In some urban cities the try to get these frustrated artists who want to express themselves by painting a building with their talents rather than defacing other properties.
I have seen some extraordinary work and bewildered as to how they aren’t spotted by police while in the process as some of these works are not 5 minute quickies.
This has always been a place graffiti shows up, and compared to most of what I have seen over the years this example isn’t so bad. You can’t make it impossible for someone to spray paint there. Right now I think it is difficult enough to keep out 99% of the amateurs, but that difficulty also means it is going to be a coveted spot for those who are serious enough to do whatever it takes to get out there. I think the cost it would take to stop that last elite 1% would far outweigh the benefit. What else annoys me, and maybe I am wrong here, is that fence on the bridge destroys your view of the city when you are driving across the bridge far worse than a little spray paint does. Was it constructed for the purpose of stopping graffiti or for another reason? If so it seems like a terribly backwards idea and a waste of money for the solution to stopping something people consider ugly, but erecting something even uglier.
I can understand the push against graffiti on homes, businesses, and private property, or when it is offensive. However, I’m not sure I take issue with this. I think its impressive (both in scope and location) and it’s on what would otherwise be a boring concrete structure.
While graffiti resistant paint isn’t totally graffiti resistant, it would seem that this area could be coated with an asphaltic roof tar that would make it impossible to render a nice painting on the bridge. (aka vandalism)
Or they could make a “New Orleans” fence and cement broken glass bottles to the abutment.
I find it interesting that the ones caught and make it on the news are VCU art students……
While we’re on the topic, I think I noticed a new piece yesterday, one column east of the Sigh piece you see when heading north on I-95. It’s mostly obscured by a tree, so I’m not sure how recent it is.
10 comments
It’s a shame they don’t put their resources into something more productive.
He definitely takes his time.
Along with merely painting over it again, the city should look into how it is apparently so easy to get somewhere most people think wouldn’t be.
In some urban cities the try to get these frustrated artists who want to express themselves by painting a building with their talents rather than defacing other properties.
I have seen some extraordinary work and bewildered as to how they aren’t spotted by police while in the process as some of these works are not 5 minute quickies.
Is that a new one, or is it one of the two Sigh threw up almost immediately after the City painted over her/his original two a few months ago?
This has always been a place graffiti shows up, and compared to most of what I have seen over the years this example isn’t so bad. You can’t make it impossible for someone to spray paint there. Right now I think it is difficult enough to keep out 99% of the amateurs, but that difficulty also means it is going to be a coveted spot for those who are serious enough to do whatever it takes to get out there. I think the cost it would take to stop that last elite 1% would far outweigh the benefit. What else annoys me, and maybe I am wrong here, is that fence on the bridge destroys your view of the city when you are driving across the bridge far worse than a little spray paint does. Was it constructed for the purpose of stopping graffiti or for another reason? If so it seems like a terribly backwards idea and a waste of money for the solution to stopping something people consider ugly, but erecting something even uglier.
I can understand the push against graffiti on homes, businesses, and private property, or when it is offensive. However, I’m not sure I take issue with this. I think its impressive (both in scope and location) and it’s on what would otherwise be a boring concrete structure.
Show me a mural featuring a natural setting…maybe a bald eagle flying foraging on the banks of the James River…
SIGH just doesn’t do much for me. It is impressive but it seems self-serving.
While graffiti resistant paint isn’t totally graffiti resistant, it would seem that this area could be coated with an asphaltic roof tar that would make it impossible to render a nice painting on the bridge. (aka vandalism)
Or they could make a “New Orleans” fence and cement broken glass bottles to the abutment.
I find it interesting that the ones caught and make it on the news are VCU art students……
While we’re on the topic, I think I noticed a new piece yesterday, one column east of the Sigh piece you see when heading north on I-95. It’s mostly obscured by a tree, so I’m not sure how recent it is.