Grafitti Category Established

[+StagsRoar]

I have to say I find it a bit disconcerting that Groundspeak have allowed the Graffiti category to be established. Grafitti (tagging) is for the most part an activity, that despite any artistic merits, is against the law and an act of vandalism. Already there is a category for ' murals' which covers the idea of having art on the sides of buildings etc and would be permissible and not vandalistic in nature or intent. Waymarking/Groundspeak seriously need to take another look at this Grafitti category I believe and consider what it is they are actually trying to promote!

[+tozainamboku]

Unlike StagsRoar, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with there being a graffiti category. But the requirements for creating waymarks in this category leave something to be desired:

2) Must be artistically skillful. (No lazy graffiti!)

Seems like we have a category manager who is the world's greatest art critic and will be able to fairly determine which graffiti is artistically skillfull. But since we have lots of Groundspeak volunteers who are able to fairly judge when a virtual had enough "Wow!!!" to be approved I guess this isn't so far fetched.

 

4) Appropriate placement (i.e. NOT on the side of the Lincoln Memorial).

So what is an appropriate place? Does the graffiti have to be done with the permission of the the property owner? Or is any place other than the side of the Lincoln Memorial fair game? I think this needs a better definition.

Edited February 26, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+cache_test_dummies]

As I see it, the Graffiti category does not encourage graffiti, it just recognizes it.

 

Consider a category for crime scenes (this category has been proposed, and despite the initial lack of response, I'm guessing that some day the category will exist). Would such a category encourage crime?

 

How about the locations of other 'bad' things which have happened? Shipwrecks? Plane crashes? The Watergate Hotel? There are places on this planet which contain temporary or permanent scars (real or emotional). Why not record their locations?

 

I'm not saying that I support acts of vandalism. And I'm not trying to say that painting a name on a wall is in the same class of evil as a murder or bank robbery. But I see no reason to disallow or discourage the practice of recording the coordinates of places where such things have occurred. To NOT waymark a graffiti covered wall doesn't make the graffiti go away, and to waymark the spot doesn't mean that gangs of kids armed with spray paint and GPSrs will converge on the spot to do more damage.

[+cache_test_dummies]

4) Appropriate placement (i.e. NOT on the side of the Lincoln Memorial).

So what is an appropriate place? Does the graffiti have to be done with the permission of the the property owner? Or is any place other than the side of the Lincoln Memorial fair game? I think this needs a better definition.

I'm uncomfortable with the "appropriate" requirement too, but I see the need for it. Let's face it: this category isn't about locating places where people paint on walls with the full permission of the person or community which owns the wall. There is already such a category (as StagsRoar pointed out) called "Murals". And any painting done on somebody else's walls without permission isn't (in a legal sense, anyway) appropriate.

 

So it's all arguably inappropriate. The problem is that there is no good way (short of a carefully prepared and lengthy document describing what is appropriate, or maybe better: "acceptable") to tell somebody that graffiti on the White House isn't OK, but graffiti under a bridge is. A category owner can only do so much: you have to just kind of accept that things will all work out, without a category owner having to cross every t and dot every i.

 

We saw this issue early on when somebody attempted to publicly argue the technicalities of what, precisely, constituted a "landlocked lighthouse".

 

I think Lep summed it all up extremely well when he said, in this post:

Folks will need to get used to the idea that there will be hundreds of category managers out there, making decisions on what ought to be in their categories. If there is disagreement, this can be worked out through respectful correspondence between the category owner and the waymark submitter, or through respectful forum threads.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Consider a category for crime scenes (this category has been proposed, and despite the initial lack of response, I'm guessing that some day the category will exist). Would such a category encourage crime?

 

I thought it was a good idea too. FYI- there are some places that are set aside for people to do grafitti without breaking the law.

[+Bill & Tammy]

So what's next? A waymark for where to score dope? Find hookers? Locate bribable government officials?

 

Legitimizing an illegal activity that begins with theft from hardware stores and ends up with destruction of private property is incredibly irresponsible and should be given a second hard look at. If you (those that favor this category) are so cool with graffitti maybe you wouldn't mind me coming over to your place and painting my tag on your garage door.

 

As for me I am done with Waymarking altogether, it is becoming nothing more than a global coordinate phonebook and not the GPSr scavenger hunt that locationless caches were. As it stands now I can log at least 20 Waymarks just on my lunchbreak with none of them being very interesting.

 

Count me out.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[H to the Bizzle!]

I just can't believe that after all the categories that have been proposed in the recent months "Grafitti" is the one chosen.

[+Bill & Tammy]

Consider a category for crime scenes (this category has been proposed, and despite the initial lack of response, I'm guessing that some day the category will exist). Would such a category encourage crime?

 

I thought it was a good idea too. FYI- there are some places that are set aside for people to do grafitti without breaking the law.

