In reading the most recent issue of Garden Railways I came upon an article extolling the art of various graffiti “artists”. I’m sorry, but when someone defaces another’s property that’s vandalism, not art. Extolling the artistic side of vandalism is encouraging not discouraging a crime. If you like this form of art offer your own house or car as a canvas.
I had trouble with this article too. In particular the author reported he had “tagged” RR equipment himself. I thought this very bizarre as I thought this activity was illegal and could get you arrested. Also the potential for injury doing this type of art around full scale RR equipment is very real and should not be encouraged.
Tom
As a man who respects other people’s property, I agree it’s plain and simple criminal vandalism and the magazine editors should be ashamed of themselves.
But allow me to share an artist’s perspective. I’ve been a full-time professional artist my whole life, and I remember back in the Sixties when it briefly became “cool” to bestow the term artist on a bunch of screwed-up kids with paint cans.
And here we have this article still mindlessly glorifying vandalism as if it were something new and beautiful and creative in the art world. It was insulting to real artists fifty years ago, and it still is.
In all these years, I have yet to see even one instance of graffiti that rises to the level of serious art. Frankly, I would rather own a painting of dogs playing poker.
I fully agree with all of the above… We recently had a Government website preserve outlines of our suburban electric train fleet so that these vandals could plan and practice their murals before leaving their homes. What sort of message does that send???
Cutting off their hands seems a little lenient…
Ouch !!! - amputation for spraying some paint on a boxcar ? Seems a little medieval, no ? What kind of punishment would you guys prescribe for burglary or embezzlement ? Instead, how about this - in NYC there was / is a program whereby apprehended graffiti artists are required to spend about 30 hours, over several weekends cleaning up graffiti. They’re given cans of solvent and bags of rags and are taken out under police supervision to remove graffiti from buildings, subways, etc. I understand the program is very successful.
Not that I live in New York so it’s none of my darn business, but I’m glad to hear this…it is funny you should mention this because it was in the New York City art world where it became a high fashion (until they moved on to the next fashion) to promote graffiti as a form of art; in fact, the subway cars and locomotives became the prime urban “canvas” and, under the banner of art and social “acceptance and understanding,” the city encouraged the practice to the point where you would have thought their next step was going to be handing out spray cans to “artists” who couldn’t afford paint. (It might be noted that the buildings where the high art critics and movers/shakers lived were pristine of course; they weren’t volunteering their residences as canvases.)
Just about every doggone boxcar I see all up and down the front range is tagged … but not the Burlington Northern coal cars. Oh, no, no, no. They don’t put up with that kind of thing for one second!
I suspect the reason coal cars are not taged is the vandals don’t want to get their hands dirty first cleaning the surface so their paint will stick. If it’s not cleaned I doubt if the paint would stick with all the coal dust.
Mark
FYI, just wanted to let you know that, ordinarily, our forums don’t allow the discussions of graffiti or hobos, etc., because the topic usually turns nasty.
That being said, since our magazine ran an article about this subject, I will allow this thread to discuss the topic. However, please play nice and keep the thread clean. [:)]
Before the advent of kids having money in their pockets and the freely available spray can, the method of ‘artwork’ was usually done with chalks. Chalk was easily removed or rain washed it off.
An individual, a few years ago, in the London area cost the London Underground (now part of TfL) system millions of pounds in removing the initials that he spayed in many parts and on many cars of their system. Some places very not that easily accessed, but he managed it. After something like four years - lots of manpower hours removing his daubs and searching for him - he was eventually caught and convicted this year.
The attached link makes interesting reading: particularly his ‘sales’ of his ‘so called artwork’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jun/07/tox-graffiti-artist-criminal-damage
For Christmas my wife and I took Amtrak from Kalamazoo, MI to San Francisco and back. I saw a lot of fright cars along the way. Many of them were taged. I can’t say as any of it improved the appearance of the original paint work by the railroad. Anytime I’ve seen an article about the art of taging, The example photos have always been a few of them more impressive displays that I will have to admit do display some talent. But 99% of anything I’ve even seen in real life has been just plain vandalism. And even if the best of it was applied to the side of my house or car, I would be just a little upset.
Bob
Strictly Modelling speaking… Like it or not, train graffiti is a VERY REAL part of modern railroad operations, and like it or not, modern railroads just simply DONT LOOK REAL unless the cars ALSO reflect there real world counterparts, to neglect such an obvious reality is to the detriment of the modern model RRer, lets face it folks, like it or not, graffited cars are going to a BIG part of future model railroading for those modelling the modern world. Its already got a big following in the HO realm, with prepainted cars being offered RTR from major makers. Get used to it…
!(http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/god at his computer.jpg)
BTW This sums up my opinion of taggers…[;)]
Last week a young fellow was killed while trying to spray a tag. His “friends” said that he did not hear the train coming until it was a metre away from him.
It was not a one off incident or first time as his tag was shown as being around various parts of the rail system. In New South Wales the trains are government owned. So cleaning graffitti comes from the tax payer.
In my opinion it is an eyesore.
