need some good stuff here.

[Kilgore Trout]

Very interesting. It should still be illegal if he does it without permission though, since these surfaces are not his property.


most of the surfaces, as you can see, are public property: sidewalks, tunnel walls, etc.

i hope you're not suggesting that it should be illegal to clean public property?

[Tom In Chicago]

Someone did that to my car recently. . . they scribbled "WASH ME" on the hood. . . my lawyers are working in shifts to get to the bottom of this. . .

[brickell]

most of the surfaces, as you can see, are public property: sidewalks, tunnel walls, etc.

i hope you're not suggesting that it should be illegal to clean public property?

I appreciate the thought, but this goes beyond regular "cleaning". Most of his stuff is pleasant on the eyes, but consider random taggers doing the same thing. You'd have to put just as much work "cleaning" the tag as you would if it was a spray painted. Not only that, but the cleaning process would remove that patina that I believe makes cities what they are.

[mhays]

Even "cleaning" might cause shading variations that would be visible after later cleanings.

Also, it's still an image on property that isn't his, whether it's public or private.

I don't hate this guy as much as I hate taggers.

[Via Chicago]

Even "cleaning" might cause shading variations that would be visible after later cleanings.

Also, it's still an image on property that isn't his, whether it's public or private.

so next time i brush up against a filthy wall that hasnt been cleaned in 30 years in the subway and i leave a mark, im breaking the law? sorry, but this guy is totally protected.

[mhays]

(edit: dupl.)

[SpongeG]

cool stuff

[GeorgeLV]

This is more of the category of chalk art than graffiti. It's removable at no to little expense and the artist isn't causing any harm so why give him any grief over it.

(Now that I look at more pictures I wonder if his "industrial scrubbers" are removing a gloss/sealant from some of the surfaces. If that's the case, then what he's doing is pretty permanent and that isn't cool.)

[beesbees]

They're easy to get rid of.. a hose would do it!

How can this be compared to spray graffiti?

[BnaBreaker]

That's pretty bad ass. I like it.

[rockyi]

I like what I see of his work here.
If the artist is good and it's done in the right place, I really can appreciate good graffiti. With all of the train crossings in my (and most) town(s), it's what makes waiting for a train worthwhile. Looking at all of the artist's variations from car to car as they pass in front of you, like a moving art exibit.
The every day type tagger, though.......most need to be clubbed over the head.

[CGII]

I like what I see of his work here.
If the artist is good and it's done in the right place, I really can appreciate good graffiti. With all of the train crossings in my (and most) town(s), it's what makes waiting for a train worthwhile. Looking at all of the artist's variations from car to car as they pass in front of you, like a moving art exibit.
The every day type tagger, though.......most need to be clubbed over the head.

Agreed. I can get into the well done, colourful mural like stuff, but the one lined tags like you see in SF are awful.

[someone123]

most of the surfaces, as you can see, are public property: sidewalks, tunnel walls, etc.

i hope you're not suggesting that it should be illegal to clean public property?

Yes, it should be illegal unless they have permission.

What is and isn't "cleaning" is open to debate. The fact is that this kind of activity involves property not strictly owned by the person who is altering it. Public property is not property that every individual has full control over, it is owned collectively and legally is normally the property of an entity such as a city that is capable of doing its own cleaning and maintenance.

[kool maudit]

the social value of allowing people to create images upon publically viewable surfaces might outweigh the strictest property-law considerations here.

[someone123]

the social value of allowing people to create images upon publically viewable surfaces might outweigh the strictest property-law considerations here.

Perhaps that's something for those with the true property rights to consider.

[kool maudit]

you are ignoring the concept of a public realm, in which property-owners consent to operate (zoning etc.)

i think you are being sort of overly literal/legalistic here.

[SHiRO]

the social value of allowing people to create images upon publically viewable surfaces might outweigh the strictest property-law considerations here.
:yes:

[someone123]

you are ignoring the concept of a public realm, in which property-owners consent to operate (zoning etc.)

I am not sure that this kind of reasoning is sufficient to demonstrate that any particular type of activity should be allowed, because there are all kinds of things that people aren't permitted to do even within a "public realm".

The problem with permitting this kind of graffiti without the consent of property owners is that the difference between "cleaning" and "defacing" property is completely arbitrary. What if I wanted to "clean" a giant "FUCK" sign onto the side of somebody's house? Who exactly is supposed to judge what is or isn't appropriate? The only reasonable answer there seems to be that the property owner (all of these surfaces are owned by some person or entity) should be the one to judge, since ultimately it is the state and value of their property that will be affected by these activities. That seems to be a whole lot more reasonable than placing the decision in the hands of somebody who, at the end of the day, isn't personally affected much by any damage they might cause.

