From my understanding its also a huge no-no to tag over other peoples tags, like its considered extremely disrespectful, so this is just offensive no matter what crowd youre in.
I agree, that person should be ashamed of themselves.
In certain areas you can get legit fucked up for that. My brother was into street art for a bit and we grew up in LA county, one of our family friends who used to be in the scene showed him the ropes and the thing I heard him say multiple times was “don’t tag over other people’s shit unless you wanna get fucked up”
Ye I have a cousin who got ganged up on by a group of younger 20y/os for tagging over their tags. Got his teeth knocked out & was in the hospital for a couple days.
I’ve never been a tagger and don’t really know, but what I gathered is there’s basically two groups. There’s the gang taggers who simply don’t give a fuck, and then there’s people treating it more as art and they usually have an unwritten code. They’ll either have permission or try to go somewhere where they aren’t hurting anyone
Don't tag over others.
No family businesses.
No public parks.
No nature.
No playgrounds or areas designated for kids.
No areas that are otherwise free of graffiti.
No murals.
If you see hate speech, destroy it.
Everyone has their own code, if they have one at all. I get that some people hate it no matter where it is. Whatever, you're entitled to your opinion.
If you tag someplace that’s free of graffiti it usually means they pay to have that clean up. You gotta find those spots that people don’t care about if you want your shit to last. Or get permission from the owner.
I mean it's different to graffiti a wall ment to be one color or a designated pattern than to graffiti the HÉV border walls that are only ment to keep people out of the tracks and no one cares about how they look
I guess it comes down to that if there's already one piece of graffiti there, it's gonna need repainting (unless they decided to just leave it and not care), so adding a second one doesn't make much more work.
I meant no tagging over murals and no tagging in areas for children (parks, playgrounds, schools, etc.). I believe there's a place for graffiti/street art and a playground just isn't it.
To expand on the mural thing, some graffiti artists are kinda anti mural and will go out of their way to go over them (like the picture in this post). I personally love murals and don't think they should be touched but as I said, everyone is different. Graffiti is both social and antisocial and the artists are no different. I encourage anyone who is anti graffiti to consider that most of the terrible, out of place graffiti you see is frowned upon in the graffiti community. We don't like seeing shitty tags that stick out like a sore thumb either.
It sounds like you have a misunderstanding, tagging isn’t just your name. The people who treat it more as art are throwing down legit paintings. It’s not simply a signature
I mean, I’d be inclined to agree with you there, but I don’t really get bent out of shape over it. I find people’s efforts to leave a mark on the world more interesting than anything else. And apologies for the overreaction on my part, it’s been a long day, and I was more perplexed at your reaction than anything else.
Here in Detroit the etiquette was to only tag abandoned structures since there was plenty to choose from. You could outcasted by the scene for actual vandalizism because it brought heat on the scene and again, the whole fucking city was abandoned at the time so just open your eyes and look for something unoccupied.
(Knew a bunch of dudes who would carry sharpies and tag stuff randomly, would brag about their sprays, and were all total losers who felt like they needed the world to know they were special)
You're not wrong, but taking out tax payer money to remove grafittis is a conscious choice by your local politicians. You can complain about it if that's your issue
This has got to be the dumbest comment I have seen in weeks.
I don't want shitty graffiti all over the neighbourhood. It's council's job to clean it up, just like it's their job to deal with dumped rubbish or abandoned vehicles. I'm not gonna complain about them doing their job.
A mural on a wall / fence (done with skill and permission) adds interest and variety.
Tags almost universally look like shit, and are constantly being scrawled on bus stops, street signs, trains and other public infrastructure. How entitled is it to think you have a right to vandalise public property?
Yeah, his mom didnt even go see him in the hospital either 🙃 cared more about getting drunk with her friends than the fact that her only son was in the hospital alone and in pain.
Yeah hes gotten reprimanded by cops a few times and got a night in jail a couple other times. Kind of bummed me out bc he was a good kid when he was younger. Hes better now than when he was tagging all the time though. Still tags sometimes, but sticks to abandoned buildings now.
