New Yorker held for tagging up Back Bay buildings
By adamg - Wed, 10/01/2008 - 7:58am.
The Herald plays it straight:
A globe-trotting graffiti goon accused of desecrating historic Back Bay with her artistic upchuck was held on $10,000 cash bail yesterday after several of her victims painted a picture of solidarity by standing up in court. ...
- Add new comment |
| 
| 
"terrorist taggers" ?
With this article, the Herald officially gives up any remaining tenuous claim to objectivity.
Consider the millieu, however
At least some people in the Back Bay really do consider these people terrorists.
Objectivity has flown out the window
Not only did "terrorist taggers" do it, but "artistic upchuck" also helped. Blah blah blah something about the eye of the beholder and all that.
But we can take the Back Bay lady's word for it and hold her opinion above our own, because she's got a Degree in Fine Art. SHE'S LEARNDED!
Still, apparently her Degree in Fine Art couldn't help keep that wonderful Newbury St. mural from deteriorating to the point of eradication, but hey. LEARNDED.
(And I like Pixnit, who's at least more creative than TEETH. And the "Oh Yes!" guy(s) are also stylistic.)
You would think someone
You would think someone going to a place with a name like Fashion Institute of New York would at least have a snazzier looking tag. She not only sucks as a human being she sucks as an artist to boot.
My thought as well!
I thought the same thing - when I read Adam's teaser, I thought maybe they had busted Pixnit, but that "Utah" tag is just lame.
Hah!
When I saw that headline in my RSS reader, my first thought was "Pixnit!"
Not Pixnit
Pixnit's tags may be illegal, but they are also art - so much so that some places see her work in progress and encourage it. If she stencils something beautiful around your doorway, you like it, and it was free, there's no issues.
Seems she's been busy with actual art installations in galleries and commissions as of late, anyway.
These "UTAH" twits are just thrill-seeking vandals, nothing more. Oh, bubble letters, really original.
The NABB are terrorists - people with too much money and plenty of time on their hands to harass and intimidate others in their turf.
What's the line between thrill-seeking vandals and artists?
If she stencils something beautiful around your doorway, you like it, and it was free, there's no issues.
First, I agree that Pixnit's stuff is very nice looking, while the stuff the Herald photographed mainly reminds me of New York City subway cars, circa 1978 (and that is one part of 1970s New York I don't miss). But, hey, I remember some people back then thinking those were just cool beans (it's the world that Keith Haring came out of).
But what if you don't like Pixnit's stencils around your doorway? Who pays to remove it?
At least until the government nationalizes everything, we still have some rights to enjoy our property as we want. And part of that is not having some random person decide to decorate it without our permission.
She writes her name on a building!
And stencils stuff!
On a BUILDING! Not on paper, or canvas, but a three-dimensional building!
Whoa, my button-down, suburban whitebread mind has been blown, man. My eyes are opened.
Put it this way ...
Pixnit is now travelling the world doing commissions and is also doing installations at museums like the Decordova.
Sounds like art to me - more so than Ms. Trust Fund Fine Art Degree could seem to fathom or produce.
You are correct that the "unauthorized" aspect is, well, sketchy? There is more than a little thrill seeking in that for sure. My guess is that she could have taken a more conventional route with her talents, while bubble-letter woman can't even seem to get through art school in eight years.
Don't know that this success should define art
since, just for example, Richard Prince has also done big shows & made a lot of money (photographing other peoples' photographs).
Exactly!
Adam:
"At least until the government nationalizes everything, we still have some rights to enjoy our property as we want. And part of that is not having some random person decide to decorate it without our permission."
Exactly. The first I knew of Pixnit was just before I saw any local news coverage of her as an artist, when she did a bunch of stenciling in my neighborhood - some on sidewalks, but also some on houses. I was really surprised at how visceral my reaction was. I really liked the designs, and one in particular was arguably an improvement to the building that was stenciled, but at the time I kept thinking that if my house had been hit I'd have felt invaded. (Also it bugs me that her nom de spraycan is Pixnit rather than Pinxit...)
