Borf

Update: I've bolded certain sentences in my post and comments so that everyone will hopefully recognize that I am NOT against all street art.

I hate to give this guy/girl any more time than they've already gotten thus far, but I noticed while driving into the city tonight that Borf has tagged one of the green overhead signs on I-66 right after you cross the Potomac. I believe it's the Constitution Ave sign in the middle. The tag, a stencil (I think) of a guy's face, takes up about half of the sign.

This will likely stir the pot, but I'm going to go ahead and say it. I can't stand graffiti! Graffiti inspired art I can tolerate and even enjoy (like Kelly Towles) when it is done in the confines of a gallery. I can go for graffiti art when the artist gets permission. But tagging public or private property without permission is just ridiculous. It's irresponsible. I just don't understand how someone justifies defacing property that belongs to someone else. I just don't get it.

How much will it cost DC to clean or replace this sign? And for what?

Comments

[James W. Bailey]

J.T.,

If you hate graffiti, you'll need anger management classes to contain your rage over artist Mark McGowan's art project documentary photographs wherein he keyed cars - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/18/nart18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/18/ixhome.html

He claims the owners of the automobiles he vandalized should be honored to have been singled out by him for his project.

I know, I know...you can hear it so loud and clear among so many: "Why didn't I think of that first?"

James

[wwc]

He should look out - some other artist could do a piece where he kicks the crap out of McGowan and documents it.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Yeah, if I caught him keying my car I'd only hope that someone had a camera with them. Man, I would be soooo mad.

I've always been curious what a graffiti artist would think if someone defaced their personal property. I can't believe they'd be fine with it.

[J.T. Irkland]

Before you get your panties in a bunch educate yourself about what graffiti is and then pray BORF doesn't come after this conservative piece of cyberturf.

www.woostercollective.com

PS "the confines of a gallery" -- that says it all.

The Crispiest

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I don't see this as graffiti. Graffiti is more "word" centric. This I would term street art. Semantics. And I for one would like to see this image stay and NOT be removed. I enjoy it much better than the words on the sign. Is it defacement if the visual is an improvement?

The fact the the exchange of money is not involved as it woulld be in a gallery intrigues me as well.

I always was a bit anarchistic.

If you want to talk about ugly and defacement, just take a long look at the visual pollution of commercial signs blighting any downtown street.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I imagine it's hard to believe that someone who is familiar with graffiti or street art still dislikes some of it. I've looked at woostercollective.com many, many times and I see lots of fascinating work that does not permanently deface property.

I guess I'm a sucker for legality. Does that make me conservative? Well, put it this way. This is the first time anyone has called me conservative. Interesting...

I just want someone to explain how they have the right to spray paint or somehow alter the property of someone else. What I like about the work I see on wooster is that it is done on poster or through impermanent sculpture. I think this is wonderful... seriously.

But I also think Borf's latest tag is potentially dangerous. I've seen numerous close calls for wrecks in that area and I imagine that could be even more of a problem with drivers gawking up to look at that face.

I must admit though, I have no clue how he was able to pull this one off. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it up there!

[James W. Bailey]

J.T.,

I want you to confess to shooting that photograph of Borf's work while driving. Now that would be potentially dangerous - although I'm the last one to complain about DWP (Driving While Photographing), as a public safety measure I would like remind all that only trained professionals should engage in such acts; and even then it's still illegal.

Of course, it's not illegal if you're driving in the state of Louisiana where DWP is perfectly acceptable while having sex without your seat belt fastened and sipping on an open container of your favorite 40oz malt liquor.

James

[J.T. Kirkland]

You got me!

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I want Borf to tag my white Chevy Astro van.

[Saint Arved]

Graffiti is a lot like blogging when you think about it. Myopic, opinionated, expression -- low barrier entry, etc. Also, some "bloggers" do it very, very poorly.

Your sentiment is more fuel to a fire than it is a critical "thought about art," unfortunately. It's OK to hate -- but your hate doesn't get anywhere close to the heart.

[wwc]

I'm on deadline at work so here's a quick post: I'm a fan of street art and have done some myself. In general I don't support tagging or marking private personal property (though if I was alone with Dick Cheney's limo with a can of spraypaint I'd have to leave him a little something), but I think it's great when artists use the public areas, or public spaces that might be privately owned, to make os show art. BORF isn't marking anyone's property - he's marking OUR property - that we all own. One idea running through a lot of street art is that WE own the streets, not the government, not corporations.

Let me be clear - tagging someone's car - no good. Flyering a neighborhood with a crazy poem - good. My personal code is don't do anything that can't be removed in 5 minutes.

