Detroit Beautification Project

[1953]

These works of graffiti are illegal signs and violate local zoning ordinances.

[Detroitnerd]

These works of graffiti are illegal signs and violate local zoning ordinances.

Not so fast. Hamtramck has some very strict signage ordinances. The name on the sign of a business, for instance, must be the legally registered name of the business and nothing more. Pretty strict.

So how do these murals not get ticketed? Simple. They are not advertisements for the business. In fact, as long as it's a work of art and not specifically advertising for anything, they are not illegal signs that violate local zoning ordinances.

[1953]

Well, you can't fault me for trying.

How about I say what I'm really thinking: these works violate my aesthetic sense and remind me that lower socio-economic classes live amongst us [[you sure don't see this crap in high end neighborhoods, do you!?).

[Detroitnerd]

Well, you can't fault me for trying.

How about I say what I'm really thinking: these works violate my aesthetic sense and remind me that lower socio-economic classes live amongst us [[you sure don't see this crap in high end neighborhoods, do you!?).

Well, that's changing. Times change. Culture changes. Stuff that used to be "outside" or "lowbrow" or just plain "low class" gets adopted as the new cultural norm and, somehow, people come to appreciate it. There was a time when "respectable" people wouldn't listen to jazz or rock and roll because it was the music of a lower socioeconomic group, but now jazz and rock are accepted norms and hallmarks of culture. In fact, in some gentrified neighborhoods in Chicago and Brooklyn, people spend a pretty penny to live around work like this.

Anyway, try to keep an open mind. It's really hard after a lifetime of conditioning to associate "street art" with crime and the poor. But the times they are a-changin'. Hey, who knows, maybe one day I'll look back and say, "You know, I could afford to live here before they put up all that chi-chi street art!"

[warsaw7]

Well, you can't fault me for trying.

How about I say what I'm really thinking: these works violate my aesthetic sense and remind me that lower socio-economic classes live amongst us [[you sure don't see this crap in high end neighborhoods, do you!?).

This is too easy, and by the way where is your rebuttal from the other day? It sucks to be old and bitter...... You say you don't see this crap in high end neighborhoods? Look at what is going on in Brooklyn [[DUMBO for example), Miami's Design District, not to mention the walls of various high end art collectors around the world..

[warsaw7]

A continuing in-depth look at the Detroit Beautification Project....


http://vimeo.com/44699407#


Courtesy of www.revok1.com

[Wild]

Maybe all the taggers will get pissed and start fully painting over all of the "Art" in sold colors? Heh

I would LOVE to see that happen. I can now see the grotesque graffiti from my side street. I've also noticed that taggers have now been inspired to apply graffiti to street signs, private property and freeway walls.

I wish that the graffiti artists would spare Detroit the additional eyesores and "beautify" their own areas and stay out of ours.

[Detroitnerd]

I can now see the grotesque graffiti from my side street. I've also noticed that taggers have now been inspired to apply graffiti to street signs, private property and freeway walls.

Unless you can actually prove that the art in question has inspired illegal graffiti, I'm going to take a big grain of salt when I hear such things. People tend to see what they want to see when they feel emotional about something, and I guess what would help allay my skepticism would be specific examples, proof that it happened since the art started going up, proof that the tags were actually inspired by the art, proof that the private property owners didn't give permission. You know, that kind of stuff.

Otherwise, isn't it just anecdotal information from a biased source?

[Wild]

Unless you can actually prove that the art in question has inspired illegal graffiti, I'm going to take a big grain of salt when I hear such things. People tend to see what they want to see when they feel emotional about something, and I guess what would help allay my skepticism would be specific examples, proof that it happened since the art started going up, proof that the tags were actually inspired by the art, proof that the private property owners didn't give permission. You know, that kind of stuff.

Otherwise, isn't it just anecdotal information from a biased source?

Take it with a grain of salt, that's your prerogative.

I've lived in Detroit all of my life and have lived my neighborhood for several years.

As a lifetime Detroiter, I can say that of all of our problems, graffiti has never been a major one. I been to other big cities and aside from R.I.P.s and random symbols, Detroit has never had a major graffiti problem.

I take daily walks through my neighborhood, so I notice changes. I have noticed a lot of new graffiti over the past few weeks. I spoke to a friend today who mentioned seeing graffiti along the Lodge.

However, I live here and resent the additional eyesores brought in from outsiders. I spend time in Ferndale and Royal Oak; very artsy areas that don't seem to have been beautified by graffiti.

I feel that they should "beautify" their own areas and not use Detroit as their own personal canvas.

[Detroitnerd]

I take daily walks through my neighborhood, so I notice changes. I have noticed a lot of new graffiti over the past few weeks. I spoke to a friend today who mentioned seeing graffiti along the Lodge.