The NABB are terrorists -
Hey its their turf, its their property. Some people just dont like stuff painted on their walls, and that is their business. If I went up to your house and painted a mural you didnt like/want on your wall you would be mad too. Thats their home and they choose to form an association to protect their interests, I dont see anything wrong with that.
http://www.myspace.com/pixnit
I found this because I never heard of Pixnit, it says its the official Pixnit myspace but its not run by the artist, thats interesting. I really like her work, and to be honest with you wouldnt mind some of the pieces if they were on the side of a blank wall I owned. That being said who is she to assume everyone would appreciate it, the polite thing to do is to ask before you alter someone elses property. There are other ways to get your art out there in a guerilla fashion without damaging someone elses property. Theres a guy (http://www.bataclan.com/) who runs around dropping paintings with notes on city benches and other places for people to pick up. The note simply gives his contact info and tells them that if they take the painting they need to smile at other people. The paintings get snatched up by people who like them, and left alone by people who dont. From what I understand they rarely last five minutes in a spot, and the artist generally sticks around in case they are completely ignored. Noone gets hurt, someone gets a free piece of art, and he gets his name out there.
What's wrong with that
An association to protect their interests - NOT the interests of others in the neighborhood. They have decided that they speak for the neighborhood, but are not interested in the least in actually understanding the neighborhood or engaging in constructive activities with those they consider to be "other" - like the college living groups that have been in the Back Bay since the time when MIT was in Copley Square.
They also are not interested in advocating for anyone but themselves, or any issue or situation that is in the interests of the neighborhood as a whole if it isn't directly affecting them personally - yet they are supposedly speaking for the entire neighborhood?
My favorite bit from the 1980s: "College students and fraternities devalue our property". Um, okay, and you bought your condo sometime around, oh, 1910?
The colleges have a voice.
The colleges have a voice. They have a community relations department and most have a government relations department. Their are also student groups as well. So if the college and their students have a voice why cant the community?
Also with all due respect to the college students who come into town for a few years then leave, and even those that stick around for a while, alot of these people were here four years ago when you got here and will be here four years later when you leave. I understand everyone has rights and should be treated the same and all that socialist mumbo jumbo but the local residents have rights too. If you dont like it buy property in the Back Bay and join the association.
Voice not the same as influence
The colleges have a voice and influence, but they use it for themselves. Their needs and goals are not necessarily the same as the students needs and goals.
The students and the individual houses may have a voice but no influence. Individual students come and go every four (five, six) years but the entire institution is there for the long haul. The NABB runs rough-shod over the student houses in ways that cost them money. I know one specific example where a home owner removed fire escapes connecting her house and a fraternity without permission. But the fraternity had to deal with the fallout and expense from city inspectors even though they didn't cause the violation.
--Kelly
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine. - http://despair.com/sanity.html
Chapters and Living Groups own the Property
BU may own its residences, but MIT does not. The MIT living groups in Boston are either owned by their holding coroprations (run by alumni) or by their fraternity chapters. While most are "official" living groups of MIT, the people who live there pay their rent to the governing structures, not MIT.
Sorry if that challenges your heirarchical oversimplification of the world, Shady, but that's the way it is. MIT "speaks" for these residences and their residents about as much as your state rep gets to speak for you when you negotiate your lease or file a tax abatement on your behalf. About all MIT has to say is whether or not a residence qualifies as an official residence - the rest is up to the students and their chapters/corporations.
Many of these living groups own historically significant property, as the original mansions are largely intact and the houses have preserved the period details inside and out over the years they have been there - more than a century in some cases. If the NABB really was honest about preservation, they would deal with the houses and their governing structures in a more mature fashion. For lack of anything actually productive to do, they prefer to bluster, bully, and tantrum from time to time.
So let the living groups
So let the living groups form their own association and let that association deal with it.
Fine
But first file an injunction that prohibits the NABB from any claim whatsoever of speaking for all the residents of the neighborhood or claiming anything in the name of historic preservation if they live in a condo, under pain of being hung by their underwear over storrow drive.
I checked out their website
I checked out their website and saw that they have 2,000 members and a pretty large governing structure. They also seem to have committees aimed at people in their 20's and 30's a GLBT committee and links to other civic associations in neighbering communities. They also seem to have linked to other groups in the Back Bay including the Back Bay Business Association. They seem to make efforts to extend themselves to people online, and make it seem like they are part of a community rather then being the be all end all.
I have a silly question, maybe someone can answer it for me. I noticed you could sign up for membership online, has any student who lives in that area ever tried to join? Were they rebuffed?