[scribeman]

Oooh. Those pics are very pretty.
I suppose people will just have to adapt to graffiti or be beaten to death till they stop.

[CGII]

Oooh. Those pics are very pretty.
I suppose people will just have to adapt to graffiti or be beaten to death till they stop.

What?

[AZheat]

I'm not a big fan of graffiti. It sounds like a few people think it's chic and sophisticated for some asshole to tell us what gang he belongs to or how we should go fuck ourselves. Now at least this reverse graffiti thing is a little bit interesting (just a little) but from the graffiti I've seen around town I don't think that Van Gogh or Salvador Dali are going to be overtaken anytime soon.

[suga]

Graffiti writers in Los Angeles have done sthis for decades(and other cities Im sure), they're called dust tags. It's the combo of neglected public surfaces being around idle kids involved in antisocial behavior that created this phenomena, not some british dude(but props to his creativity), I just get annoyed by the whole "whiteguy reinventing the wheel" thingy. In my city police arrest and prosecute black and brown kids for this all the time, I have seen walls never before cleaned in my life washed after a few dust tags.

[KevinFromTexas]

I rather like graffiti, it breaks up the monotony of city surfaces. That is most certainly not "defacing property". And I don't think it should be illegal. As long as he's not using any type of cleaning chemicals or tools that would harm the surfaces, then I don't see any problem.

Besides people have come to view graffiti in a better way, not defacing property, but art. I've even seen some businesses commission artists to do advertisements or signs for their buildings like these in Waco, Texas.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/KevinFromTexas/Waco%20November%2026%202006/P1030528EDIT.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/KevinFromTexas/Waco%20November%2026%202006/P1030529EDIT.jpg

[beesbees]

Yes, it should be illegal unless they have permission.

What is and isn't "cleaning" is open to debate. The fact is that this kind of activity involves property not strictly owned by the person who is altering it. Public property is not property that every individual has full control over, it is owned collectively and legally is normally the property of an entity such as a city that is capable of doing its own cleaning and maintenance.



Well arguably if they are looked after collectively, then are aren't being looked after very well if theres 3 inches of dust on it.

[Kilgore Trout]

I am not sure that this kind of reasoning is sufficient to demonstrate that any particular type of activity should be allowed, because there are all kinds of things that people aren't permitted to do even within a "public realm".

The problem with permitting this kind of graffiti without the consent of property owners is that the difference between "cleaning" and "defacing" property is completely arbitrary. What if I wanted to "clean" a giant "FUCK" sign onto the side of somebody's house? Who exactly is supposed to judge what is or isn't appropriate? The only reasonable answer there seems to be that the property owner (all of these surfaces are owned by some person or entity) should be the one to judge, since ultimately it is the state and value of their property that will be affected by these activities. That seems to be a whole lot more reasonable than placing the decision in the hands of somebody who, at the end of the day, isn't personally affected much by any damage they might cause.

yes, from a strictly theoretical perspective, you are right --- but you are ignoring some of the nuances that are already built into the law. for instance, in montreal, it is legal to mount posters on construction hoardings or boarded-up storefronts, regardless of the wishes of the property owner.

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not a big fan of graffiti. It sounds like a few people think it's chic and sophisticated for some asshole to tell us what gang he belongs to or how we should go fuck ourselves.

there is nothing inherently illegal or gang-related about street art (which includes graffiti, stencils, posters, stickers, installations and performance art). if you see mostly gang graffiti and profane messages, that speaks only to phoenix's lack of artistic dynamism and not to street art in general.

here are three examples of innovative non-graffiti street art:

http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/12/06/witzspring2.jpg

http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/12/06/postitjc2.jpg

http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/12/06/sprinklechristmas.jpg

[KevinFromTexas]

if you see mostly gang graffiti and profane messages, that speaks only to phoenix's lack of artistic dynamism and not to street art in general.

Bingo. You usually see a lot of tagging, which is not really what I'd consider to be graffiti, rather it is gang related in most cases. Or else some punk suburbanite kids with nothing better to do. And you usually find this stuff in suburban areas oddly enough. It does happen in downtown and urban areas too of course. One kid was tagging businesses along South Congress in Austin. Doors, windows, whatever. An owner of one of the businesses decided to look up the tagged name, "Gimez", or something or other, on Myspace, and found the kid's profile there. It was clearly him as he had images of him doing it. The guy reported it to the cops, and the kid and his family were forced to pay for the damages, about $75,000 worth on that block.

http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/12/06/sprinklechristmas.jpg

I remember last year in West Austin someone was decorating the Cedar and Juniper trees as Christmas trees along Capital of Texas Highway, complete with garland, ornaments and even some fake presents under the trees. TxDot argued that it was illegal, since it could be considered a distraction to traffic. I believe they kept doing it, though.