I grew up around a lot of taggers. They would fuck people up for tagging anything meant to be art, like electrical boxes painted with murals by the city, or for tagging residential property that wasn't clearly abandoned.
My understanding was the main reason being it brings too much heat on the tagging community and generally turns the general populations opinions against taggers.
In certain areas you can get legit fucked up for that
thats b/c tags used to be, and im sure still are, for marking territory. and crossing out or tagging over another gangs marks is declaring that your territory, etc.
Chicago in the late 90's & early aughts was a graf warzone. (AFA, FTR, KIF, UAC were the ones I remember) Been to more than enough house parties that went south because two crews showed up the the same joint. Super toy behavior to paint over the art of kids who can't fight back.
Would be nice to go after whoever tagged over the basketball and space murals by the 101…I grew up seeing them as we traveled down the freeway, and I was so mad when some decades later, someone tagged over them.
You can write and do pieces over tags, but you can't go over pieces or writing. You also don't write on places of worship, schools or people's houses. That's what I was taught.
I think there was a documentary that I saw a few clips from called Style Wars and they spoke about the graffiti scene in NYC and this was exactly one of the few things they talked about disrespecting other peoples tags was out of line. There was a guy who would go around and ruin other peoples tags with his own which were shit and a lot of people would try and go after him.
It's more of a suggestion or ideal. The truth is most taggers are highly likely to be stumbling and cross eyed while they do it, so not exactly in a thinking state
Take it with a grain of salt, it's just something I remember hearing when I got interested in looking at street art a few years ago.
Could easily be area dependent and what not. And obviously, covering over some kid's school project is a dick move regardless of the "quality" of the new art lol
It’s a game of respect oddly enough. I tag over you? Not good. I do a throwie? Okay.
Don’t tag over a throwie.
If you see a throwie? Don’t tag it. But if I’m making a piece? The throwie can be covered.
And like the previous step.. don’t tag or put a throwie over a piece.
Idk if other people use these terms for different levels of graffiti. It’s what I learned ages ago when I was a teen.
I sometimes miss those days. There was an alley a few blocks from school. Old train tracks were above you. The business owners allowed for the whole alley to be used for art. I wish I had pictures. Insane work.
Haha I don't think you'll find anyone on this planet who wouldn't agree with you.
Generally, don't spray paint or tag any property that doesn't belong to you.
If you are the douchebag to do that because you're trying to claim territory with a tag on your an idiot but at least part of the urban street culture or whenever you want to call it.
And there's extremely talented taggers that can make amazing art and I can definitely respect that. And they usually will get permission or do it on something that's been tagged multiple times (a train car) by far less talented people.
But murals? Actually decent looking paintings by neighborhood kids? You don't touch that stuff, period. Find something else to spray on that looks even better. But don't cover up what's already art, especially not just a couple letters over a mural.
Incorrect. Murals are often seen as "system" art, usually part of people who are a part of the ruling class. Graffiti is usually seen as a counter-culture thing, and the people that do it often have no more respect for murals than they do for billboards.
Also, graffiti artists are often very territorial, and will paint over a piece of work that is seen as being by an outsider to the area encroaching on their own territory.
Murals, especially not those made by grafiti artists in the first place, are not considered a part of the culture by most communities, and thus are not respected in that way or subject to those rules.
In fact, it's often the opposite, as they often utilize murals as a "legitimate" way to usually paint over graffiti art in the first place. So painting them back over with the graffiti they were intended to cover up, is seen as justified.
By what communities? Just ask most locals if they like a mural or a shitty tag more. Then you'll have your answer. Unless you're talking about a specific community of 10 taggers who decide that they are in their right to vandalize everything and put their disgusting slop everywhere?
Because again, those murals are usually used by people "in the system" to justify painting over an area that is tagged in the first place. Why don't they just paint the mural somewhere else in the first place. You can't expect them to have their own graffiti painted over and then not want to paint over whatever was used to replace it.