As for DC having to pay to fix it - there are so many things that our government has to pay lots more for that are way worse. The estate tax repeal pushing through now wastes billions more that the cost of a crew getting up there to take down BORF's handiwork. As for safety, them highways up there are plenty deadly without his work, but you may have a point that it aint cool to contribute to it.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Saint Arved,

I appreciate your thoughtful response and I think I see where you're going. Let's be clear on a couple of things. 1) I never said I hate all graffiti art. In fact, I said above that I enjoy some of the work on Wooster quite a bit. 2) Blogs and graffiti may be similar, but with one major difference you conveniently overlook. I've not seen a blog yet that breaks any laws. The Borf tag above clearly does. That's a huge difference, no?

It's easy to overreact to someone who disagrees with something you believe in, but please be sure you read carefully and understand my position. Again, no hatred... just a strong dislike of art that permanently defaces public/private property without permission. I've never heard anyone justify that aspect of graffiti. I sincerely appreciate the idea behind the street art culture but I very much disagree with some of the manifestations of that idea. That's all...

[J.T. Kirkland]

Warren,

Couple of things...

If "we" own the streets, then why does one person get to decide how they want to decorate it? If I don't want it on "my" street but a graffiti artist does, then who gets their way?

Second, I think it's convenient to justify graffiti based on other expenditures of the government or private companies. What do they have to do with each other? If someone has a problem with the government aren't there better ways of protesting or making a statement. Why contribute to the problem instead of trying to fix it?

By the way, I like your rule that whatever the graffiti art is, it should be able to be removed in 5 minutes.

Clearly graffiti is a pursuit of a passionate sub-culture and admittedly I need to understand it better. I'm enjoying this dialog... maybe I need to go have lunch with my buddy Kelly Towles and get educated on the ways of the street.

[James W. Bailey]

A common tactic in the mid-80s during the crack-down on crack in the public housing projects in New Orleans was for project residents to collectively remove directional street signs, as well as building and apartment numbers throughout a complex. This was done to make it more difficult for local, state and federal officers to effect arrest warrants, as well as criminal and civil subpoenas.

This is the kind of public graffiti project that I can get behind.

I would pay Bork, for example, to paint “Welcome to Maryland” on all signs leading into Northern Virginia and “Welcome to Virginia” on all signs leading into DC. This might confuse many Northern Virginia residents upon their drive home to “Maryland” to rethink their location in living in a liberal socialist democratic republic and immediately move out of “Maryland” to “Virginia” which is actually DC - which is where most should be living anyway since they work there.

That would allow the rest of us in Northern Virginia/”Maryland” to be able to afford a place to live.

Borf, I’m willing to buy all needed materials and pay a cash commission in untraceable currency.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

[wwc]

"If "we" own the streets, then why does one person get to decide how they want to decorate it? If I don't want it on "my" street but a graffiti artist does, then who gets their way?"

The streets are public place we all get to participate in. You step outside and you're in the world and whether it's boom box music, street art or just a crazt outfit, we're all at each other's mercy out there.

"Why contribute to the problem instead of trying to fix it?"

Sometimes just raising an issue, or injecting unexpected beauty into someone's life is a powerful statement.

A problem is that crap can go up easily, then we all have to see it. Hence my 5 minute personal rule - if someone hates my sticker or flyer, they can rip it down easily. I can see how people see this stuff as clutter and pollution, and sometimes it is, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

BTW this thread shows why I like TAA - you might throw out an opinion that's controversial but you're willing to listen to others and converse.

[kelly]

J.T.
I am down for lunch.
crooked kelly

[AAS]

I agree a lot with wwc in that the street is fair game and in 5 minutes a lot can happen- I could tear down a poster, throw a “paint bomb” over graffiti or street art, etc. James, I love your idea about confusing all those folks who live outside of the city!

What defines one thing as “graffiti” and another as “street art”- is it merely based on whether words dominate the tag or images?

One thing that I think J.T. is overlooking is the role of art in a movement- While I won’t claim that Borf is always political (although, I have seen some anti-war/political Borf or Borf-wannabes pieces), stenciling and street art is means to get a message out from the bottom up. When I lived in Belfast, many, many public- as well as private- spaces (sidewalks, walls, streets, signs, etc.) were covered in political street art.

Now, some of it could be more defined as “graffiti” line with tags reading: “Kick the British out of Ireland” or “Fuck Peace” or what have you, but a lot of it consisted of amazing murals- all of which had a political or cultural reference. Frankly, I would love to see more street art- especially political street art- in DC. Can you even imagine how powerful a statement it would be if all over the capital of the world’s biggest promoter of democracy, we had beautiful murals stating “Taxation without Representation” or “No True Democracy in Our Nation’s Capital”.

