Vandalism or Art? Talk about graffiti with Art Critic Doug MacCash(07/14/2008) 
11:31
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
l
Monday July 14, 2008 11:31 Guest
11:47
Should there be a free graffiti zon?
yes
 ( 62% )
no
 ( 38% )

Monday July 14, 2008 11:47 
12:02
MACCASH: Before we get int to questions,   I thought we should preface our conversation with the law. New Orleans’ Offenses Against Property code defines graffiti like so: “Graffiti means any sign inscription, design, drawing, diagram, etching, sketch, symbol, lettering, name or marking which is scratched, painted or sprayed on any surface, regardless of the material of that structural component, in such a location and in such a manner so as to deface the property.”
Monday July 14, 2008 12:02 
12:03
[Comment From EorleansEorleans: ] 
Vandalism is the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property
Monday July 14, 2008 12:03 Eorleans
12:04
MACCASH:
If an artist of Picasso's talent wanted to do graffiti, I'd offer my garage doors.    
Monday July 14, 2008 12:04 
12:04
[Comment From PhilPhil: ] 
Why is there a discussion of whether graffiti is art or not? There can be no legitimization given to graffiti - it is an illegal act. Graffiti, whether by a talented person or not, is destruction of another person's property. Just because the illegal act was aesthetically appealing is irrelevant. If Picasso comitted the horrid act of graffiti, he should have been punished.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:04 Phil
12:04
MACCASH: I’m told there are other cities with legal graffiti zones. Philadelphia? Is that true? Has anyone seen one? Best,
Monday July 14, 2008 12:04 
12:05
Is grey paint graffiti?
yes
 ( 64% )
no
 ( 36% )

Monday July 14, 2008 12:05 
12:06
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Hola Doug, it's your neighbor, Ashley.. from High Times, ArtEgg etc. I think your paper and our art studio should kick off a graffiti festival under the Broad Sreet overpass. All of those hideous concrete bridge support columns? Pefect! We could collect donations to cover art history class tuition for Fred Radtke, and you wouldn't have to travel far to cover the story. it's a win-win proposal. I'm not kidding.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:06 Guest
12:07

MACCASH: If we were going to take up a collection for art history classes, I'd invite the graffiti guys, who seen to think it's still 1985.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:07 
12:07

MACCASH: I would argue that the graffiti artists need art history classes, not fred rathke.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:07 
12:08
[Comment From VincentVincent: ] 
I think graffiti can be great art, just look at san francisco, they have some really cool graffiti that isn't pointless and is very well done
Monday July 14, 2008 12:08 Vincent
12:09
MACCASH: I've never ben to San Fran, I'm afraid.

Radtke seems to be trying to eliminate graffiti.    The gray clouds are just the after effect.    Gray is a neutral industrial color.    It's fun to pretend there's a Gray Ghost aesthetic, but there's no there there, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, I'd add that those accidental gray clouds are sometimes much more pleasing than bubble letters.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:09 
12:09
[Comment From AbramAbram: ] 
How do you feel about all the Fred Rathke installations? At first I found the Grey Ghost's work to be repetitive and derivative, but as he has managed to get 300,000 from the government to do his work and official endorsement from the police, I have been moved by his ingenuity and laser beam like focus. How about you?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:09 Abram
12:09
MACCASH:
Radtke seems to be trying to eliminate graffiti.    The gray clouds are just the after effect.    Gray is a neutral industrial color.    It's fun to pretend there's a Gray Ghost aesthetic, but there's no there there, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, I'd add that those accidental gray clouds are sometimes much more pleasing than bubble letters.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:09 
12:10
[Comment From Tom WaitsTom Waits: ] 
Is carrot salad art?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:10 Tom Waits
12:11
Is graffiti passe?
yes
 ( 80% )
no
 ( 20% )

Monday July 14, 2008 12:11 
12:11
MACCASH: Absolutely.    I love carrot salad. Brett Anderson makes fun of me.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:11 
12:11
[Comment From fleurdelibfleurdelib: ] 
Should ZON be ZONE?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:11 fleurdelib
12:12