But you don't know if this was owner-approved or not, yes? And a friend of yours happened to mention something-or-other about seeing graffiti along the Lodge, but you don't know if that was approved or not either, yes?

OK, I'll take your comments for what they appear to be worth.

[Wild]

A lot of those buildings are vacant, so I highly doubt that they are owner approved. If you have proof, please share. Regarding the Lodge, I highly doubt that the government would provide approval for graffiti on any of its infrastructure.

[Detroitnerd]

A lot of those buildings are vacant, so I highly doubt that they are owner approved. If you have proof, please share. Regarding the Lodge, I highly doubt that the government would provide approval for graffiti on any of its infrastructure.

As for the graffiti your friend spoke of, which you said was "along the Lodge" [[along? on? where?), there is a history of graffiti on overpasses. [[Remember the "No Yugo Fest" guy? My favorite was "Is your boss smarter than you?") But since we don't know what was done, because it's something your friend told you about, vaguely, we don't know. All we know is that you are making claims about street artists inspiring graffiti which seem difficult to prove.

But on the other point, I agree with you. It's hard to say, because we don't really know precisely what's going on [[lots of "vacant" or "vacant-looking" buildings are owned by people; you just look up the owner and find out, permission may have been given), but I would like to say that, frankly, if these vacant buildings are being spraypainted without permission: I agree with you. There's nothing I like better to see than a vacant building that is completely free of graffiti. When I walk around and look at these rusting, windowless hulks with caved-in roofs -- I want to see sparkling clean walls devoid of art or murals or anything. That's the way I like 'em: Big, empty and clean! If any vacant buildings ARE being painted with street art, I think that's a travesty. And I think they should be forced to scrub it off so that the building can return to its original beauty. If for no other reason than to ensure that the owner of that property, wherever he is, doesn't face any devaluation from being defaced. They're the real victims in all this!

[Detroitnerd]

At least 1953 was honest. This is a culture clash. Not necessarily -- and often not at all -- a crime. Open your mind a bit and lose some of your prejudices and you'll perhaps find that it's a welcome splash of color in our too-often dreary Midwestern burg.

[Wild]

At least 1953 was honest. This is a culture clash. Not necessarily -- and often not at all -- a crime. Open your mind a bit and lose some of your prejudices and you'll perhaps find that it's a welcome splash of color in our too-often dreary Midwestern burg.

No, that is your opinion. If that's how 1953 feels, that is his truth. This is my truth. Um, my mind is more open than you think and I find beauty in things that might surprise you. However, you need to understand that because not everyone shares you aesthetic does not make that person closed minded. Actually, you are very closed minded for not respecting the opinions of others.

[Wild]

As for the graffiti your friend spoke of, which you said was "along the Lodge" [[along? on? where?), there is a history of graffiti on overpasses. [[Remember the "No Yugo Fest" guy? My favorite was "Is your boss smarter than you?") But since we don't know what was done, because it's something your friend told you about, vaguely, we don't know. All we know is that you are making claims about street artists inspiring graffiti which seem difficult to prove.

As I stated, there has been an increase in graffiti from what I've noticed, forget what my friend said; I've seen it.

As I said, its your prerogative to think what you want, I go by what I know.

[Detroitnerd]

No, that is your opinion. If that's how 1953 feels, that is his truth. This is my truth. Um, my mind is more open than you think and I find beauty in things that might surprise you. However, you need to understand that because not everyone shares you aesthetic does not make that person closed minded. Actually, you are very closed minded for not respecting the opinions of others.

Hey, I didn't understand it at first, and didn't much like it. So I dove in and started researching it. I wouldn't say it's my "aesthetic." It reminded me of the first time I really started listening to jazz, which I didn't use to like. It kind of grew on me.

But when I read your thoughts, I do think this is a "my town vs. the invaders" issue to you. You framed it as such in an earlier post. [[I wish that the graffiti artists would spare Detroit the additional eyesores and "beautify" their own areas and stay out of ours.) So, no, I don't think I'm off-base here.

I was able to crack my mind open and appreciate it for what it is. If you don't like it, I can respect that. I respected that from 1953 too. But what I don't respect is when people make difficult-to-prove claims that these street artists are causing illegal graffiti -- especially when it flies in the face of the body of evidence that overwhelmingly suggests otherwise. So I do take your "claims" with a grain of salt, as you're clearly already biased against the legal, approved work and are throwing a lot of unsupported allegations against it.

Yes, the town is changing. There are new faces. You can be curious about what they bring to town or you can be one of the "scowling townies" if that suits you. But don't unfairly malign people just because you don't like them.

