Here’s how the city informs local businesses they’re responsible for cleaning up the graffiti somebody else put on their gate

Here’s the piece in question (of which tipster Carl C. says, “I’d call this art… possibly commissioned”):

Yeah, it’s nice.

(Thanks, Carl.)

55 Responses to “Here’s how the city informs local businesses they’re responsible for cleaning up the graffiti somebody else put on their gate”

  1. Is this some kind of honeypot for anti-tagger people? ‘Cause that looks like standard, boring, bitch-ass tagger bullshit to me.

    • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:


    • rod says:

      thanks for the vocabulary word! i’ve got one too:

      • LOL invisible sarcasm!

        Did you read down to this part?

        “In an increasingly technological world, the use of sarcasm in email, text messaging, message boards and blogs has often been misunderstood as ignorance or stupidity: comments meant to be sarcastic have been taken literally or seriously. A newer trend in using sarcasm in cyberspace is to use an italic font for the proposed sarcastic remark to quell any questions as to the intent of a comment[citation needed] or to enclose the sarcastic remark in sarcasm tags as a form of pseudo-HTML such as the following:

        I’m sure they’ll do great.[citation needed]”

        Helpful hints for people who aren’t very good at writing sarcasm.

  2. Lukas says:

    You’re wrong. It’s a cool piece. Do you like any graffiti?

    • You’re wrong. It’s a shit piece.

      That aside…

      I grudgingly admire the talent of some painters, but fully support the rights of the people who have to deal with the civil penalties on involuntarily becoming a street-art “curator”.

      Seriously — if you have something to say with pictures, have the GUTS to put it on a surface that belongs to YOU, or get permission from the owner of the surface you want to put it on. If you don’t OWN the piece, until you sell or give it to someone who wants it, you are, almost by definition, pinche güey.

      • TC says:

        I couldn’t agree with you more. The 2 story building next to my house was recently painted, by painting contractors, and within a week it’s been tagged multiple times. How about respecting the property of others in this neighborhood by not tagging property that doesn’t belong to you? Also, I think the residents near where “new” murals are to go up should be allowed to have a say, especially since we have to look at it on a daily basis.

        • ONLOOKER says:

          Most people don’t own property….all taggers don’t. How can you respect what you can’t have?

          • TC says:

            “Most people don’t own property….all taggers don’t. How can you respect what you can’t have?”

            By having aspirations.

            You’re logic and outlook on life is fucked.

        • ONLOOKER says:

          Murals are almost always horrible. But I don’t want to chop off their hands.

      • ONLOOKER says:

        Your grudging admiration is the least of their concern. Writers write for other writers. Not you. That’s why you hate it – because they don’t care about you. Never will.

    • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

      Lukas: You’re full of crazy, that is a terrible, terrible tag.

      • ONLOOKER says:

        It’s not a tag. Or a fixie.

        • TC says:

          What is it then? What does it say specifically?

        • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

          Heh. Onlooker doesn’t know what tags are.

          • Terminolgy Police says:

            tag (scribble) A stylized signature, normally done in one color. The simplest and most prevalent type of graffiti, a tag is often done in a color that contrasts sharply with its background. Tag can also be used as a verb meaning “to sign”. Writers often tag on or beside their pieces, following the practice of traditional artists who sign their artwork. A less common type of tag is a “dust tag”, done in dust by writers to practice. The verb tagging has even become a popular verb today in other types of occasions that are non-graffiti-related. Tagging first appeared in Philadelphia, with spraypainted messages of “Bobby Beck In ’59″ on freeways surrounding the city. The first “king” was also crowned in Philly: Cornbread (graffiti), a student who began marking his nickname around the city to attract the attentions of a girl. In New York City, TAKI 183 inspired a newspaper article about his exploits, leading to an explosion of tagging in the early seventies.[13] throw-up A throw-up or “throwie” sits between a tag and a piece in terms of complexity and time investment. It generally consists of a one-color outline and one layer of fill-color. Easy-to-paint bubble shapes often form the letters. A throw-up is designed for quick execution, to avoid attracting attention to the writer. Throw-ups are often utilized by writers who wish to cover a large number of tags while competing with rival artists. Most artists have both a tag and a throw-up that are essentially fixed compared to pieces. It is mostly so because they need to have a recognizable logo for others to identify them and their own individual styles.[3][14]


          • Makes sense to me. But it’s a whole lot more musical to call someone a “tagger” than it is to call someone a “throw-upper”. “Barfer” might work, if it didn’t help confuse the argument. So “tagger” and “tagging” it is.

  3. Andy says:

    That is an “S”

  4. Drew says:

    Not art. Stylized tag. I’ve lived here long enough to know the difference, and so should you…

  5. GG says:

    Come on, you guys. He was obviously being facetious, nobody thinks that’s art.

