Does Graffiti on your building disrupt the control which the architect has attempted to establish?
Erik Evens
Feb 9, 18 1:10 pm
Unless it's planned and invited, graffiti is the damaging or destruction of private property. That's why.
Erik Evens
Feb 9, 18 1:13 pm
We designed a renovation of an old art deco auto dealership in LA into the headquarters of a nonprofit. We hired a graffiti artist to paint the side of the building.
Non Sequitur
Feb 9, 18 1:26 pm
We have legal graffiti areas in the city. Elsewhere, it's vandalism regardless of artistic "value"... however, I'd love to see a good graffiti piece commissioned on a project.
wurdan freo
Feb 9, 18 1:39 pm
It has less to do with architectural control than shitting on someone else's property...
because most graffiti sucks!
Miles Jaffe
Feb 9, 18 1:46 pm
A lot of graffiti is a reaction to and reflection of the shitty built environment. Like the picture above.
Maybe part of Corbu's mental illness we've been hearing so much about on another thread?
Volunteer
Feb 9, 18 4:45 pm
Here is a WW II German bunker with windows painted on to camouflage it as a house (graffiti?). Maybe there is hope for many of the remaining brutalist structures in our cities? And gainful government employment for the Graffiti artists! Every cloud has a silver lining!
S W
Feb 9, 18 7:23 pm
Graffiti? Was that a prior art form before Facebook? Would it look better in Black and Chrome?
Marc Miller
Feb 9, 18 7:36 pm
What of all the family graffito on the architecture of I Sacri Monti?
You mean that scum developer who left a building to rot for years as an "investment while there actually is a shortage of affordable housing, just so he/she could cash in once gentrification came knocking on the door, hope the asshole(m/f) goes bankrupt.
archietechie
Feb 13, 18 10:02 am
Didn't suggest the devs were angels too but let's address the issue that spraying on other's property is wrong perhaps?
randomised
Feb 13, 18 10:41 am
I don't think it's wrong to spraypaint property that is deliberately left empty during a housing crisis for no other purpose than pure corporate greed.
archietechie
Feb 13, 18 11:57 am
How does spraying help in the crisis then?
tduds
Feb 13, 18 7:37 pm
"I don't think it's wrong to spraypaint property.."
That wasn't the subject of the suit.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 13, 18 8:25 pm
The developer must be a colossal asshole with a history to lose this case. Trespassing, defacing property, etc. and he still lost. Insurance companies demand comparable sales to set value, here the court just made an award. A substantial one no less, even divided by all the 'artists'. You can buy a Banksy for far
less. A real one.
randomised
Feb 14, 18 3:49 am
architechie:
The spraying is just a symptom, the speculation with property, that's the disease. Letting a place remain unused, empty, deteriorate and becoming an eyesore in the midst of a housing crisis is criminal. The spraying helps, because it shows to the public that the owner of the property is an asshole who is only interested in profit and doesn't care about the property or the public. And, I also think the graffiti was done really really well, I personally prefer those to what is hanging in most galleries as "proper" art and deserved to be protected.
As the Dutch poet Lucebert once said: 'Alles van waarde is weerloos' or 'Everything of value is defenseless'.
tduds:
I know, I wasn't referring to the subject of the suit.
archietechie
Feb 14, 18 9:48 am
Sounds to me you're describing every other devs our profession has came across Rando so...that's not really saying much. As to the graffiti being done "really really well", subjective at best because it's still the usual hieroglyphics crap thrown around every which way.
randomised
Feb 15, 18 3:24 pm
Nope, not every developer works like that, only assholes who don't care about buildings, people and communities. And it's perfect they're called out and their properties decorated with spraypaint. In the Netherlands it was and sometimes still is(I think) legal to squat empty properties and you'll have quite some rights as squatter and can't be kicked out just like that. They'll have to take you to court, and judges can allow you to stay for years and years...
And my subjective qualifications of the graffiti are at least shared by the judge and jury because the graffiti ARTISTS were compensated for having their ART works destroyed.
archietechie
Feb 16, 18 1:18 am
Untrue in most cases, why do you think architects have a huge disdain for developers all over the world? Perhaps it's acceptable in the netherlands but a norm elsewhere it does not make. As to the judgement, hence I blame it on my country's laughable laws to deal with scum. Well...not only me.
randomised
Feb 16, 18 5:13 am
Architects have a huge disdain for developers because they tell upfront what they want, how they want it and how much it has to cost, allowing no room for a creative process or proper study, yet we collectively bend over because of their deep pockets.
archietechie
Feb 17, 18 2:50 am
That's just half of it actually. The latter half being, you know...assholes that don't care much about the society other than their pockets.
accesskb
Feb 13, 18 2:55 pm
we only like black
nikitamorell23
Oct 20, 18 6:25 am
Why do architects only wear black? (I'm not an architect - just a copywriter for architects!)
tduds
Feb 13, 18 7:40 pm
Why do so many threads on Archinect begin with "Why is x?" without stopping to consider "is x?"
Do Architects dislike graffiti? Some, probably. Do they dislike it in proportions substantially different to the greater population and for different reasons? Doubtful.
Volunteer
Feb 14, 18 10:01 am
Go big or go home
z6jbishop
Feb 15, 18 4:15 pm
It looks like shit. Art used to have an objective standard, now it is all about the "meaning" which is entirely subjective and let art go down the drain. Sadly, architecture fundamentally went down the drain with it due to the change from pleasing geometry and small bits of ornament to minimalist and brutalist square trash.
b3tadine[sutures]
Feb 17, 18 12:30 pm
"Objective Standards" bullshit. Everyone’s pretty baby is ugly to someone else.
b3tadine[sutures]
Feb 17, 18 12:31 pm
This is beautiful, and I defy anyone to say it isn't.
randomised
Feb 17, 18 1:08 pm
Better than the original
Derek Askari duPont
Oct 10, 18 11:44 pm
its a sign of urban decay and a society renewing itself
Does Graffiti on your building disrupt the control which the architect has attempted to establish?
