Arts
City initiates large scale graffiti crackdown on Queen St.
The war on graffiti in Toronto appears to have officially begun, and the battlefield is Queen Street West. After being tipped off by a business owner in the area that a crackdown was underway, we've since confirmed with the City that between February 22 and March 3, 152 removal notices have been issued to properties on the street. Although we lack a detailed list of those served, some of the graffiti in question is reported to be murals that were previously commissioned by businesses.
When asked about the crackdown, Rob Sysak, a spokesmen for the West Queen West BIA, expressed surprise at the timing. "We were warned that graffiti would be targeted, but there was to be a detailed staff report before any action was taken. As it stands, most of these business have three days to comply."
Bruce Hawkins of Municipal Licensing Standards (MLS) tells me that this timing isn't unusual. "Most notices issued indicate six days for compliance (from the date of issuance) in accordance with the minimum time period specified in the by-law. The six day period is comprised of three days for service of the notice (registered mail) and three days for compliance."
There has, however, clearly been a failure of communication or a change of plans when it comes to how the City is handling graffiti on Queen West and West Queen West. Sysak claims that at an MLS meeting shortly after the new mayor was elected, the strategy the City planned to adopt for graffiti in the area was to address only specific complaints. That's no longer the case. When asked about the recent rash of removal notices, Hawkins reveals that the "activity is pro-active in nature."
Business owners don't have a problem with the idea of helping to keep the city clean, Sysak says, "but the big problem is that even when graffiti is removed, it just goes back up again." The sentiment in the neighbourhood is thus that this crackdown actually punishes the victim. "This can be quite an expense for small businesses, and some of them don't realize they can appeal," he bemoans.
And then there's the City's problematic distinction between graffiti and art murals. When I spoke with Curtis Sealock of MLS about removal notices that were sent to two Junction homeowners in January, he told me that to avoid by-law violation, murals must be designated, which he took to mean "something that's been selected by the City or a BIA." And yet there was no consultation with the West Queen West BIA prior to these notices being issued. As such, Sysak plans on writing a letter to the City asking that "enforcement be halted so that we can do a review of the properties that have been targeted."
He also tells me that the BIA will support those businesses who plan on appealing the removal orders. How exactly the City deals with such appeals will be interesting to see. Assuming a property owner wanted to save a mural he or she had commissioned or allowed to be put up, according to Sealock's interpretation, the backing of the BIA should be enough to quash the order. On the other hand, given the sudden nature of these "proactive" measures, it's not entirely clear how this ambiguous distinction will be handled.
For its part, MLS intends "to work closely with all property owners to gain their co-operation and compliance. And appropriate extensions will be considered on their own merit on a case by case basis," says Hawkins.
Still, not everyone's convinced. Earlier today I spoke with a local artist who co-owns Joe Huffers Paint Shop, a supply store for Toronto graffiti writers. He tells me that the graffiti community gets frustrated with crackdowns like this one because they don't believe that a distinction really is made between tags and murals. "It's good to take down the junk and the tags, but the problem is that it all gets put under one blanket. And now we're going to lose some murals that were put up with permission. The City shouldn't be the one to dictate what is and isn't art."
Discussion
256 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Bloody vandals.
does ford know the difference btwn commissioned pieces of Art and tagging?
If the city needs to commission art, and PICK what is considered 'art' and 'vandalism', then the city better have a shit load of masterpieces waiting to be lined up.
There was a time when I was optimistic that Ford could learn to work with his opposition, but he seems to have become more narrow-minded and intractable since taking office.
Sad to see it, as I used to live backing on the laneway pictured (and yes, my garage was covered with stuff - most of it good)
Within a week of being whitewashed, tags will colonize the pristine territory and larger pieces will reclaim the space shortly thereafter. Graffiti is ephemeral, but it's a shame some really nice work will be lost.
It's hilarious, once again, that people will shriek that a property owner has the sole right to determine what goes on their property but then in the next breath they'll say they love graffiti and homeowners should suck it up since they chose to live in the city.
This seems like it's just an appeal to suburban voters who think negatively of this sort of stuff, even though it has no actual effect on them.
If anything, this is just likely to replace existing artistic stuff with amateur stuff composed mostly of swearing at Ford.
Personally, I like the graffiti, but, since I do not live there, I do not have much of a say.
I think it's actually his crusade to remove all of the personality from this city..
Boring, just like a suburb..
O.o
People will continue to express themsleves in ways not everyone will agree with but the city will not stop graffiti.
You will only put charges on more of our youth and with that ruining a piece of their future keeping that above them when they want to find work, or leave the country for whatever reason.
I am sure some of your children tag in some way or another throught the city.
its time to accept it.
Be the change you wish to see people.
open your mind to the world because your strict narrow minded life does not see the real world. the real world is most definitely more diverse than you could ever imagine and your opinions will never change it... your laws will never effect it as it will only eat you alive. The more bans you put on things and the more you try to stop it... the more "out of order" your city will seem to be.
It's funny how you think of the hypothetical apocalyptic-like consequences before facing the actual present day consequences. But I guess out of sight, out of mind, right?
Douche.
Oh wait - that's the world you long for.
Expressing one's self is fine. Do not express it on someone else's property without their permission. Getting fined for someone else's art is not going to get people on board.
uhhh, what gives YOU the right to dictate what is and isn't art, besides the fact that you own a graffiti supply store? personally, i find the 'junk' and 'tags' much more interesting than a 'funky' anime chick on a low-rider space bicycle. cover it all up and let's start over. it's not like the city won't be covered again in a few weeks.
Sure is is. Bring in bylaws, and stop selling spray paint to the little f@ckers. Make them pay for clean-up. Jail time. Fines. Enough is enough already! This stuff makes the city look like shit.
Plus they already tried all of that in some states with no results. Like I stated earlier it's an unwinable battle. Why not try and open your mind instead of being narrow minded.