  6. NIgel Mansell says:

    So there you go, San Franciscians only tag on City property from now on.

  7. corn er says:

    what’s the difference between art and a stylized tag? ownership is/isn’t what graffiti is about COMG, legal graffiti (which is an oxymoron) doesn’t exist, it takes guts to steal spraypaint all day and to risk jail by putting up graffiti all night. Graffiti isn’t supposed to be nice, sorry.

    • Any stupid fool can steal and spew on the street; those jerks think jail is a joke. It takes an artist to make a picture and stand next to it, risking the face-to-face criticism of the entire world. Graffiti scribblers never do that, because they usually don’t have anything to back up their bravado.

      • kusfwtf says:

        It’s not art if you don’t stand next to it?

      • ONLOOKER says:

        the graffiti community is a much much harsher critical entity than art wankers at a gallery opening.

        • TC says:

          How so?

          (Why do I feel like I’m grading a 6th graders essay every time I respond to your posts?)

          Seriously, since you seem to think you’re an authority on graffiti, please feel free to school the rest of us on “writers”, “taggers” and the “harshness” of the criticism in the “community”.

          If your answer is going to be along the lines of “they don’t want you to understand”, or “their not writing for you” or some other lazy bullshit answer then don’t bother because I’m pretty sure it’s all just idiotic posturing via rattle cans, or in your case, MM posts.

    • GG says:

      “what’s the difference between art and a stylized tag?”

      Indeed, what *IS* art? Nobody’s going to get into a rabbit-hole argument citing Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” or his version of the Mona Lisa? Man, you guys disappoint me.

      • No, because everybody who knows about that old stuff has either accepted the argument or retired from the field of battle.

        This argument is not about whether or not a thing is art because an artist says it is — it is about whether or not a thing should be accorded the same inviolability given to art, even when the maker says that the thing is not art, as long as it is presented in a roughly similar format.

      • poopy says:

        Duchamp still used galleries to show off his concept of art.

        A lot of shitty ‘street art’ is just pathetic attempts of sub-par ‘artists’ leaving their painfully mediocre signature in the publics view, since no one gives two shits about their half-baked abilities…
        As for the thrill of stealing paint and painting/defacing public lands, do it to the cop station. That will take some real balls. Go big of go home or whatever.

    • ONLOOKER says:

      That’s the truth….these fartz don’t get that graffiti isn’t for them to like.

    • ONLOOKER says:

      They aren’t programmed to understand what you wrote.

  8. Anne says:

    As long as someone cleans it up, I don’t care. Graffiti begets more graffiti and shows a neighborhood either can’t or won’t control it. A neighborhood covered in graffiti is never a good sign. I keep paint in my apt for when I need to do touch up, property owners need to do the same and clean it up immediately. Taggers get tired of their “art” getting cleaned quickly at the same location, so they will eventually move on…then someone else can deal with it.

    • TC says:

      I don’t know about that, the Timbuk2 bag place on Folsom near the High School is ALWAYS getting tagged. They paint over it… tagged days later.

  9. scum says:

    If the city went after taggers instead of punishing property owners maybe this shit would stop.

    • Bob Dole says:

      DPW is responsible for blight. SFPD’s job is to catch the (so-called) bad guys. Besides if the City isn’t issuing blight citations, you can bet some pesky neighbor will be around with 311 on speed dial to make sure they do.

    • ONLOOKER says:

      they go after taggers – they just can’t catch up.

    • TC says:

      Property owners are a captive audience and have the resources to either cover up the tag or pay a fine.

      Taggers only have as much money as their parent/grandparent gave them that day. Money which they usually spend on- swishers, “trees”, doritos, funyuns, mountain dew etc.

      Taggers do their “craft” (throwing shit up which makes no sense to ANYONE outside of their immediate circle of friends.) in the wee hours of the morning. It’s not that cops can’t catch up, there’s just not enough of them around at 3:30am.

  10. ONLOOKER says:

    There is a curfew in S.F. Per capita in S.F., most taggers are over 18. They are currently mating to produce the future of this city.

  11. Pilar says:

    Taggers are mad cute! Roachy Gigs!

  12. Laughing says:

    Taggers do get laid.

    They are the 30 year old hipsters in D park with all the 16 year old girls around them. “yeah, I have been bombing since 93″ Exactly, when graffiti was officially dead. Yeah I’m talking to you ORFN. Your shit is so wack. Go try to f*ck some more teenagers you 35 year old piece of sh*t.

    BKF – a bunch of kids who went to extremely expensive private schools.

    Tagging is not rebellious. No body cares anymore.

  13. Michael Donk says:

    Graffiti is like trying to explain a private joke to a group of people. Sure, they’ll eventually get it but the reward won’t be worth the lengthy explanation. Guess you didn’t have to be there.