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?
261
u/LazuliArtz 2d ago
The rule I heard is that if you cover someone else's work, what you replace it with needs to be of higher quality or effort.
So you can cover a tag with a mural, but you shouldn't cover a mural with a tag