Fun with Feminist Flickr (graffiti edition)


Pic via youthattack.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

18 Comments

  1. Destra
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    I love destroying property to get my message across too. Like bricks through windows, and puncturing tires, and bashing in mailboxes. And then I love to equate all my crimes with a cause that I want people to respect and follow. Makes perfect sense to me.

  2. rustyspoons
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Here’s one I saw out in Bushwick you may like too. Can’t argue with it…
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jennydevildoll/2818767917/in/set-72157616489035900/

  3. Alexandr
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Don’t you do this every time this blog decides to post some feminist-oriented graffiti?

  4. Destra
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    Yup. You don’t change things by staying silent.

  5. Sehnsucht
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Because property is such a sacred thing, right? Because spraying a stencil on the side of a building (which will probably get washed off anyway) is the same as spraying it on someone’s baby, right?
    What about those people who don’t believe in property? What about those that think everything in our community belongs to everyone? What about the Native Americans (or whichever country this was from) that originally lived on the land that building was built on; what do you think their opinion is on it?
    And what about those people that don’t destroy property to get a message across? What about those who do it for something greater?

  6. sammylif
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Defacing public property with hate isn’t ok, but defacing public property with someone that makes people smile and feel good about themselves? I can stand for that. This isn’t hurting anyone (at least not directly and probably not intentionally) so I say thumbs up.

  7. sammylif
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    *something

  8. Qantaqa
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    I admit, I haven’t read many of the graffiti posts, but I have to point out that the difference between graffiti and a mural is kind of a gray area.
    Though what I hate is when there is a mural (like under our bridge) and someone spray paints graffiti over it. Really sad.

  9. Craftyrei
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    I really enjoy this image. What a well-made stencil. graffiti is art people!!! When will the general public catch up with the art institutions.?! my college teaches classes on graffiti inlcuding history and studio techniques.
    I will tell you the difference between graffiti and murals… murals are done with brushes, graffiti is done with spray paint or airbrushes. thats it.

  10. kalax
    Posted April 18, 2009 at 1:39 am | Permalink

    I made a stencil of this and painted it on the side of a big mailbox down the street. Since then, a lot of other people have tagged and it gets painted over, but they always leave mine! It makes me really happy, at least the owner of the apt complex agrees with me.

  11. Destra
    Posted April 18, 2009 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    You’ve asked a lot of questions. Let’s address them one by one.
    Because property is such a sacred thing, right?
    Who said property was sacred? What is important is that someone else put a lot of time and effort and sweat into buying that building. When you destroy someone’s property you are making that property or business owner work even harder because you’re too lazy to work to get your message out else wise. That’s just being an asshole, not revolutionary.
    Because spraying a stencil on the side of a building (which will probably get washed off anyway) is the same as spraying it on someone’s baby, right?
    Um, no. I didn’t mention anything about assault or battery. I’m glad you’ve shown ignorance as to how paint works. It means that you’ve never destroyed someone else’s property with graffiti. Paint doesn’t wash off. You have to paint over it.
    What about those people who don’t believe in property?
    We live in a country with laws. It’s like that old saying with God, even if you don’t believe in the laws, they still believe in you. Meaning, they still apply to you. And beyond the legal stance, I’ll refer to my previous answer where the person who destroys another’s property is not just taking away money, but making them work harder. Basically, being an asshat.
    What about those that think everything in our community belongs to everyone?
    Same answer as to the last question. We live in a country where property, by law, does not belong to everyone. And we live among those who do believe that property belongs to themselves, and again they work hard for it. I’d say the vast, vast majority of the world thinks the same. If you’re interested in property theory, you should certainly check out Thomas Paine’s work.
    What about the Native Americans (or whichever country this was from) that originally lived on the land that building was built on; what do you think their opinion is on it?
    I am Native American. You now know my opinion on it.
    And what about those people that don’t destroy property to get a message across? What about those who do it for something greater?
    I’m not sure what you’re implying here. If you’re implying a pseudo-revolutionary thought, that the destruction of other people’s stuff is the only way to make the country the way that you want? I’d say that that’s one of three things: true revolution, terrorism, or childishness. For the overthrow of a government or society, you need a lot more people (say, a majority) for it to be valid. And even then you don’t need to be graffiti painting to do it (the asshole theory), property damage should then only be collateral and unavoidable. Terrorism speaks for itself. As does being childish.

  12. Destra
    Posted April 18, 2009 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    I’d say the difference is permission. A mural artist has the permission from the property owner to paint/draw it. A graffitist doesn’t.

  13. femmi
    Posted April 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Graffiti has the potential to be used as a vehicle for positive change in society. Positive graffiti, that is. These messages are conveyed in areas where everyone has access to them, rather than blog posts and whatnot which do not see too much access other than from already proclaimed feminists.
    I have an art project right now where I am documenting all of the positive acts of graffiti that I see (mostly in bathrooms so far). I think positive graffiti is a beautiful way to transform an act which has been seen as traditionally negative.
    Here is the link to my favorite positive graffiti picture:
    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/photo.php?pid=4862329&id=696915634
    Enjoy.

  14. Anne Marie
    Posted April 18, 2009 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
  15. instrumentjamlord
    Posted April 20, 2009 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    If you think it’s such a cool image, why don’t you spray paint it across the front of your own house? Maybe the side of your car?

  16. instrumentjamlord
    Posted April 20, 2009 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    “graffiti is art people”
    Great. “Art” all over your own stuff, then.
    “I will tell you the difference between graffiti and murals…murals are done with brushes…”
    Actually, murals are done with permission. THAT’S the real difference.

  17. ElliceR
    Posted April 20, 2009 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    These are wonderful! Thanks for sharing.

  18. Mery Djane
    Posted May 28, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    The small selection of pictures on a feminism theme has placed with itself in a blog. We Can Do It!

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

191 queries. 0.567 seconds