ANYWAY...The murals are works of art. They may not be everyone's taste, but I know as many people who love them as those who hate them. I say that in all fairness, keeping commissioned pieces is more than fair. A lot of work goes into works like that. Not everyone appreciates a certain type of archetecture, but we have to look at it anyway....its not like murals are EVERYWHERE. most of them are in alleys or hidden. Getting rid of illegal graffiti makes sense. but it'll go back up (and it'll go back up faster once the artists know that the city is trying to crack down on them)
Graffiti detractors are getting their way - the streets are getting cleaned up!
Graffiti enthusiasts are eventually getting a slew of new works to check out (in a couple of weeks/months).
Really, it's a win-win situation. I applaud Mr.Ford and his ability to bring us all together like this.
Group hug?
Have a huge event every few months with artists doing whatever the f they want on 4 by 8 sheets of plywood. Have them for sale or auction. Give out awards. Have themed competitions. Have the work live online in a gallery where it's also for sale. Invite artists from other countries for a graffiti throwdown.
Get Red Bull to sponsor it. Get your stupid paint suppliers to sponsor it. Go book a warehouse somewhere and get Fucked Up to play or something.
It would be amazing.
But, of course, doing shit like this requires growing up.
So it'll never happen.
Oh well.
--Whistler
"our face makes this city look like sh*t D*ckwad. You're flat out stupid."
Spoken like a penniless, criminal thug who doesn't own property.
you clearly DONT have a clue, because joe huffers is actually one of the only graffiti based toronto art store actually doing just that.
they hold battles frequently between artists, and the owners do almost completely legal work which they are hired to do.
EVERYONE STOP BITCHING
if you dont know shit about graffiti, you should recognize that, and recognize that YOU could NEVER create the pieces that these people create. FUCK
And not that you need to know, but I am a university masters graduate, I own (an have payed off) my own condo downtown, and I am definitely not a criminal. It would have been true if you said something along the lines of: "spoken like a pissed off member of society who appreciates graffiti and is irritated with people who have no useful or thought out comments to make on the 'issue' of graffiti art"
Well they aren't having any effect whatsoever, so fail.
Maybe try bothering to get more than 35 of your buddies out.
All I know is assholes don't leave any alley alone for 6 blocks in either direction of my house.
The only question is: do YOU respect property rights or not?
Rob Ford should stay the fuck out of downtown. Everyone here hates him.
Always engaging in or erecting the illusion of war...there are REAL issues you may want to direct your attention towards during this time for Christ sake.
The majority of our customers use our products for graffiti- and non-graffiti murals as well as graffiti art and aerosol art projects of other kinds. We in no way condone illegal vandalism and are no more responsible for that vandalism than any other store that sells spray paint such as Home Depot, Canadian Tire, Walmart, etc.
If you want to see more murals and legal, vibrant graffiti pieces around, you should talk to your City Councillor or local BIA and tell them that you appreciate the art form. This article in itself should help you understand why there isn't more beautiful graffiti art around the city. It's not because artists are not trying hard enough, it's because the City has made it more difficult for artists to do murals through its non-comprehensive graffiti bylaw. This bylaw makes it possible for the City to tell property owners that a mural is not art and forces the property owner to remove it at their expense, even if they gave permission for the art or paid for it to be done. This is detrimental in two ways; 1) existing work is lost and 2) property owners are so fearful of having to pay to have something cleaned off their property that they don't even bother having the mural done in the first place.
Graffiti vandalism is a huge problem for some, but there are lots of graffiti artists willing to do beautiful, colourful murals in place of that vandalism, provided they are given the opportunity.
The real question is: does the City respect property rights or not?
However, I loathe that a huge portion of your business goes toward vandalism.
What action (if any) do you take to discourage customers from damaging private property?
* adding more red tape and bureaucracy at city hall
* creating more paperwork for small business owners
* adding more costs for small business owners
* removing small business owners' right to decorate their property as they see fit
* ignoring input from business associations
* not measuring program effectiveness with any metrics
* trying to solve a 'problem' that has only been solved by totalitarian dictatorships.
And 'conservatives' approve of this?
Did I mention I don't like graffiti?
A) Home address
B) License plate of your car, and where you park it.
C) Description of your bike, and where you lock it.
"It is not our place to control what our customers do with our products, even if we had the ability to."
God willing, pretty soon, you will be responsible for what your "clients" do with the spray paint they buy from you. Do you ever question what a 14-year-old needs spray paint for?
Yes, I've heard the old excuse, "If you don't sell it to them, they'll just steal it elsewhere," which is a pantload.
High time to limit the sale to adults only. Sorry, but I really can't picture youg'uns buying spray paint to touch up their bicycles nowadays.
Christ, how about a poster behind the cash that cheearleads legitimate permissioned graffiti and shits on vandalism? How about your all star artists speak out against it? How about making a small official Huffer stencil logo thing that all your legitimate artists use on permissioned murals that says THIS MURAL IS SANCTIONED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER?
Or is that all far too embarrassingly uncool for you guys. Don't want to lose customers. And don't want to lose your street cred.
do woolfitts, walmart, canadian tire, home depot, etc. make an effort to discourage vandalism?
you cant control what people use your products for, and as a small independent local store like joe huffers; why would they really try?
like every one else, theyre just trying to get by doing what they love, and what they are truly skilled in.
Like I stated earlier you'd have ban markers too and it's not only under age people who do graffiti so that would be useless.
Just so you know I did, at around 15, go and buy spray paint to paint my bike
The store that markets exclusively to graffiti artists is part of the graffiti community and has a responsibility to live up to. It can choose to take the mature high road, or encourage/quietly applaud vandalism.
If he truly gave a shit about the city he would do something. So far, his posts suggest that he cares more about his profits than the community.
We don't believe that someone's age should determine what medium they're allowed to use for creating their art. There are plenty of 14 year-old artists out there. However, should a law be enacted restricting the sale of spray paint to minors we would follow it.