 

I would be of the opinion that those sites that do allow the activity are better classified as a public collaborative artwork or a collective artistic event and not what is culturally defined as "graffiti" which I believe implies unauthorized mark making on a public or private surface. As pointed out it's a tricky judgement call and really opens up a can of worms. If it is done with consent is it really graffiti or a mural? If it is done withount consent it is definately vandalization of private property. Is graffiti on a national monument or in a cemetery something we should legitimize?

 

And for me like many, many of the categories graffiti is just so commonplace that it really isn't interesting, I can walk down to the train yard and log almost every boxcar that comes through.

[+chstress53]

Here is wikpipedia's take on graffitti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafitti

I particular was drawn to this statement

"Many contemporary analysts and even art critics have begun to see artistic value in some graffiti and to recognize it as a form of public art. According to many art researchers, particularly in the Netherlands and in Los Angeles, that type of public art is, in fact an effective tool of social emancipation or in the achievement of a political goal."

and this

"In an effort to reduce vandalism, many cities have designated walls or areas exclusively for use by graffiti artists. Some have suggested that this discourages petty vandalism yet encourages artists to take their time and produce great art, without worry of being caught or arrested for vandalism or trespassing."

And yes I like the category

[+Bill & Tammy]

Here is wikpipedia's take on graffitti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafitti

I particular was drawn to this statement

"Many contemporary analysts and even art critics have begun to see artistic value in some graffiti and to recognize it as a form of public art. According to many art researchers, particularly in the Netherlands and in Los Angeles, that type of public art is, in fact an effective tool of social emancipation or in the achievement of a political goal."

and this

"In an effort to reduce vandalism, many cities have designated walls or areas exclusively for use by graffiti artists. Some have suggested that this discourages petty vandalism yet encourages artists to take their time and produce great art, without worry of being caught or arrested for vandalism or trespassing."

And yes I like the category

 

Perhaps the category should be modified to "Locations where Graffiti is allowed" in s similiar vein to the off-leash dog walking areas category. That would narrow it down quite a bit from the millions of locations where graffiti has occured. As the stated mission and definition states "Waymarking is a way to mark unique locations on the planet and give them a voice. At least that way it would be an extension of public art and have some inherinent legitimacy.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+tozainamboku]

Since most people are willing to give an opinion without researching first - here is the description of the graffiti category being discussed

 

Quick Description:

Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism. Graffiti has existed at least since the days of ancient civilizations such as classical Greece and the Roman Empire.

 

Detailed Description:

I will be maintaining strict guidlines. Do NOT post anything that does not meet the requirements. It will not be posted.

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

1) Found Graffiti - NOT CREATED!!!

 

2) Must be artistically skillful. (No lazy graffiti!)

 

3) Imagery must NOT contian profanity, or be sexually

suggestive, or drug related.

 

4) Appropriate placement (i.e. NOT on the side of the

Lincoln Memorial).

 

5) Must provide photo with coordinates to post.

 

 

Many of the objections to the category have been addressed by the category owner. Run-of-the-mill graffiti is not allowed - only artistically skillful graffiti. Nothing profane, sexually suggestive, or drug related is allowed. Graffiti on a national monument, and probably in a cemetary as well, will not be allowed. And he does not condone creating graffiti - it must be existing graffiti found by the waymarker. I posted before that I have problems with some of these items as they leave the definition up to the category manager. But he has thought about the issues that have been raised here.

[+StagsRoar]

As I stated in my first comment on this thread - there is already an established category called 'Murals' which could have adequately covered or incorporated any form of ART done on or in a public or private establishment that is not vandalistic or unlawful in nature or intent. I still fail to see the need for a category of Grafitti which undeniably has the conotation of being unlawful and an act of vandalism for the most part. The part that isn't should go into the murals basket. Why don't don't we go ahead and submit a category for Pyromaniacs - I mean not all fires involve arson do they. or better still lets have a waymark category for Chop-shops - I mean not all vehicle modification business's are bad but if we do label it Chop shops - we will soon sort out who is legit and who are crooks. Bollocks!!!

[+Bill & Tammy]

Since most people are willing to give an opinion without researching first - here is the description of the graffiti category being discussed

 

Quick Description:

Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism. Graffiti has existed at least since the days of ancient civilizations such as classical Greece and the Roman Empire.

 

Detailed Description:

I will be maintaining strict guidlines. Do NOT post anything that does not meet the requirements. It will not be posted.

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

1) Found Graffiti - NOT CREATED!!!

 

2) Must be artistically skillful. (No lazy graffiti!)

 

3) Imagery must NOT contian profanity, or be sexually

suggestive, or drug related.

 

4) Appropriate placement (i.e. NOT on the side of the

Lincoln Memorial).

 

5) Must provide photo with coordinates to post.

