Comment by ryandrake
8 hours ago
> Graffiti is a population's expression of ownership of their city.
I think this is the heart of it, and where cities and suburban towns differ.
It's admittedly very hard to articulate in words. The walls of buildings in a city are part of the greater, broader, "face of the city." They are in a sense both part of a general "public space" yet also still privately owned. The walls of single family homes in suburban neighborhoods don't really compare. There's much more of a shared sense of "ours" in a city than there is out in the country, where everything's fenced off in little discrete boxes of land, each with someone's name on it. This greater sense of shared agency over the aesthetic of the broader "city" makes street art more justifiable there than it is in single family home places.
Oh I disagree completely. Precisely because city spaces are more shared, vandalism, including graffiti, is Mitch more destructive in cities.
It really undermines the sense of community when vandals deface public spaces and community centers and apartment blocks.
"It really undermines the sense of community when vandals deface public spaces and community centers and apartment blocks."
I much prefer graffiti in my field of vision than corporate billboards. In SF I don't even notice the graffiti, maybe because most of it is hard to read and understand? But I do notice the huge huge billboards over every thoroughfare with the stupid corny messages.
> It really undermines the sense of community
The people in these communities feel the opposite of you, especially since a lot of street art is murals capturing some local culture e.g. see Clarion Alley in San Francisco, a lot of very explicit messages of community.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AAWmH3aq51MWN1M88
Graffiti is by definition uninvited and unwanted (esp. in SF city ordinance)
1 reply →
consider that it's a symptom of a community fragmented by the result of the profit motive rather than a cause of the fragmentation