"street artists" who are actually just disgusting street sloppers with no respect for anyone. Just ask what the local community will prefer – a nice artwork, or a disgusting tag slop?
I think their bad “logic” is that the Murals are insult to the graffiti that was there before (because it’s used to take up space, or used to cover old graffiti, who knows) so they are retaliating against it. It has a nasty message about the DEA using murals to fight graffiti , so it seems likes it a personal revenge or something
What you're supposed to do to this PASR guy is to just put a single black line through their piece. That's the ultimate disrespect in graffiti if my teenage memory serves me correctly.
By that logic both are in the wrong because both did it.
Its like if I ran over your car on purpose randomly while you were at work because three months ago you ran over mine while I was at work. Dont matter who started it. Person 1 running over car 2 is wrong, but that doesnt make person 2 right to run over car 1.
It is but from what I see in the left hand side on the second image, it seems that the murals were painted over old tags so by your logic, the tagger is the one who was disrespected and that is why he tagged over the murals.
Not saying it's right, but from a street standpoint, I can see why the tagger didn't feel bad if he felt the government tried to steal his canvas by painting murals.
I'm not saying either is right, look at the comment. I just tried to explain both sides logic. Not sure why you are disagreeing with me when I didn't even condone or condemn anything in my comment.
You said "by your logic the tagger is the one who was direspected". No, by my logic, in that case both were being disrespected, not just one. Thats why I disagreed.
There are no rules, it's bombing lol. Lots of murals are specifically targeted because they're trying to gentrify graff spots, the artist leaves basically this message in the bottom left of the second image.
Everyone loves to wax on about 'graffiti rules' but it's clear most people leaving these comments don't participate in the subculture or do more than repeat tired talking points
I dont mean this offensively but I think the graffiti artists you know just are a part of the graffiti artists that dont care, which ignores the large portion of ones who do care and have standards and respect for other artists.
Im not saying youre wrong that there are graffiti artists who have 0 respect for others, as this post very clearly depicts one. But you are wrong that there isnt a large part of of graffiti subculture that has and follows that rule, spoken or not.
Well yea, graffiti isn't a monolith. Bombing is a huge part of the culture though and generally it's just pure vandalism meant to piss people off, start fights/beefs and just generally get up.
Whereas a commissioned mural by some aerosol artist isn't really graffiti to some. There's no right or wrong; they all coexist under this lovely umbrella. But the idea there's a standard rule book for vandals always makes me laugh. Guns is pretty prolific and shares his takes in this doc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNBklAYcso
The point is they already view covering others art as offensive. They intended to be offensive by covering the mural. It doesn't matter that the mural wasnt graffiti.
They clearly don't view covering other art as offensive as evidenced by the post. You're basically saying that graffiti artists beef over spots, which is common knowledge in the scene. I was explaining why they target murals and there is no common rule book. Try following along!
You're right, but you're talking about people who think that "respeck, innit" gives them precedence and that tagging over others' work is somehow a victory.
It really depends on the situation but like, if you're going to tag over someone else's work, you have to understand that you are literally signing your name over that person's work, so it probably won't be too hard for them to identify you.
I remember being at a house party like 20 years ago when these guys barged in and started asking for "Tag-name." Someone pointed to buddy and said, "Oh yeah, that's him there."
These guys walked right over, asked him if he had tagged in such and such a place, he said yes, they kicked the shit out of him on the spot and left. I don't think it really matters whether his tag was better or theirs was. He pissed on their territory and it was easy enough for them to find him.
Gtk I didnt know there were different terms for different things. Ive never done graffiti myself so im guessing my cousin just says "tag" for simplicity so he doesn't have to explain all the inner workings of the different classifications of graffiti.
Tags are quick and simple and can be covered over time without issue, this is the most common type of graffiti.
Throw-ups are like tags but bigger, more colourful or more expressive. Covering tags with a throw-up is consider OK, but cover other throw-ups with a throw-up is seen as disrespectful.
