Art or vandalism?

[-..__...]

Personally, I think "menace" is kind'a harsh, but without the owners permission, it is vandalism...

Pixnit was here
Her urban-art spores adorn public and private property. But some see her as a menace.

By Matthew Shaer, Globe Correspondent | January 3, 2007

CAMBRIDGE -- At 2 a.m. on a Monday in November, this stretch of Massachusetts Avenue, from Plympton Street to Harvard Square, is lit up like a vintage pinball machine. So it's testament to Pixnit's experience that even in the neon glow cast by nearby storefronts she can vanish, almost completely, into the smallest of shadows.


There's a practiced grace to every motion: the stencil fitted to the dark slice of pavement, the aerosol yanked from a black backpack, and then three passes with the blue paint. By the time a passerby kneels to examine the art -- a small, pastel flower Pixnit calls a "spore" -- Pixnit is halfway down the block, her hands, covered in black fingerless gloves, in her pockets.

"Why are we so afraid of paint on walls?" she says, later that morning. "What is it, exactly, that we're afraid of?"

This is a question that has been plaguing Pixnit, who refuses to reveal her real name publicly, her entire life. She tagged walls as a kid in the Southwest, and says that by the time she came east to get her master's degree from Tufts University and the School of the Museum of Fine Arts , she had created hundreds of pieces of urban art. But it's in Boston that Pixnit has achieved her greatest -- and what she hopes will be her lasting -- fame.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/01/03/pixnit_was_here/?page=1">Complete story...

[SteppingRazor]

1. She's a vandal defacing property, pure and simple...

how would you like her doing this to your house?


But beyond the question of legality, the biggest problem I have with grafitti writers trying to make a claim as authentic artists is that 99 percent of them just aren't very good.

[TlalocW]

30. Do a google image search for pixnit

She's is pretty good. I wouldn't mind her tagging my house.

TlalocW

[Poll_Blind]

50. But regardless of her perceived artistic talent, it still comes down...

..to undesired modification of another's property. There's a wall or two in my town, IIRC, which may be freely painted on. It is designated in that sense. I like the concept. I think art (even what I judge to be poorly-executed art) should be prevalent in the community.

PB

[kwyjibo]

52. She's good. Images------------->

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=92708766

Things like this make a city unique. I live in Austin, and it just wouldn't be what it is without Matthew Rodriguez's candy corn characters all over town.

[TankLV]

83. Wow - she is GOOD. It looks GREAT - especially on all those boarded up windows!

I would LOVE to have her ART on MY HOME!

If she's ever in Henderson (Vegas), hope she looks me up...

sure would be better to look at than all those ugly garage doors!

[Az]

2. There still exists graffiti from ancient Rome

Yes its vandalism but its also something more. Something about our society. The small and individual speaking to power. To the society. Speaking their mind so they may be heard.

[Mike Daniels]

71. So they can't use their own property to speak to power?

It's still vandalism if it's done on someone else's property w/out their permission.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. It's vandalism unless she is given permission to use the space. Then it's art.

[novalib]

6. The ACT of Placing Images in FORBIDDEN SPACE

The very ACT of placing images in FORBIDDEN SPACE is ART itself -- a special type of REVOLUTIONARY ART.

Such ART makes a several TERRFIC STATEMENTS!!!!

[Beelzebud]

21. No, it's just vandalism...

[BuyingThyme]

31. Yeah, it says the "artist" has

no respect for others and is more than willing to harm others us a whim.

[Odin2005]

43. OK, then, I'll come vandalize you house, then...

[Warren DeMontague]

47. No. The ACT of defacing someone else's property

is VANDALISM.

Period.

[treestar]

69. It's still art, it's just in an unpermitted place

I guess it could still be said to be "art." But then she has no ownerships rights to her own art.

It's odd, because if Picasso came along and defaced your wall with his painting, he'd be handing you a gift. You could sell your wall for zillions of dollars.

So the question of defacement or art is in the eye of the beholder. The owner of the wall could even hate the thing and yet others would give him $$ for it.

[novalib]

4. ART!! Nuanced and DYNAMIC!!!

The article doesn't show the ART in question, but it does say that the ART is nuanced and dynamic!!!

I'm inclined to say ART.

[blogslut]

5. here's some Pixnit art

[mondo joe]

8. Well that's just stencil crap.

Not even good art, IMO.

[blogslut]

10. a lot of taggers use stencils

the difference is they create the stencils as opposed to buying them from the craft store

[mondo joe]

41. Yes - and I should have been more specific. NT

[annabanana]

12. she can do her grafitti on my walls anytime..... .n/t

[lectrobyte]

27. Looks like someone fuglified a perfectly decent brick wall. Vandalism.

[treestar]

70. What if you thought it prettified it?

Then the question would be slightly different.

