my day is instantly thrilled every day when I drive by Powell Square.
FYI, courtesy of Jake Wagman:
"Alderman Donna Baringer wants to draw the line with graffiti artists.
Baringer is pushing a bill that would help track potential vandals by requiring stores to record the personal information of anyone buying three or more “graffiti tools” - such as spray paint, a paint stick or permanent marker.
The bill would also subject those caught spreading graffiti to 90 days of community service spent - you guessed it - cleaning up graffiti.
Though other cities have taken a supply-side approach to attacking graffiti - banning the possession of spray cans and the like - St. Louis is the only place I know of that would require ID to purchase paint supplies.
Will Baringer’s plan wash out vandals - or simply make it harder for art teachers to pick up supplies?
Find out more about the proposal at a 1 p.m. hearing today in the Kennedy Room at City Hall."
Link
"Alderman Donna Baringer wants to draw the line with graffiti artists.
Baringer is pushing a bill that would help track potential vandals by requiring stores to record the personal information of anyone buying three or more “graffiti tools” - such as spray paint, a paint stick or permanent marker.
The bill would also subject those caught spreading graffiti to 90 days of community service spent - you guessed it - cleaning up graffiti.
Though other cities have taken a supply-side approach to attacking graffiti - banning the possession of spray cans and the like - St. Louis is the only place I know of that would require ID to purchase paint supplies.
Will Baringer’s plan wash out vandals - or simply make it harder for art teachers to pick up supplies?
Find out more about the proposal at a 1 p.m. hearing today in the Kennedy Room at City Hall."
Link
Baringer! I am sure she has a huge problem with graffiti in her wonderfully stable ward. Seriously, who has seen people tagging single family homes in South City?
Yet I am sure her conservative voter base loves her advocacy for the City.
We need to address the root cause of the problem: abandoned buildings.
Don't like graffiti on abandoned buildings? Perhaps if they were rehabbed and owner occupied they wouldn't be targets.
The biggest concern about Powell Square is not the graffiti but that it's abandoned.
Locking up people or controlling the supply of paint won't do anything. What will is people living in a building and having eyes on the street!
Classic Jane Jacobs.
Yet I am sure her conservative voter base loves her advocacy for the City.
We need to address the root cause of the problem: abandoned buildings.
Don't like graffiti on abandoned buildings? Perhaps if they were rehabbed and owner occupied they wouldn't be targets.
The biggest concern about Powell Square is not the graffiti but that it's abandoned.
Locking up people or controlling the supply of paint won't do anything. What will is people living in a building and having eyes on the street!
Classic Jane Jacobs.
JCity wrote:Go spray paint on the flood wall if he thinks he's contributing something so enlightening for us all..
How many people actually see that wall? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but outside of very occasional events, it seems like just about the only people that would ever see the Paint Louis wall are people actively seeking it out, or people who got lost on Laclede's Landing.
Apropos of nothing, I actually kind of miss the (legal, as I recall) "This Ain't Ladue" sign Downtown. I remember seeing that sign after a show at the American or the Galaxy or some such while attending Ladue Middle School, and basically proceeded forthwith to spend high school weekends nosing around Farrago, eating at Sen or Wasabi, and going to the City Museum when it was open late. At times, there's something to be said for not being Ladue...
Well, not being Ladue in legal venues, at least.
You mean if I buy three or more Sharpies in St. Louis I have to give out personal information? That's ridiculous, and it isn't going to stop vandals. Are they going to track down everyone who has red spraypaint when a red graffiti shows up? And what if the vandals are coming from the suburbs or Illinois?steve wrote:FYI, courtesy of Jake Wagman:
"Alderman Donna Baringer wants to draw the line with graffiti artists.
Baringer is pushing a bill that would help track potential vandals by requiring stores to record the personal information of anyone buying three or more “graffiti tools” - such as spray paint, a paint stick or permanent marker.
The bill would also subject those caught spreading graffiti to 90 days of community service spent - you guessed it - cleaning up graffiti.
Though other cities have taken a supply-side approach to attacking graffiti - banning the possession of spray cans and the like - St. Louis is the only place I know of that would require ID to purchase paint supplies.
Will Baringer’s plan wash out vandals - or simply make it harder for art teachers to pick up supplies?
Find out more about the proposal at a 1 p.m. hearing today in the Kennedy Room at City Hall."
Link
Esseelig mentioned how very few people actually visit the flood wall. How about the city of St. Louis provide designated graffiti walls in visible places throughout the city? Or, better yet, graffiti buildings (with retail or offices inside)? I know it sounds silly, but my point is the city isn't going to get anywhere trying to fight against or prevent graffiti. It just won't work. They need to embrace the community in a way that positively contributes to the culture of the city.
The proposed legislation is not the best idea in the world. There must be a reason why no other municipality has done such a thing. Not effective. Waste of program administration costs. Nuisance to the populace. Take your pick.
How many people actually see that wall?
SO, that makes it OK to deface people's PRIVATE PROPERTY. everyone on this board, that's OK with graffiti what is your address, I'll be over with 90 cans of spray paint, and I'll "enlighten" your little day with such remarkable little phrases such as:
Fo give yo self
dis aint ladue
How many people actually see that wall?
