Art or a crime? Intersting new downtown grafitti.

[Carey]

I know the general feeling on this forum is that grafitti is naughty. But what about an interesting graphic on the white, wooden barrier that blocks a building that has been abandoned for more than 35 years?

This image appeared over the weekend, I believe, on the barrier in front of the Albert Kahn-designed National Theatre on Monroe Street. Many passersby have been taking pictures of it.

The image of the young man with two doves is not actually applied to the boards. The image is on some material that is pasted on the wood. Has anyone seen this elsewhere?

[Autoracks]

or a waste of time. What is the motivation i wonder. Its entirely possible that
took a whole lot of time to create and whoever owns the wall [[ assuming that permission wasn't granted ) could roll it out in 5 minutes

[majohnson]

Most DYers know I am anti-vandalism.

Instead of preaching about property rights as a fundamental part of American society, I offer an additional perspective.

The item exists on a building across the street from the Compuware Building.
There are an overwhelming number of abandoned structures in Detroit. This building however, has a pedestrian level barrier. The barrier is not to protect passers by from construction debris and hazards but instead from one of Detroit's major impediments to recovery, urban blight.
The item in question, if a trespass on private property rights, prevents the barrier from blocking blight and instead provides the surface upon which intentional blight has been erected.

Now to my points.
1.
Detroit's recovery efforts have largely been focused on Downtown Detroit, especially around the Woodward/Compuware area. That focus has involved efforts such as those by Clean Downtown Detroit. A newcomer to DYes posted a hyperlink to an article she authored in which she described Detroit, "Detroit is gritty and visceral. It doesn't invite people to visit . . ." That image of Detroit, as a dirty and gritty place, not only prevents tourism but also investment. Thus we have Clean Downtown and more code enforcement in downtown than the other areas of Detroit.
Therefore, regardless of the item's artistic merits, the item drives away much needed local and national tourism and also prevents business investment. Even more specifically, the item does that damage in one of Detroit's most important areas. Thus the damage is to Detroiter's who need jobs.
Here the painter externalizes the cost of her enjoyment to jobless Detroiters.

2.
Official and negotiated code enforcement is more vigilant in downtown Detroit. Official enforcement being tickets and towings, negotiated enforcement being private efforts like Clean Downtown removing graffiti and de-littering. So the question here is who must bear the clean up costs. Will the painter provide a reimbursement if the property owner pays a graffiti fine? Will the painter reimburse Clean Downtown for removing the graffiti? This additional stream of costs provides one additional economic hurdle to Detroit business.
Here the painter externalizes the costs of her enjoyment to those responsible for cleanup.

In conclusion,
The painter is comfortable with her pursuit of artistic fufillment, even though that personal fulfillment requires costs be externalized to jobless Detroiters.

[rjlj]

Wheat Paste is used to attach the image. Anyone know the artist? Much better and more talent than the wanna be taggers and bubble letter people.

I know the general feeling on this forum is that grafitti is naughty. But what about an interesting graphic on the white, wooden barrier that blocks a building that has been abandoned for more than 35 years?

This image appeared over the weekend, I believe, on the barrier in front of the Albert Kahn-designed National Theatre on Monroe Street. Many passersby have been taking pictures of it.

The image of the young man with two doves is not actually applied to the boards. The image is on some material that is pasted on the boards. Has anyone seen this elsewhere?

[Richard]

how did ya know it was a she?

As far as the painting goes yea nice work, location not such a nice choice the problem now is going to be someone else is going to come along and start adding more and more.That is the problem it really does not matter how nice it is or if it is in a correct location there is no in-between it is either zero tolerance or unchecked everybody begins to slap up anything that is in their personal vision of art.

Being it is a temporary wall I think a mural replicating the building and streetscape would be kinda different.

[coracle]

I wouldn't call it Art or Grafitti. It's more like decoration and it does break the monotony of the white boards.It's a "temporary" graphic on a "temporary" barrier and could readily be removed if and when it's necessary without any permanent damage.I like it. It projects character to the immediate area.I wouldn't be in favor of it happening indiscriminately all over though.

[SWMAP]

"naughty" - that's a telling choice of a word. Talk about purposeful minimizing! In my neighborhood, tagging is not merely "naughty" - it is destructive beyond description, ruining facades of century-old buildings, broadcasting filthy words into children and adult daily lives. It is inescapable and uncontrollable.