 

 

Many of the objections to the category have been addressed by the category owner. Run-of-the-mill graffiti is not allowed - only artistically skillful graffiti. Nothing profane, sexually suggestive, or drug related is allowed. Graffiti on a national monument, and probably in a cemetary as well, will not be allowed. And he does not condone creating graffiti - it must be existing graffiti found by the waymarker. I posted before that I have problems with some of these items as they leave the definition up to the category manager. But he has thought about the issues that have been raised here.

 

Sorry for the confusion ... I did of course read the guidelines for posting the cache I just brought in monuments and cemeteries as a logical extension of the argument even though the Lincoln memorial was given as an example as a no-no. As I believe you pointed out what makes them off-limits and any other property OK? If I owned a railroad I would be pretty upset if someone messed up my nice new paint job on my rolling stock with a tag.

 

I really do find myself in a odd place an unusual ground with this argument because I am usually the one promoting free expression. But there are limits to freedom of expression of course. I remember when I was in art school which of course was an extremely liberal and open environment the "cardinal sin" which would most likely would lead one to expulsion or suspension maybe above anything else was destroying or defacing another's art work. This was the limit at which your freedoms ended and other's freedoms began. In the graffiti artist's artistic expression he or she is operating in the realm at which they believe they are in their rights I suppose, but in doing so they are transgressing upon another individual or entity's rights, that is the right that your property not be tampered or interfered with.

 

But again setting the legality of graffiti aside that this remains a very troublesome category, not that we should shy away from those but this isn't one that is particularly unique or interesting enough to test those boundaries. If this remains open to the kind of graffiti that is questionable legally, do we want to draw folks to the areas where graffiti exists to log it? I know railroad yards are pretty touchy about the general public entering them and some other areas may be dangerous for other reasons as well. I know initially Jeremy was very concerned about Waymarking opening the door to allowing less than family friendly waymarks and this may be such a door.

[OpinioNate]

As I stated in my first comment on this thread - there is already an established category called 'Murals' which could have adequately covered or incorporated any form of ART done on or in a public or private establishment that is not vandalistic or unlawful in nature or intent.

 

Indeed, there is a category for "Murals" already, but most graffiti enthusiasists would argue that the style of art is completely different.

 

Differences in both form and intent exist: graffiti art aims at self-expression and creativity, and may involve highly stylized letterforms drawn with markers, or cryptic and colorful spray paint murals on walls, buildings, and even freight trains. Wikipedia

 

Murals, yes, but a specific type of mural. The mural category manager might have created a variable for graffiti but he/she didn't.

 

But again setting the legality of graffiti aside that this remains a very troublesome category, not that we should shy away from those but this isn't one that is particularly unique or interesting enough to test those boundaries.

 

That is your opinion. Maddlove and the other contributors to the category would disagree. Groundspeak takes no position on the legality of graffiti targets. The location exists. Mark it if ye be so inclined. I'd be curious to hear what you might consider a category worthy of testing boundaries.

 

If this remains open to the kind of graffiti that is questionable legally, do we want to draw folks to the areas where graffiti exists to log it?

 

This is the same sort of argument geocaching hears WRT caches placed in dangerous locations. Simply leaving the house each day carries with it certain inherent risks, and we like to think our participants are mature enough to make educated decisions that might adversely affect their safety.

 

If the category was haphazardly thrown up (get it?) without pains taken to ensure so-called "quality" pieces were marked, it would likely be downgraded to oblivion. As it happens the manager has anticipated many of these arguments against graffiti and has taken pains to restrict submissions to only those locations with true artistic merit. Let the up/downgrading begin.

[+The Leprechauns]

Groundspeak takes no position on the legality of graffiti targets. The location exists. Mark it if ye be so inclined. I'd be curious to hear what you might consider a category worthy of testing boundaries.

Being a lawyer, I approach geocaching and Waymarking with the perspective of what's legal. The standards for hiding a geocache say that the owner is responsible for following all applicable laws. There's a list of "off limits" areas, like military bases and railroad properties, where caches cannot be hidden. Carrying those concepts over to Waymarking, if graffiti is in a location where it's considered to be vandalism, that would bother me and I would not create a waymark to draw attention to an act of vandalism. The category requirements make vague reference to this, like no spray paint on the Lincoln Memorial. But what about the brick side wall of a three-story apartment building in a run-down neighborhood? Someone owns that building and I doubt they consented to the "artwork" on the wall. Does that act of vandalism deserve to be commemorated by a waymark? I'm not sure of that.

 

On the other hand, I'd be doing nothing illegal if I was on a public street, saw some halfway decent grafitti, and pulled out my GPS to mark the coordinates. It is the placement of the grafitti, not the observation of it, that is against the law. The category owner makes it clear that the waymarker cannot *create* the grafitti. Perhaps that is enough.