@Rah Abasd:
Our address is 289 College St. Toronto, Ontario. Feel free to drop by anytime.
HAA-HAAAA
and any "war" on graffiti will fail.
...
the harder you fight it.
the harder it fights back
"like every one else, theyre just trying to get by doing what they love, and what they are truly skilled in."
Since when are vandalism and destruction of property considered "skills"?
since forever?
can you do anything like this?
this is the graffiti im defending.
No, I can't paint like that -- I can do better. I actually paint on something called CANVAS in either oil or acrylic. If I'm in the mood, I paint watercolours on paper.
You know, REAL art, the kind that hangs in galleries, not vandalism that pretends to be art, like the crap you endorse.
Most of us likely have some old spray bombs kicking around somewhere. Who doesn't have suppressed artistic needs? I guess if we were to adopt the logic of graffiti proponents we should give into our desires to express ourselves and go do some art or even express ourselves as "writers" on the facade of Joe Huffer's store.
http://www.joehuffers.com/index.php/products/
why did blogTO delete Rah Abasd's comment?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simoncarr/tags/graffiti/
Yeah, a longwinded, reasonably well crafted rant that takes a very strong stand gets deleted because you judge it to be too "vitriolic" but then "i do believe u need a pipebomb stuffed up ur ass." gets left up.
Either you let both sides have it out, or stop putting stories up about graffiti. It just smacks of BlogTO being pro-graffiti and not wanting so much anti-graffiti posts up.
You apply your little vitriol rules so arbitrarily it's a f*cking joke.
Put his post back up.
http://www.blogto.com/commentpolicy/
So when our spam filter (mercifully) puts them into moderation, it's not incumbent upon our editorial staff to ensure that we spread their nastiness and rage on these threads.
Toward that end, I've removed the other comment to which you refer. I'm quite sure both sides have had their say, so may I suggest taking a rest now.
Oh, and one more thing, if we do indeed apply our rules <em>arbitrarily</em>, that implies that it has nothing to do with our stance on graffiti.
I bike through Cedervale and it's graffiti like that on the bridges that ruin the scenery and make it feel like the projects.
No graffiti 'artist' has ever been able to justify defacing public or private property (a crime). Why is that?
Joe Huffer: why you even pretend to care about the vandalism side of graffiti (poorly at that), I can't imagine. I've never seen a more apathetic attitude towards fostering crime.
Swrede: lol North Korea is the only alternative? Talk about romanticising. Try Toronto, right now, with it's graffiti crackdown. It's not exactly a dictatorship here.
But if you want to play with extremes why don't you go to Detroit, <a href="http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suffer-These-Crimes-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html";>or maybe Oakland</a>, plenty of graffiti opportunities there.
sickandtired: you know what I'm sick and tired of? Unslightly graffiti on public (and sometimes private) property where I live. I find it unlikely the majority of joggers/walkers or cyclists in cedervale take comfort knowing some egomaniac can draw a bunch of barely legible 'letters' so people know he 'was here'. Commissioned work is fine, it's part of the business that wants it. That's not what people have a problem with.
An apologist for vandalism who gets offended by people who object to getting their property destroyed.
You're a joke.
You are sadly, a fan of what can be called 'elitist' art. In my opinion, if you are a true artist, you should be able to get the whole 'art should be paint on canvas' out of your head and expand your thought process. Illegal art IS wrong, and should be removed if enough people disapprove of it, but at the same time, just because it's illegal doesn't make it any less artistic or beautiful to a large number of people. Open up your mind. I find graffiti art to be extremely beautiful, expressive and stylistically wonderful.
Graffiti art is TODAY'S modern art. It is not everyone's taste but neither is cubism or abstract expressionism. I believe that if the work has been comissioned by the owner of a building, then it should stay. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If it is not okay to paint a stranger's clothing or their car, why is it okay to paint something they paid over $200 000 for?
Some of you lot act like you have a right to deface property just because it is done in other places.
Everyone want likes to act like Toronto is unique but, Toronto seems to be too willing to just follow what other cities do.
Who cares if other cities have graffiti problems? Other cities should not be your concern. Take some pride in YOUR city and lead the way to decreasing the graffiti problem and setting up areas where everyone can agree to have graffiti without having to bother the home owner that worked for years to be able to afford their house. Just like graffiti artists take pride in their work, do you not think these home owners deserve to take pride in their houses?
1
Okay, Mr. Word Police: you arbitrarily remove anti-graffiti comments.
2
What is BlogTO's stance on people painting things on private property?
"Let me explain something to you and others who complain of big, bad blogTO censoring comments. Expletive-filled rants that don't add anything new to the conversation violate our comment policy."
Way to remain "impartial" there, Derek. Not.
How about posting a story where someone at BlogTO has INTERVIEWED property owners who have had their buildings vandalized, the costs involved of the cleanup, and how they would stop graffiti OR refocus these "artistic efforts"? How about talking to someone at Police HQ's graffiti eradication squad for their comments? Their website is http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/crimeprevention/graffiti.php
Just posting "graffiti good" stories is sloppy and irresponsible. I am against it, but at the same time, I would like to read a story from a former graffiti artist who turned his life around.
You know, Journalism. There are more than enough up and coming students would would do a great job of this story.
While I can understand your disdain for graffiti artists, you make it sound like they're junkies.
You're not even democratic. You only go after the little guy small property owner.
Chicken shit "artists".
If you want to know about Toronto graffiti artists, <a href="http://www.blogto.com/books_lit/2011/01/the_ultimate_guide_to_toronto_graffiti_/";>read this</a>.
And, though it pains me to have to explain this to you, eliminating comments like the one two which you refer isn't the product of some pro-graffiti stance. Ridiculous comments from both sides have been eliminated here.
And two more things since we're at it. 1.) Though I don't feel obligated to share stories I'm working on, a post regarding clean-up costs is in fact in the works, and 2.) the post above is not a "graffiti good" story. It's a story about a graffiti crackdown on Queen Street.
And for those of you who clearly don't know a fuki** thing about graffiti, vandals who are taggin up propety aren't usually buying their paint at places like Joe huffers, their getting cheap paint from home depot and hardwarestore, walmart and places like that. The people who are spending money on high quality brand paints are the ones painting legally and trying to make art out of their names.
More prove that you are speaking on a subject that you are passionate about but know absolutely nothing about. As it was mentioned earlier, but I will reiterate, most graffiti artist don't hit small business, houses, cars or personal property. They pick and choose their spots very carefully and go for the most part unnoticed by then general populace. Most of the shitty vandalism you see come from vandals not graffiti artists
more mural commissions would lead to less BS tagging.
Actually some of the graffiti in the back alleys of Queen West was from an organized graffiti art exposition. The artists all got permission to create murals and there were artists selling murals on the street. In fact some of the artists do work day jobs in graphic design, illustration, and guaranteed some of those artists painting the big billboards were ex or active graf artists. So don't be so quick to write this off as a bunch of young punks who aren't grown up like yourself.
What's next? Ford telling you what color you can paint your building?
EVERYONE CAN AGREE THAT ILLEGAL VANDALISM SHOULD BE CLEANED UP. YOU PEOPLE ON THE ANTI-GRAFFITI SIDE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS LEGAL PERMISSION murals GETTING CLEANED AT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXPENSE, AGAINST THEIR WILL.
IF YOU SUPPORT PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE LEGAL MURALS ON THEIR PROPERTY LEFT ALONE, JUST AS MUCH AS YOU SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO NOT HAVE IT TAGGED ILLEGALLY!!
take for instance the murals mentioned at the beginning of the article. they are not graffiti whatsoever, yet they're being labelled as vandalism.
if you can't see the logic in this argument you are clearly a moron and your point of view is unimportant anyway.
once again, I DON'T THINK ANYONE ON HERE IS TRYING TO DEFEND ILLEGAL VANDALISM! STOP TRYING TO PICK E-FIGHTS OVER IT! READ PEOPLE'S COMMENTS PROPERLY, AND UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN PEOPLE ON HERE ARE DEFENDING GRAFFITI THEY'RE DEFENDING THE legal, permission-obtained GRAFFITI ART MURALS THAT ARE GETTING TARGETED EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS THEM THERE!!
pure ignorance on the internets.
If you read the third sentence it states, "Although we lack a detailed list of those served, some of the graffiti in question is reported to be murals that were previously commissioned by businesses." Notice that it says "SOME of the graffiti in question is reported to be murals that were previously commissioned by businesses." In other words, this article does not just pertain to commissioned murals. Thus, the comments that are giving you a conniption are actually valid.
Cheers,
...
Not true Swrede, I DO know what I'm talking about. I spend lots of money on a regular basis to remove tags and more elaborate sh1t from my small downtown building which is apparently not far enough from Joe Huffer's store.
However, those absurd multi-colour stylized signatures are not art. Sadly for me, my building looks out at that kind of crap and not an artistic mural (or clean wall) in sight. I'll do what I can to eradicate that sh1t.
sure the article does talk about that too, you're right. but i don't think the point of posting it was to alert people of the illegal vandalism that's about to get removed. i doubt many people would have a problem with that. i think the point was to raise awareness of the issue mentioned at the beginning of the article (legal murals being deemed vandalism by the city) and the fact that this area contains a lot of similarly legal work which is facing city action.
although it says some, i bet time will show that a lot of the targeted properties have legal permission murals on them (considering the neighbourhood in question and the HUGE amount of legal graffiti art that is there, and the high number of citations). if that isn't the case, good. i was only trying to bring to the attention of everyone commenting here that absolutely no one is trying to excuse illegal vandalism like all of the anti-graffiti posters seem to believe.
and alley kay, if you live so close to joe huffer's store you live close to a lot of other art supplies stores that sell the exact same spray paint - curry's, gwartzman's, etc.
just saying.
go through the queen alley ways... there are hundreds of commissioned works there that aren't "multi-colour stylized signatures". Character and other designs . Almost every major street in the city has a couple of approved murals that aren't in alleyways.
Just because you don't see the artistic merit doesn't mean it's not there. All artists in all disciplines dispute on what art is, that's part of it.
and you can't do anything to eradicate it but you are welcome to try
don't have to, it all is against city ordnance. Difference between me and you, i am not breaking the law. So keep trying to trying to make it sound all fine & dandy, but the outcome is the same. So if you don't like the city laws, you move. So grow up already.
§ 485-3. Graffiti prohibited.
A. No person shall place or cause or permit graffiti to be placed on property or on a
wall, fence, or other structure or thing in a highway or other public place not
included in the definition of property in § 485-1.
B. The owner or occupant of property shall maintain the property free of graffiti.
C. The owner or occupant of a wall, fence, or other structure or thing, in a highway or
other public place not included in the definition of property in § 485-1, shall
maintain the structure or thing free of graffiti
I hate tagging, but I can't seem to find one comment on here saying that illegal vandalism is good, only that it happens and it's difficult to eliminate and that painting over legal murals isn't going to stop tagging only encourage it. What I do see is a bunch of people saying that there is a difference between vandalism and graffiti art. Whether or not you think it's art is unimportant, because there are a lot of people that do think it's art and they have every right to have that opinion just as you have every right not to like it. What you don't have the right to do is say that because you don't like it it doesn't deserve to exist.
GRAVY TRAIN, forget the point of this conversation, GRAVY TRAIN, I'm right you're wrong, that's the end of it, GRAVY TRAIN, no one else's views matter other than my own! You talk about being an adult so why don't you act like one and at least consider other people's views and hear out their arguments instead of just ignoring them?
"@Sean nails it there... There's such inherent bias in that statement it's amusing to hear you proceed to instruct others what would constitute good journalism."
Obviously Derek, I am just wasting my time with you.
Get real writers. You never get the f-ing point about balance and conducting research, so why should I bother?
So you are the type of person who would of supported prohibition in the 20s?
Stupid laws cause way more problems than they fix
Look at the marijuana laws in the USA. Giving hundreds of thousand people criminal records who don't deserve it for possessing small amounts
I also find Swrede to be rather amusing. For starters, Swrede is using multiple names in this comment section.
Additionally, Swrede only responds to softball comments.
In concert with that, Swrede uses multiple names in order to support his/her argument.
Ha!
Also I've always been completely understanding about people complaining about illegal painting on private property. My whole argument has been against the removal of legal commissioned graffiti. Because that is what this article is about.
So I'm very confused by your comment because a) I've only commented under swrede and b) I've never been anything but understanding about illegal graffiti on private property. The only thing I've pointed out is that if the murals go down more illegal graffiti will go in it's place
I'm also confused about what you mean by only responding to softball comments. Please site examples. Also please show me where you believe it's me commenting under a different alias
I've begun to read Derek's posts more and more simply for the outcries from the right wing extremists who think he should be prosecuted for opposing His Greatness, the mayor.
The odds of you following through on your schoolyard threats are what, 1 in 10,000?
Typically parked on Coady Avenue (the street isn't too long I'm sure you'll be able to find it). The plate is: AFWX 547. You don't strike me as the smartest knife in the drawer, so the car you're looking for is a silver Ford Focus circa 2004.
Good luck!
If a business has given the artist permission to use their “canvass” then I believe that the mural, or graffiti art, should be allowed to stay.
It’s all about being given permission to use the “canvass”!
You might not like it... but it was created for you to look at it...even for that slightest moment think about it (hopefully make you feel something.)
Reasoning with them is pointless as they are programmed only to listen to the rhetoric of their masters.
2...The city can go fok itself if it tries to force property owners to remove art on their own property
3...All other graffiti should be removed. Every time.
4...Messing with other people's shyt is indefensible. Every time.
Art is great and adds to a city. Grey concrete or old ugly bricks make for a dull city.
BUT
Do not paint on someone's property without their permission.
No the city cannot stop graffiti, it cannot stop a lot of things either but laws can be created to reduce.
Theft will never cease to exist but would it be OK if I stole your property and justify it that way? Probably not.
The city should investigate on a case by case basis:
"Did you ask for this to be painted on your wall?"
"Yes"
"Have a nice day sir/ma'am"
Whatever happened to compromise...?
"I will consider their opinions when it is not illegal, till then it is breaking the law plain and simple. Sure you can have the prettiest mural or the ugliest tag, on the side of a building. But to me that is still breaking the law, nothing else matters, plain and simple. And my opinion and many others will not change their mind on this. To me your all vandals and should be thrown in jail. Done dealing with you criminals."
Wow. The level of ignorance in this post is ridiculous. If it's a legal permission wall it's not breaking the law. Plain and simple. You're right, vandalism sucks and is wrong, but no one is defending that here.
We need a more complex debate and a more nuanced approach. Tagging vs murals, corporate stencils vs political slogans, vandalism vs public art are all contrasts and issues which need dialogue not diatribes.
The mayor has unleashed this campaign, we need to craft a response. Please send any ideas to my council office: councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca
av
I was informed that you had been involved in a meeting that dealt with the issue of murals on two residences, At the conclusion of this meeting it was decided that the city staff were to come up with a definition "Mural".(I was also told that you suggested that no one under 35 be involved in creating the definition. Good idea).
At the moment the city of Toronto website definition of mural is stated as follows:
"An art mural is defined as -- A mural for a designated surface and location that has been deliberately implemented for the purpose of beautifying the specific location."
http://www.toronto.cagraffitiabatement_program.htm#enforcementplan
Is this the definition that the MLS bases its decisions on at the moment?
If a BIA designates something a Mural does that mean the removal order is rescinded?
I stated the comment incorrectly.
My apologies to the councillor.
I was told that Councillor Vaughan had stated that "NO ONE OVER 35 should be on the panel that makes that decision".
From what I have seen Councillor Vaughan has worked hard for ALL of his constituents.
Again the error in the wording was mine.
Get rid of it forever. No one who cares about their property or storefronts wants to look at it any longer. Sickening.
Fine the offenders, or put them in jail. If they can't afford to pay the fines, take the money from their wages or welfare cheques, or force their parents to pay up... assuming these delinquints know who their daddy is.
For the most part, you'll find the same arguments going on wherever there's a post about graffiti. On one hand, there are laws against it. On the other hand, there are pieces out there bearing great evidence of artistic skill. People prioritize one side or the other and around and around we go.
The point of this article is that some property owners have given permission, and even paid for their walls to be beautified with a mural. A good strategy, since vandals prefer a blank canvas. It's considered a faux pas in their community to mess up something that another artist worked on. But the city is now ordering this taken down -- at the expense of the property owner. Why are they meddling? How are they paying for this anti-graffiti program, when they promised to reduce the budget so much? These are valid questions.
Someone could, and should, sue the city. You can claim that the art is worth money, and that you would lose business by having a drab storefront instead of a decorative one. After all, if I want to paint my house any colour I want, I'm allowed. How about stripes? Yes. Mural? No no no, there's a bylaw about "graffiti." So, what makes it that style? If it's done with a brush, is it not graffiti?
All I'm saying is, if I own a wall, it shouldn't be up to the city to tell me what I can put on it.
EVOLUTION : starts with a tag.. then its a little more creative... then another artist goes over that with a piece.. then A "GOOD" graffiti artist paints a MURAL over that.
YOU CLEAN IT OFF.... starts all over again.... and this takes time
END RESULT: if you erase the murals or high caliber graffiti you are just back-tracking the quality of what that wall WILL have painted on it.
KEEP THE GRAFFITI ART
THE WALLS THAT ARE UGLY, USE THE TAX DOLLARS TO HELP COMMISSION ARTISTS TO PAINT MURAL LEGALY ! ( and i dont mean a bunch of high school kids either. open to all artists! lets make the city a proud place with lots of colour .
my opinion!
and pay hundreds of thousands of hard earned dollars for this item...
i would want to be able to have 100% say on if i want to hire an artist to paint my walls.
i thought toronto was a creative city
"If the city was beautiful, there would be no graffiti."
ha ha ha I guess that's why there's no graffiti in Barcelona, right
"If art and artists were held in esteem, there would be no graffiti. But we are overrun with utilitarian ugliness and philistinism, and so there is graffiti."
Well now, since graffiti artists paint over other graffiti artists' work I guess they're just azzholes like the rest of us who don't hold art and artists in esteem. There's one thing for sure, though - if graffiti artists held people's private property in esteem, there would be no graffiti. See what I did there.
Art and artists ARE held in esteem - there are hundreds of galleries across the city. Just because graffiti artists are too lazy to participate is not anybody's problem but their own.
Graffiti artists shine up the same apple over and over and over again. Graffiti type is a tired cliche. Writing your name on a garage door is a pathetic cliche. Drawing some funny picture of (insert cool hip image here) on a wall is a tired cliche. There is nothing challenging about graffiti's content. It's just a bunch of me too garbage. Go pick up a copy of New American Painters and look at what can be created when people actually try.
"It'd be nice to know the actual statistics of how much graffiti is commissioned and how much is just vandalism." Excellent point. However, that actually requires RESEARCH as opposed to someone just spouting off their opinion, something certain writers at BlogTO excel at.
Anyone justifying vandalism by saying it's art is an idiot. Anyone saying legal graffiti murals are not art is equally idiotic.
Apparently you are wrong on this. It turns out that in Vancouver they are winning the battle against graffiti: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/08/targets-balk-at-graffiti-cleanup-costs/
maybe there isn't much graffiti on the streets in nice parts of town at the moment but there still is graffiti in every crack and crevice in the city. The average citizen doesn't see 70% of the graffiti in the city because it's under bridges, in abandoned buildings and just about any place that the average person doesn't go. Just because the city is under the impression that it has it under control for a moment doesn't mean it won't be back. :)
Many american cities have tried and had success to a certain degree, but it always comes back.
They clean up the graffiti once a week. If you are diligent in clean up and enforcement of laws, it is much easier to control. Most cities just cannot be bothered.
Why doesn't the city focus on clearing graffiti off its own property, like utility boxes, signposts, etc. before forcing businesses to remove murals? Money.
Re. "Can we all say KICK BACK!! Perhaps this is what motivates this so called crackdown."
I'm no apologist for Mayor Ford but the guy is seriously loaded (Deco Labels and Tags) and he doesn't need a kick-back from anyone. Ironically, his tags made him rich.
That said, it sure seems like the Ford Gestapo is kicking into gear. So easy for a city bureaucracy to turn around and serve the new boss. Do they have shiny new uniforms and boots?
I can't wait to see the aerosol rebuttal to fords crackdown.
Try and find a tag in central Manhattan in 2011 - other than mailboxes, which are not city property, it's a far cry from the 1980s and 90s. You can't even buy spray paint or fat markers within the 5-boroughs (Home Depot keeps them under lock and key).
Unlike other Fordian "ideas", this one costs little and can achieve actual results. Give it a shot. Toronto's "messy urbanism" risks becoming a plain "mess" if it doesn't watch these details.
This discussion is about forcing property owners to pay for removing murals that they themselves paid to commission on their own property. WTF are you talking about?
@Swerde: as I said to Dave Meslin, so I'll say to you; Yonge & Dundas is Toronto's commercial mecca; that's why there's all of the signage there.Getting rid of it will only happen after society falls and then comes back (maybe), but not before. I support what you do as a graffiti artist, but I'm not enamored of the blasting of Yonge and Dundas simply because it doesn't fit some super-Utopian vision of Toronto. This is the reality of living in North America, not what you or Dave wants.
I can't imagine the photos included off the garages covered in a bunch of vandals names were commissioned.
Does anyoen really think any of the graffiti artists are sitting at home right now saying to themselves, "oh god, what am I going to do now? all my art is gone! oh right, i've been wantign to repaint that wall anyways, do a better job this time now that I have more experience and knowledge.
Another well thought through plan brought to you by the fords!
Does anyoen really think any of the graffiti artists are sitting at home right now saying to themselves, "oh god, what am I going to do now? all my art is gone! oh right, i've been wantign to repaint that wall anyways, do a better job this time now that I have more experience and knowledge.
Another well thought through plan brought to you by the fords!
Should we just leave it there? I guess you never heard of the broken window theory.
I beleive the broken window theory to be bs. When was the last tiem you were in NYC? I was there recently and I saw graffiti everywhere, the city spent millions cleaning it up out of the subways etc, and it's all back. I also don't believe that graffiti leads to worse crimes, just as i don't believe smoking pot leads to harder drug use in an individual that wasn't already predisposed to escalate his/her drug use.
"...the "broken windows theory" closely relates correlation with causality, a reasoning which is prone to fallacy."
There are many other reasons that crime goes up, from a socialogical perspective it has a lot more to do with earning power, ability to affect change and social status than it does graffiti. In fact, some graffiti is a result not a cause.
Please don't refer to these dregs of society as "graffiti artists." Low-life scum is more appropriate. There is zero artistry in defacing property.
Likewise, why should the city "give up" cleaning up this crap? Hey, let's forsake trash collection while we're at it, and let Toronto totally go to hell, eh?
I wonder how long before some property owner catches one of these bastards, and turns thre spray can on his face? Instant karma! And easy to pick "Mr. Purple Face" from a police line-up :)
I beleive the broken window theory to be bs. When was the last tiem you were in NYC? I was there recently and I saw graffiti everywhere, the city spent millions cleaning it up out of the subways etc, and it's all back. I also don't believe that graffiti leads to worse crimes, just as i don't believe smoking pot leads to harder drug use in an individual that wasn't already predisposed to escalate his/her drug use.
"...the "broken windows theory" closely relates correlation with causality, a reasoning which is prone to fallacy."
There are many other reasons that crime goes up, from a socialogical perspective it has a lot more to do with earning power, ability to affect change and social status than it does graffiti. In fact, some graffiti is a result not a cause.
Dick
<i>The researchers then secretly monitored the locations to observe if people behaved differently when the environment was disordered. The results confirmed the theory. Their conclusion, published in the journal Science, was that: "One example of disorder, like graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing"</i>
Manipulate the variable and see significant results? Hmmm...
And even IF the theory is BS that still doesn't give reason to leave graffiti as it is. The city "giving up" enforcement of bylaws is exactly what vandals would like. Theft is a common occurrence, why don't we just let that one slide too then?
"@Ford Nation, Jesseshells, Binky, Plato, YourArtSucks, ..., etc. : Typical right-wing neocon pusbags who'll lick the ass of Rob Ford and little else. Have anything else to say and do besides being Ford's bumboys/bumgirls?"
I'm a union member, and I vote NDP / Liberal... hardly a Ford lover. Regardless, the best response I've ever seen to a graffiti puke at work was my neighbour emerging from his home wielding a meter long length of pipe. I never saw anyone run so quickly as the chicken-shit "artist". Left two spray cans. Never came back either. The cops don't care about graffiti and they probably wouldn't blink at a bruised vandal or two. If it's anarchy you pukes want, be careful what you wish for.
I didn't even say that the actual graffiti should be left up, the art shoudl be left up and there are many examples of beautiful art on the walls. I said the method they're using to get rid of it is ineffectual and useless. How do you claim some broken window theory bs when you can't implement it? ie, if you believe gettign rid of graffiti will lessen the desire to commit that crime again and others more egregious, but the graffiti pops up again almost as soon as it's taken down, where does broken window theory see application? This won't be a test of BWT, it'll be a test of the store owners' pocketbooks and the patience of the city.
Also, the fact that some people don't liek it, doesn't mean it isn't art. Avant-garde art is despised by a lot of people, nto a whole lot of people get it, mayeb some would try to claim that it's not art, btu it is and so is graffiti, whether you're willing to understand that or not. I think art cares not what the people like, it is a living, breathing entity, it'll change and develop as it grows.
You sound like a chest puffing pansy and a dolt to boot.
Feel better, champ?
I don't see graffiti anywhere in the definition of Anarchy. Your friend fought a vandal, well, he threatened a vandal really, and the kid probably just went up the street and did yer neighbor's house. Trumping this up and calling it fighting anarchists is absolutely absurd and makes your position and argument weaker than it already was. Argument 101 - stick to the facts.
@kleenex and spoiled diaper - omgosh i totally did! Your childish words cut me so deeply! I bet you dummy faces peed yourselves, yeah and you probably pick your nose too!! you, you....stupids! [rolls eyes] try harder guys.
Your "anarchy" argument is a non sequitor. Stop pretending you don't get it. Take your own advice and stick to the script, idiot.
Here, mull these over. "Live by the sword, die by the sword". "An eye for an eye", etc. Get it?
Also, a black belt has the self control to be able to not cause bodily harm to the kid, that's the diff between a black belt and an orange belt; same amount of knowledge regarding fighting, but an orange belt lacks the discipline and control to make non-lethal or very damaging hits. Your friend's not a black belt in anything.
I hope you're not relying on your "it sometimes is a fallacy" argument since it has not been applied nor investigated against these studies.
Broken window theory is the reason these policies are put in place. A vandal can paint a new signature but it will just be taken down again. The store owners suffer no doubt, but whose fault is that? The city or the ones perpetrating a crime? I hope you know for your own sake.
You know who test the city's patience? Vandals who think their pseudonyms are impressing anyone who sees their dribble on public property. That you think it's art is irrelevant to us. It ruins the landscape and cheapens the city unless it's part of a business's facade and well done, none of which qualify in the linked photos.
Trust me, I'm not afraid. But now I am ready. I don't advocate violence but I do advocate property owners getting the undivided attention of those found vandalizing their property. The Citizens' Arrest Bill comes to mind.
I'll use reasonable force, so don't you worry your solvent addled little brain.
I also never said i was a graffiti artist, in fact, last time i tried to spray paint something was when i was a kid and i did a poor job of it. You go ahead and put down yur foe as having a solvent addled brain, gotta do something to make them seem dumber than you.
You're approaching Charlie Sheen levels of absurdity, keep it up! Are the trolls attacking yet?
Pardon me if I have more faith in most criminologists than I do joe commenter.
It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other U.S. cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted "zero-tolerance" policies and those that had not.[11]
Your theory is bunk, they're blaming BWT for a reduction in crime that happened because of a variety of factors, I certainly don't think stopping vandalism will solve all the worlds woes. To suggest it will is ridiculous.
The fault still lies with the city for not being able to come up with a more effective strategy for dealing with graffiti than issuing expensive take-down orders, especially if, as you say, it will happen on a regular basis. Not really a good idea to bankrupt businesses in a lame attempt at stopping vandalism so that you can promote businesses. I'd say this plan to rid the city of vandalism is much more costly than the vandalism itself.
Here's the problem with your whole netherlands reference:
"...was arranged in a way where it looked like nobody monitored it and cared about it: windows were broken, graffiti were placed on the walls, among other things."
That doesn't sound like simple graffiti, it sounds like downtown Detroit.
And the NYC example:
"At a forum three months into his term as mayor, Giuliani mentioned that freedom does not mean that "people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it".[1]
Giuliani also directed the New York City Police Department to aggressively pursue enterprises linked to organized crime, such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center on the West Side (Gambino crime family). By breaking mob control of solid waste removal, the city was able to save businesses over $600 million.
One of Giuliani and Bratton's first initiatives was the institution in 1994 of CompStat, a comparative statistical approach to mapping crime geographically in order to identify emerging criminal patterns and chart officer performance by quantifying apprehensions. The implementation of CompStat gave precinct commanders more power, based on the assumption that local authorities best knew their neighborhoods and thus could best determine what tactics to use to reduce crime. In turn, the gathering of statistics on specific personnel aimed to increase accountability of both commanders and officers. Critics of the system assert that it instead creates an incentive to underreport or otherwise manipulate crime data.[2]"
I especially enjoyed the part where Guiliani describes freedom as ceding free will to the state. [shakes head]
During the Giuliani administration, police conducted sweeps of parks and other public places to arrest homeless people and move them to shelters. Critics charged that the purpose was not to help the homeless but to remove them from sight. The pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, Rev. Thomas Tewell, said: "I think the police and the administration in New York were a bit embarrassed to have homeless people on the steps of a church in such an affluent area. The city said to us that it's inhumane to have people staying on the streets. And my response was that it's also inhumane to just move them along to another place or to put them in a shelter where they are going to get beat up, or abused, or harassed." The church sued the city of New York, Giuliani, and Bernard Kerik, asserting a First Amendment right to minister to the homeless on its steps.[26][27] [28]
He also rounded up and kicked out the homeless, as above, or made it a very inhospitable city to live in for the poor. He did this because he understands that with poverty comes crime, it's a fact of life, so rather than try to reduce poverty, he kicked them all out.
So, as you see, broken window theory had almost nothing to do with this reduction in crime, it was a very small and insignificant part of a much larger, and rather brutal, strategy to gain control over NYC.
Can you state your position on the following:
Should the city be allowed to dictate to citizens what they can or cannot place on their property (specifically, murals on walls, garage etc) or should the property owner have sole control over what goes on those surfaces?
Do you know what you are talking about, or do you just like repeating neocon law & order bullshit gleamed from the pages of the <i>Post</i> and the <i>Sun</i>? I think that the_lies knows of what he speaks, moreso than you or anybody else here talking about the subject in question.
@the_lies: Guliani was nothing more than a brutal thug for law & order and for the moneyed interests who hate the average person and the poor. I don't care how many mobsters he took down, he's as much a thug as Gotti or anybody else in the Gambino crime family. And the way he had the NYPD act has had serious effects on the future, particularly in the way the NYPD killed tow black men while they were doing nothing but minding their own business, so he's no hero at all for that either. At least the Gambinos or Gotti weren't destroying the lives of homeless people just to make New York 'clean' or turning Times Square into Disneyland VII-Guliani has made New York into a boring place to be, fit only for the rich and powerful to live in. Rob ford <i>thinks</i> that he's Guliani, but all is is a big fat pusbag and neocon thug-just like Guliani.
----------------------------
Clearly you're the dim bulb, Einstein, since my question IS the only issue on the table. That's what this whole BlgTO article is about, Einstein. Did you read the article, Einstein?
Now if you tried really really hard and thought about my question, I think your little brain might implode, since my question exposes the breathtaking hypocrisy of graffiti supporters:
One breath: nobody, especially the city, has the right to tell people what they can paint or not paint on their property because property rights must be respected at all costs. Next breath: graffiti artists don't have to respect property rights.
Anyways, I'm pretty excited to hear the_lies ' answer - if he has the balls/ability to organize adult thought to do so. The same applies to you.
All I can say, having just returned from a month in Brazil is that everywhere I saw graffiti, the city itself was in decline. The wealthier cities (Florianopolis, Camboriu, etc.) less graffiti, the poorer cities (Recife, outskirts of Jaoa Passoa, favelas of Rio) more graffiti.
I think the term 'artist' is being abused quite a bit around here. Trust me, those propoponents of 'free expression' get a whole new tune when it's THEIR property being defaced.
Friends of ours who live in a poorer section (but the homes are 'owned') of Sao Paulo do not tolerate 'tagging,' and there was none.
Pretty simple, really.
Clearly, Toronto is a city in decline. At least judging from my trip back from the airport and the degree of graffiti I saw from the subway (and the fact that Kipling was closed AGAIN because of signal trouble). I take the subway 2 or 3 times a year here and the station is closed for repairs. That's hilarious.
Back to the usual rabble ranting about the usual. I'm virtually done with this site.
I'm not a graffiti artist, but if this law is forced on home owners and business owners, then I will become one.
-----
Translation:
"Hey homeowners - if the city forces you to pay for the removal of a sanctioned mural on your property, I am going to come paint some new sh*t on your property without your permission. I feel my imposition on your private property sends an important message to city hall. What you wish to do with your own property is irrelevant to me because my wishes are more important."
Next time you want to "express" yourself, how about shoving that can of spray paint up your ass sideways, make a video, and post it on YouTube?
Way to go! Your parents must be very proud (although I doubt you know who yo' daddy is).
If you're against the removals, you'll love it, and if you're for the removals, maybe you'll understand the movement behind street art a little better.
Again having said that, I called Rob Fords office the day we received our notice. We mentioned that we had paid a fee a number of years ago to the city to plant a tree and beautify the neighbourhood and the last administration had never delivered on the promise. Rob Fords office contacted all of the right departments and had the appropriate people at our door in a matter of days. We are working on moving forward with replacing torn up ashphalt with a tree and some grass. It's unfair to say thst Rob Fords office doesn't care about servicing the small business owner and beautifying the neighbourhood. There are, however, some misguided initiatives that threaten one of our favourite elemnts of the neighbourhood.