Comment by guywithahat
5 hours ago
Did he argue SF likes graffiti? I don't think he does, and the people living in the city certainly don't. These are criminals tagging buildings, and city officials who either don't care or are too busy with other things. I'm not aware of anyone who actually lives there who likes graffiti, and logically there's no reason anyone should. If someone wanted a mural they would have hired a real artist to do it.
He's arguing that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, and the reason is, (going out on a limb here) SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.
But not sympathetic to corporate expression via renegade spray-painting. (Justin Bieber, now ASAP Rocky)
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-city-attorney-goi...
Hated this shit in NYC too. It's a fucking blight. Nothing but people spray painting their IG handles trying to become a clout goblin.
Ads everywhere. Can't even look down.
> SF residents are sympathetic to the renegade artistic expression argument.
SF residents are incredibly snobby when it comes to street art. The typical tagging, 2 minute stencil sprays, and so forth are not up to posh standards of SF residents. I don't think most SFers think those are "renegade artistic expression". Maybe some of folks in Berkeley would but not SF.
There's a huge disconnect from the city residents and a lot of what happens by the government. SFPD is a prime example of this. Almost none of the cops live in SF. A lot of the people committing crime also don't live in SF. It's a weird city.
" Almost none of the cops live in SF. A lot of the people committing crime also don't live in SF "
any more
"It's a weird city." I think you're just seeing the transition US cities made in the 2000s from the location of the have-nots to the haves.
I think there should be distinction between tagging and graffiti