 

You asked if there are other categories "worthy of testing boundaries." There is a category that was just bumped in the proposals forum for "roadside memorials." These are the crosses, flower arrangements, etc., which are placed at the sites of fatal traffic accidents. In at least three states, such memorials are illegal. In at least four other states, such memorials are regulated (you need to pay a fee and have the site approved, you can only purchase a state-approved sign, etc.). And other states are considering the adoption of similar laws (the concerns are interference with the state's right-of-way, traffic hazards, etc.). It is also against the law in many places to pull over on the shoulder of a limited access highway, except for emergency purposes. So, in contrast to the graffiti example, in the case of roadside memorials both the placement of the waymarked object AND the act of stopping to mark its location or take a photograph may be illegal, depending on the location. Yet, in other places, such memorials are perfectly legal and might constitute interesting places to visit.

 

To posit a more extreme example, what if a "Clandestine Spy" Waymarking category was proposed. "Go onto a military base, defense contractor campus or other location where photography is prohibited for security reasons. Mark the coordinates of a sign saying that photography is prohibited, and take your picture with your GPS next to that sign."

[Jeremy]

It's social commentary. It's there, so why not point it out? It's far better than ignoring that it exists at all.

[+The Leprechauns]

That's fine. In fact, a laissez-faire approach to Waymarking is in many ways a refreshing change from geocaching, where land managers, bomb squads and a host of other causes have led to the proliferation of a long rulebook.

 

If one of my personal principles is to avoid anything that breaks a law, I can simply skip those Waymarking opportunities that make me feel uncomfortable. I won't whine about it, just like I don't begrudge puzzle cache fans from having their fun even though I suck at math and can't share that fun.

 

But as we first saw in the "adult nightclub" thread, and now with this one, and surely with others to come in the future, there are those who will take offense at "edgy" categories. They will use the forums to express their views, as is their right. They will look to Groundspeak to keep everything family-friendly, and cry out to be regulated. If they aren't regulated, Waymarking will lose a percentage of its possible customer base. At the same time, those who enjoy an unrestricted site model hopefully will be attracted to Waymarking.

 

I may even waymark some graffiti that's artsy, and on public property. I liked the area so much that I placed a geocache nearby.

[+Ed Rad]

I am one who has a Waymark in the category. IMHO I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I discovered this spot because there was a cache placed there. Is this particular grafitti legal? I don't know but it is very good and I really enjoyed seeing it. Should the cache be archived because it promoted the visitation of this grafitti? Absolutely not. So why should a waymark not be allowed?

 

Observing and marking grafitti in and of it's self is not wrong. I see both sides of the issue here. Yes, it pushes a limit to some degree but so be it. I feel it has a place and yes... it is different from the mural category.

 

I am one who really hopes to see Waymarking take off and be very popular. The growing list of State Historical Marker categories is something that will help it advance. Heck, it has forced me to do more research on my state of Illinois and I am seriously considering a few weekend trips with my kids this summer to visit many of these sites. What better way to teach them something. Having an actual waypoint so you can use to find the location is even better.

 

Keep the ideas for more categories coming folks and thanks to the folks at Groundspeak for offering a neat new activity.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Special Ed

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Being a lawyer, I approach geocaching and Waymarking with the perspective of what's legal. The standards for hiding a geocache say that the owner is responsible for following all applicable laws. There's a list of "off limits" areas, like military bases and railroad properties, where caches cannot be hidden. Carrying those concepts over to Waymarking, if graffiti is in a location where it's considered to be vandalism, that would bother me and I would not create a waymark to draw attention to an act of vandalism. The category requirements make vague reference to this, like no spray paint on the Lincoln Memorial. But what about the brick side wall of a three-story apartment building in a run-down neighborhood? Someone owns that building and I doubt they consented to the "artwork" on the wall. Does that act of vandalism deserve to be commemorated by a waymark? I'm not sure of that.

 

Being a lawyer, and with what you said above, I would be interested in your take on the proposed crime scene/site category. Would there be anything wrong with that or would it not be a good category because it could draw attention to the crime?

 

I was aprehensive in proposing it for those very reasons. But in the end I figured that however heinous the crime might be, well known ones are part and parcel of our history. In my proposal I used the St. Valentines Day Massacre. That is a well known crime that probably almost everyone has heard of. Yet other than 'Chicago', no one could tell you exactly where. Thus my reasoning that it would make an ideal category for Waymarking.

 

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Edited March 2, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+StagsRoar]

It's social commentary. It's there, so why not point it out? It's far better than ignoring that it exists at all.

 

I don't see how this negates a little social responsiblity and prudence - Grafitti is an activity that is predominantly unlawful - why is Groundspeak allowing the 'promotíon' of such. I also don't think for one minute that anyone is ignoring the existance of anything! The family friendly idea is circling the drain somehow!!

[+Ed Rad]

I have to disagree.

