Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Allan Miller:

There is absolutely NO justification for the intentional defacing of someone else's property.

Oh I tend to agree.  I've seen some graffiti that blurs the line between vandalism and art, but really, get permission if it's that important to you.

 

What I find amusing is the fairly consistent negative reaction to MODELING graffiti.  If your intent is to model the world as it is, graffiti is part of it.  If your goal is to model an idealized reality where there is no wrong, I better not see a single burning switchtower, police car, firetruck, derelict vehicles, abandoned buildings, unpaved roads, etc., because in an ideal dream world, they wouldn't exist or we wouldn't need them.  (Ok, maybe the firetruck can stay if they're rescuing a cat from a tree.)  I just find it honestly bizarre for folks to single out one negative aspect of life and get upset about people representing it in scale.  I've seen layouts with bars, prostitutes, people in compromising sexual positions visible through windows, burning buildings, derelict structures and equipment, car crashes, all sorts of unpleasantness, but somehow GRAFFITI is where the line must be drawn.   I just don't get it.

For Wowak & Bigboy...............I am akin to y'all. The reality is that in many areas of the USA,  boxcars are especially targets of spray painter vandals. I have done the same with some of my $$ boxcars as a point of realism on my Carpet Central RR.

         I do not mind saying that some of the artwork, although it is vandalism, is quite beautiful and much better looking at times than a dingy beat-up looking rail car.

On another Model train forum the topic of Graffiti is completely banned. There and other places, it is not so much modeling graffiti that causes so much disagreement as it is the value of graffiti as "ART", and it being vandalism.

 

 I gree with those that consider it Vandalism, and a crime when done to another's property, be it personal or commercial property, without their permission. If they really consider it "ART" then they should do it to their own property, but VERY FEW do that, The car above, while not what I would want on my own vehicle is well done. The house above, while they did do it to their own house, I personally wouldn't care to have that eyesore across the street from me.

 

Doug

Originally Posted by Wowak:
I've seen layouts with bars, prostitutes, people in compromising sexual positions visible through windows, burning buildings, derelict structures and equipment, car crashes, all sorts of unpleasantness, but somehow GRAFFITI is where the line must be drawn.   I just don't get it.

Because the difference is that graffiti is simply the intentional defacing of someone else's property.  It represent a willful disregard for the law and for the property rights of others.  None of the other examples you provided have that as their intent.

 

I have a U.S. Army boxcar, given to me by a forum member, that displays some minor graffiti on its side.  When it's eventually incorporated into a scene on my layout, it will include a couple of fellows "cleaning off" the graffiti under the watchful eyes of a couple of MPs and a German Shepherd. 

This past week, I had to review and approve three billing repair cards (BRC's) for graffiti removal from three of our private rail cars.  In each instance, the cost exceeded $2000.  I will never buy any of this crap that graffiti is art.  It is vandalism and costs rail car owners and lessees untold hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to remove.

 

Curt

Originally Posted by Wowak:

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that it's not art.  It can be art while still being illegal and inappropriate to do.  I'm not saying I'm endorsing it, just saying that even something illegal can have artistic value.


 

Nope, if it is not the "Artist's" property, or property they are comisioned to decorate, it is not art it is vandalism, pure and simple, a crime that I wish had better enforcement and MUCH more serious penalties, Australia has the right idea.

 

 Would you still feel it had "Artistic Value" if it was on your fence, or the side of your house? I seriously doubt it.

 

Doug

 I remember seeing UP's brand new fresh produce train and thinking to myself, "my god, they already got it!".  Cars were still shiny but already sprayed with crap.

Sad that they can't keep this from happening.

 I see home remodeling shows that start with the "star" smashing a window or a cabinet. Great. Show them that it's a good thing to do?? Wonder why there's no set of values left with the youth??

When I saw this fairly new railcar, it was unusual in that it hasn't been defaced yet.

 

100_1929-

 

Sad to say, unsightly and idiotic grafittti has become commonplace on freight cars. Even the special commemorative cars of a regional shortline have been defaced.

 

What I like about model railroading, I can have clean and new-looking cars to represent an ideal world.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 100_1929-
Originally Posted by Wowak:

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that it's not art.  It can be art while still being illegal and inappropriate to do.  I'm not saying I'm endorsing it, just saying that even something illegal can have artistic value.