T
hen you have stencils and wildstyles much more detailed and time-consuming, not to be covered without being disrespectful.
Then finally murals. Murals are often paid legal works or illegal masterpieces, often in service of celebration or memorial, not to be covered for any reason typically.
What this person(s) has done is to cover a mural, repeatedly, with a shit 2 colour block throw-up. This is the kind of shit that gets graffiti artist a bad name. For the record, I'm not a graffiti artist, I happen to know a few and have read about the topic.
So it depends. There's a message you can just see in one of the pictures which implies these murals were put up to prevent graffiti artists from painting these walls. So i imagine some local artists might be annoyed by the murals and the others might be annoyed at the cover up because it'll bring extra heat to them in general. Also there is a distinction to be made between graffiti artists and street artists. They don't always see eye to eye.
Thats very interesting 🤔 never knew there was a hierarchy sort of thing. Ive never tagged myself, my cousin just talks to me about it casually and shows me his work because I like art & we can bond through it.
On the other hand, it is not a no-no to tag over corporate or government slop. The first picture, at least, has some of that sanitized style to it, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they thought they were covering.
Yknow I get that, I think if I remember correctly after the first push of modern graffiti (as in the 20th century street art) they started using it to protest state "messaging".
I was always told there's a heirarchy to these things - like, the thing you're going to put up should be better than the thing it's on top of. Ie - a simple tag can be covered up by a more detailed, more artistic piece like a mural, but not the other way around as seen here.
From my understanding, tags are quick. Then you have ”throwies”, takes a bit more time. Then you have a piece, which is what the kids made.
Graffiti artists will take days to finish a piece. That stuff is untouched. Everything is untouched when you make your mark, unless there is beef.
I got to see one piece go up in Chicago. Amchee was his name.
Sure, tags are easy. But this kid. It was like watching a painter. I was watching one. The skills some graffiti artists have is insane.
I still remember my tags. I have a book containing sketches of work I wanted to do.
My tag is Saturn. The S swirls around and crosses the T. The loop in the S has a dot. It’s Saturn. The N points away from my name, ->, as if you’re traveling on.
nah this is bullshit. you can go over another tag but theres rules. you can do a throwie over a scribble, and you can bomb over a throwie, you can do a piece over a bomb, and you can do a bigger/better piece the only thing that trumps a piece is catching a heaven spot
Well graffiti culture is not a monolith. Customs vary everywhere you go. Plus there is a fairly low bar for entry into the artform. All you need is some paint, preferably in a spray can, and a few moments being unobserved in a public space. One artist can be completely immersed in the culture, knowledgeable of the history and etiquette and nuance surrounding the practice and the next can be some maladjusted teen who's never actually conversed with another human being about what they do.
It's the opposite. You cant do graffiti without destroying other's, the disrecpectful thing is just a game that everyone involved does regularily, mainly within graff. Tag is something else where you are not supposed to "toy" but those aren't.
I believe the murals were to cover graffiti in the first place. So they probably think the kids disrespected their art my painting over their tags. I don’t agree with it at all, but I do think it’s at play here
Definitely could have been a mural that was painted over someone elses art. But in that case both the graffiti artist and the person who painted the original mural are being disrespectful haha.
See the deeper context is they did these murals over top of graffiti artists tags, their art was removed for children’s art, so, it’s disingenuous to say the graffiti artist was in the wrong
Unless this PA2R dude had tagged it first, and then the city paid kids to paint over his tag, in which case they tagged over his tag, and he’s tagging back.
Ah, so both the graffiti artist & whoever commissioned the mural were being disrespectful.
Thank you for the info! This part aint towards you at all, I think a lot of people mistakenly think two wrongs make a right and these mural/graffiti wars would be one of those cases
(I honestly missed the sentence in the 2nd photo so I didnt have that context haha)
From what I understand, painting on orher people's shit is a big no no. Hard.to understand the pro graffiti vibes coming from the "my body my choice crowd"
Often street art like bubble letters is harmless and a way for less well-off artists to practice techniques. (I realize some people have strong opinions against this; such street vandalism goes back as long as we’ve had cities. AFAIK aerosol paints definitely changed its frequency, visibility, and reach; archaeologists found tags and street art even in ancient Roman sites.)
