The subject of graffiti often brings out strongly polarized reactions from urban dwellers, who either support it as art or criticize it as vandalism. Brandon Baunach of DesignCrack has developed a project based on an idea of Drew Heffron that has amazingly drawn both fire and criticism from both sides: Graffiti Report Card stickers for rating urban street graffiti.
Some taggers have expressed annoyance at the notion of having their work judged while other graffiti critics see this project as just another layer of vandalism. Still, the project has merits and raises interesting questions both parties seem to overlook. First, there is an element of playful humor that graffiti artists should appreciate, a meta-commentary worthy of political graffiti artists like Banksy. Second, if a graffiti artist can claim the right to decorate a public surface one way, how can they expect to deny the public the right to add to their public composition?
Finally, street graffiti is a fact of urban life and many of us would like to see it more frequently discussed one way or another. By way of comparison: consider the video above. How is it that some people can tolerate thousands of flashy, obnoxious and jarring commercials that bombard us on a daily basis and yet are disturbed by graffiti? Taken together, a graffiti report card or a subvertising project like the one shown above are, if nothing else, valuable reminders to always be critical of the visual character of the build environment we live in.
10 Comments
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Perfect idea. Perhaps it will discourage some weak taggers, and leave true graffiti to the artists. maybe it will also provide some constructive criticism for the artists as well.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
While I think this is fun, amusing, and creative, I have to disagree with the claim that this is no different than advertising. With ads, the space or time with which you are being “bombarded” is bought and paid for, and it’s understood by all parties that a message will be placed there. With graffiti, it’s (usually) destruction of property and, while I think it’s cool, the property owner might not. The problem with graffiti is not that it’s just another form of imagery, but unwanted imagery.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
But it is just another form of imagery. Have you the target demograph ever thought of advertising as wanted imagery?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I think the days when ads were placed where all parties were expecting them are long gone. And the fact that somebody paid somebody else to put them there doesn’t make them any more welcome in my view. I’d choose a tag over an ad on my house every time. Even an bad one.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Both graffiti and advertising could be considered visual pollution. Because advertising is paid for doesn’t mean that I want to see it, or that it doesn’t destroy any property. It certainly doesn’t legitimize it as art.
The problems with graffiti have to do with class, and the idea that all visual art needs to be in a frame in a gallery to be considered legitimate.
I’ll take a wall covered in bad graffiti over a slick advertisement any day.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
writing not graffiti….
many thnx at all writers god or bad…we all must start to get united, and don’t give them the “divide et impera” rules
;-)
Trackbacks
What do you think? Leave a comment!