[Taller Better]

Graffiti writers in Los Angeles have done sthis for decades(and other cities Im sure), they're called dust tags. It's the combo of neglected public surfaces being around idle kids involved in antisocial behavior that created this phenomena, not some british dude(but props to his creativity), I just get annoyed by the whole "whiteguy reinventing the wheel" thingy. In my city police arrest and prosecute black and brown kids for this all the time, I have seen walls never before cleaned in my life washed after a few dust tags.

That is extremely interesting, and you are absolutely right about some people trying to appropriate things as their own invention.

Dust tags sound very creative, and the examples shown were quite brilliant.
As for graffiti, I think it is important to distinguish between interesting stuff and mindless tagging.
Not everything sprayed onto a building is equally interesting. Much tagging is about as creative as peeing
on a wall.

[LoKKiTo]

Graffiti died when it left NYC...

Well you know the saying. If you can't beat em..

NYC's Bloomturd launched a massive campaign against graffiti. Guess what... It's still everywhere on everything. It got to the point where crews were sent around on trucks to paint the light post for the first time ever (Although they are just receiving new coats of graffiti now). I don't think they will bother with that again. As soon as it gets painted, it's nothing but a fresh canvas for new talent.

There is so much graffiti in this city it is impossible to stop it. Just when the city thought it solved the problem, it just bites them in the ass.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pix/chfdept/graffiti/graffiti.jpg

Hahaha!

http://www.lounge37.com/images/71/11_Skuf_truck01_7172.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/24/nyregion/25moth_mta.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/25/nyregion/25mta.1902.jpg

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/forgottenblog/graffiti9.jpg

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/forgottenblog/graffiti8.jpg

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/forgottenblog/graffiti6.jpg

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/forgottenblog/graffiti7.jpg

http://www.lounge37.com/images/71/27_nyms_01_street_throw_7189.jpg

http://www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/pix/schoolkids%20at%20graffiti.jpg

http://pixibition.zoto.com/img/original/38e02e6824c1370afc99f3580b795b25-.jpg

http://www.airmassive.com/wasabi/archives/uptown_graftruck_3_w428.jpg

http://eastcoastwestcoast.typepad.com/eastcoastwestcoast/images/graffiti.JPG

http://photos4.flickr.com/5842660_522c9576f4.jpg

http://dayinthelyfe.com/pictures/graffiti/USA/New%20York%20City/DSC03902.JPG

http://www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/pix/5-train-pano.jpg

Oddly NYC doesn't have the highest rate of property crime in the USA... hmm. These aren't even the low income areas which have significantly MORE graffiti.

[cornholio]

First of all a majority of grafitty is not gang related infact if you look at the above pics then I can safely say that not a single piece of graffity is gang related. Now regarding taging i dont have much of a opinion but regular graffity I find livens up most bland neighbourhoods and blank walls.
I should also add that when I was younger I was very much in to graffity, and did my fare share of tagging, pieces, etc. so I have a different perspective then most people on here.

[Amanita]

Wow, that picture of all those buildings with the huge murals on their brick sides is awesome- whole murals like that tend to be awesome pieces. But the scrawled tags? Ugh. As somebody said, that's about as creative as pissing on a wall. I love the reverse graffitti at the beginning of this thread, it's gorgeous. If only more street art was that cool.

[volguus zildrohar]

Why not have some of these cities install 'youth art commissions' to oversee this 'street art' and remove what it deems 'excessive' or 'inartistic'. Then we're all happy.

I can surely think of a few places I'd prefer not to see someone's momentary need for expression. Sherwin Williams cornered the market on covering the planet with paint. If you can't find something new to do with your time, ask someone to hit you.

[plinko]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Beijing%20I/CHINA919.jpg

[fflint]

^Bad kitty!

Graffiti is like pornography: I know it when I see it. Art is something else altogether, though--I like to think I know it when I see it...

[suga]

Why not have some of these cities install 'youth art commissions' to oversee this 'street art' and remove what it deems 'excessive' or 'inartistic'. Then we're all happy.

I can surely think of a few places I'd prefer not to see someone's momentary need for expression. Sherwin Williams cornered the market on covering the planet with paint. If you can't find something new to do with your time, ask someone to hit you.

Since art aint around:

www.elacamp.org

It is a non publiclally funded nonprofit that pushes kids in graffiti and gangs in central LA towards an art career and developing a portfolio and some interest in civic beautification. All the founders and artists are ex-graffiti writers from east and south LA. Send them a donation and stop bullshitting!