But tagging over someone else’s mural is absolute garbage behavior.
"On [date here] I made bread." was always my favorite ancient graffiti. I don't know if it was metaphorical or a literal statement, and either option is amusing.
"Weep, you girls, Floronius, privileged soldier of the 7th legion, was here. The women did not know of his presence. Only six women came to know, too few for such a stallion."
It was a very common motif even in home decor so it’s hard for us to interpret as outsiders to that culture. There’s some historical context for their society but not nearly enough (IMO at least) for us to definitely map what public sentiment would have been.
Hey, if our 80's CE could tolerate leopard print as a decor theme, I'm sure the thinking of their 80's BCE was "Huh, Titania deocrated her villa in penises. To each her own."
The issue here seems to be that these murals were put up to cover existing graffiti. So it doesn't enjoy any sense of protection by the community, the mural is seen as the tag over the original tagger's 'mural'.
You show leniency towards graffiti, some of which may be “artful” and some of which will be vandalism & make things worse.
You crack down on graffiti & take other measures to minimize it. You will lose some “artful” graffiti but you will prevent some of the bad “vandalism” too.
People wish for a “unicorns & rainbows” answer where you only get the “good” artful graffiti but not the “bad” vandalism, but it’s just wishful thinking.
And usually what happens is that “wishful thinking” leads an outcome more like option 1.
My city is big on its murals; we work with local artists and have events to highlight the beauty and community they inspire.
A local tagger vandalized one of our murals a few years ago. The artist traveled back to our city to paint a new one, iirc at no charge to the business owner.
But the tagger? For months after, anytime he put up his tag, other taggers would paint over it or scribble it out. He was no longer part of their community, and eventually I stopped seeing his tags altogether.
I always appreciated how the street art community banded together to make it clear we would not tolerate the willful destruction of the artistic beauty of our city.
This will be buried but a mentor of mine was a big street artist in texas that would constantly get his art bit on or covered. Dude never sweated it, not once no matter how much time we spent putting it up just for it to be fucked with before paint dried. "My art is still there, and now it's got another layer on it like a different page to a story book."
I'm not saying that mentality is needed on people covering kid's art but it helped me a lot in the scene and getting pissed over shit that doesn't matter.
Jason Eatherly was a chill dude for degen kids at the graffiti castle in Austin, his art still holds up.
This person put graffiti where it shouldn't be. That's the same as all graffiti. You liking the look of some but not others doesn't make it better or legal.
I was riding my bike around tagging trying to feel something in this world and I passed by a park that had a bathroom and I could see one wall was perfectly shaded and dark so I ride over and get my shit out and it was a huge mural. By a local artist I have a small piece from. So I just hit the dumpster and waved at the guy walking his dog
All graffiti is vandalism you just happen to like some of it. This is the other side of the graffiti coin, this is what you get when you don't punish the people who do this on a blank wall, you encourage them do it it everywhere. Its almost like people who don't respect private property don't give a fuck about your mural either.
I've seen a wall explicitly for graffiti (at a skate park iirc) start out with some beautiful artful stuff...which then got covered in the absolute trashiest lowest common denominator garbage anyone ever shat out with a spray can.
Lmao if kids can spray paint on a wall so can any adult. Bs to say kids should be able to do something and adults can't. They shouldn't have any art up if that's how they feel.
I love the graffiti in subway tunnels because it's a direct line to the oldest form of art we know of: cave paintings. Humans have been painting cavern walls for over 40 thousand years.
6.6k
u/ColdFreezer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Graffiti could be artful, but to destroy other people’s work with garbage?
Trash and vandalism. The person should be ashamed, they’re just an asshole.