Andrew
Sandbar & Mudcrab
One more REALLY GOOD reason for modeling the transition era, or before. N&W dropped their last fire before the paint can Picassos got a start.
I model 1964 - in a country where a spray-can `artiste’ would shortly find himself in the grip of a no-nonsense O-Marisan and nose to nose with an equally unsympathetic magistrate. The railroad was a national monopoly, and you DID NOT apply unauthorized markings to the Emperor’s property.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Although I have not yet receive my copy, this subject has come up on other fora I read and the best definition I have see is:
When the canvas you are painting on is yours, it is art work.
When the canvas you are painting on is some one elses, it is vandalism.
Rene, and the editors,
I truly hope that the inclusion of an article of this sort was not viewed as a neutral issue. I for one am very opinionated on this issue, as are many others. To have run this charged subject and to not have expected a dialog on this form would have been naive at best. Thank you for allowing the continuance, as I believe GR could garner some insight for future issues.
Having read this forum, I most likely will skip the article.
Bob C.
Thanks Rene…I for one think this discussion has been interesting and productive. I think it also supports the notion that we large-scale modellers may be opinionated at times but are usually civil.
Can you imagine this discussion on the main MRR forum? OMG it likely would have crashed and burned in a ball of fire within an hour!!
Railroad rolling stock and facilities “decorated” with more or less elaborate spray paintings (just to avoid the word) are an issue all over the so called civilized world. It has become a common practice, mainly in urban areas, that “clean” surfaces invite ill-led persons to use them for their purposes.
Whether this is regarded as “Art”, lies in the eyes of the beholder, in my eyes, it is not, therefore it does not find a place on my layout. There is one little exception, as you can see in the following picture. Take a close look at the right side of the tunnel portal:
To me its all about just how “accurately” do you want to depict your modeling world. I can’t imaging a modern Class 1 RR without graffiti strewn cars, its a fact of modern life and as such IF your truely a rivet counter for accuracy, you would by definition have to include tagged cars otherwise that air of beleivablity falters. It would be like modeling Southern Pacific in the 90’s and using all shiny perfect locomotives and not the grimy oily horrid rust traps they were actually using. It’s a credability issue to me.
As for transition era or earlier, the fact is that graffiti has been around since at least the earliest part of the 20th century, hobos and other tramps left their chalk marks all over rail yards, cars and equipment, particularly Depression era layout, theres actually quite alot of interesting railroad history tied up in those chalk marks. and as such I wouldnt see any reason why they shouldnt be a part of any true model railroad layout, regardless of scale or era.
But thats a question of choice by the individual modeler of course. its their RR so they have final say over what they want to depict.
I too was disturbed by the article. If it had been presented simply as a “weathering” type of article, for those who merely wish to make their rolling stock depict an reality of modern life, that would have been one thing. But this article seemed to glamorize the individuals who commit the destruction of property not their own.
It doesn’t matter how “good” the graffiti may be. It could be the next Mona Lisa, but if you’re doing on someone else’s property without their permission, it’s a crime and a despicable act.
I’ll readily agree with the sentiment that graffiti is vandalism. However, I think to discount the affect that “street art”–regardless of the “canvas” upon which it’s painted–has on modern culture based solely on the premise that it’s morally corrupt is a bit short-sighted. I think it’s that aspect of “street art” which this museum showing looks to showcase, not the morals (or lack thereof) of the artists. It’s a very easy task to argue that the stylings of street art have made their way into many aspects of modern design. I frequently see murals that reflect that style painted at the request of the building owner or community. Whether one views these murals as “art” is highly subjective. There’s hardly a modern art museum I’ve been in where I’d bestow that honor on even half of what’s hanging on the walls, so clearly tastes vary. (@St. Francis, next time I’m at your studio, you’ll have to explain the appeal of Clifford Still. I just don’t get it–at least not to the tune of the $30 million they’re claiming for that one painting that got damaged.)
The objection, as I see it, seems to stem from the notion that the art and the canvas are inextricably combined; that you cannot celebrate the art without promoting the immorality of the artist. The way I see it, I can listen to 60s and 70s rock, and appreciate it for the music and its influence on modern rock without feeling like I’m glorifying the rampant drug use that created most of it. Graffiti such as that depicted on the cars in the article is much the same. I can appreciate the vision and talent that allows those visions to be created with cans of spray paint without feeling like my appreciation of those talents is encouraging property damage. Those talents exist no matter where the paint lands. It’s simply a poor moral choice by the artist that he chooses freight cars instead of canvas.
Later,
K
Kevin,
Although from the perspective of the art only, I cannot disagree with your comments. However one must consider the source, the hand that generated the ‘art’. Please keep in mind that most of the ‘art’ we are viewing on the sides of freight cars is in reality ‘gang signs’. This is their way of proclaiming their existence. From my point of view, ANY showing of legitimacy to the tagging bolsters their ‘right’ to exist. Tagging is vandalism, plain and simple, is illegal, and should not be promoted by any worthwhile publication.
Bob C.