[mondo joe]

7. Art can be vandalism - and this is vandalism. NT

[novalib]

9. And This Vandalism is ART!!!

The fact that it is vandalism makes it EVEN MORE ARTISTIC than if it had been painted on some canvas!!

I LOVE this type of ART!!

[BoneDaddy]

18. It may be art

but she can land in jail for it and as long as the artist is making a conscious choice I don't have any problems with it. But to claim foul while defacing someone's private property is ridiculous.

[-..__...]

20. Would that include spray painting...

"Fuck You" or gang tags on private and/or public property?

I guess it would come down what ones (subjective), definition of art is?

[Az]

23. You have to remember

Not everyone has access to the same facilitities or means of expression as everyone else. Just because of circumstance someone is supposed to accept a life of annonymity? Marketting reps cover our neighbor hoods with advertisements we never asked for. Billboards shove ideas down our throats every day. Sometimes the have nots want to speak back in the same language they are being shouted at by the haves.

Its caused by the weak having a need to express themself. To be heard. To matter.

Yeah... its vandalism. But the tyranny of marketting I think is a bit worse.

[mondo joe]

25. Lack of equal access doesn't entitle anyone to (mis)use the property of others.

Just saying.

[Az]

33. I understand.... it is vandalism

But not paying attention to it or not seeing it for all it might be is a mistake.

[mongo]

36. Please PM me your home address

So that I can tag your house with "art".

[novalib]

45. I WILL....BUT

I will send you my home address....

BUT ONLY if you promise to decorate my house with some REAL SMUTTY and EROTIC ART.

And would you also be able to put some lingerie in my neighbor's trees????

[mongo]

54. LOL!

Well, we do only send the covers back on magazines, and I don't throw them in the trash because I don't want kids to get ahold of them. I could paste up your entire house with a porn collage!

Actually, we go out and burn the mags in a campfire a couple of times/year. There are several hundred in storage right now.

Lingerie is too nice to be used for tree decorations -- how about some 6 foot long inflatable penis' instead?

[Odin2005]

44. You are insane, woman.

you LOVE vandalizing someone's property? you really need mental help...

[Az]

11. Here in Detroit we had the Heidleberg Project

It was a guy in a run down part of town that turned his house into an art project. It is debatable whether it was art or not but that is the nature of art. The city eventually came down on him and had much of his work dismantled. He retaliated by starting the polkadot project. He went all over Detroit and painted big bright dots on condemned buildings that were still standing or buildings that were abandoned. To this day there are still pollkadots all over the place in Detroit.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. If it is his house and his property, how can the city force his to dismantle his work.

That is just wrong.

Unless, of course, he was part of some homeowners association. Then he is bound by the rules.

[Az]

16. Well .... you really had to see it

It did extend into the public way though. They had a legal precident for it. I tend to side with the artist on this one but I can understand where the city was coming from. Personally I like that Detroit is polkadotted now.

[Az]

19. Here is a shot of the house at one stage of development

[Kerrytravelers]

22. Oh. Wow. That would bring down the price of real estate on his neighbor's property.

Yikes. That is an eye sore.

[lectrobyte]

28. But the guy did that to his own house. That seems way different than

tagging someone else's or public property.

[Kerrytravelers]

39. True. It is his own house. I can't argue against that.

And I'm all for personal right to express oneself. I would hate to think that I would be in agreement to stop anyone from doing as they wish with their own property. That wouldn't be very progressive of me.

Then, I put myself in the place of a neighbor who wants to sell their property. Having this across the street must make it hard to sell the property. Is this expression of art actually bringing down the real estate value of the neighbors? It's a slippery slope.

However, I think this is an entirely different situation than someone who tags someone else's private property. Although I can understand the point made by another poster that we are force fed marketing that we don't necessarily ask for through billboards all the time. At what point do we draw the line between access to billboards and the right to express ourselves? Why should someone with billions of dollars get to express themselves, and the poor man has no such outlet?

It's like my Anthropology class all over again. Well, I earned an A in that class, so I guess maybe it's not such a bad thing to relive!

[Kerrytravelers]

40. I noticed your avatar...

Very appropriate to the topic, eh? It's true, all the marketing and slick advertising makes us conform, consume and obey. Interesting to think about in terms of tagging as art vs. tagging as vandalism.

