Anti-climactic

Could this have been any more anti-climactic? My opinion of Borf (er, John) is now solidified. His mommy knew about "Borf" and just said she didn't like that he defaced property? He flew all over Europe to protest? His disguise is of an older black man? He rails against shoplifting yet shoplifts the paint he uses? He's from Great Falls, one of the richest cities in America in terms of household income? He says he doesn't want to grow up... something tells me he never will.

Since the last time graffiti was discussed here I've come to appreciate the idea/purpose of some it more than I did. In this case, it sounds like John is more interested in fame and notoriety than some ideal or purpose. Enjoy it John, this is the last day you will be discussed here.

Readers more in touch with graffiti than me... what do you think of this? Do you respect this guy? Is he a joke? What now?

Comments

[c.a.]

opposition to weather? perhaps you want "anti-climactic."

[J.T. Kirkland]

Love the typo police...

[AAS]

yeah, it's a bit like when we found out who Deep Throat was...a bit anti-climactic, a bit disappointing and leaving you with mixed feelings about it all.

[kelly]

This is not geared toward anyone.. just my thoughts. also I cant spell.

Borf is a great guy. If you ever had a chance to talk to him you find out that he is very down to earth, very nice, and knew what he was doing.

Some of the main goals of graffiti is to gain fame. Get attention. Gain respect. Most of this usually just happens inside the street art culture crowd.

Tell me realistically one "Artist" (or anyone for that fact) that dosent want fame. And please dont write that you dont or wouldnt or some other unrealalistic bullshit.. it is in human nature to want to have attention or be admired. But if during that time you can make a point, stance or statement so be it. More power to you if it is in a nature that is postive or benefical.

Like it or not graffiti is a huge art movement and will not go away. And in my opinion thank god..

I personally respect him. He worked his ass off harder doing street work than most artists work on a gallery show. You think doing that highway sign was easy, and how many people saw it and realized that it was BORF.

The city is a gallery where any passerby can view it, graffiti or not. That is a great thing... I love walking down the street and seeing somthing that raises your eyebrow. 3/4 of the time you will notice that most of the things that are graffitied are on a buisness or gov property.. there is an amount of respect by most street artists not to mess with peoples houses and shit like that.

Anyone can lookdown on Borf.. he was doing things that were illegal. But in my eyes he was expressing himself.. 10 times more that most people do, that is somthing I give alot of repsect for. He is 18 and he was noticed more than most gallery shows with people in their 50's who have been creating art for 40 of those years. And he made the front page of Washington post style. and please dont write some dumb shit like well you can do the same thing.. If so I would love to see you try.

Below are two websites. alot to explore about street art. as well as a link to an insite of the defination of graffiti.
http://www.woostercollective.com
http://artcrimes.com
http://artcrimes.com/faq/graf.def.html

again.. this is my opinion.. I will not battle or argue.
cheers
kelly

[kelly]

ohh yeah.. I wouldnt say anti climatic... because right now everyone is talking about him. he will be on the news tonight.. for certain.

[AAS]

thanks kelly

discovering borf's identity shouldn't take away from his hard work, which he does deserve a lot of credit for, regardless of anyone's personal opinion on graffiti.

personally, i hope to see more of his work in the future.

[wwc]

Borf's identity and circumstances or even his semi-inarticulate speech doesn't really bother me. It's his work that does matter and I see his work having 2 points:

1. To gain fame. Kelly's right, this isn't all bad, but can be obnoxious.

2. To make the public spaces he hits more alive, more crazy; to inject some mystery into them. This might be a side-effect of 1. but that doesn't matter. This is what I really like about his stuff.

To me, he's a great example of a type of contemporary artist - Someone whose work is more about the media/notoriety spectacle than the actual content of each piece.

I disagree with the subtext of Kelly's post that because his name is all over, he's successful as an artist. There's much more to being an artist than fame, and I'd rather be Fugazi than Britney (not because they're cooler, but because they (seem to) actually explore, create and derive satisfaction from their work).

That said, I agree - he worked his ass off, and made a dent in the world and that deserves respect. Basquiat started off in almost the same way - I'm interested to see what borf does next.

[J.T. Kirkland]

What I find interesting, and what I was hoping to encourage here, was that so far no one is commenting on his political views or ideas. At first, everyone was commending him for being against war, or against government, or whatever. Now it seems like we want to give him credit for just doing something. Why are we just praising his prolific graffiti activity? What about his vision? His ideas? Etc. After reading his quotes he can sure regurgitate some stuff he has read in a book but the kid doesn't seem to be very intelligent. This flies in the face of a lot of the praise he received early on about his commentary.

My view is that sure, he expressed himself and was active. He did make a dent on the world. But it seems to be more style over substance. I would love to dissect the entire WaPo article but I refuse to give it THAT much time.

In the end it was very anti-climactic for me. I had heard and read so many rumors about a collective of graffiti artists out to really effect powerful change. Had that been true, and when they got caught they pushed on to really say something profound, that would have been a great climax. I would have respected that. I don't hate the guy or what he did, I just found it to be ultimately disappointing. Oh well, it sounds like others got a lot more from him than I did. And in some way I think that makes him successful. I just wanted more from it.

He's young and hopefully he's got more, er something, to say. I'm sure we'll find out.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Don't ever form an opinion about a person just by what you read in the newspaper.
Borf's work is mostly a mental and visual oasis in an ugly metropolitan sea of governmental and commercial signage. I'd rather look at images that SAY something than images that SELL something, anywhere; anytime. Who or what that creative person is, is relatively unimportant. Just take a look at asshole Jackson Pollack's life; then take a look at Lavander Mist. You'll know what I mean. As for private property. If you take into account the recent SCOTUS ruling, essentially there is no private property. Send lawyers, guns and money.

[Scott]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get noticed, but if all Borf was about was fame and respect, it's pretty pathetic. I know this is an extreme analogy, but it kind of reminds me of the thrill somebody like BTK gets from their secret activities and then reading the papers the next day. Obviously, the crime committed here is much, much, much less severe, but the motivation and lack of a message seems to be pretty similar. I just don't think that deserves much if any respect.