Sympathy might be the first reaction to Killian Tobin's pro-graffiti viewpoint if your community had never fallen victim to the insidious effects of graffiti. (Gangs, property devaluation etc.) You might even wonder who all those terrible people were who could possibly condemn the young hip-hop artists who merely look for a way to express themselves publicly. Just like any other American right? Mr. Tobin wants you to be sympathetic toward a new form [of graffiti that] "is artistic graffiti.
Artistic graffiti is a modern day offspring of traditional graffiti that has elevated itself from just scrawling words or phrases on a wall, to a complex artistic form of personal expression." Hurrah! The pro-graffiti bunch want you to hear and believe:
- The kids who do this are really nice kids and have nothing against the property owner. After all it hurts the kid as much as it hurts the property owner. After all this is art.
- The kids who do this are really artists and have no where else to perform. Oh and, no one wants them!
- The kids who do this are really impoverished and can't get a a real art education.
- The kids who do this are really not in gangs. This is the great American graffiti myth.
- The kids who do this are really artists that the world has refused to recognize.
- The kids who do this are really persecuted by evil police and the more "shudder" evil politicians.
- The kids who do this are really artists and their art that must be protected over the rights of property owners to be protected from the vandal's art.
- The kids who do this are really following in Caesar's footsteps. Mankind has done it since the early ages so why shouldn't today's kids.
- The kids who do this are really only doing it because they ran out of places to paint where it wouldn't bother anybody.
- The pictures are really pretty and we should look the other way.
An Anti-Graffiti Web page / doug@dougweb.comI would like you to read between the lines. Find the "key" words in Mr. Tobin's argument in favor of vandalism and the wanton destruction of public and private property:
Tobin acknowledges that in the last 25 years gangs have increasingly used graffiti to "mark their turf" yet he argues that gang graffiti is no big deal. He says graffiti is used by some in our communities to express their political beliefs but he won't elaborate and say why this is good or bad. He ignores defenses of these two forms of vandalism and proceeds immediately to the tired pro graffiti strategy of defending the pretty picture for art sake.
So here we go. Now we find out from Mr. Tobin that, "Contemporary graffiti involves much more than just a spur of the moment defacement; it is now a skillful display from each particular graffiti artist." Tobin acknowledges "defacement." Hurrah for our side. One wonders that if Tobin's property was defaced regularly what his stand on "graffiti art" would really be. And what about tagging? Tagging is not a pretty picture. Tagging is truly defacement! Art Crimes describes tagging as an essential step in the talent evolution of a so-called "graffiti artist?" Tobin makes a loose suggestion that these artists are not taggers because they are so much more skillful than that! So why is tagging a far greater problem than murals in my neighborhood? Perhaps we have no talent living close by.
Mr. Tobin acknowledges that graffiti is a modern day form of youthful rebellion when he says, "The majority of graffiti artists were young boys from the city looking for some way to express themselves, painting graffiti became an artistic form of rebellion." Rebellion against what? I know that kids grow up and have problems in the process. As people mature they tend to think more about how their actions effect the rights of others. So perhaps what we have here are immature youngsters and adults seeking a form of expression that does not display artistic ability per-se, but rather is designed to anger the public they have grown to hate. I submit to you that we have adults like Tobin and the Art Crimes bunch who are now encouraging the rebellion and the behavior in the name of art and the study of sociology.
Tobin is correct. I do believe that graffiti does, "include all sorts of races and economic classes." He got one right. Tobin isn't helping to bring this art of the masses to the surface. Tobin refers correctly to graffiti artists as being an "underground group" and a "subculture." Tobin tells us that, "Unfortunately, artistic graffiti grew to a point where it invaded personal property. (Funny, I thought it always had?) Graffiti artists had to compete for space, and it inevitably offended property owners." Well what did he expect. There is a loosely veiled meaning here. We are supposed to feel sorry for the "artists" now because they, "had to compete for space." Because the "artists" had to compete for space the "politicians responded by ordering police pressure." Really? So graffiti is really OK because graffiti is an evolved art form and the whole subculture that lives every moment of its life in the pursuit of more graffiti makes the vandalism OK. The politicians are horribly wrong! Horse pucky!
Tobin takes a pot shot at the police and the politicians when he says, "Most politicians saw this problem as much easier to solve then a drug or gang problem. They realized that most graffiti writers are young and don't have the same resources as a gang might. Also the effects of graffiti can be painted over, while the effects of a drug problem take much more effort to "erase." Give us a break. The police and politicians know that graffiti today is very serious. They also know it isn't easy to abate. And since when do gangs have any more clout at city hall than they ever did? If it were easier to abate than drugs and other crimes I doubt I would have started this web page. He knows as do the graffiti writers who send me hate mail that "graf" is a really serious problem. He also knows that statistically, communities have made a difference and have turned graffiti problems around when the community declared once and for all they as a community had had enough. Tobin wants you to give up and take sides with those who violate the property rights of others!
Tobin takes a naive and irresponsible stand when he says, "This approach (the law) is outdated and accomplishes little as far as fixing the problems that motivate these kids to do graffiti in the first place. This strategy only breeds resentment from the youth who perpetrate these crimes." He refers of course to community efforts to abate graffiti. The truth is a criminal who is going to write will write. There are truly people in this world who do not respect the rights of others. I have heard from a few since I started this anti-graffiti page. We have laws because of the people we cannot reach.
There are also kids who can be turned around and I challenge anyone, including Tobin, to tell me this nation has not bent over backwards to reach the root causes of juvenile delinquency. The liberals in this country have experimented with every modern approach to social engineering. The conservatives have had their day. Everyone has and is still trying hard to reach the kids. Some are reached and in fact do turn around. The law is not an out dated approach. The law as applied to a graffiti writer just pushes Tobin's buttons and I can't help that. I guess my question would be to the University of Georgia, "What are you doing about it?"
Tobin is skilled at misinforming the misinformed! He says, "Soon people became scared whenever they saw any form of graffiti in their neighborhoods. This misinformation also gave graffiti an undying reputation of gang affiliation which contributed to community pressure against graffiti." The truth is much of the graffiti we see today IS GANG GRAFFITI. Tobin is misinformed. There are a few "crews" and "art vandals" but the predominate taggers in our town are the gangs. Gangs are bad news for the community as a whole. When gangs are allowed to roam, it means death, shootings, stabbings, and turf wars. You're damned right we are scared Mr. Tobin. Mr. Tobin is misinformed. Oh and just what are we supposed to think when we do see graffiti in our neighborhoods? Am I supposed to stand there and clap?
Tobin's wild conclusion is, "It is unfortunate that artistic graffiti has been given such a negative undertone. The positive conceptions of this form of graffiti would be restored if the public were more knowledgeable of what this graffiti really consisted of." What positive conceptions? Consists of what besides paint on someone's property other than the artist? Since when is the vandalism of public or private property positive? Since when do people I don't know have the right to paint, scrawl, gouge, and etch their madness into the walls and homes of my community? Since when? Who else except the graffiti vandal is responsible for the negative undertone? True artists don't need the outlaw sub-culture of rebellion. Get a life Mr. Tobin. Get real. Speak to a graffiti victim, today.