I would love to hear your thoughts after your property got tagged.....your car, home or business that you are forced to spend your $$ on to clean up.  Just to clarify this is not said with a snotty tone or anything, but I really don't think anyone would stand there and look at there home and say..."gosh honey what lovely art"...I mean would you?..Really?  I mean that is like saying burglary is not a crime...it's just a redistribution of property.

Last edited by N&W Class J
Originally Posted by Allan Miller:
Originally Posted by Wowak:
I've seen layouts with bars, prostitutes, people in compromising sexual positions visible through windows, burning buildings, derelict structures and equipment, car crashes, all sorts of unpleasantness, but somehow GRAFFITI is where the line must be drawn.   I just don't get it.

Because the difference is that graffiti is simply the intentional defacing of someone else's property.  It represent a willful disregard for the law and for the property rights of others.  None of the other examples you provided have that as their intent.

 

I have a U.S. Army boxcar, given to me by a forum member, that displays some minor graffiti on its side.  When it's eventually incorporated into a scene on my layout, it will include a couple of fellows "cleaning off" the graffiti under the watchful eyes of a couple of MPs and a German Shepherd. 

Allan, since when is prostitution not a "willful disregard for the law?"

Originally Posted by DennisB:

Allan, since when is prostitution not a "willful disregard for the law?"

It is, BUT it doesn't cause harm to anyone aside, possibly, from the two parties involved.  Tagging a rail car or building, etc., DOES do intentional harm to someone else.

 

Also, depending on where you live, prostitution may be legal.  I don't know of any place where defacing another's property is legal.

Entitled, self-centered, immature/infantile, premeditated, aggressive, lacking in self control, destroy, willful damage, offensive, anti-social, rebel, garish, tacky, cheap, scumball, classless, punk...

 

 Just a few of the words that come to mind.

 

BTW, for the --------------(fill in the blank) that support this **** where do you draw the line? Should others be allowed to change your -  hair style, clothing, landscaping, the style/structure of your house, work(things you have created), music, TV channel, personal and professional associations, pets, hobby, peace of mind, enjoyment/satisfaction, vote, the ingredients in your meal... YOUR CHOICES, just because they have an need to express themselves?

 

BTW, it reminds me of little kids sidewalk/driveway creations, done with colored chalk. Like I said, childish! Maybe, we need a new type of facility to accommodate these late-blooming social tantrums - some type of graffiti daycare, where these very special individuals can release...

 

Rick

 

Originally Posted by Rick B.:

Is there some type of primal thing going on; male dogs like marking their territory, too? 

 

Rick

I think of it that way. Police make distinctions between tagging and grafitti:

 

Tagging is represented by bubble letters, stylized lettering, drawing, multiple paint colors and has a more artistic feel.

"Taggers are usually not violent but just want their 'art' seen," he said.

Gang graffiti often has cross outs, profanity, numbers, backwards letters and, many times, initials of the gang or gang member who made the markings ... can be a means of declaring territory ...

http://www.deseretnews.com/art...xplained.html?pg=all

Letting things slide, for many reasons, ends up costing us something.

 

For years,  my family and I would walk around a rural location that had a shared mainline; CP, CN, BNSF and AmTrak are the regulars; and, occasionally, some strays from other roads.

 

Part of our walk was down a dead-end road, that paralleled the mainline and some sidings. After awhile, we had to be vigilant and keep a lookout for used birth control equipment. Didn't want our critter tangling with one of those...

 

Also, as time went on, cars could be scene parked in strategic positions... facing the way out. We suspected drug transactions and usage. Eventually, we attended this once favored location, less and less; until, we pretty much stopped going, altogether. We recently heard, on the news, that a dead body was found in the big drainage ditch, that runs alongside the tracks.

 

This is a good example of the community failing to take the appropriate steps necessary, to safeguard a portion of the city. We often wondered why, seldom if ever... we saw any police presence; didn't take a genius to foresee problems were developing.

 

BTW, I personally don't give a rats *** why problematic people do what they do, I just want it stopped.

 

 

Rick

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×