MACCASH: Yes, typo on our end.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:12 
12:13
[Comment From fleurdelibfleurdelib: ] 
Good thing you've got editors when it counts
Monday July 14, 2008 12:13 fleurdelib
12:15
[Comment From octaviastkidoctaviastkid: ] 
But that's the problem, isn't it? 1#--How can you tell if this guy's picasso. 2#--You don't always have a choice as to whether or not you'll offer up your garage door--if the want to, they'll take it.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:15 octaviastkid
12:15
MACCASH: Picasso didn't look like something we've seen again and again before.    Most graffiti does.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:15 
12:17
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Deface means to mar the appearance of something. Sometimes graffiti actually makes things look better. In Amsterdam, it often enhances areas with thoughtful, colorful and meaningful art. Is this defacement, by definition? I don't think so.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:17 Guest
12:18

MACCASH: Never been to Amsterdam either.

And don't sweat the spelling. I'm the worst.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:18 
12:19
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Point taken. Now, could we set those wheels into motion for the education of both Radtke and other interested parties? And by the way, I misspelled perfect in that last comment. I'm not an idiot. I just need glasses, and am living in denial of my aging process.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:19 Guest
12:20
Who should be policing graffiti?
police
 ( 0% )
community
 ( 0% )
both
 ( 100% )

Monday July 14, 2008 12:20 
12:21

MACCASH: Most graffiti is like a high school student who writes his name over and over on a notebook cover until it looks just so -- it's only interesting to him.

The intent to deface may be the key difference.    Gray paint always seems to be over something else, doesn't it?

Monday July 14, 2008 12:21 
12:21
[Comment From octaviastkidoctaviastkid: ] 
Graffiti can be good. But so little of it really is. The problem is that taggers get involved in the mix. And no tagging is good tagging.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:21 octaviastkid
12:22
[Comment From JoeJoe: ] 
I don't like the grey paint that covers over the graffiti. I think it's ugly and obnoxious. However I equally don't like the inscriptions and graffiti that are taking place in the french quarter. Here we have buildings which have survived fires, wars and hundreds of years only to be defaced by some loser punk who feels he has the right to write some very non-art on someone elses property. The ones that really tick me off are the simple tags which consists of a few letters, nothing artistic at all about it. I'd venture to say that the majority of those who are doing this "art" own nothing of value themselves and if they did, how would they feel if I wrote my initials with spray paint on their car perhaps?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:22 Joe
12:22
MACCASH: The intent to deface may be the key difference.    Gray paint always seems to be over something else, doesn't it?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:22 
12:23
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Well what about Basquiat? Did his work only have social relevance when it was applied to canvas?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:23 Guest
12:24

MACCASH: His work has relevance before and after, I suppose.   The question is, did it have less relavence inside a gallery.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:24 
12:24
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Wouldn't it be sensible that what Fred Radtke does makes him a graffiti artist...comsidering he paints on peoples' property without their consent?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:24 Christian
12:25

