Mission Mission

[via Jono Brandel]

Ouch. Happy Mother’s Day!

(Thanks, Amy!)

"Get rich or get out," anti-gentrification sidewalk graffiti at Dolores Park in #sf. pic.twitter.com/8atsRltB4D

— Jeff Elder (@JeffElder) May 10, 2014

That’s pretty much the clearest statement I’ve seen so far.

[via Helen]

SFist took a look today at @TechHateCrimes, which documents aggression towards “techies” in various forms, though nobody seems to be able to tell if it’s earnest or a parody. Meanwhile, we were alerted to this bit of analog social media conversation responding to the rich people of the city and the “Gentrifuckation”.

Beau tweets “Found on my way to the Women’s Building last night. Class tension on the rise in SF.” This, like some MM comment threads, could just be one person with a couple of different pens, or a legitimate call and response. No way to tell. Either way it’s graffiti and it’s a crime. I don’t condone crime. I also have problems with the way that this city caters to the rich and has not done enough to reach out to support the residents with less financial means, and is not reacting quickly enough to address the problems that arise when the income gap inflates as quickly as it is right now. People with a lot of money are able to commit crimes that have large scale repercussions and get away with them. The city is reacting swiftly to graffiti vandals, however, by moving to make sure they pay for the damages if caught. Which makes sense, sure. But is graffiti one of the big issues that we, all of us, are dealing with right now? It’s a big issue for property owners, that I understand completely.

I find it understandable that some people can feel like San Francisco doesn’t care about them, that they are not spoken for, not represented, and not cared for by their city. These feelings can leave some people with little hope and little trust that they will be able to truly advocate for themselves by playing by the rules. Unfortunately this drives some people to feel as though they need to write on a utility box to be heard. I wish that wasn’t the case.

Art is a tricky thing to define. As we all know. Or maybe we don’t. I find it a lot easier to recognize what is art than what isn’t. Today I got into a debate with a Twitter account for DPW’s Zero Graffiti program. What strikes me the most about Zero Graffiti SF‘s argument here is the implication that acknowledging that something is art is to condone it or qualify it in a positive way. I understand that the city doesn’t want people tagging where they’re not supposed to (pretty much everywhere), but I wonder why they won’t call it art. Or rather, why they specifically decide to say that it’s not.

Why can’t it be both? Saying it’s art doesn’t condone it. “@zerograffitisf: Tagging Is Not Art; It’s Property Damage http://t.co/oacGoMHe9T”

— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014

@eviloars difference between art and vandalism? permission. If you have permission, you have art; if not, you have vandalism – simple

— Zero Graffiti SF (@zerograffitisf) January 14, 2014

.@zerograffitisf So Banksy's not art? Even if his vandalism is worth the price of the building it's on? Art doesn't have to be asked for.

— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014

.@zerograffitisf @cynthia_says No, art can be vandalism, art can be illegal. Not that plain, not that simple. http://t.co/1qWBrCPC8u

— Ariel Dovas (@eviloars) January 14, 2014