 

Groundspeak is not 'promoting' grafitti as you state. Nor are they responsible for the social behavior of those of us who participate. Those of us who have created Waymarks are not promoting it either. we are recognizing it as art, like it or not. I'm sure a gang sign that is scrawled on a wall not qualify as a legit waymark. That type of grafitti is the most common. It is ugly and bad and not worthy of recognition in anyway.

 

It would be there if Waymarking didn't exist and I highly doubt this activity will inspire people to go "tag" the nearest building in order to create a new waymark.

 

Remember ... You have the freedom to not participate in this category if you disagree with it.

[+The Leprechauns]

But as we first saw in the "adult nightclub" thread, and now with this one, and surely with others to come in the future, there are those who will take offense at "edgy" categories. They will use the forums to express their views, as is their right. They will look to Groundspeak to keep everything family-friendly, and cry out to be regulated. If they aren't regulated, Waymarking will lose a percentage of its possible customer base. At the same time, those who enjoy an unrestricted site model hopefully will be attracted to Waymarking.

I don't see how this negates a little social responsiblity and prudence - Grafitti is an activity that is predominantly unlawful - why is Groundspeak allowing the 'promotíon' of such. I also don't think for one minute that anyone is ignoring the existance of anything! The family friendly idea is circling the drain somehow!!

It's fun to be able to predict forum posts four hours in advance.

 

If anyone's interested, I can give you a hot tip on a fast horse in the fourth race, as well as tomorrow's lottery numbers.

[+StagsRoar]

 

Groundspeak is not 'promoting' grafitti as you state.

I'm sure a gang sign that is scrawled on a wall not qualify as a legit waymark. That type of grafitti is the most common.

 

 

I guess we will see in time then won't we. And i believe that giving tagging/grafitti any recognition (such as giving it a categorization as a waymark) is in that sense, promoting it. People unlawfully tag and paint junk on building , fences etc so people will see it and get attention drawn to it - by giving it a category on Waymarking - this is just another means of doing that very thing!

[+BruceS]

I am one who has a Waymark in the category. IMHO I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I discovered this spot because there was a cache placed there. Is this particular grafitti legal? I don't know but it is very good and I really enjoyed seeing it. Should the cache be archived because it promoted the visitation of this grafitti? Absolutely not. So why should a waymark not be allowed?

 

 

The grafitti for this referenced waymark is in fact legal. It was done as an organized event where taggers from across the country were invited in to improve the appearance of an eyesore.

Edited March 2, 2006 by BruceS

[+Ed Rad]

I am one who has a Waymark in the category. IMHO I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I discovered this spot because there was a cache placed there. Is this particular grafitti legal? I don't know but it is very good and I really enjoyed seeing it. Should the cache be archived because it promoted the visitation of this grafitti? Absolutely not. So why should a waymark not be allowed?

 

 

The grafitti for this referenced waymark is in fact legal. It was done as an organized event where taggers from across the country were invited in to improve the appearance of an eyesore.

 

Thanks for the info on that one BruceS. I'm glad to hear that.

 

Imagine that ... a case where the grafitti is actually a good thing. Could there be more places like this? I bet there are!

[Jeremy]

I guess we will see in time then won't we. And i believe that giving tagging/grafitti any recognition (such as giving it a categorization as a waymark) is in that sense, promoting it. People unlawfully tag and paint junk on building , fences etc so people will see it and get attention drawn to it - by giving it a category on Waymarking - this is just another means of doing that very thing!

 

No it isn't. Your argument is called "circular reasoning." Look it up.

[+Bill & Tammy]

I am one who has a Waymark in the category. IMHO I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, I discovered this spot because there was a cache placed there. Is this particular grafitti legal? I don't know but it is very good and I really enjoyed seeing it. Should the cache be archived because it promoted the visitation of this grafitti? Absolutely not. So why should a waymark not be allowed?

 

 

The grafitti for this referenced waymark is in fact legal. It was done as an organized event where taggers from across the country were invited in to improve the appearance of an eyesore.

 

As before I am wondering what makes it graffiti if it is done with permission and is sanctioned? To me that sounds more like a collaborative mural. Or are we blurring the lines now between what we call graffiti and what we define as a mural? I remember in the 80's and 90's there was an attempt to in a sense legitimize tagging by bringing it in to the mainstream art world. Artist such as Jean Michael Basquiet brought the stylistic references from graffiti to canvas and other traditional drawing surfaces where they could be hung in galleries and be bought and sold. By doing so many believe he left the realm of what may be called "outsider art" and entered the traditional art world.

 

I think we need a clear definition of what graffiti really is for this category, I think just because it looks like what we associate with graffiti may not make it necessarily so.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+chstress53]

I know this is rather long but I strongly feel it needsto be said.

 

Bill & Tammy

Did you not see my post earlier in the Thread from Wikipedia which is an absolutely accurate deffinition and tells the difference between graffeti & murals. from wilipedia:

"Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public and is often prevalent in low-income neighborhoods. It can take the form of art, drawings or words."