[lectrobyte]

42. Yes, it is. It seems like there is room for free expression without

vandalism. I'm OK with freeway bloggers hanging signs off of overpasses, but I'd like my front door, and the elementary school down the street, to remain spray-paint free. Does that make me a hypocrite?

[Kerrytravelers]

49. Wow. I think you misread my tone. I wasn't being snippy or anything.

I was just noticing how interesting your avatar is in relation to the general direction of the conversation.

I had no idea you would gather that I think you're a hypocrite. And, I actually quite agree that I don't mind the freeway bloggers (I actually love them!) and don't like public spaces tagged. If anyone is a bit of a hypocrite, it would be me as I hate billboards and believe in freedom of expression, but don't want any free expression on anything I have to look at.

[lectrobyte]

57. Sorry, didn't mean to sound defensive.

[Kerrytravelers]

59. Oh, no worries. I just wanted to be sure I cleared up my meaning.

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

13. We had this discussion once in an Anthropology class.

And after all these years, my mind hasn't changed. I don't want someone spraypainting... or any kind of painting unsolicited... on my property.

And public property is for everyone. If we all took paint, markers, etc. and wrote all over public spaces, everything would look junky. If someone is commissioned to create art in a public space, I'm all for it. To commandeer the space because you decide you want it isn't ok with me, personally.

[TankLV]

84. Which makes sense because public space is SHARED by everyone...

For someone to just decide to DEFACE it unilaterally without the community's agreement, is SELFISH.

Regardless of how I like the OP's artist in question's art, it's extremely UNCIVIC and SELFISH to UNILATERALLY decide what THE COMMUNITY should have on ITS walls...

[BuyingThyme]

15. The tagging is vandalism or worse; the article is borderline.

[seriousstan]

17. Will she let me put my "artwork" on her house or car? She's a vandal.

[alfredo]

24. Banksy is still my favorite. Her work is very complex

and beautiful, but lacks the humor and cutting commentary of Banksy.

Banksy work on the wall in the West Bank.



speaks for itself




He installed this work in a museum. It took several days for the museum to notice it. Too funny



This is probably my favorite: "Say it With Flowers"



See his works here: http://www.banksy.co.uk/

[Greyhound]

51. I must say that I agree with you, this is far better than the work by the

artist they wrote about. I can see both sides of this argument and I guess I'd say that if her work is on public property then it is fine, private property should be left alone.

[alfredo]

53. Her work has merit, but I am a political animal so I tend to

like more political statements like Banksy.

The private/public debate is valid. Keep the work on public property if possible.

Her stencils are quite complex. That takes more patience that I could ever muster.

[aikoaiko]

Self-aggrandizing Attention whore.

Truthfully, I like her simplistic, scrolling stencils, but if she's doing it on property without permission of the property owners, then she's an asshole who happens to be an artist.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=92708766

[TankLV]

85. That just about sums it up for me, too...

[baldguy]

26. Art *AND* vandalism

If she doesn't have the owner's permission, and I would add if she does permanent or costly damage, then it's wrong. No matter what label you want to put on it.

[leftofthedial]

29. vandalism

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. It's art and vandalism.

Menace? What are you afraid of, drive-bys?

[Fierce]

34. "What are we afraid of?"

I'm not afraid of it, but then, I'm not crazy about the Broken Window Syndrome, either, and graffiti falls into that. Thanks for playing!

[pitohui]

35. clearly not good enough art for them to include a picture

the main problem i see w. street art is all the ugly, incompetent graffiti out there, some of it so bad it should be a hanging offense

if she's not good enough to get anyone, anywhere, interested in looking at or paying for her art, she's probably not good enough to be defacing our public landmarks

plenty of degrees but perhaps not good enough to produce anything without a stencil -- in other words, something i can do myself at the same level w. no art degrees at all

[treestar]

73. I'm not sure of that - there probably are many good books

written and great art done which does not get out, because of not having the right connections, the corporate media puts out real junk. Why does Paris Hilton have a recording contract? She would never have gotten one if she'd had Madonna's background. So we see it is not so simple as to that.

She has to find a way to publicize her art even if its good. If the corporates won't do it, it may not necessarily just be because it's not good. It's that their publishing the works of their buddies or those who've had the chance to flatter them.

[fasttense]

37. Hmmm, there is no black and white issues here.

Some of those places she painted really needed all the help they could get. She turned a boring, industrial cold space into a beautiful surprising landscape.

And yet property owners are probably angry they had their (what they thought of as beautiful) possessions tarnished and defaced. I can see both sides.

There is so much ugly advertisement everywhere and it seems only the very rich can get there message across. Yet I wouldn't want my home tagged and decorated by graffiti.