Interesting change of tone
I checked that out - very interesting. Most of my dealings with them were 1980s to 1990s as a student resident and then as a alum involved with a house corporation. I assumed that the lunatic rantings of "grafitti terrorism" by one of the perenial problematic wackjobs meant that nothing had changed.
Perhaps some of the grant money and loan guarentees for historic preservation projects that some residences managed to pull down without their help got some attention? The ability of longstanding residences to form a bullwark in an area hit hard by BU expansion? Maybe they just aren't dominated by a bunch of greedy and
racistexclusive-minded realtors hoping to cash in by forcing the houses out like they once were.ditto
My experience is from the same era as SG. I know we always helped with clean-up days and that sort of thing but that didn't give us any leverage against long-time members who wielded their power for evil and personal satisfaction.
--Kelly
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine. - http://despair.com/sanity.html
And it ain't cheap, either.
FIT (Fashion Institute of Technology) isn't exactly a correspondence course school. Some of the best and most well-respected designers have come from there. The curriculum is pretty rigorous, from all accounts - sounds like her parents were ponying up for school when she was off being a juvenile delinquent. As one of the Herald posters mentioned, isn't she a little old for this schtick?
Compare Pixnit to Goldenstash
Is there a difference? For one thing, he doesn't spray-paint/stencil people's homes.
Goldenstash
I've seen Goldenstash stickers on businesses and apartment buildings. Also he is one of many sticker-ers in my neighborhood who have covered street signs (parking, street cleaning, traffic signs and so on) to the point where they can't be read. The Goldenstash character is kind of amusing, but the use of the stickers is definitely in the "vandalism" sector in my mind.
Wheat paste vs. spraypaint
Are the stickers and wheatpaste art easier to remove? Do "goldenstache" things dissolve over time in the rain?
Perhaps the biodegradation/removability of these things is part of the issue.
Low point of lame: scribbling "tags" on nametag stickers. Hello my name is "I can't write my nickname legibly".
I think both are wrong, but
I think both are wrong, but its a metal sign that belongs to the city versus a house/building that belongs to a person. A bunch of stickers on a sign, while innocent looking enough seem to encourage more stickers and more bad behavior (broken window theory) but at least its not "your" sign.
Painting someones home/business on the other hand is a very personal matter. Some people get very upset when they open up their front door and see that its been painted. There is a sense of violation, that you were wronged by this person, and the fact that its a stencil makes it seem all the more premeditated. I would feel very uneasy about the whole thing if the property belonged to me and someone felt they could just do with it what they may while others stood around applauding that person for doing something to my property without my permission.
I think your bike would look better if it was pea green with orange stripes, Im off to the hardware store to buy some paint!
Worst One that I've Seen
Noam Chomski Head covering an entire sign on Powderhouse Road at the Powderhouse Circle in Somerville.
No idea what the sign said originally, other than it wasn't octagonal.
Then there are the stickers put on stop signs: war, driving, eating meat, etc.
Maybe they were warning Noam
Maybe they were warning Noam Chomskey by sticking a head on a stake ala Lord of the Flies or possibly Vlad the Impaler.
There are several Noam
There are several Noam Chomsky stencils around Davis Square. The one I encounter the most is on the bottom of a traffic light post at the intersection of Summer and Willow.
Covering an entire sign is rather irresponsible, though.
Wow...I had no idea this was
Wow...I had no idea this was going on right now, but we just compiled a video of Goldenstash spottings around Allston yesterday for a contest.
Screw the Herald -- that is out of control.
http://www.thathottness.com/blog/the-goldenstash-giveaway-extravaganza/
TAGGING IS IDIOTIC
Taggers are just immature, ignorant people. Right now they'll argue that it isn't a big deal but later in life, after they've grown up, they'll see how stupid it is to ruin someone else's property.
It blows my mind
How people rush to the defense of vabndals. What if I decided smashing wondows was artistic? To me, there's no difference.
"we dont want to stifle
"we dont want to stifle their artistic talent" "I like the 'urban' feel" "well that vandal is bad, but this one is good"
I agree its all bs. In this day in age their are so many options if you work with people and the city that their is no excuse to be an "artist" and have to ruin somebody elses property. There are murals everywhere that were painted with permission of property owners, and in fact many times the artist was paid to do it!