When I started exploring, the only graffiti I would ever encounter was threats from hired goons. Since then, graffiti has been brought into the country mainly by foreigners or Koreans who had lived abroad.
For a while we had a weird phenomenon where foreigners would come to the country for a short stay, and on their last night they'd break into a train depot and tag a train, then escape before immigration could identify then. The trains were always washed before going into service. Eventually they started catching these train taggers.
Consequently, I'm generally not a fan, with only a few exceptions. Most of it contributes to urban decay and redevelopment conflicts, and doesn't belong in urban exploring communities that are like the one I'm in.
I think it depends on location because in places like the Bay Area it is part of the culture and respected so there are places that are unsaid graffiti forums almost and the creativity is incredible, but seeing it in places that would be otherwise untouched is sad.
To be honest, I always thought it depends on the size and what it contains. “[insert name] wuz here” really isn’t that bad in my opinion, its just the massive spray painted pieces that have left me puzzled wondering “why did this need to be done?” I don't have anything truly against it because it is just another hobby. I guess I just never understood it and probably never will. Another thought, it sure does help with spotting locations because buildings with copious amounts of graffiti on them usually aren’t very well inhabited!
anything involving real artistical talent I don't typically mind, otherwise text and really generic lettering/styles is the most overdone and boring excuse for graffiti.
I think we can all agree that we've ran into a piece while exploring and could really appreciate the artwork done, alongside with going "why" at the overpopulated subpar pieces lol
Depends on the piece and the place. I know a lot of explorers who have their own small tags, and generally it's considered acceptable to put them in places such as already-blown out spots or concrete RCP drains. On the flip side, tagging something like a brick drain, a pristine spot, or a spot where the tag would alert security and get it locked down is a good way to piss a lot of explorers off.
"Sorry, I didn't know I'm not supposed to be here," he said, knowing full well he wasn't supposed to be there.
I can appreciate it once it is there and there is always good looking graffiti. But if I could choose I would always prefer the place as original as possible. I hate when graffiti is covering previous text, signs or art that was there beforehand.
depends on place and location for me, as well tagger/ artist, urbex explorers leaving tags in subtle places I can understand, Artistic pieces and OG street graffiti tagging I understand. But when its like an horribly obnoxious tagging in a specific spot that ruins a shot pisses me off as well as when you can tell that the writer is poser graffiti artist and only hits abandoned places and never hit a street wall, that annoys me.
I feel that in older,more vandalized spots, detailed and artistic graffiti can be cool, but in clean spots, spots that are naturally decaying without vandalism, or otherwise untouched spots, graffiti is not cool. I think leaving explorers tags on the wall is really only acceptable in blown up spots, and using washable paint/sharpie. I personally don't like doing that except in very specific scenarios.
Graffiti is awesome. It signifies a small amount of free thinking in a world that would like to do away with any form of rebellion. If you don’t like the level of technique you should try to make a beautiful piece of graffiti yourself
No matter how well done, I dislike the defacing aspect of graffiti. I also think it adds to the feeling of insecurity in the urban environment.
Tagging up the apartment building where I live didn't really help either.
Fair enough. I think art is in the eye of the beholder. To me good art is good art no matter where it is. Sadly there is bad art in good places (in my opinion anyway).
Although it's not aerosol art, I'm heading to the other side of our state next week specifically to check out the grain silo art.
Some of these silos and accompanying buildings are abandoned, however in this case the art improves the whole experience.
It's often said that graffiti communities have their own ethics, just like we do. The problem is, for every artist who won't tag a residential property, or tag over others' art, there are 10 who will, and you can guess which one is going to get more street cred going forward.
A lot of people are quick to say they like some types of graffiti, but not others. The problem is graffiti begets graffiti. If you put up an interesting mural or whatever, it will usually soon be joined by other shittier stuff.
In one case I know, a graffiti artist made an interesting wheatpaste on the face of a historic building (with permission); he also used every available space inside the building to practice his tag. Shortly after, others came there and did shittier graffiti on the exterior of the building. Years passed and the wheatpaste disappeared, while the other graffiti did not.
And everyone, even the more ethical graffiti artists, seems to recognise that putting paint or whatever other material on a surface without permission is inherently a hostile act to whatever structure it's on. Sometimes that's not a bad thing, and I wish there were more graffiti artists punching up, and going after the powerful, rather than punching down, and hitting the low-hanging fruit of derelict buildings.
I think it can add a lot of character to a spot, even just tags, but that's if it's already long abandoned. It almost feels wrong to vandalize a pristine location.
Posted by Dextelo I think it depends on location because in places like the Bay Area it is part of the culture and respected so there are places that are unsaid graffiti forums almost and the creativity is incredible, but seeing it in places that would be otherwise untouched is sad.
i totally agree, graff culture is very intricate here and it has a lot of history. theres definitely a big difference between people who respect the buildings and graffiti as an art form and bored teenagers who think they have something to prove by drawing dicks on stuff
SF bay area there is an old base... It had a huge room, columns, I think it was maybe a mess hall. Connected to a laundry, another mess hall and a huuuuge kitchen with dorms upstairs....IYKYK...
Used to be nice white walls, but at some point several years ago, some idiots went in and just randomly spraypainted lines all up and down the walls. I think a lot of art graffiti is cool, but this was just stupid vandalism that turned a cool photo op into a ruined room.
Kids used to go inside to skateboard. One time I was there and I heard them skating inside. I looked through the access point (air conditioner) and there was a kid who was apparently just about to exit. Maybe 10 or 11. He saw me and just SCREAAAAMMMMMS and runs away. They all got out some other way, or maybe they hid and went out while we were inside.
I love street art and it include graffiti but only when it arty not just a unreadable name without any effort ... this feel more like vandalism.
Graffiti in Urbex it a so big contradiction in my head. I hate it to loving it... but again only when it mean something, not just a few lines of spray paint and it suppose to look like a name of something.
Ethics
