You're It

Our church property got tagged sometime this week. Someone thought displaying their name and affection for pot belonged at church.

I guess.

I get that most people have a problem with tagging or guerilla and public art. I don't per se. I also don't put a lot of tagging into a category distinct from other forms of visual territory marking. I mean whether it's Chaka, Ronald McDonald, or Howard Schultz, they're trying to invade my visual field for similar reasons. It's tempting to label youth subculture behaviors as deviant or destructive or somehow savage and not on the same level as corporate propaganda or cultural iconography- it's tempting but dishonest. I'm not saying it might not be deviant (though it fits in with our cultural norm of plastering everything in sight with branded images), destructive (though the case can be made that a lot of graffiti art improves bleak public spaces), and savage (show me image advertising that isn't), but telling me that you've served billions of hamburgers at every turn is too. If I have to look at someone's propaganda, there are better and worse things to look at. Most public images are designed for a 50 mph toddler aesthetic. That is, they're made so a toddler could recognize it going by at 50 mph. The more insidious the brand, the more banal the image. Not much beauty or design there.

Anyway- that's just to say, I'm not opposed essentially to graffiti. That said...

420... on a church fence... that no one but people in the parking lot can see?

Lame.


ed.- I can't load images right now. Maybe I will later- I'm sure it would add so much to the post.