SLOG criticizes the recent report on graffiti:
The report includes a street count of graffiti found in four areas—two in Capitol Hill, downtown, and First Hill. Here’s what has local street artists (and appreciators) pissed: while city officials found 556 examples of graffiti during their street count, they discovered “no instances of what could be called artistic tagging.” Street art is defined in the report as “colorful or complex… masterpieces.”
“It’s ridiculous,” says street artist Scratchmaster Joe. “Even if you call art subjective, even if you hate all graffiti, not finding one instance of art takes the credibility right out of their report.”
Groups like Seattle Streetart are devoted to capturing the best of the city’s fleeting graffiti. The group boasts over 35,000 images of street art uploaded by 1,800 members. Clearly, a large number of people in the city appreciate graffiti’s artistic value.
While Seattle doesn’t quite have its own Hosier Lane, it still seems that there are places in the city where street art can be found. For example, this building on 50th and Roosevelt has been the sustained target of street artists for several weeks:
Does this qualify as street art?
Does this qualify as street art? Or just graffiti? And is this an important to distinguish for pedestrians?
Personally, I really dislike graffiti tags. However, I do like colorful graffiti, even if it doesn’t meet everyone’s criteria for masterful art. I also don’t mind graffiti stickers placed on signs and whatnot. I see these things as interesting and eye-catching enhancements to the urban pedestrian experience. But, if overdone or done poorly, I suppose it can lead to an area feeling unsafe or rundown. That may depend on the area – a busy pedestrian neighborhood like Capitol Hill may benefit from street art, but a quiet residential part of town may be damaged by a smattering of graffiti. For better or worse, I suppose, graffiti and street art aren’t going away, despite the city’s efforts to fight them.
