The Apex of Stupidity: Tagging Air Force One
Graffiti is not art, nor is it a valid form of expression. It is an assault on private and public property, with total disregard for those who have to view it and remove it.
Here, is the opposite view, by the man who "tagged" Air Force One.
He makes the idiotic argument that graffiti is art and a form, and free expression. On his site you can a video of him tagging Air Force One, and an explanation of why he did it.
My thoughts are he could have been shot, and he should be in jail. I hope they track Mark Ecko down.
Lynchburg has its own graffiti problem. An issue that has not been been addressed with a plan of eradication locally. This graffiti in Lynchburg needs to be addressed with an abatement program.
So far, this has not happened. Regardless, of how much planning goes into reforming our city, why can the city continue to ignore the plague of graffiti in Lynchburg?
Below is some of the graffiti found in Lynchburg.
Note to read how the Air Force One Tagging was an elaborate hoax by Mark Ecko go here.
To read all our posts on graffiti go here.
To read another post from another Lynchburg site about cleaning up Lynchburg go here.
posted by B O B @ 2:23 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I think there is a spectrum. On the one end some graffiti is obviously just to mark gang symbols and the like and would not be considered art by anyone.
On the other hand, I do think there are some out there who are creating works of art and aren't looking simply to deface public property.
That being said, I don't consider defacing Air Force One as art. How did that even happen?
Thanks for the comments.
If you look at the video on the site linked to this post, he has two videos of how this happened.
Apparently, he timed climbing a fence after a security guard passed with an M16, and a Humvee made it rounds.
But this speaks to the overall security that was breached. And the dangers of what could have been a terrorist act.
As for graffiti being art, imagine for a moment that your house was spray painted. You didn't ask for this "art" that now appears on your house. How would you feel about this unsolicited act?
Property owners in Lynchburg are already confronted with this. And when public property is defaced, that is your property also.
Again, I would say it depends. For example, the 3-D sidewalk art that's been making the email rounds recently (http://goliard.net/content/view/75/30/), I would guess most people enjoy and think is "cool" and probably don't mind it being on public property at all. But clearly there is other stuff (and I would venture to guess most all other grafitti) that people have a right to be outraged about.
I just feel you can't be overly dismissive of even the possibility that there may be some artistic merit in some of it.
People who go on and on about what is usually harmless graffiti are nutcases unless they have the guts and moral honesty to also can "Corporate Graffiti."
Corporate Graffiti is when public highways, rail stations, tram stops, and buildings that tower over roads and the landscape impose corporate or government advertising in a blatant way on a defenceless member of the public. Often these billboards can be extremely tacky and offensive enough to make anyone decent or intelligent cringe!
But of course, anything goes with Corporate Graffiti in a society where nothing is sancrosant except that anything goes when there is a dollar to be made or propaganda to be spread!
Post a Comment
<< Home