Art or Vandalizim!!!

[Anonymous]

I sorry I poed some people, I understand it is illegal, but it is a big part of railroads nowdays and I am sure most of you have it on your layouts! I like it ! If we all had the same thoughts this world would be boring! Sorry my web site was temp down[*^_^*]

[Anonymous]

Don't get me started about this subject.

[TH&B]

morseman; ....and therefore, vandalism.

Comercial graffitti is almost worse then punk or gang graffitti because it defaces our transit for a profit and it is ugly as heck and it restricts visability when looking out from inside the trains. Not to mention the comercial advertising artists stole the ideas from kids ((children that is)) doing graffitti. Then had the kids busted, fined and jailed and then stole their art for profit. And when I take public transit I feel like I support all this, wich I don't so I won't, if the transit agency has any wrap cars.

[Modelcar]

....If it's done on any surface the owner does not want it to....It's vandalism. Simple as that.

[tree68]

I worked on the local PBS station's annual Art Auction this past weekend (I volunteer as a camera operator). Oddly, not one of the pieces shown was on a railroad car. Granted, the best sellers are pastoral scenes and wildlife, but you'd think that at least one of them would have been on a newsprint car...

[Junctionfan]

You wouldn't believe some of the crude jokes the punks come up with with those Big John hoppers. There is at least 1 joke I'm sure people would guess.

[cnw1995]

I'm pretty impressed with how swiftly the Chicago taggers work the CN newsprint boxcars in North Ave yard in Chicago - takes just about a day for a 'pristine' car to be worked up. This yard isn't well-lit, nor secured, and in a lousy neighborhood to boot. As the scoot I'm riding runs through it twice a day, I see all sorts of sights. Though the GTW cars, tank cars, and Big John hoppers are largely untouched - can still see the old logo through the grime.

Antonio, I recently read an article like that you referenced lauding a tagger who died whilst 'at work' in the Chicago Reader.

[morseman]

graffiti and vandalism = pure and simple = no doubt about it. I also look upon the advertising on the complete outside of our public transit busses today, even though it provides public transit with much needed revenue, as graffiti.

[techguy57]

Okay, give the artist some room to speak...

Ahem...

Okay, while I would agree with Big Boy that it is art, it is art much better suited for the editorial pages of the NY Times or the Chicago Tribune. Being involved in the arts myself I would argue that it demonstrates strong ability and, at least to that individual, relevant subject matter. Its location (and this is where I get up on my [soapbox]) is the telltale sign of why there is not enough funding for the arts. If we spent as much to educate kids about fine art, music, dance, and theatre as we do for sports there would be a change. But the reality is that we don't give them enough opportunity to realize that you can make a living as an artist. Look at musicians. But just like a pro athlete you have to work for it and practice and train and sometimes it takesone person longer to develop than another. It seems to me thats where we have started to give up, in the nurturing of these talents.

It has always seemed to me a disturbing trend for us to limit the oportunities available for our young people, be it the arts or sports or whatever. Not everyone who plays sports will play in the pros, and by the same token not everone in the arts will make a career out of it. But if we stifle the forms that develop the creative parts of us we stifle creative thinking as well. Art comes in so many forms. One
could argue that almost anything is art, from the building I'm sitting in to the html coding that makes this webpage look this way. Someone was allowed to address the needs in a way that was functional as well as creative.

That leads me to my next point. Given the previous line of thinking, one could argue that the grafitti was doing more than defacing private property but defacing a piece of art itself. In its own way the railcar is a piece of art. Sure it may not look the part sitting with 20 other nearly identical railcars, and most wouldn't consider it a thing of beauty but still the designers probably saw it as a thing of beauty when the first one was purchased and they could still afford to eat.

