Faster, better…

« Private Beach or Public Beach?

Watching the Kindle DX on Twitter »

The New York Times is a Graffiti Advocate

June 9th, 2009 |

Author: Doug

Wow! One more reason to cancel your New York Times subscription. Today the New York Times arts section tweeted http://www.twitter.com/nytimesarts “Special Report: Contemporary Art: Graffiti Gains New Respect http://bit.ly/nmobo

Uh no don’t think so. But, I suppose if you are the New York Times if you say it enough times it must be true. Reasonable men and women understand that graffiti, by definition, is a crime. The difference between graffiti and art is permission. Paint placed on a wall not your own is vandalism. The concept is so simple. It makes no difference whether the picture is pretty or not.

The Times doesn’t yet understand that the act of graffiti has as one of its basic thrills/elements the placement of paint on property not your own. The illegality of graffiti is an essential part of that aberrant subculture. The feel-gooders out there that only see a pretty picture only begin to understand the gravity of their way of thinking when they or their communities become inundated with vandalism. Some even think they should be able to pick and choose what kind of vandalism appears in their communities by sponsoring free walls.

Today’s article, entitled “Graffiti Gains New Respect” by Claudia Barbieri suggests that an upcoming graffiti-style art exhibit in France and a proposed similar exhibit at the Guggenheim gives graffiti vandalism a good name – or makes it mainstream. Not!

Graffiti advocacy is nothing new. I hate to surprise Ms. Barbieri with that fact. This subculture has always used deceit think to take advantage of gullible fanciers to minimize, down play, and marginalize the anti-graffiti folks so graffiti might someday be mainstream. Well those of us in the anti-graffiti movement find that sort of thinking pinheaded and preposterous. This article employs an old tactic I am reminded of wherein the advocate tries to blur the difference between vandalism and art, “Today the borders are blurred between street and graffiti artists,” said Leanne Sacramone, curator at the foundation.” No there has never been a blurr, only graffiti advocates working for museums and newspapers that find the pictures pretty and have no heart for the victims of the crime have foggy vision.

The American public does not consider vandalism a mainstream art movement. The New York Times does and so do a few silly art museums and graffiti fan websites. These folks are of course terrific examples of how unclear thinking causes poor judgment. Their wacky opinions do not support or reflect a groundswell of public support for criminal activity. A newspaper suffering from diminishing respect and a few and very out-numbered bunch of graffiti advocates feel this way.

New York you really should work to take back your newspaper. I sure hope the Times doesn’t succeed in advocating graffiti vandalism back into your museums and back into your communities. As for everyone else, if you have a New York Times subscription and you find this graffiti advocacy piece as offensive as I did maybe you could decide not to renew?

Vandalism is not mainstream. There may be more misguided and uneducated advocates than there were ten years ago but the crime is as serious today as it was then. It wreaks havoc on our homes, highways, railroads, and monuments and embattles communities as they resist a spiral into a decay. Those who appreciate graffiti have some serious soul searching to do. Before anyone does consider advocating vandalism they should think about the victims because graffiti is not a victimless crime.

The New York Times is way off the deep end on this one.

(Doug Smith serves on the Board of Directors of the NoGraf Network, http://www.nograffiti.com Global Unity Against Vandalism and tweets as @NoGraf http://www.twitter.com/nograf)