Line Out Music & the City at Night
The Stranger Suggests
Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food
Slog
News & Arts
@SEAshowsTwitter feed of Seattle shows on sale now
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Graffiti The Audit
Posted by Gabe Meier on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Great character work done by Jay Meer at the SoDo Free Wall.
4
Is this column going to focus only on sanctioned "graffiti"? There's gotta be more art around Seattle than one photo a week, right?
5
Betwixt - I will be posting both "sanctioned" and "illegal" graffiti here. You can find more local graffiti and street art over at my blog, Baldmanwatching.com.
7
A quote from a professor friend of mine @ Seattle Central Community College:
"...the schools are just one example of public institutions that spend huge amounts of money cleaning up graffiti, as required by law. At Seattle Central Community College, where I teach, the amount of money spent cleaning up graffiti would pay for at least 10 additional course offerings which are not being offered to balance the budget. As I look at my overloaded classes, I realize that the graffiti "artists" are stealing the education of 320 students who can't get into classes they need."
Disappointing that the Stranger is promoting this at cost of education to those with limited resources.
"...the schools are just one example of public institutions that spend huge amounts of money cleaning up graffiti, as required by law. At Seattle Central Community College, where I teach, the amount of money spent cleaning up graffiti would pay for at least 10 additional course offerings which are not being offered to balance the budget. As I look at my overloaded classes, I realize that the graffiti "artists" are stealing the education of 320 students who can't get into classes they need."
Disappointing that the Stranger is promoting this at cost of education to those with limited resources.
8
The graffiti artists are not "stealing" these students education. The City of Seattle's archaic, illogical law regarding graffiti is. The City is who forces SCCC to clean up the graffiti under risk of fine. The school most likely knows that because of their location, tagging is inevitable, and I would think that they would spend far less on graffiti cleanup if they weren't forced to by the City.
9
Gabe, you don't make a whole lot of sense.
Would you have people believe that the school would welcome the destruction of their property? They're equally as vigilant at cleaning up graffiti in the school hallways, bathrooms and classrooms and there's no law requiring that.
I wouldn't consider the law archaic or illogical. You might be surprised how many people don't want to have their property damaged, though I hope not too surprised.
You are acting as an accomplice in the theft of the education of these students. I think you'd be smart to reconsider your position.
Would you have people believe that the school would welcome the destruction of their property? They're equally as vigilant at cleaning up graffiti in the school hallways, bathrooms and classrooms and there's no law requiring that.
I wouldn't consider the law archaic or illogical. You might be surprised how many people don't want to have their property damaged, though I hope not too surprised.
You are acting as an accomplice in the theft of the education of these students. I think you'd be smart to reconsider your position.
10
And you would be surprised at how many people don't want the city telling them to clean up their property. It has nothing to do with whether the property owners want their property tagged or not. It has to do with whether it is worth their resources (both time and money) to consistently clean up tags that will just reappear a week later.
11
You're leading this off topic.
The point is that the school (or property owners) do not want to have their property destroyed by vandals. It IS worth the school's resources to fix the damage. As I pointed out, and you perhaps missed, the school works very hard to clean up graffiti within the school as well.
The school's motivation is to attract new students. The amount of graffiti at a building does not fall in the 'plus' column of many perspective students.
And why do you operate under the assumption that people want their property damaged? Do you honestly believe that people are more annoyed with the city for telling them to repair the damage than the vandal themselves?
Again, you should stop promoting this disservice to the community and the students. You should instead focus your efforts and talent towards sanctioned graffiti.
The point is that the school (or property owners) do not want to have their property destroyed by vandals. It IS worth the school's resources to fix the damage. As I pointed out, and you perhaps missed, the school works very hard to clean up graffiti within the school as well.
The school's motivation is to attract new students. The amount of graffiti at a building does not fall in the 'plus' column of many perspective students.
And why do you operate under the assumption that people want their property damaged? Do you honestly believe that people are more annoyed with the city for telling them to repair the damage than the vandal themselves?
Again, you should stop promoting this disservice to the community and the students. You should instead focus your efforts and talent towards sanctioned graffiti.
12
Once again, I am not operating under the assumption that people "want" their property damaged. All I'm saying is that graffiti is a vital part of any urban metropolis and will continue to be for a very long time. The majority of the city does not believe it is a problem (from the city's graffiti audit). SCCC can make the decision on its own whether they should cleanup graffiti or not. I agree, graffiti within the school is well worth cleaning up, but the acid etchings on the windows along Broadway are not going to stop. Do you think SCCC should continue to spend money cleaning those up? Constantly cleaning/replacing those windows just for them to be tagged again. I operate under the belief that each individual/business should be able to clean up graffiti if they don't want it there, but they shouldn't be forced by anyone to spend their hard-earned cash cleaning it if they don't want to clean it.
Now on your second point that I should "focus your efforts and talent towards sanctioned graffiti." First of all, thank you for believing I have talent. Haha. Second, one of the great things about graffiti is that it is not confined to a simple canvass. It can be on the underside of a freeway, beside traintracks, on a subway wall or any other number of places, most of which you would consider unsanctioned. I would much rather look at a beautiful array of graffiti pieces than the bleak gray of a concrete wall. I would also much rather look at a quick throw up (like this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabemeier/4…) than the ugly gray paint that is used to cover it up. Just my opinions.