Yet what is a frustrated artist to do? Unless they can catch the attention of some executive type who owns an arty gallery, their art remains hidden.

[Xithras]

38. One of my neighbors nearly killed a tagger once.

He repainted the same fence five times in five days. On night six he sat in the shadows with a baseball bat, and when the tagger (who turned out to be a 17 year old kid) came back, he started beating him. Put the kid into a coma for two weeks! No charges were ever filed against the neighbor either (I lived in a small town at the time, there was very little sympathy for the kid).

While I didn't agree with his actions, I certainly agreed with his motivation. I regularly photograph taggers around my home and office, and I always forward the photos to police. I've been called twice to testify against the taggers, and have gladly done so.

What Pixnit and her ilk don't get is that the canvas ISN'T THEIRS. Some of us enjoy the beauty of raw wood, brick, or stone. Others have favorite colors they want on their things. When some jack@$$ comes along and paints on it, they're not adding "beauty" or "art"...they're defacing someone elses. They are essentially saying "You don't know what art really is, so I'm going to impose my own artistic tastes on you". It's no different than drawing over the Mona Lisa with a crayon simply because you think da Vinci was dry and boring, and the painting needed to be "improved".

[Book Lover]

46. In general I don't like people who tag my shit

But then I read this illuminating paragraph:

"Everything in this neighborhood has to be micromanaged. Unbelievable care goes into every sign, every step, down, even, to the type of material used for windows," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen , president of the Back Bay Association . "People go through a lot of hoops, so to have someone come in, considering themselves an artist, and putting their graffiti everywhere -- it's just downright wrong."

If she, even accidentally, is striking against this kind of controlling behavior of the HOA-types, then I say you go, girl.

[Mike Daniels]

74. Go Girl my ass.

People who live in an HOA managed environment do so because they want a certain control applied to the area they live in.

She's a vandal plain and simple. She may have an artistic sense to her vandalism but it remains vandalism.

[Book Lover]

75. And I am free to call those who want and implement such control freaks of nature

Why on my-lack-of-god's green earth would you want someone to dictate the material your windows are made of? And have the authority to fine you and toss you from your home if you violate the rules? So she freaks the HOA types some. BFD.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. If she's painting other people's property w/o permission, it's vandalism.

Pure & Simple.

[mark414]

55. how can anyone make judgments

when the article doesn't even include pictures....:shrug:

[jollyreaper2112]

56. this is art

I like her stuff but nobody can compete with banksy. This guy takes urban art to a new level. This is the guy who managed to get a lifesize Gitmo dummy placed in the Thunder Mountain ride at Disney without anybody noticing.

[manic expression]

58. It's beautiful and important, that's what matters

Anyone who condemns this art because it's against the law is missing reality: art is more important than what the cops tell you what you should do.

[scrinmaster]

60. It's someone elses property, that's what matters.

If she spraypaints on her own house or car or wall, fine. If I want something of mine painted, I'll do it myself, or pay someone to do it for me. She tries that shit here, she'll get the cops called on her.

[manic expression]

62. Someone's property is not more important than art

walls are walls no matter who "owns" them. Art is art. Beauty is beauty. Don't let the law get in the way of something as important as that.

[Beelzebud]

72. Would a giant portrait of Bush, on your wall, be art?

I mean after all, some people would really love it.

[Az]

61. That is questionable.

If the art in question were the Mona Lisa and was a boon to the society then I suspect you may have a bit of a point. But the value of art is subjective and the owner of the property has final say in what should or should not be present on their property.

That is not to say that there is not insentive for people to create such art. But they must be aware that it is the equivalent of drawing in the sand. It is termporary at best and it is indeed vandalism at worst.

[manic expression]

63. Temporary beauty is as profound as you can get

Anyway, you can question the value of the Mona Lisa if you want to, but I simply put these sorts of artistic endeavors, which do improve cities and other areas (the urban art that I've seen is great, it puts color where there would be nothing otherwise), above the landlords' convenience.

[Az]

64. You presume

All such artists are as high minded. Not all such art increases the value to the community. Sometimes the work is designed to devalue the community or to lay claim to it in the name of other individuals. Sometimes the work is just the equivalent of a local pissing contest.

Its a grey area and not so easy to side one way or the other in certain circumstances.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

65. Also presumed is the idea that all "art" is equally appealing

Why are these stencil-doodles regarded as art? Because the person who makes them calls herself an artist, or is it because they're "pretty"? Is the law supposed to evaluate artistic merit?