Unless it's planned and invited, graffiti is the damaging or destruction of private property. That's why.
We designed a renovation of an old art deco auto dealership in LA into the headquarters of a nonprofit. We hired a graffiti artist to paint the side of the building.
We have legal graffiti areas in the city. Elsewhere, it's vandalism regardless of artistic "value"... however, I'd love to see a good graffiti piece commissioned on a project.
It has less to do with architectural control than shitting on someone else's property...
because most graffiti sucks!
A lot of graffiti is a reaction to and reflection of the shitty built environment. Like the picture above.
Yes
I agree
LOOK AT THESE
http://themindcircle.com/befor...
Because of shit like this:
TBH, I would love a Villa Savoye done up by the Wallnuts Crew better than the original.
Looks like it should be finally demolished.
I dislike more architecture than graffiti to be honest.
Agreed.
theres more usefull architecture...id know im a graffiti writer
When was Villa Savoye tagged like that? Google maps seems to think it's cleaned up (white paint, but still dingy looking)
pretty sure that's a photoshop job
never, it was an artist's photoshop work.
Never. https://www.designboom.com/art/xavier-delory-pilgrimage-on-modernity-villa-savoye-le-corbusier-09-17-2014/
Maybe part of Corbu's mental illness we've been hearing so much about on another thread?
Here is a WW II German bunker with windows painted on to camouflage it as a house (graffiti?). Maybe there is hope for many of the remaining brutalist structures in our cities? And gainful government employment for the Graffiti artists! Every cloud has a silver lining!
Graffiti? Was that a prior art form before Facebook? Would it look better in Black and Chrome?
What of all the family graffito on the architecture of I Sacri Monti?
Dunno Marc, what about Lascaux?
So that’s when all this vandalism started- caves!
I am licensed to like graffitti.
And because of scum "artist" like these:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
You mean that scum developer who left a building to rot for years as an "investment while there actually is a shortage of affordable housing, just so he/she could cash in once gentrification came knocking on the door, hope the asshole(m/f) goes bankrupt.
Didn't suggest the devs were angels too but let's address the issue that spraying on other's property is wrong perhaps?
I don't think it's wrong to spraypaint property that is deliberately left empty during a housing crisis for no other purpose than pure corporate greed.
How does spraying help in the crisis then?
"I don't think it's wrong to spraypaint property.."
That wasn't the subject of the suit.
The developer must be a colossal asshole with a history to lose this case. Trespassing, defacing property, etc. and he still lost. Insurance companies demand comparable sales to set value, here the court just made an award. A substantial one no less, even divided by all the 'artists'. You can buy a Banksy for far less. A real one.
architechie:
The spraying is just a symptom, the speculation with property, that's the disease. Letting a place remain unused, empty, deteriorate and becoming an eyesore in the midst of a housing crisis is criminal. The spraying helps, because it shows to the public that the owner of the property is an asshole who is only interested in profit and doesn't care about the property or the public. And, I also think the graffiti was done really really well, I personally prefer those to what is hanging in most galleries as "proper" art and deserved to be protected.
As the Dutch poet Lucebert once said: 'Alles van waarde is weerloos' or 'Everything of value is defenseless'.
tduds:
I know, I wasn't referring to the subject of the suit.
Sounds to me you're describing every other devs our profession has came across Rando so...that's not really saying much. As to the graffiti being done "really really well", subjective at best because it's still the usual hieroglyphics crap thrown around every which way.
Nope, not every developer works like that, only assholes who don't care about buildings, people and communities. And it's perfect they're called out and their properties decorated with spraypaint. In the Netherlands it was and sometimes still is(I think) legal to squat empty properties and you'll have quite some rights as squatter and can't be kicked out just like that. They'll have to take you to court, and judges can allow you to stay for years and years...
And my subjective qualifications of the graffiti are at least shared by the judge and jury because the graffiti ARTISTS were compensated for having their ART works destroyed.
Untrue in most cases, why do you think architects have a huge disdain for developers all over the world? Perhaps it's acceptable in the netherlands but a norm elsewhere it does not make. As to the judgement, hence I blame it on my country's laughable laws to deal with scum. Well...not only me.
Architects have a huge disdain for developers because they tell upfront what they want, how they want it and how much it has to cost, allowing no room for a creative process or proper study, yet we collectively bend over because of their deep pockets.
That's just half of it actually. The latter half being, you know...assholes that don't care much about the society other than their pockets.
we only like black
Why do architects only wear black? (I'm not an architect - just a copywriter for architects!)
Why do so many threads on Archinect begin with "Why is x?" without stopping to consider "is x?"
Do Architects dislike graffiti? Some, probably. Do they dislike it in proportions substantially different to the greater population and for different reasons? Doubtful.
Go big or go home
It looks like shit. Art used to have an objective standard, now it is all about the "meaning" which is entirely subjective and let art go down the drain. Sadly, architecture fundamentally went down the drain with it due to the change from pleasing geometry and small bits of ornament to minimalist and brutalist square trash.
"Objective Standards" bullshit. Everyone’s pretty baby is ugly to someone else.
This is beautiful, and I defy anyone to say it isn't.
Better than the original
its a sign of urban decay and a society renewing itself