MACCASH: The motivation is different.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:25 
12:25
[Comment From PhilPhil: ] 
MCCASH, as you say: "If an artist of Picasso's talent offered to do graffiti, I'd offer my garage doors." Yes, then you would have given your permission, as I might also do. But the vandals committing the illegal act of writing graffiti DO NOT ASK PERMISSION.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:25 Phil
12:25
MACCASH: I agree.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:25 
12:25
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Wouldn't the work of Fred Radtke be considered graffiti since he doesn't ask for the permission of the business owners and is more responsible for destroying French Quarter brick than taggers?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:25 Christian
12:27
MACCASH: Some argue they'd rather remove the graffiti than remove the graffiti AND gray paint.  
Monday July 14, 2008 12:27 
12:27
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
I agree that the French Quarter should never be tagged. It's a treasure that must be preserved. But what about the neglected, ugly places... the vast stretches of industrial ugliness?This looks better than some of the juried art I've seen lately. It's from Denmark. http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1210880.html
Monday July 14, 2008 12:27 Guest
12:29
MACCASH: If I regularly saw graffiti that improved the view, I'd agree.   Tangled initials? Not so much.  
Monday July 14, 2008 12:29 
12:29
[Comment From mark mclaughlinmark mclaughlin: ] 
Taggers share some of the same pathologies as arsonists.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:29 mark mclaughlin
12:29
MACCASH: Hmmm ... I'm not sure.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:29 
12:29
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
I think a lot of people have no idea what kind of people are doing graffiti. As for Fred, he has painted on a friend's car that was custom making a painting on it with her friends.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:29 Christian
12:30
MACCASH: If he did, he shouldn't have.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:30 
12:30
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Graffiti is easier to remove than the grey paint. I've removed graffiti myself. Sure, it takes a little elbow grease, but I couldn't remove the grey primer. I'd have to get the building soda blasted.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:30 Christian
12:31
MACCASH: That seems to be problem in the FQ.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:31 
12:31
[Comment From PhilPhil: ] 
While passing thru the warehouse district, I noticed a tagger. I followed him and was determined to find a cop. I did. And we confronted the tagger, a student at Southern, who was not apologetic and had difficulty understanding that he had done something wrong. Long story made short - I felt sorry for the fool and didn't insist that the cop arrest him. Now, I could kick myself in the butt for allowing him to deface so many beautiful buildings.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:31 Phil
12:32
MACCASH: Interesting.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:32 
12:32
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
re McLaughlin: What is your basis for comparing tagging to arson? has there been a sociological survey?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:32 Christian
12:33
MACCASH: That's why I said I am not sure!
Monday July 14, 2008 12:33 
12:33
[Comment From AshleyAshley: ] 
Semantics, semantics semantics. We can classify and reclassify Radtke and the taggers all day long, but the problem remains unresolved. Think, y'all! What's the solution? How do we get everyone on the same page? How do we preserve architecture and encourage outsider art?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:33 Ashley
12:34
MACCASH: There's art without spray paint and city walls, right?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:34 
12:35
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Doug, do your readers think that if a paid muralist uses spray paint that they should be considered taggers?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:35 Christian
12:36
MACCASH: I doubt it. It's not the medium, it's the permission.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:36 
12:36
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
He did paint my friends car. It was his signature paint as was seen all in the Bywater neighborhood after he went through. The police said that they wouldn't send a car.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:36 Christian
12:36
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
So, apparently Fred needs a new removal technique but I wholeheartedly support the impulse to cover graphitti.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:36 Anthony
12:37

MACCASH: Most graffiti is like a high school student who writes his name over and over on a notebook cover until it looks just so -- it's only interesting to him.

The intent to deface may be the key difference.    Gray paint always seems to be over something else, doesn't it?

Monday July 14, 2008 12:37 
12:37
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
Ashley, more galleries for the artists. Stiff penalties for the graphitti taggers...
Monday July 14, 2008 12:37 Anthony
12:37
[Comment From mark mclaughlinmark mclaughlin: ] 
Facination with fire. Injuring animals(insects and such). sexual eccentricities.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:37 mark mclaughlin
12:37
[Comment From flandersflanders: ] 
I think talking about the aesthetics of graffitis is missing the point. The reason the graffiti art is so redundant is because the aesthetics are tied to the practice of tagging - the challenge, the visibility, for instance - not the tag itself. Personally, I like graffiti on the industrial walls I drive by - far more interesting that bland walls and billboards - but I think making graffiti has more in common with skateboarding than it does mural painting.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:37 flanders
12:38

MACCASH: The fashions seem to overlap.