[Zozo]

"naughty" - that's a telling choice of a word. Talk about purposeful minimizing! In my neighborhood, tagging is not merely "naughty" - it is destructive beyond description, ruining facades of century-old buildings, broadcasting filthy words into children and adult daily lives. It is inescapable and uncontrollable.

Where abouts do you live in SW?

[hamtown mike]

I think this is beautiful. no trespass was committed to create the work nor was any property damaged. This is an application.

The artist did not post this image dyes. He or she did his or her thing and moved along. No overt message, just art.

Not some snot nose ccs punk with 5 gallons of day glo green paint, a camera and a true disrespect for people's property.

[Detroitnerd]

Looks kinda like Callie Swoon to me. I def. detect a female artist.

But this is on a barrier, not on a building. In that respect, I think it's OK.

[Django]

Nice piece.

If we could get these artists together with different building owners or the guys who create the barriers maybe some nice work like this could be done legally possibly the artist could make a few bucks.. If that whole barrier was done as a mural, taggers would most likely leave it alone, the majority of them anyway. Id much rather see this work than a blank wall. A blank wall is just a big invitation to anyone with a spray can.

[kraig]

It's both. It's art from the standpoint that the work was done very nicely. The crime potential is that the owner may not have given permission or the proper permits, if needed, may not have been obtained. I'll say this much, I'll take that over that Heidleberg shit, anytime.

[majohnson]

1.
I don't know that the painter was a woman, it is "gender neutral'" to call an unkown person she instead of he.

2.
The painting is a trespass.
Merriam Webster defines trespass as, "an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another".

[Detroitnerd]

The painting is a trespass.
Merriam Webster defines trespass as, "an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another".

Hmmm, lawfulness may not be the best barometer of art.

1) This piece of art is attractive, interesting and stimulated discussion and debate. Probably unlawful, but beautiful.

2) Penske's acre of concrete on Belle Isle is lawful. It's just ugly, cutting into the landscaping of another, better work of art. It just happens to have been done with permission and is therefore lawful, though ugly as sin.

[Lt. Dan Bassett]

Not Swoon. A survey of history would suggest that in times of war [[let's call this one "Assault on Street Art") armies on each side get slopped with a bloody broad brush. Evil doers vs. saviors of established culture are sketched in high contrast as emotions run hot. Only later, after Mission Accomplished banner is flown from either side can the nuances of moral ambiguity be examined. For the unschooled, the vandal art above is a digitally reproduced wheatpasted image on paper. Think of it as a temporary tat on the hairy backside of our fabulous city. A quick powerwash or 6 months of rain will make it gone. Maybe someday the difference between tagging and street art will be a common aspect of nuanced and intelligent conversation about street culture. Until then, have at it, porkchops!
Want more to bitch about or like? Take a sroll through Capitol Park or up Woodward betw. Grand River and John R. Blame electronic music fest for the new rash of street art that erupted on our rump over the holiday weekend.

[majohnson]

I have never questioned or considered the artistic merits of the item.

A perfectly symmetrical vertical vivisection of a human could arguably have artistic merit.
The gravity of the situation however, bars examination of any possible artistic merit.

[majohnson]

Not Swoon. A survey of history would suggest that in times of war [[let's call this one "Assault on Street Art") armies on each side get slopped with a bloody broad brush. Evil doers vs. saviors of established culture are sketched in high contrast as emotions run hot. Only later, after Mission Accomplished banner is flown from either side can the nuances of moral ambiguity be examined. For the unschooled, the vandal art above is a digitally reproduced wheatpasted image on paper. Think of it as a temporary tat on the hairy backside of our fabulous city. A quick powerwash or 6 months of rain will make it gone. Maybe someday the difference between tagging and street art will be a common aspect of nuanced and intelligent conversation about street culture. Until then, have at it, porkchops!
Want more to bitch about or like? Take a sroll through Capitol Park or up Woodward betw. Grand River and John R. Blame electronic music fest for the new rash of street art that erupted on our rump over the holiday weekend.

Many physical injuries can heal in 6 months time.
Can I black someone's eye, simply stating that all damage will be gone in 6 months?

Additionally in times of war there are bright lines which are not to be crossed, bright lines which even when done by the winners is considered wrong. Mass rape by the winners of a war remains a tragedy no matter who writes the history book.

