there was a thread about tagging of calatrava's milwaukee museum a while back. there were probably other examples in that one.

Bilbao was tagged days before the opening, I remember seeing a photograph taken from the bridge with about 30ft of graffiti - I thought they would of left it. Oh well...

I'm not sure I would call it vandalism, seems rather like a social interventions

Here is a graffiti "art" project created on Enrique Norten's Hotel Habita glass facade in Mexico City. Tania Candiani a friend of mine and the artist created this work that has been very controvercial.

http://thecitylovesyou.com/news/?p=3147

Exactly, Graffiti and Street Art is becoming the new Decor. Like from the old words ; "If you can't beat them eat them".

Great....good responses, thank you....but how about vandalism that is more destructive?

Like broken glass / a baseball bat to zinc panels / ripping wood panels off walls / slicing fabric panels with a knife?

Occurances that are more detrimental to materials than just paint or spraypaint?

Thanks!

not sure how well it's documented anywhere but the piazza d'italia in new orleans had all of its marble column bases removed after only a few years. these were actually just marble sheets cut to the profile of a column base and attached to the face of a base made of something else - stucco probably.

because the city was in some financial distress, this face marble was replaced with badly faux-painted plywood. this somehow seemed more 'true' to the essence of the project since plywood sheets were a more consistent expression of the ironically flattened two-dimensional cutouts than marble. but plywood in a fountain worked about as well as you might expect it would.

the little coaster-sized pieces of marble that made up the map of italy in the bottom of the fountain also got taken away. they may have fallen off before they were taken off - or probably it was some of both.

vandalism or not, the piazza was a ruin within 10yrs of its construction.

jose oubrerie's miller house lexington, kentucky

badly vandalized a few years back, after the property was sold by the miller family to a developer.. windows broken, casework damaged, concrete and drywall "tagged"... something like 300,000 dollars in damage..

the house is/was in the process of being bought by a group of preservationists to hopefully restore it and the surrounding grounds, which are slated to be divided up into a new subdivision.

corbusiers assistant, completed firminy a year or so ago, i think the house was named one of the 100 greatest modern buildings of the 20th century..

steven, you're from kentucky no? this would be a pretty accessible project to you.

sorry matildeleon, i thought this was a steven ward post...

yep, good call, over-under.

link to miller house discussion: http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=76881_0_42_0_C

The culprit in action:

banksy

although not really vandalism

Much of grafitti really irritates me, especially when it involves the destruction of public property. I get really tired of seeing bus and train seats and windows marred with black perminent marker from someone writing their name on everything in site. This is why we can't have nice things...

no fays.panda...i would consider this banksy stunt to be vandalism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0PVpfiv44

yeah, I know it's the really in thing to accept tagging and grafitti or street art as a legitimate form of expression, but I think it rarely is. When there is a statement (and a good one, something thought-provoking or interesting), then I think it can be art.. when it really is artwork, or political/social critique in the public realm. But far more often, I think, it is the work of "trust fund brats" writing their name or mindless political statements--personally, I think "9/11 was an inside job" doesn't really do much to question authority or jar anyone out of their comfort zone, it's just a cliche, and now one on a sticker that some public worker has to scrape off. The irony of rich, suburban kids vandalizing public property in the name of "street" art is amazing to me--more like cul-de-sac art.

These guy's realy know how to make graffiti.

Great....good responses, thank you....but again, how about vandalism that is more destructive?

Graffiti is just one type of disrespect.

Broken glass / a baseball bat to zinc panels / ripping wood panels off walls / slicing fabric panels with a knife?

Occurances that are more detrimental to materials than just paint or spraypaint?

Thank you all !!!!!!

@ a-f:

What is that room picture of? Is that an interior shot of the aforementioned Miller House? The graffiti is in French...in a house in Kentucky?

Thanks.

I paint murals, Stakit Kunst and Street Art , not Graffiti. I love the big format of Graffiti and often when I paint a Huge piece, people stop and ask if I want to go paint on their walls.
I prefere to refuse even the prospects seem interesting, but enough response tell me, that more and more people care about their home design and would be a potential buyers group, Some even like Graffiti enough, to pay a profesional, to paint Graffiti as decor -- then emagine a realy beautifull piece of Street Art. As I said the social engagement made me refuse, but also regret I feel like that.

not necessarily great architecture in its own right, but important culturally: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28land.html

"Graffiti is just one type of disrespect."

I had pieces painted over in disrespect of arts having anything to do with it. Graffiti painters bullied my works , so the destructive aspect go further than what you know. But still this is also a dialog , those who aim to destroy just the faces I project in my paintings tell it's own story, everyone who passes the pictures will reconise the overpainting as there are no messeage in the amature Graffiti, painting it over and people who follow the graffiti grow, notis what happen, who stand for what and who behave bad, --- Sure I has a crowd of spectators who pass by the fence where these things happen. But I notised when I was painting faces, a steady audience was happy about just one of the many drawings. Some said it was nice to reconise one expression when going to work, returning, and seeing another expression by the same image in the evening.
Draw this from a mural I painted first ;



in the middle right



Then even it was painted over, I has one I made at the same time.

Ummm....maybe I should rephrase?

I didn't mean to imply that ALL graffiti is disrespect, I was just trying to say that most of the comments so far have been about graffiti, but graffiti is just one SUBJECT.

I am making no judgements on if graffiti is 'art' or 'vandalism'.

I am more interested in physical destructive vandalism to materials - as in breaking them. crushing them, cutting them, burning, and so on.

In other words: "Can I get more examples that deal less with paint and more with malicious physical breakage" ?

Thanks!

matildaleon: It's the villa by Eileen Gray in Roquebrune, in which Corb did his "murals" - which Gray definitely didn't approve of.
Now restoration has became an issue, there's a heated debate on whether it should be restored to a pre-corb situation (as Gray intended it), or with the Corb murals...

@ usernametaken:

That's E-1027!!!!!!! Wow - I should have recognized that. I'm sorry.

Thanks for the lesson.

Any more examples, anyone?

That's right usernametaken, and Eileen Gray even called the little additions of Corbu's "an act of vandalism" so it qualifies for this thread.

"'vandalism'"

I don't think the Graffiti painter is like a vandal with a fuse, there are obvious social messeages in it, the destruction in it is realy quite harmless, harmless compared what other destructive attitudes configure.
When a group of all to young spoiled children, 3 in the night get together to overpaint my popular Street Art , I think this is better , than what other agrassion could spoil. Also they can see that what they maneage to paint, is children drawings compared my faces, their friends will ask them if they think they are good making Graffiti as art is not destruction but beauty.

So this is a language as sort, to vandalise something will newer become nice, no one profit from it esp. not the ones that make it, and no museum I guess, would agrea to an on-site instalation, of vandalitti I guess.