Monday July 14, 2008 12:38 
12:38
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Ashley: I don't think you can have an understanding without Fred backing down on walls that have been legal. There have been legal walls in the past that they've told me he covered as though it were illegal. Legal walls would help immensely. Sure, you'd still have a few renegades...but you'd see artists more capable of moving into the art world if their pieces were allowed to be viewed. We see a lot of junk graffiti because they don't want to invest their time in putting up a nice piece that is just going to be destroyed.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:38 Christian
12:39
MACCASH: I think you're right.   if the spray paint artists had time really concentrate on their work, it might improve.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:39 
12:39
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
It is a childish practice. Defacing things you don't own.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:39 Anthony
12:40
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Anthony: I saw on an interview once the Radtke has the means to remove graffiti, but prefers to sell it as an independent contractor. He uses the grey paint to let the taggers know it is him, but why doesn't he just clean it if that's his true purpose and he has the product to do so.?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:40 Christian
12:41
MACCASH: I've always imagined the gray paint was just the quickest, easiest way to cover up marks.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:41 
12:41
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
Christian, you think taggers are slacking because they are getting covered? Then I suspect the impulse to create art isn't as strong as the impulse to spray their name on a wall...
Monday July 14, 2008 12:41 Anthony
12:42
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
And if someone was so committed to having their building defaced by spray paint they could put up a sign inviting folks to spray on it and prohibiting anyone from covering it over except the owner. Of course the sign would likely be defaced and replaced.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:42 Anthony
12:43
MACCASH: Yes.   I suppose there would be nothing to stop a building owner to invite graffiti.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:43 
12:43
[Comment From AshleyAshley: ] 
There is indeed art without spray paint and city walls. But there's a thin line between skilled graffiti and legitimate muralists. So if permission or lack thereof is the demarcation, then it shouldn't be too difficult to steer people across that line gently with the community's blessing. And who knows what sort of talent can be encouraged? Instead of hoodlums, we may end up with talented, motivated artists. Once again, look at Basquiat. I mean, Keith Haring found inspiration in graffiti as well. What if a little encouragement from the NOLA community turned doomed hoodlum taggers into the next Haring and Basquiat?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:43 Ashley
12:44
MACCASH: I agree.   Part of being a muralist is the social skill to be allowed to paint large public spaces.   Lots of politics involved, lots of communication.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:44 
12:45
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Well Anthony, the increase in the scratch tags are a direct result in the frustration with Fred. I've interviewed many myself and photographed the variousness of the works and they will tag just to spite Fred. It's childish, but on both parts of the argument
Monday July 14, 2008 12:45 Christian
12:45
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Excellent point Ashley, it's one thing I'd like to see. Imagine what good things could come of giving the artists a venue that is meaningful.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:45 Christian
12:46
MACCASH:   I agree.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:46 
12:46
MACCASH: Where should the free graffiti zone be?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:46 
12:46
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Perhaps clemency for graffiti writers who go legit with their artwork...? Thoughts anyone?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:46 Christian
12:47
MACCASH: Graffiti amnesty?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:47 
12:47
[Comment From mark mclaughlinmark mclaughlin: ] 
to ashley- Lets give locksmithing lessons to the incarcerated
Monday July 14, 2008 12:47 mark mclaughlin
12:47
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Who would be in charge of the transition Doug? Is there someone that both sides could trust? You seem to have a pretty could grasp on the situation.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:47 Christian
12:49
MACCASH: Just set the free graffiti zone and let em at it.   Somebody would have to watch for vulgar stuff.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:49 
12:49
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
The graphitti free zone should be the city of New Orleans and the entire metro region....
Monday July 14, 2008 12:49 Anthony
12:50
MACCASH: A bit more specific perhaps.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:50 
12:50
[Comment From lebonssenslebonssens: ] 