[GOAT]

All unsanctioned grafitti is a crime period. It is called vandalism.

While the painting is very nice it is still a crime and shouldn't be done period.

[Lt. Dan Bassett]

Nice try on making street pasteups equivalent to mass rape.
This is the high emotion/demonizing of one regime against another that occurs within the heat of battle. Some others might say giant paid-for billboards by a certain local radio station that depict a plump lady with two faces tatted on her rump is rape of their eyeballs.

Where you see blight, others see brightness and hope.

[gumby]

I don't like grafitti and never will. I don't care how nice it looks.

[wolverine]

It's on a temporary barrier so I could care less. If it was on the facade of some building [[without the owners permission), I'd be upset. Buildings are architecture, works that should be respected....but it's not on a building here. If it was put up without permission, then yes it's technically vandalism...but depending on place and the quality of work, I guess I can say that I find some vandalism appealing.

If I owned that fence, I'd leave it.
If the city forced me to clean it up, I'd buy paint and cover it up.
Would it take alot of time? No.
Would it be a financial hardship? No.

In this case, it's just a reality of everyday city life. Even the nicest of places get graffiti on construction fences. No one makes a big deal about it, they just clean it up as a part of regular maintenance. Maintenance....something Detroit needs more of....

[1KielsonDrive]

I know the general feeling on this forum is that grafitti is naughty. But what about an interesting graphic on the white, wooden barrier that blocks a building that has been abandoned for more than 35 years?

This image appeared over the weekend, I believe, on the barrier in front of the Albert Kahn-designed National Theatre on Monroe Street. Many passersby have been taking pictures of it.

The image of the young man with two doves is not actually applied to the boards. The image is on some material that is pasted on the wood. Has anyone seen this elsewhere?

I love it. ART!

[1KielsonDrive]

Most DYers know I am anti-vandalism.

Instead of preaching about property rights as a fundamental part of American society, I offer an additional perspective.

The item exists on a building across the street from the Compuware Building.
There are an overwhelming number of abandoned structures in Detroit. This building however, has a pedestrian level barrier. The barrier is not to protect passers by from construction debris and hazards but instead from one of Detroit's major impediments to recovery, urban blight.
The item in question, if a trespass on private property rights, prevents the barrier from blocking blight and instead provides the surface upon which intentional blight has been erected.

Now to my points.
1.
Detroit's recovery efforts have largely been focused on Downtown Detroit, especially around the Woodward/Compuware area. That focus has involved efforts such as those by Clean Downtown Detroit. A newcomer to DYes posted a hyperlink to an article she authored in which she described Detroit, "Detroit is gritty and visceral. It doesn't invite people to visit . . ." That image of Detroit, as a dirty and gritty place, not only prevents tourism but also investment. Thus we have Clean Downtown and more code enforcement in downtown than the other areas of Detroit.
Therefore, regardless of the item's artistic merits, the item drives away much needed local and national tourism and also prevents business investment. Even more specifically, the item does that damage in one of Detroit's most important areas. Thus the damage is to Detroiter's who need jobs.
Here the painter externalizes the cost of her enjoyment to jobless Detroiters.

2.
Official and negotiated code enforcement is more vigilant in downtown Detroit. Official enforcement being tickets and towings, negotiated enforcement being private efforts like Clean Downtown removing graffiti and de-littering. So the question here is who must bear the clean up costs. Will the painter provide a reimbursement if the property owner pays a graffiti fine? Will the painter reimburse Clean Downtown for removing the graffiti? This additional stream of costs provides one additional economic hurdle to Detroit business.
Here the painter externalizes the costs of her enjoyment to those responsible for cleanup.

In conclusion,
The painter is comfortable with her pursuit of artistic fufillment, even though that personal fulfillment requires costs be externalized to jobless Detroiters.

Bunch of gobblydegook. It's ART!

[1KielsonDrive]

Wheat Paste is used to attach the image. Anyone know the artist? Much better and more talent than the wanna be taggers and bubble letter people.

Yes. Agreed. It's ART!

[1KielsonDrive]

I think this is beautiful. no trespass was committed to create the work nor was any property damaged. This is an application.

The artist did not post this image dyes. He or she did his or her thing and moved along. No overt message, just art.

Not some snot nose ccs punk with 5 gallons of day glo green paint, a camera and a true disrespect for people's property.

Right on!!!!