SO, that makes it OK to deface people's PRIVATE PROPERTY. everyone on this board, that's OK with graffiti what is your address, I'll be over with 90 cans of spray paint, and I'll "enlighten" your little day with such remarkable little phrases such as:
Fo give yo self
this aint ladue
- 2,093
"Don't like graffiti on abandoned buildings? Perhaps if they were rehabbed and owner occupied they wouldn't be targets."
yeah, those slutty lookin' buildings were just askin' to be violated
yeah, those slutty lookin' buildings were just askin' to be violated
That's not my point. And I don't appreciate that analogy.
It eyes were on the street people would be less likely to tag them.
It eyes were on the street people would be less likely to tag them.
- 2,929
Doug wrote:It eyes were on the street people would be less likely to tag them.
This is why your analysis is fundamentally wrong for the nature of graffiti.
While there is the impetus of tagging as a purely artistic venture, such as that approved concentrated on the floodwalls, tagging is predominantly the establishment of territorial borders for gang elements. Sure, you have punk kids wanting to stick it to the powers that be and general rebellious behavior, but you also have the primary purpose of organizations marking sites for both territorial establishment and the promulgation of hegemony.
Or: This is our area, and all others looking to make a market better set up elsewhere.
Being highly visible is critically important. It establishs hegemonic control over other rival elements contingent to the apparent expansion of territorial market claims. As well, it is both a lure to consumer interests in their wares as well as a mode of passive intimidation to non-involved parties within the demarcated areas. Consciously or not, high-profile tagging is deeply involved in organization of sustainable markets. And, no one tags to be subtle.
Now, this guy who marked next to the highway probably just wanted to show off. However, I've seen tags in downtown by individuals not wanting to just show off their artistic musings but to establish territory. I've seen kids marking for well-known gangs under the StL Centre skybridge before the sides were covered up with the marketing posters for the redevelopment, catching one kid putting up for the Bloods. It wasn't to make 6th & Washington claimed as gangland, but to parlay this tag to the populaces that walk along this stretch of the street, as well as those that take the mass transit systems hubbed at the locations, which demographically and statistically include a percentage that would be daily affected by whichever rival organizations maintain dominance.
You can't maintain "eyes on the streets" at all times in all places. For this vandalism to be subdued, it must be rigorously fought, if not in confinement than in substantial monetary fines and the mandation of community service / manual labor to work off the costs.
For those who say that it is a respect-worthy artistic venture, I counter that another form of "personal artistry", involving dog poop in a flaming bag left on doorsteps, has unduly been persecuted. What some call vandalism, I call "misunderstood art", and it being illegal is an undue censorship and limiting to my right to personal expression. If it is protected speech to tag buildings, then I maintain that it should be protected speech for one to express their artistic talents by setting bags of poop on fire.
The definition of art is flexible, but not that flexible. A work of art is an expression of human creativity and imagination. While creating a respectable graffiti (such as some of Ed Boxx's) requires careful planning and exceptional drawing/painting skills, lighting a bag of feces on fire requires little to no thought or creativity. Unless you've devised a revolutionary method that etches the image of Madonna onto the doorstep of the victim.Gone Corporate wrote:For those who say that it is a respect-worthy artistic venture, I counter that another form of "personal artistry", involving dog poop in a flaming bag left on doorsteps, has unduly been persecuted. What some call vandalism, I call "misunderstood art", and it being illegal is an undue censorship and limiting to my right to personal expression. If it is protected speech to tag buildings, then I maintain that it should be protected speech for one to express their artistic talents by setting bags of poop on fire.Doug wrote:It eyes were on the street people would be less likely to tag them.
- 8,912
I wonder how Doug would feel if ed boxx tagged "Art" on a newly rehabbed Mullanphy house... or the wainwright, city hall, the arch etc.
Gone Corporate wrote:If it is protected speech to tag buildings, then I maintain that it should be protected speech for one to express their artistic talents by setting bags of poop on fire.
"Don't put it out with your boots Ted"
Is there any doubt? He'd say it was a racist act spurred by the elites.Moorlander wrote:I wonder how Doug would feel if ed boxx tagged "Art" on a newly rehabbed Mullanphy house... or the wainwright, city hall, the arch etc.
oh, it's definitely the white majority's fault that tagging even exists.
They don't tag those buildings because they have respect for our City. They want add not subtract. That's why they don't do that sh*t.
Doug wrote:They don't tag those buildings because they have respect for our City.
Bull****! Taggers have ZERO respect for our city, and very little respect for themselves, either, apparently. Face it: they're nothing but small-minded, petty vandals.
Ed Boxx totally ***** up the Orpheum Theater last spring remember? One of the greatest terra-cotta displays we have in this city and a magnificent reminder of our once proud downtown theater district. He did so much damage that it took most of year to set it right...............and you can still tell where it was because the color is off. I think you are hitching your horse to a broken wagon here Doug, don't side with Ed. He is a loser. If you must, continue to argue that graffiti is a legitimate art form in certain circumstances, but Ed Boxx is a punk b****.Doug wrote:They don't tag those buildings because they have respect for our City. They want add not subtract. That's why they don't do that sh*t.
^I have to concede that point. That was a pretty big offense. He could have at least tagged the Century Garage.
- 2,929
FYI: I've seen a new string of tags along Lucas just north of the center of Washington Avenue. This includes along the yet-to-be-developed Avenida Building and on commercial trucks being held within the McGowan Brothers' lot just north of the 1300 block.
- 10K
He hit one of Purina's buildings at Tucker and Chouteau too.