"A mural is a painting on a wall, ceiling, or other large permanent surface. and MADLOVE describes it very accurately as the definition was used on the Category page.

Related examples:

In the museum at Ephesus, Turkey, there are two Greek portrait busts. On each sculpture the nose is broken off and a cross is carved on the forehead. The English guidebook points out these "marks of grafitti & vandalism" to tell the history of the statutes and the place where they were found. The curators did not remove these pieces from the viewing public because Christian zealots "ruined" what the Greek classicists had in mind when they created these works of art. Instead, the marks are incorporated into the story as part of a series of events that make up the history of these pieces of art and that part of the world.

 

Similarly, people do not go to the ancient city of Pompeii and say "Look at all that graffiti. This place is a mess. Those people have ruined everything for everyone else. I'm sorry I ever came here." Instead they view the copious graffiti on the walls of that place as a normal feature of the landscape. Guidebooks help tourists decode the popular inscriptions written on every public wall. No distinction is made between the proper and the improper, between what is valuable and what is vandalism. All is history. The frescos/murals represent the history of the elite; the graffiti represents the history of the common people.

 

Actually, the presence of graffiti may enhance rather than diminish market values in the modern world. Consider the Berlin Wall. For over 40 years, photographers have documented the ever changing graffiti that embellished the west side of the wall, where dissent was still possible. When the wall was demolished as evidence of the reunification of German segments of the wall went to various museums and libraries, as well as private parties. In California, both the Nixon Memorial Library and the Reagan Memorial Library exhibit a slice of the wall, ablaze with graffiti, exhibited as a symbol of the historic era. Ironically, it is the existence of graffiti that makes it obvious that the wall has been installed upside-down in the Nixon Library. There, in the gift shop, visitors can buy considerably smaller chunks of the wall. The pieces with graffiti are priced higher than the unembellished chunks.

 

The impulse to make a mark on the environment is very ancient. Since prehistoric times people have used the available technology to make a record of themselves, their beliefs and their practices. In fact, ancient painted and carved rocks are critical data for archaeologists in their quest to reconstruct the prehistoric era. We do not describe these marks of our ancestors as "destroying nature", even though we use these terms to define the same behavior by our contemporaries. Employing this logic, the national parks service carefully preserves the petroglyphs and rock paintings of the past while they suppress, erase and punish anyone leaving their mark on the landscape today. One is "history", the other is "vandalism."

 

These examples suggest that whether making a mark on the environment is a characteristic expression of our species---that is "history"---or whether it is a kind of perversity---that is "vandalism"---is relative. It depends on who is making what marks in what social and historical context and with what objectives, as well as who is passing judgment on this activity and why. If we see "graffiti" and think "dirty, ugly, meaningless, visual pollution, wrong, destructive, bad" we express a socialized point of view. The truth of these judgments is not some absolute reality that is "natural and obvious" but instead, truth is a point of view that is learned from and reinforced by a variety of others: our peers, our parents, the authorities, the media taking the role of the "generalized other"

Critically important to the social construction of meaning are people in positions of power and authority, the rule makers. They form, inform and reinforce the perceptions and judgments of an authorized social reality and they enforce this ideal by various methods of reward and punishment.

 

What makes graffiti wrong is the claim that "public" space should represent only the interests of the propertied class. This unspoken assumption is the premise from which contemporary graffiti is defined as ugly, meaningless, dirty, destructive and the wholesale eradication of graffiti is viewed as a socially responsible act. Unlike the rule makers at the museums in Ephesus and Pompeii, American lawmakers do not see the marks on the walls of the city as representing a part of history, speaking to the lives of powerless and marginal people. Rather, in defense of their singular claim to public space, the authorities have undertaken a broad range of punitive actions. In California, as one example, the graffiti menace serves as the justification for legislation restraining trade by prohibiting the sale of spray paint and broad tipped ink markers to people under the age of 18. In response, some young people identify themselves as the "aerosol nation". Their goal is to question the rules of authority by doing art wherever and whenever they can, while other youth tag over their peers expressions and rule enforcers paint over them both.

 

Despite all of the propaganda, prohibitions and punishments associated with contemporary graffiti, representatives of the dominant culture exploit the character and style of graffiti when it is profitable to them to do so. Film makers who want to give an ethnic or class illusion to a neighborhood cover the walls with imitations of the graffiti that the city authorities are trying desperately to eradicate ("Sister Act"). In a recent advertising campaign, the billboards for an automobile incorporated what looks like graffiti sprayed on the ad but is actually part of the authorized text. The National Graffiti Information Network protested Chrysler's glorification of crime. Nonetheless, those who make the rules that prohibit graffiti by defining it as "bad" recognize a category of "good graffiti" as a function of who is writing what where when and why. During the 1990 Gulf War, the al-Mutla barrage killed thousands of Iraqi servicemen and civilians. A newspaper account describes the copious graffiti American troops left on the enemy equipment destroyed at this gravesite. In his State of the Union address the following year, President George Bush quoted some of this "good" graffiti as testimony to the courageous and independent sprit of American youth serving in the interests of their country.