Street art- be it a mural, graffiti, a stencil, or what have you- is one of the gems of urban life. I grew up in DC and for as long as I can remember, every time I pass a “Disco Dan” tag, it makes me smile. As far as I’m concerned, street art is the same as a street musician. Can we say that street musicians are not allowed to play outside of metro stops or on street corners, since it is a public space?

I would love to see street art in a gallery- political or not- but how many opportunities do you honestly think there are for that to happen? As far as I can tell, Kelly Towles was given an amazing- and well-deserved- opportunity (Kelly- I would love to hear more about your thoughts). There’s a lot of political art being made- some of it better than other, but just like Ashlee Simpson, who are we to discourage an artist for doing something that they are passionate about. Unfortunately, not a lot of the political art is seen (especially by art elitists) and in a post-911 world, a lot of it is censored. Last year, in San Francisco, a gallery owner was beaten up for displaying anti-war art. Look at what happened at Columbia College (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-axis12.html).

Furthermore, if a street artist is looking to build a movement- say focusing on a call to action to stop youth violence in Southeast. Regardless of how talented the murals, stencils, tags, etc are- honestly, how many youth from SE do you think will be pouring into a gallery to see how local residents feel about the violence? Is there even a gallery is SE? Or is SE far enough off your (or anyone’s) beaten track that it is exempt from the “gallery only street inspired art?”

I realize Borf is not quite in the same catagory as political street art/graffiti, but the discussion was more or less fueled by “I can't stand graffiti!” – and I’m assuming it applies to political graffiti as well.

J.T.- thanks for stirring the pot.

p.s. keying someone's cars or damaging personal property is not cool- although 5 minutes in Cheney's limo and a can of spray paint could be an exception to that.

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Alexandra,

You, Warren and others offer a lot to think about. I myself will confess (it's long long past the statue of limitations) to doing some serious tagging in the state of Mississippi. When I moved to New Orleans, I had a certain change of heart due to the fact that I became involved in the historic preservation movement. Every square inch of New Orleans is historic and most of it has long been in a distressed state. What especially used to bother me was to see graffiti splashed across headstones in New Orleans' historic cemeteries. I'm not blaming Anne Rice, but the popularity of her moving back to New Orleans some years ago resulted in idiots tagging Lafayette #1 Cemetery in the Garden District, near her home, with graffiti in homage to Lestat.

I personally like the chaotic energy of street graffiti. I also recognize that its placement can be problematic. Beyond that, I question its destructive/informative value and anarchist purpose in the current cultural environment. It seems to me that graffiti was appropriated by the mainstream gallery structure and has become a safe art process, especially as presented in the insular environment of the white cube space.

What had always appealed to me about graffiti is its subversive quality and communicative potential to disrupt the status quo.

Times change and I now question whether or not graffiti has reached a fork in the road.

It's hard for me to imagine that a traditional tagger employing spray paint cans could wreck a lot of havoc out at Dulles International Airport stenciling public service announcements informing all what a shame the War on Terror is before being subdued, arrested as an enemy combatant and carted over to Langley, Virginia, to be grilled by the CIA.

However, it's easy for me to see the potential of a graffiti artist to hack into the flight arrival/departure status boards and reprogram them to issue code red alerts, offer scrolling anti-war messages or inform the public that their pilot for today's flight has reported to work zoned out on weed. Or maybe to post official looking governmental signs around the airport that tell people that they must repack another passenger’s bags prior check-in. Or to simply exchange the signs on the men's and women's restrooms.

A modern day graffiti artist could also do something like printing copies of their version of an IRS Form 1040 and encouraging millions of Americans to file that return under a nomme de plume with an anti-war declaration refusing to pay their taxes. It would cause a logjam at the IRS and the government might actually come to a halt for a minute or two.

Sincerely,

James

[J.T. Kirkland]

AAS -

I'm not sure I can make myself any more clear than I have already... it just seems people will read what they want to read. I believe people are reading "I can't stand graffiti!" and stopping there. I also said, "Graffiti inspired art I can tolerate and even enjoy (like Kelly Towles) when it is done in the confines of a gallery. I can go for graffiti art when the artist gets permission." I also later said that I enjoy non-permanent street art and that I can see value in Warren's 5-minute rule.

But still, no one is helping me understand how it is acceptable to break the law for the sake of this art. If you can make a case for it being ok to break the law and deface someone else's property then I will be converted. Until then, I still have a problem with some graffiti.

Ashlee Simpson is breaking no laws by singing (some will argue with that, but you know what I'm talking about). You say, "who are we to discourage an artist for doing something that they are passionate about." To which I say we should not stop anyone from pursuing something they are passionate about, as long as it does not break any of the rules/laws we've agreed to live by.

Graffiti seems like a very romantic thing and people are very sensitive to it. I can respect that. But someone has to make the case for the legality, or not, of some of the art.

