This has gotten rather long. If you don´t have time or interest you can skip straight to the last paragraph as it is the most important aspect, imo.
Broomstick wrote:
Because "graffiti is art" is an opinion. Whether or not anything is art, or worthwhile art, is an opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, nor the opinion of people who thing paint smeared on a walls is "cute" or something to market to tourists.
It seems to be an opinion that is signifcant enough to use as a marketing tool, so I see no reason to simply dismiss it as worthless.
Just sucks to be the property owner who has to foot the bill, then, doesn't it? Not a goddamn dime goes to the property owners who have to put up with this, does it?
Right the CITY - that is, the POLITICIANS - profit from the graffiti. The property owners just have to suck it up, right? Again, what do they get?
A city isn´t just politicians. The whole economy of a city and with that it´s inhabitants profit from a flourishing tourist industry. In the 90s Berlin had around 3 Million tourists per year. These days it´s over 11 million per year. That´s an increase of almost 400% in only 10 or so years. This is due to the fact that Berlin marketed itself as a cool, arty farty, urban city. Poor but sexy were the mayors words for discribing Berlin several years back. This "sexyness" is derieved from the urban "flair" which graffiti contributes to.
Now, I´m using Berlin as an example. But there are other cities that are similar. Hamburg has similar areas that have made the city more appealing. In the US I´m not sure but I´d guess that certain areas of New York or New Orleans profit heavily from the "flair".
It´s entirely possible that this is constrained to some cities and wouldn´t work in others, of course. But I´m trying to combat the mindset that graffiti = necessarily bad.
Oh, right - well, you see, in the US private property owners DO have a say in the exterior of their buildings (a few historical ones excepted, which graffiti "artists" aren't allowed to deface, either) and do have the right to exclude strangers from their property. Trespassing is also a crime.
Owners of public buildings that allow the public access still have the right to restrict what visitors do. Including forbidding them from defacing the walls.
We have a thing called "Bebauungsplan" which, I think, roughly translates to zoning. It includes a whole bunch of regulation concerning how you are alowed to build and use buildings in certain areas. From safety regulations, to density and usage (residential, industrial commercial) to aesthetic regulations. From google searches I conclude that this exists in the USA as well and runs under the name of aesthetic zoning. This regulates, for example, what color you may paint your house in certain zones.
Therefore it looks like it would be easy to incorporate a clause that states that exterior walls in zone xy can be painted by whomever wants to from a legal standpoint if the political will is there.
Also, one has to differentiate between walls that can be accessed from a public area such as a wall that directly borders a sidewalk (like most walls in urban areas) and walls that can not be such a most walls of your typical single family house. I´m not proposing to make tresspassing legal.
If you can access the wall from the sidewalk there is no tresspassing because you can paint the wall while standing on public space.
Allmost all aspects of zoning laws cause conflict between property owners and public interest. Maybe a property owner wants to build a six story building but can not because the regulations state that the maximum height are 5 stories. This directly goes against the interest of the owner and shows how people are not necessarily allowed to do what they want with their property.
Increased property values mean a larger tax bill.
Property owners - unless they are one of those hotels or restaurants - get jack from the money tourists spend.
Again - the people whose property is defaced get NOTHING but increased costs.
It also means higher income due to increased rent the owner takes from tenant.
Since when?
Here in the US it's associated with urban decay, gangs, decreased safety, and increased crime.
This is just the usual process of gentrification. In the beginning you´ve got a low income area. Rents are low. Students and arty farty people move in. Students and arty farty people are people who make graffiti. The area is now known as "cool" and has "flair". This on the one hand attracts richer people who want to live in a "cool" urban area with "flair. Also, the students get older, get high paying jobs but don´t necessarily move out. They now have the means to pay higher rents and the home owners take more money. The poorer population disappears.
Obviously this comes with some serious disadvantages because it drives out the poor population but like mentioned before it´s a wet dream for owners.
Now, we clearly disagree on the artistical value of graffiti. That´s fine, we don´t need consensus on that.
A more interesting aspect to me is the following. There is clearly conflict between people who like graffiti and people who don´t. There´s a significant demand for graffiti by a significant number of the population making it relevant to address. The current method of punishing people doesn´t seem to work as there is so much graffiti even though it is illegal.
Therefore I find it interesting to think about other methods to combat the conflict. I proposed a method consisting of accepting the fact that graffiti is here to stay and trying to profit form it, be it in a financial or social way.
Do you have a proposal to deal with it other than the current one? Do you think the current method is functional? Do you think that introducing more draconian laws will get rid of graffiti? How draconian are you willing to become in order to get rid of graffiti?
