Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomer
Except it’s not just an aesthetic thing, it’s against the law and costs the owners hundreds if not thousands of dollars to deal with it, unless they just give up. Do they not have any rights and must accept that the appearance of their businesses or personal property is no longer their right, but the right of anyone to do what they please to it? To me at least that’s a big issue in today’s society - we don’t give a sh*t if someone else is being screwed as long as it’s not happening to us. From ‘small’ issues like vandalism all the long way up to civil liberty and human rights abuses.
Why don’t we publish the names and address of those caught doing graffiti so we can go to their homes and share our own tags on their house and cars? If we allow graffiti why don’t we allow window breaking as long as nothing is stolen? Well, I guess that’s the case already isn’t it.
As a hypothetical example, all those in favour of graffiti please add your name and address in your reply and indicate that you don’t mind if your home/fence/garage/vehicle gets tagged. But you won’t..
Why even bother with architectural street level design if graffiti is the norm. It’s now commonplace across much of the western world not just in back alleys but new builds, public infrastructure and heritage buildings. We can all think of countless examples in Europe where beautiful buildings and alleys are tagged all to hell. This is a mild example in Naples, much worse tag dominated examples on beautiful buildings are everywhere, this is just a typical alley. Is this ok? Do we like this?
Napoli Street Scene_ by ALANSCOTT1, on Flickr |
Ok there's lots of different problems here, mainly caused by you choosing to respond to something other than what i actually said.
First of all, yes, it is just an aesthetic thing. The fact that some people don't like the aesthetic and therefore choose to spend money removing it and governments choose to create laws against it doesn't mean it isn't aesthetic. Aesthetics are important since it affects how comfortable people feel in an environment and how much beauty and satisfaction they get from it. So I would feel bad for someone who said that they hate the colour green but are forced to wear it everyday for work. But I wouldn't agree with them making up a story like the colour green causing some serious problem like heart failure or cancer in the way that broken windows theory tries to falsely connect aesthetic issues with more serious problems.
Second of all, acknowledging that it's aesthetic isn't being "for it"; it's simply acknowledging the actual level of importance rather than pretending it's something it isn't. There's different degrees of good and bad. If you say that it's worse to get hit by a bus and seriously injured than to get splashed by a bus ruining your favourite outfit, that doesn't mean you like getting splashed. That's just basic reasoning.
Thirdly, this isn't just a one-sided issue. Yes there's the side that people who own a property find it frustrating to have the aesthetics of their property altered without their consent. And that it's frustrating when a small minority of people make aesthetic choices for publicly owned sites. But there's also the aspect that currently you need to be sufficiently affluent to have any influence over the aesthetics of human environments. Most of us live in urban environments, but unless you own a home or business, you don't get a say in the aesthetics of anything. Generally, no one is allowed to alter public space, while renters can't choose the exterior appearance of their building (and often are even limited in the interior).
And non-business owners can't influence the aesthetics of commercial areas. Those areas are usually dominated by corporate (or at least commercial) branding and advertising while not allowing for any sort of individuality or artistic expression beyond profit motives. So the busiest areas of many cities like Sankofa (Dundas)Square have their aesthetics sold to the highest bidder who put cover the spaces with ads that serve little to no purpose beyond making money for those who can afford it. Generally, anything controversial and anything that the established class finds uncomfortable isn't allowed. In a way it's a less extreme version of back when people had to be property owners to vote. Artistic expression is one of the few things that give a voice to the otherwise voiceless and can be used for dissent. The fact that said voice isn't always used in ways that you or I consider productive isn't much different than other types of freedoms.
But I obviously recognize that while that side exists, it isn't the only side. Many people work hard to build or buy their homes and businesses and want to control the aesthetics of it. Not only for their personal tastes, but also because it can affect their personal and/or business reputation. And while the current situation is undemocratic, making things a free-for-all wouldn't be democratic either since no one elected those doing the graffiti. So I wouldn't support that either. We just need to recognize that graffiti in some places is worse than others rather than rejecting any sort of nuance. And recognize that while in many cases it isn't great, it's also not as serious as many problems. Splashed by the bus vs being hit by the bus, etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