The story on Gulfport putting $600 million into a massive container port is now the 3rd story on the Money page. If Gulfport were building a $600 million STATE OF THE ART NFL CALIBER STADIUM WITH A RETRACTABLE ROOF with the hopes of luring away the SAINTS, the article would be plastered all over the place. To the City of Gulfport: YOU MAY LURE AWAY OUR PORT BUSINESS AND ECONOMY, BUT DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT OUR BELOVED SAINTS. YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT DIRTY COMMERCE AND PROFITS AND HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE AND BETTER SCHOOLS. But, at the end of the day, we are better than you because we are older and HAVE CULTURE. We are a GUMBO POT. I guess the Romans had it right. Bread and games (circus maximus) for the masses. I guess that's part of the problem we have in New Orleans, the Times-Picayune doesn't care nor does a vast amount of the population.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:50 lebonssens
12:50
[Comment From G.P.G.P.: ] 
Graffiti is not art. It is vandalism to private and public property. I had a $5,000.00 wooden fence on my property defaced by someone who decided to ruin a perfectly new & clean surface. I then paid the added expense of painting the entire fence for the sake of aesthetic continuity. No clemency for so-called 'legit' taggers. There's no realistic way of officially classifying a vandal as a legit artist.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:50 G.P.
12:51
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
I'd expect a little more out of a "graphitti amnesty" Like helping to prosecute those who are tagging after the amnesty has been granted.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:51 Anthony
12:52
MACCASH: It doesn't have to be so formal;   just stop writing on people's trucks and put it on canvas or plywood, then see if anyone cares.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:52 
12:52
[Comment From AshleyAshley: ] 
I think the free graffiti zone should be under overpasses... like the Broad Street overpass, or I-10 near the Dome. And think about the Claiborne overpass art. Sure, it was done with careful planning, but it's public property that was improved, made more interesting with art. Furthermore, it serves the purpose of educating the curious about the history of the area. If the artists didn't have permission, but turned out the same quality of work in the same place, would it lack social value? Would it be graffiti or art?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:52 Ashley
12:55
MACCASH:Part of the graffiti appeal is social disobedience.   So the whole vibe would have to change.   It's much different to put up art and take responsibility for it.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:55 
12:55
[Comment From Tag RemoverTag Remover: ] 
My agency does not enjoy purchasing paint and grafitti removal products to compete with these little idiots who have nothing better to do than deface publice property.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:55 Tag Remover
12:55
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Wow, sorry to hear that GP. And that's an excellent point Anthony. Perhaps if amnesty is given, and you're caught tagging, then there could be a stiffer penalty and amnesty revoked.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:55 Christian
12:57
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Still, who could spearhead this and make it viable for the city and trustworthy for the taggers?
Monday July 14, 2008 12:57 Christian
12:58
MACCASH: Some graffiti artists say they have a code of ethics. They say they don’t mark private dwellings, churches, or schools. Apparently not everyone got the memo. It’s not hard to find French Quarter residences marred with spray paint.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:58 
12:58
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
I think some group that kind of over-saw things would be a good one to make sure that it wasn't just junk, Ashley. But not a city agency that raises the taxes.
Monday July 14, 2008 12:58 Christian
1:00
MACCASH: Some would certainly still be junk.   Junk makes its way into the finest galleries.   All we'd want to eliminate is racism, etc.
Monday July 14, 2008 1:00 
1:00
[Comment From ChristianChristian: ] 
Why would your agency enjoy that? The question is how do we make a viable change to the tone of both the taggers and the unbending tactics of Radtke?
Monday July 14, 2008 1:00 Christian
1:01
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
I'm not inclined to give any sanction to this because it encourages the behavior. The "new" graphitti "artist" without any way into it is going to emulate the behavior on other people's buildings.
Monday July 14, 2008 1:01 Anthony
1:01
MACCASH: There’s also a stipulation in the Offenses Against Property code that reads: “Graffiti must be removed by the owner of the property where the graffiti is located within 30 days of receiving notice to do so from the city.” Owners who do not comply could be fined. Is it possible that under the right circumstances, the graffiti writer, the graffiti eradicator and the property owner could all be penalized under the law?
Monday July 14, 2008 1:01 
1:02
[Comment From AnthonyAnthony: ] 
And besides, there are thousands of artists every day who pay for their canvas's, what gives some guy with a spray can who considers himself an "artist" the right to use someone else's property as a canvas?
Monday July 14, 2008 1:02 Anthony
1:02

MACCASH: Worse yet, the guy with the spray can never has to hear from critics.

Monday July 14, 2008 1:02 
1:03
MACCASH: Thanks everybody for taking part! If you're not finished with your comments, please go to www.nola.com/living and add your comments to Sunday's Living piece.
Monday July 14, 2008 1:03 
1:04



 
 
 
English  English
简体中文  简体中文
Dansk  Dansk
Deutsch  Deutsch
Español  Español
Français  Français
Italiano  Italiano
日本語  日本語
Nederlands  Nederlands
Norsk  Norsk
Português  Português
Русский  Русский
Svenska  Svenska
Close