And what if the art isn't pretty? Much art is not. What if I'm an artist who throws bricks through windows? A smashed window makes a powerful statement about the barriers between man-made and natural environments and is symbolic of our spiritual duality, or so I'll tell the arresting officer. I'm sure he'll recognize the high-minded philosophy that underlies my artistic expression.

[manic expression]

66. That's how urban art got started

but you have to start somewhere. At any rate, this one case is a genuine artist.

[scrinmaster]

67. Nope, just a common vandal.

What if an "artist" decided to use eggs as paint, and "painted" the side of your house? How would you like that type of "urban art".

[manic expression]

68. There's a difference, no?

for one, I'm not in an urban area. If I was in an urban area, I'd let artists paint on my walls all day long (even with eggs). They call it "urban art" for a reason.

Secondly, if you've ever been to a city with urban art, you'd see that such artists have a masterful command of their pigments. That is the way the art form is, and it is nothing short of valid and important.

[scrinmaster]

76. So because you would be fine with someone

spraypainting your wall or house without your permission, you think everyone else should be ok with it?

Thankfully the rest of society doesn't agree with you.

[manic expression]

79. They should be OK with it

it's artistic and something that should be permitted. I put that above petty claims of property.

More importantly, it makes the community better. Don't believe me? Go to a neighborhood and look at the art itself. Art has good effects on people, and that should not be ignored.

[mondo joe]

78. How about if your property were used to promote the war?

After all, if your right to your property is up for grabs why shouldn't the GOP seize it?

[manic expression]

80. It's not that property is 'up for grabs'

in this case. It's that property claims should not bar artistic improvement of a community.

[TankLV]

86. It's SELFISH. The COMMUNITY doesn't like or approve of it or want it...

The COMMUNITY gets to decide what it wants on it's public walls. Period.

For anyone to DEFACE someone's PERSONAL PROPERTY or A COMMUNITY'S COMMON PROPERTY without their consent, is SELFISH and very REPUKE-like...

Now, on the otherhand, the "art" in those derelict buildings - boarded-up windows - is and IMPROVEMENT. The fact that the "owner" of those particular pieces of property were themselves SELFISH to let their properties become derelict to the point of having BOARDED UP windows dictates that those owners lost all right to any phoney "concern" for their property in the first place...

[manic expression]

91. Art that is free for all to see is hardly selfish

quite the opposite, in fact.

[scrinmaster]

92. Ok, then she can paint it on her own house/apartment.

Vandalising other peoples property because she thinks it looks better that way is extremely selfish. Or she could contact the city and ask them if they would commission a few pieces on some city property.

[mondo joe]

77. Art is more important than people's rights?

Nice.

Maybe profit is more important too.

[manic expression]

81. More important than a landlord's convenience

And no, in this case you are putting profit above art. How? Private property is the key to profit, landlords want to maintain their holdings in every aspect to this end. Contrasting with this, this art is improving the community without profit.

[ConsAreLiars]

82. Property Uber Alles! Death to Freedom! Kill the Artist!

And kill this guy too:

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7567

[scrinmaster]

90. Kurt Wenner and Julian Beever

use chalk, and are usually commissioned to do their artwork.

Pixnit spraypaints on peoples property without their permission. How is stopping her "death to freedom"? I guess arresting shoplifters is taking away their freedom too.

[Dr Fate]

87. I despise tagging-but her stuff is cool-if it were my property, I might leave it up.

n/t

[rebel with a cause]

88. Okay, my post usually kill threads,

Let me see if I can do my magic. ;-)

I happen to be a sixty-one year old woman who loves good graffiti. I loved it in New York when I lived there and I like most of the pictures I have seen here. With that said, I will add this. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and while some of us see this as art some of you do not. That is what makes the world interesting, we don't always see things the same.

You don't want someone tagging/painting art, on your property that is fine. But, in my opinion, when someone kills another person for tagging/painting graffiti then that is murder pure and simple. And I am not saying that any of you are advocating this, but property being kept unpainted should never be worth more than a human life. IMHO

[crispini]

89. It is both art and vandalism.

Vandalism in the legal meaning of the word, i.e. she is in fact defacing someone else's property. But it's also art. I think it is interesting that (the article says) she does not believe that this should be legal, and that part of the merit, for her, is the illegality of it. She seems to have a very self-aware and interesting attitude towards her project that makes it worth considering and thinking about.

We have a pretty regular problem with taggers in our neighborhood, which is a fairly urban area. They have to be erased, because it's gang tagging, and we don't want to be part of anybody's turf. It's also pretty ugly stuff... a black scrawl or two on a stop sign, nothing more. I have a feeling that if Pixnit did some work in our neighborhood, it would be left up. But then, we're mostly artists here, so we're funny like that. :D