The article illustrates the problem we face in creating free and creative streets in the world.
Real estate site Trulia released a list of the top 311 calls made in San Francisco 2016 to find out what species of urban blight embitters city dwellers the most. It’s nice when real estate platforms take an active interest in the community, but this time they may be […]
Tagging not graffiti one of top blight complaints in San Francisco
Is there a difference between a tag and a piece of graffiti art? When does shape, color and style blight and when does it enhance or simply add its own embellishment? The article makes no effort to explore any of this. Instead it shows some interesting graffiti art pictures from around the San Francisco area that actually look pretty good. The article says graffiti in their headlines but the public said tagging in their questionnaire. Here is how they wrote it.
1. Graffiti: The city fielded nearly 71,000 complaints about tagging, concentrated mostly in Chinatown, SoMa, the Mission, and Outer Mission. In the heading they write Graffiti, but the complaint listed is tagging.
The first picture is graffiti art. The bottom picture is tagging.
One looks pretty amazing. There is almost no question that the wall is better for it. It is produced by an artist. How do we know this? The artist connects the image to, the wall and the aesthetic environment.
The bottom picture is not as attractive because it looks disconnected and disdainful of the place on which it resides. There is no real composition overall. Yet individually some of the tags show artistic promise. Some now great street artists were former taggers. The bottom picture is provided from our new followed friends at ninjahman828 on Instagram. Click the pic to link.
If we will ever solve the problem of image blight we need to stop listening to the people who write these sorts of articles and begin opening our street up to more creative solutions not less.