Now on your second point that I should "focus your efforts and talent towards sanctioned graffiti." First of all, thank you for believing I have talent. Haha. Second, one of the great things about graffiti is that it is not confined to a simple canvass. It can be on the underside of a freeway, beside traintracks, on a subway wall or any other number of places, most of which you would consider unsanctioned. I would much rather look at a beautiful array of graffiti pieces than the bleak gray of a concrete wall. I would also much rather look at a quick throw up (like this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabemeier/4…) than the ugly gray paint that is used to cover it up. Just my opinions.
13
A vital part of any urban metropolis? You're imposing a value on this vandalism that does not exist. While I do believe it's important to understand why people feel the need to destroy another person's property, that by no means indicates vitality.
The question from the questionnaire is as follows:
"Is graffiti a problem for you, your business, or organization?"
9% said it was "a very big problem"
13% said it was "a big problem"
18% said it was "a medium problem"
21% said it was "a small problem"
38% said it was "not a problem"
You misunderstood the audit. They were not asking for an opinion about graffiti, they were asking if you if their property had been damaged (owned/rented/workplace). The breakdown suggests that more people have been a victim of vandalism than not.
Additionally, you cannot, at your convenience, divide inside graffiti and outside graffiti at Seattle Central. The school wants to give the impression to prospective students that they care about their building and that it is well maintained. They will repair the inside and out, as the budget allows, as best they can.
Glass etching is one of the greatest expenses. Special windows are purchased to help combat this little appreciated form of destruction.
My personal opinion about graffiti found under freeways or beside traintracks is that it's okay. I would have guessed that a majority of the people would feel that its presence would give people the perception that this was a dangerous area (an opinion shaped by riding the metro north into NYC in the 80s) but the study does not support that entirely.
I'd like to again appeal to your sense of reason. The people who end up paying for this damage are not the wealthy business owners or a faceless bureaucrats. The cost gets passed down to students in the form of tuition or class choices. It gets passed down to renters of a building or customers at a store.
Question 8 in the report suggest that there is public support for murals and street art fixtures. That seems like a great endeavor that would satisfy a greater group of people.
http://www.seattle.gov/audit/docs/2010Gr…
See Appendix D-2
More...
The question from the questionnaire is as follows:
"Is graffiti a problem for you, your business, or organization?"
9% said it was "a very big problem"
13% said it was "a big problem"
18% said it was "a medium problem"
21% said it was "a small problem"
38% said it was "not a problem"
You misunderstood the audit. They were not asking for an opinion about graffiti, they were asking if you if their property had been damaged (owned/rented/workplace). The breakdown suggests that more people have been a victim of vandalism than not.
Additionally, you cannot, at your convenience, divide inside graffiti and outside graffiti at Seattle Central. The school wants to give the impression to prospective students that they care about their building and that it is well maintained. They will repair the inside and out, as the budget allows, as best they can.
Glass etching is one of the greatest expenses. Special windows are purchased to help combat this little appreciated form of destruction.
My personal opinion about graffiti found under freeways or beside traintracks is that it's okay. I would have guessed that a majority of the people would feel that its presence would give people the perception that this was a dangerous area (an opinion shaped by riding the metro north into NYC in the 80s) but the study does not support that entirely.
I'd like to again appeal to your sense of reason. The people who end up paying for this damage are not the wealthy business owners or a faceless bureaucrats. The cost gets passed down to students in the form of tuition or class choices. It gets passed down to renters of a building or customers at a store.
Question 8 in the report suggest that there is public support for murals and street art fixtures. That seems like a great endeavor that would satisfy a greater group of people.
http://www.seattle.gov/audit/docs/2010Gr…
See Appendix D-2
14
Don't worry I've read the Audit through and through and interpret the question as whether people personally believe that graffiti is a problem in their lives. Not if any of their property has ever been vandalized.
I'm very curious as to what you believe should be done about the graffiti "problem"? I believe the city should abandon its current policy of fining businesses and property owners if they don't remove graffiti. I also believe the city should reallocate much of the current two million dollar budget spent on graffiti cleanup to community center art programs and re instituting art classes in area schools. I don't have the exact number on how much 2 million can get, but I'm sure it can be put to better use than cleaning the underside of freeways.
I'm very curious as to what you believe should be done about the graffiti "problem"? I believe the city should abandon its current policy of fining businesses and property owners if they don't remove graffiti. I also believe the city should reallocate much of the current two million dollar budget spent on graffiti cleanup to community center art programs and re instituting art classes in area schools. I don't have the exact number on how much 2 million can get, but I'm sure it can be put to better use than cleaning the underside of freeways.
15
Gabe-please provide your home address so Seattle "writers" can come by your home and give an urban aesthetic to your home, fences, furniture, trees and car. If you are not willing to provide your personal property as a canvas for Seattle's graffiti artists than you might as well shut the fuck up. Because you clearly don't believe in the opinions you express here and elsewhere.
Most Commented on Line Out
-
What Do You Think Of Tom Cruise's "Rockin' New Look?" by Kelly O
-
UPDATE: Bumbershoot to Skip Flatstock This Year[?] by Grant Brissey
-
chicBuds: EARO OR ZERO? by Dave Segal
-
Have You Seen This Bass? by Dave Segal
-
Ongoing List of Defunct Seattle Clubs by Grant Brissey
-
Word on the Street Is That Tonight Is Mad Rad's Last Show Ever by Grant Brissey
-
Also Tonight in Music: Avengers at Funhouse by Grant Brissey
-
Today in Funny: Hannibal Buress and Aziz Ansari by Grant Brissey
-
I'm Hungover...So, What Does THAT Sound Like? by Mike Nipper
-
D'Angelo's Return by Larry Mizell, Jr.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS