Comments on: New Michael Jackson Mural

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:02:50 +0000

Slick!

By: Odentex

Odentex — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:06:50 +0000

Anon: Look, I don’t Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’, but clearly WMATA has come to the conclusion that they aren’t going to do anything about what is basically Human Nature. While a lot of people clearly think it’s Bad, since there are Black or White cameras everywhere at these Metro stations, we have to assume that they are giving JU One More Chance. JU may be a Smooth Criminal, but this Thriller had to take hours to complete and WMATA had plenty of time to tell him to Beat It and they must’ve decided You Can’t Win.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:05:26 +0000

O-tex, you get to my fundamental point. Some of this stuff has to be commissioned/approved by the owner, such as the food bank mural. In those cases I get it — brightens up the ride, especially now that it takes 90 min. to get through that section of the red line, and some of it isn’t half bad. But I doubt JU put this one up in the light of day or with WMATA’s prior approval. Apologies to JU if he did. And assuming at some point this one will come Off the Wall [cue rimshot], it’s going to cost somebody. I’d rather it not be me, even indirectly, nor do I think it should be incumbent on a private building owner to make the objective post hoc determination that he doesn’t like it, when the expense of removal is on him and/or the city’s graffiti removal unit, which again comes indirectly out of the taxpayer’s pocket.

If WMATA controls long spaces of retaining walls and doesn’t mind them being painted with graffiti art (as opposed to vandalized), and if other building owners on the corridor wanted to get involved, I’d be all for some sort of clearinghouse dispensing wall space along the train corridors to local artists for stuff like this mural, possibly through some of the local non-profits that teach the medium, as long as the responsibility for maintaining that space was then transferred to the artist. But frankly, I don’t think it does much good to celebrate the fruits of a criminal act.

And thanks for the suggestion, but no way I can take that handle. I’d misspell it half the time, and someone probably would think it was effete, which is such a negative thing these days. The “Effete Aesthete”?? I’d be doomed. The meaner kids would just put the graffiti directly on my face.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:37:51 +0000

The graffiti along the Red Line north of Union Station is really good. The ratio of skilled and aesthetically pleasing work to tags and assorted crap is very high. I would guess that to some degree it’s good because it doesn’t get painted over very often, so the kids are willing to put more work into it.

JU also has, if memory serves, a mural with a picture of the Fresh Prince and one with a picture of the Joker.

I hope no one ever tries to paint over the Sean Taylor mural.

By: Odentex

Odentex — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:55:53 +0000

Anon @ 1:02: The onwers’ consent is an objective fact. Not every building or wall has graffiti on it along the red line corridor. Why is that? Because in their individual “eyes” it is either objectionable or not. It’s determinable. Also, don’t be so sure it’s always a crime. Some of these are commissioned murals (incl. some of those on the food bank), though clearly JU’s opus to Freaky McDancypants is on Metro property. I’m not saying don’t inforce the laws or don’t let the owners scrub the walls, I’m just saying I appriciate the some of the work.

May I suggest “DC Aesthete” for your handle?

By: eric in ledroit

eric in ledroit — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:10:31 +0000

i can’t think of a city that doesn’t have graffiti art along its rail corridors. london and amsterdam spring to mind.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:10:31 +0000

Cool “Disco” Dan

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:02:54 +0000

Oh bother … now we’re into the whole “Anon” problem and I don’t have a witty handle AND somebody else already posts on this site using my actual name (which probably is his name, too) …

Anyway, @11:48 here (not @12:15), and I’d analogize thusly: I’m betting my basement toilet has a pretty disgusting toilet ring right now and can assure you it’s low on my list of things to clean, but that still doesn’t mean I want you dropping a Big Texan deuce in it, or even taking a Lone Star leak, even though I probably wouldn’t check on it for a few weeks to know you hadn’t flushed.

And without analogizing, I don’t think we develop much of a civic ethos by calling a crime something other than a crime. Just because it’s the current reality doesn’t make it right. The owner’s consent isn’t a subjective determination, and I’m really uncomfortable with the proposed alternative of “eye of the beholder” when it comes to people’s property rights.

By: Odentex

Odentex — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:30:21 +0000

Anon: You’re right. This graffiti scourge must be stopped immediately! That corridor from Fort Totten to Union Station was a verdant paradise of chirping songbirds in a lush canopy of virgin wood until JU started painting peons to pedophiles all over the place!

I say we ban all paint ASAP. We just can’t trust paint retailers to responsibly sell their evil wares only to people who will use paint “properly” (people over 30 who own a minivan).

The shame!

By: Odentex

Odentex — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:23:55 +0000

Anon: I’d be interested in just how many tears have been shed from the eye of an abandoned warehouse’s owner due to the terrible indignity of having his derelict rat haven’s wall painted on.