 

These authorized distinctions between "good graffiti" and "bad graffiti" suggest that the "graffiti problem" is about constraints on freedom of expression. Graffiti gives voice to unusual, unpopular, unacceptable, inaccessible ideas, expressing them in unorthodox and unauthorized places. When graffiti is forbidden by the authorities, it is a crime.

 

How we as observers feel about graffiti is a function of whose side of the conflict we are on---whose values we share or do not share, whose status we respect, whose situation we empathize with----the authorities who make the rules, the people who enforce them, or those who break them. During the second world war, inmates in German concentration camps left copious graffiti wherever they dared, in direct defiance of the rules of the Nazi authorities who prohibited and severely punished such expressions. Today, most people see those defiant acts of the inmates as heroic, they would understand the vision that graffiti expresses is an authentic and poignant voice of oppressed people facing genocide.

 

Placed in their historic context, the great graffiti wars of the late 20th century illustrate the relativity of judgments of deviance and diversity, and how the dynamic interaction between the participants of different subcultures, each with their own agenda and resources, produce the perceived reality of these conflicts.

 

I for one applaud Groundspeak for allowing this type of category, and I am searching for a waymark to create in this category

Edited March 3, 2006 by chstress53

[+StagsRoar]

chstress's last post makes for interesting reading and I can certainly see the point of view he is approaching this from and from this perspective it all seems quite viable. My issue with this though would be: that of the grafitti that is considered legit and of some historic value - that would make up , what? say 10 percent of the grafitti around. Maybe someone could be more concise on that figure - but for arguements sake lets say it is approx 10%. Then that leaves about 90% or so of grafitti as established as vandalism . I'm quite certain that if entries start making it into this category - I would wager an arm and a leg that the grafitti listed will not be only of that 10% section. I guess I won't be able to prove otherwise but lets face it - the larger percentage of grafitti is unlawful - is it not??? It stands therefore that a considerable amount of submissions made to this category will fall under the 90% section and what will the category owner be able to do to prove otherwise or how will he truely be able to establish the waymarked grafitti as lawful and permissable? And again I say - why could that 10% or however much is legit have not gone into the Murals Category and be labelled as such to take the stigma away from what 'Grafitti' harbours. I started this thread hoping that at least Groundspeak could come up with some sensible vindication for creating this category or at least give some viable defense on the issue, but as it seems so far they either feel they don't need to or they really don't give a toss!

[+Bill & Tammy]

I agree chstress does offer a very well-reasoned and convincing defense, but it is not as you probably suspect, completely satisfying to me. I find the historical precedence an intriguing one in particular as almost everything in our culture has historical basis but that alone does not give it validity. As almost everything that our society also deems as repugnant can be traced back through time . As it is said "there is nothing new under the Sun".

 

As for Wikipedia's definition you cited:

 

"Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public and is often prevalent in low-income neighborhoods. It can take the form of art, drawings or words."

 

"A mural is a painting on a wall, ceiling, or other large permanent surface."

 

I really don't see a distinction here; a "graffiti" artist applies spray paint (painting) to a wall being a permanent surface is it then not a mural? An artist is commisioned to paint a social commentary on a building in a low income neighorhood which includes drawings and words, is it then graffiti? Is advertising by that definition graffiti?

 

Now, chstress also cite the Berlin Wall which is an example of how we vindicate and rightfully so some actions as civil disobedience, but to use that argument a values judgment call must be brought into play. Retouching on the Lincoln Memorial argument, say a disgruntled citizen has a beef with our government and decides he or she is going to bring attention to their complaint by spray painting on this venerated memorial. Is this civil disobediance or a crime?

 

Anyway I do actually see some point in using Waymarking as social commentary as Jeremy pointed out much in the same way a photojournalist does but again the subject needs to be more specific I believe.

 

One idea may be to establish an "Outsider Art" category where visual creations that are also acts of civil disobedience including especially well executed and interesting "graffiti" may be included and also perhaps "Finsteresque" themes (the self-proclaimed profits that do the yard art with Biblical references that often can often be seen in the South).

[+BigCarbonFootprint]

Groundspeak takes no position on the legality of graffiti targets. The location exists. Mark it if ye be so inclined. I'd be curious to hear what you might consider a category worthy of testing boundaries.