Warren -

I can appreciate your comparison to music or crazy outifts, but there's major difference I think some are missing. Music and someone wearing an outfit is not permanent. It's often not illegal (except for loud music and nudity). So that's what I'm trying to distinguish.

As for the bit about the street... I can see what you're saying. But there's a difference between the street and the building on the corner that I own and you don't. We may own the street, but I own the building. Or is there something in the legal code that I don't understand?

Finally, thanks for acknowledging what I'm trying to do. It amazes me that people who want to say whatever they please can't tolerate me saying what I want. As long as we aren't breaking any laws or harming anyone, I think we can and should say whatever we want. Based on my email, it seems many disagree.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

J.T.

Ever break any laws?

Ever?

If you have, why not with your art?

If you havn't. That would be a perfec reason. For Art.

[AAS]

J.T.- I didn't stop reading after you wrote "I can't stand graffiti" and in fact, I read everything that you and others did write. My point in bringing it back up was to tie my tagent of political street art back to Borf. One of the things that I admire about TAA is the fact that you are open to listening to other people.

Personally, I am not against any street art/graffiti that is not causing damage to private property. I appreciate political street art far more than art that at first view does not seem to have a message behind it. For example, Borf tagging "I write letters to your children" on a mailbox does not fall in the catagory of political street art (in my book), however I'm all for it- and admittedly, it makes me smile. Keying someone's car or spray painting anti-war graffiti on someone's house is stepping across the line.

Since my admiration for graffiti and street art lies primarily in the political nature of the history of the work, the activist is me is frankly appalled by the statement: "To which I say we should not stop anyone from pursuing something they are passionate about, as long as it does not break any of the rules/laws we've agreed to live by."

First off, who agrees to live by these laws and who's laws are these? Clearly, they are not the laws of Borf and clearly he has not agreed to live by them.

Secondly- and perhaps more politically- how far do you think the civil rights movement would have gotten if they didn't break any laws? Would we know who Rosa Parks was if she didn't break a law? If she hadn't broken the law, would thousands of people participated in the bus boycott, which turned out to be a pivotal moment in the movement?

I realize this isn't Thinking About Politics- but if you want to truly talk about graffiti, you have got to address the artistic AND the political nature of it.

So if it's not acceptable to break the law for the sake of art, is it acceptable to break the law for the sake of social justice- and if so, why isn't graffiti acceptable?

James- you too have offered much too think about and I need time to process it.

J.T.- again, thanks for stirring the pot. I would like to hear more about your thoughts on how we can bring more street art into a gallery and how we can ensure that the message can be seen from behind gallery doors.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joseph,

I can't think of a single time I've broken the law and in doing so intentionally damaged someone else's property. Who knew that would make me such a square?

[J.T. Kirkland]

AAS -

You are making good points that warrant further thought and discussion. My point, as Joseph just touched on and I replied to, is that there is a difference between breaking a law and breaking a law AND damaging someone else's property. I think protest is a great thing and Rosa Parks is a hero. But she didn't hurt anyone or damage anything. It didn't cost a thing. That's why we remember it today. It was a simple but profound act. Think about MLK.

But we don't remember those protesters we see on TV during political events breaking windows, burning things or looting. Few take them seriously and few know what their message is. Peaceful protest has always been more successful. I think it's hilarious that people protesting war turn to violence to make their point.

Surely we can find ways to bring art to the street without damaging property. I see several great examples of this on Wooster's site. If Borf had taped a flyer to the sign above I-66 I would not have as big of a problem. But now time and money must be used to remove the paint. This is counterproductive, I think. Wouldn't some sort of flyer worked just as well? Why make the step to damage?

I've gotten lots of email today, as you can imagine. And to one particularly vocal supporter of graffiti in all its forms I extended an offer to have lunch and discuss ways to merge graffiti and more structured art like my own. I hope we can make something happen.

I just don't feel I should apologize for believing it's wrong to damage someone else's property.

[AAS]

But Rosa Parks breaking the law did cost something. The reason why the bus boycott was so effective for the movement was because it meant that the public transportation system was bringing in far less money and forcing the local government to lose money on buses. What's the difference between that and having the local DC government pay to clean off mailboxes and lampposts that Borf- or any other street artist- has tagged?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Since when is boycotting something illegal? Sounds like peaceful protest to me...

The point I'm making is that Borf broke the law and damaged property. All the while though, he had better alternatives, don't you think?

We remember Rosa Parks to this day... how long are we going to remember Borf?

This post isn't meant to criticize Borf specifically. I don't know him or what he's about. It just so happened that his latest tag provoked this post. I don't want it to seem like I'm being particularly hard on him.