I can’t really imagine what it would be like to not have graffiti around Chicago. You take away a city’s graffiti and it’s as if you’ve taken away an expression of soul of the people.
Graffiti is uncontrollable and unpredictable. It can be crass and ugly or, at times, poetic and impressive.
Strange as it might seem, I think I’d like the great city of Chicago less, if it wasn’t adorned with the graffiti of the people who live here.
I think this applies to graffiti in every major city, like the urban poetry I mentioned in this previous post. Ok, I admit it; it is strange that I am attached to criminally defaced property. It’s not that I really think we should encourage graffiti (after all, someone owns the property being defaced), but I do think I’d miss it if it was gone.
*Note: the picture used in this post is actually Pittsburgh graffiti. It was included for effect. And because I haven’t been in Chicago for a while; I’ve been in Pittsburgh.
The problem with graffiti is that most of it sucks. I don’t want to encourage that. I am open to the idea of dedicating unused government-owned open spaces (as in the photo above) for the display of quality graffiti — but not for most of the rubbish that taggers spray.
@ Liam
I agree. I guess that’s why we have museums, to help filter out the “bad” art. Still, the fact that everyone could potential put up graffiti is probably a key driver resulting in the “good graffiti”. Maybe city workers just need to specifically target the ugly “tags”.