Being a lawyer, I approach geocaching and Waymarking with the perspective of what's legal. The standards for hiding a geocache say that the owner is responsible for following all applicable laws. There's a list of "off limits" areas, like military bases and railroad properties, where caches cannot be hidden. Carrying those concepts over to Waymarking, if graffiti is in a location where it's considered to be vandalism, that would bother me and I would not create a waymark to draw attention to an act of vandalism. The category requirements make vague reference to this, like no spray paint on the Lincoln Memorial. But what about the brick side wall of a three-story apartment building in a run-down neighborhood? Someone owns that building and I doubt they consented to the "artwork" on the wall. Does that act of vandalism deserve to be commemorated by a waymark? I'm not sure of that.

 

On the other hand, I'd be doing nothing illegal if I was on a public street, saw some halfway decent grafitti, and pulled out my GPS to mark the coordinates. It is the placement of the grafitti, not the observation of it, that is against the law. The category owner makes it clear that the waymarker cannot *create* the grafitti. Perhaps that is enough.

 

You asked if there are other categories "worthy of testing boundaries." There is a category that was just bumped in the proposals forum for "roadside memorials." These are the crosses, flower arrangements, etc., which are placed at the sites of fatal traffic accidents. In at least three states, such memorials are illegal. In at least four other states, such memorials are regulated (you need to pay a fee and have the site approved, you can only purchase a state-approved sign, etc.). And other states are considering the adoption of similar laws (the concerns are interference with the state's right-of-way, traffic hazards, etc.). It is also against the law in many places to pull over on the shoulder of a limited access highway, except for emergency purposes. So, in contrast to the graffiti example, in the case of roadside memorials both the placement of the waymarked object AND the act of stopping to mark its location or take a photograph may be illegal, depending on the location. Yet, in other places, such memorials are perfectly legal and might constitute interesting places to visit.

 

To posit a more extreme example, what if a "Clandestine Spy" Waymarking category was proposed. "Go onto a military base, defense contractor campus or other location where photography is prohibited for security reasons. Mark the coordinates of a sign saying that photography is prohibited, and take your picture with your GPS next to that sign."

 

Leps, please stand by for your legal assistance and consultation in my upcoming litigation against some Waymark owner and possibly Groundspeak regarding the willing contribution to the robbery and assault of myself while attempting to capture a “Graffiti Waymark”. Although there are disclaimers acknowledged to participate in this activity, I think precedent would allow for liability on behalf of Groundspeak for permitting such a negligent category to be posted on Waymarking.com. Even though I do understand the artistic implication of Graffiti and it’s possible statement of “free speech” on the part of the owner, it is in most cases an illegal activity and performed generally by individuals that would not hesitate to commit an assault and head down to the local pawn to dispense with a nice GPSr and digital camera in exchange for a nice little sack of crack cocaine. I think I will pass on “Graffiti Waymarks”.

[+The Leprechauns]

Thanks for the heads-up. But gee, that reminds me... the statute of limitations runs out in a few months on my lawsuit against Groundspeak and a cache owner because I got assaulted while looking for a cache. I'd better get going on that.

[OpinioNate]

 

[snip]...by individuals that would not hesitate to commit an assault and head down to the local pawn to dispense with a nice GPSr and digital camera in exchange for a nice little sack of crack cocaine...[snip]

 

You paint with a mighty broad brush there... Do you get all of your information from the local evening news?

 

"What you don't know about Venetian blinds may kill you. Story at 11."

[+The Blue Quasar]

Gee, I thought you might have said a large airbrush

 

I can understand why some may feel that raising awareness of some issues (like grafitti and others) may increase the activity... but it might also reduce it.

 

The kind of person that suddenly takes up the hobby of vandalizing the wall of private property because they suddenly discovered this street art-form is not only weak minded, but naive.

 

I think you would hard pressed to find anyone that hasn't seen grafitti, and that hardly makes them want to do it.

 

I see people smoke, or eat fast food, or jog, or read.... none of those do I do because I saw others do it.

 

Give people some credit...

 

People aren't likely to start doing it because of a desire to own a Waymark Listing, in my opinion

 

The Blue Quasar

[+BruceS]

Even though I do understand the artistic implication of Graffiti and it’s possible statement of “free speech” on the part of the owner, it is in most cases an illegal activity and performed generally by individuals that would not hesitate to commit an assault and head down to the local pawn to dispense with a nice GPSr and digital camera in exchange for a nice little sack of crack cocaine. I think I will pass on “Graffiti Waymarks”.

 

From this I would think you would want as many Graffiti waymarks to be marked as possible. Then you would know all the areas to avoid because there would be someone there that will assault you.

[+Suziq]

The only problem I see with this catagory is that at least where I live Graffiti must be removed by the land owner within 2 weeks or you could be fined.

 

What happenes when the city or property owners start removing your waypoints???

[+cache_test_dummies]

What happenes when the city or property owners start removing your waypoints???

The same thing that happens when any waymark is permanently removed, I guess. The owner would simply archive the waymark.