[Wild]

I think that you should go back and do a little more research. It's already been noted that grafitti artists are coming from other countries and other states to "beautify" Detroit.

So far as claims of "illegal graffiti" I didn't say it, but it's true. Just because someone scribbles their name on it doesn't make it legal. In fact, I would love for you to proof that the work is legal or approved.

I'm all for diversity and have always incorporated things and practices from many different cultures into various aspects of my life.

It's not us vs. them. It's like this, I have an aesthetic, you have another. I don't know where you live, but what if I decided to beautify your neighborhood or city my way. What if I just brought a bunch a friends and decorated buildings around you, maybe decorated the exterior of you next door neighbor's house without consult presenting it to you or your neighborhood leaders? If you didn't like it, what if I just suggested to live with for a while, it might grow on you? Would that make you closed minded?

[Detroitnerd]

I think that you should go back and do a little more research. It's already been noted that grafitti artists are coming from other countries and other states to "beautify" Detroit.

So snippy! No, I am not saying that they aren't from points distant. I know that. It's just your disdain for "outsiders coming into 'my' community" that appears on my radar. Guess what? There are going to be more and more people coming into "your" community. And it will belong to the new and the old. Feel free to resist it if you must, but don't tell me not to notice the vibe you're giving off!

So far as claims of "illegal graffiti" I didn't say it, but it's true. Just because someone scribbles their name on it doesn't make it legal. In fact, I would love for you to proof that the work is legal or approved.

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading on the topic. It has been noted in several publications that the Detroit Beautification Project works with property owners who grant permission. Have you even read through this thread?

I don't know where you live, but what if I decided to beautify your neighborhood or city my way. What if I just brought a bunch a friends and decorated buildings around you, maybe decorated the exterior of you next door neighbor's house without consult presenting it to you or your neighborhood leaders? If you didn't like it, what if I just suggested to live with for a while, it might grow on you? Would that make you closed minded?

Well, I live on the outskirts of Hamtramck, and spend a great deal of my time in Hamtramck, and the Detroit Beautification Project has done quite a few high-profile pieces in Hamtramck. At first I wasn't sure if I liked them. But I sought out people who I knew were better versed in street art and got them to explain it to me better. Some of them are better, in my opinion, than others, but I ended up being better informed and enjoying them for what they are. So, yes, I have come to like them. I understand that they are by professional artists, and they do show facility and skill, and some are funny.

What if you came into my neighborhood to decorate it? It depends on your ability. Have you spend years honing the craft of street art? Of muralism? Are you a well-known and respected artist? The DBP courted some serious talent. But if you were as talented as, say, Erica Chappuis, then, yeah, I might enjoy it. I'd rather have that than a billboard advertising bail bonds or fast food, for sure.

[laphoque]

We should probably amputate painters' hands before they realize they could paint on walls instead of canvas.

[mauser]

Let's all get our pitchforks and torches and head over to the DIA to throw out all the art work by "out of towners".

Fucking idiotic.

[1953]

In response to the earlier comment that I'm old or acting it, you should know that I hate graffiti and grafitti-inspired art and I'm 30 [[and own property in Hamtramck).

[warsaw7]

In response to the earlier comment that I'm old or acting it, you should know that I hate graffiti and grafitti-inspired art and I'm 30 [[and own property in Hamtramck).

That's great to each their own. Just to let you know, get used to it because it's about to hit Detroit hard this year. And I, along with a whole slew of people, are strongly for it......

[jtf1972]

More art please!

I loved that DIA project where they placed portraits around town.

Reproductions of some amazing works placed about town and graffiti are two completely different things.

The reproductions show persons who may not otherwise think about great art what exists out there and may influence them to seek out more.

Graffiti adds to a feeling of confusion, corruption and lawlessnes. It may inspire "art" of its kind, but that will only add to the air of chaos. Please don't mind the pile of broken glass next to the car on blocks... that is only a portion of the artist's vision!

[thecarl]

To me, when graffiti is accepted and legitimized, doesn't it lose some of its appeal? When I was a kid I thought that seeing shots of subway cars in videos covered in big bubbly letters was fresh! As an adult I see it as a pain in the arse eyesore that will cost money to clean up. Still, as a kid what made it fresh was that it was different and the establishment hated it. What mad it so fly was that it would be merely temporary... Now you see it, now you don't. Now it's seemingly becoming a legitimate eyesore.

I have previously noted that I have become a fan of minimalist art. Let's get some white paint & have nice, neat, blank walls!

I agree with Wheels and with much of the sentiment expressed above. Graffiti, whether sanctioned or not, makes the city look feral. It accentuates the "anything goes" appearance of Detroit, which is not all good. And it encourages any attention-seeking booger to buy a case of spray paint and scar up the city.