Finally, its not so much that the grafitti is problematic, in the everyday function of the railcar or the railroad for that matter. Simply, as Ed and most of the others have argued its the principle of the matter. Railroads pay money out of their operating budgets to have the cars painted a certain way and it costs real money to have them repainted as well. The more money spent on things like repainting over profane graffit means less spent on hiring new workers, or maintaing infrastructure, etc. Its a nuisance and also a liability. How long until some one gets injured spray painting a railcar and, like this NS case in PA, sues that there weren't enough signs posted or something along that line. As a railfan, its these types of things that make it difficult for me to enjoy my form of rail realted art, photography.

Okay, if I get any more cerebral about this I think I'll burn out a microchip or two.
(Climbing down off the soapbox.)

Mike

[cpbloom]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005
It is true that they are PRIVATE property, but they aren't PERSONAL property. Without that personal element, these "artists" lose the sense of doing harm or damage.

Well since you put it THAT way I think I'll go down to Wal-Mart and practice the fine art of shoplifting. After all its not "PERSONAL" property. [:o)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

If the person had done it on, say a large canvas or poster board, framed it, and offered it for sale on the street, I would call it art.

Or political satire expressed through art...

But on the side of private property, its vandalism.

Dont mis-understand, I have seen some "work" that was so detailed, and so beautiful that I wi***he tagger had put his or her name to it, so I could find them, and offer to pay them to recreate their work on canvas.

Houston has quite a few art galleries, and I am sure one of them would love putting on a show of this type of work.

Somewhere out there is a boxcar, the side painted as a dark, deep forest, with the door painted like a tree stump, and a cougar is looking at you from behind the stump...so detailed, and so well done that from a distance, it looks real.

If I could, I would pay that person to recreate that work on one of the walls in my study...

and if I caught them doing it to another boxcar, I would have them arrested.

I was raised by people who felt that the end result didn't alwasy justify the means used to achive it.

Ed

I'm glad to see that you guys are coming around on this, and are able to seperate the "work" from what it is painted on. I agree, a canvas would be a lot more appropriate.

I don't want to justify, or minimize this bad behavior, I just want to understand it. Earlier this year we had huge discusions (which I started) about this, over on the MR forum. The conclusion I reached was that the people who do this, don't view these cars the same way you and I do.

It is true that they are PRIVATE property, but they aren't PERSONAL property. Without that personal element, these "artists" lose the sense of doing harm or damage.

What makes railroad cars better than canvas, in their minds, is the fact that the cars move. Like a rolling billboard, they travel the country, spreading their message to anyone who is willing to read it. Hang it in a museum, and it just doesn't have the same impact.

Let's face it, here we have this very large object that moves. It sits unattended, sometimes for days at a time, and where it sits is often secluded. Over the years, these guys have come to know that the railroads will not usually make much of an effort to remove their work, as long as they respect the reporting marks. Voila, perfect target, and perfect crime. Motive, opportunity, and little risk of being caught.

I'm afraid we are never going to put an end to graffiti. It would be easier to nail Jello to the wall. The best we can do is try to understand it, and perhaps even enjoy it a little, as it passes through our world.

[AntonioFP45]

Wasn't there a story a while back where a Vandal graffittied a freight car in a yard. He stepped back to look at his work...........that is he stepped back onto another track............................. and was WHACKED by an oncoming train! R.I.P.

I really wi***hat these talented vandals would do this work on their own homes, inside their homes, and their relatives homes. Regardless of talent, lack of respect and regard for the property of others is what's apparent here. The excuse that some people grow up in poor neighborhoods just can't fly (Unless one is a bleeding heart). The teacing of respect should come shortly after the kid learns to walk.

Been there, done to me, done with my kid and relatives kids!

[Junctionfan]

Some of thease artist though are really good and it sure would be nice if the railroads could commision them to do some of it on their railcars.

[cpbloom]

I suppose if the railroad car owners let someone come in and paint some of the cars you could call it art..... BUT they (the "artists") don't want that.

It wouldn't be the same as sneaking around and painting the cars; it would take the fun out of doing it and because of this fact, it is vandalism to me! [:(!][:(!][:(!]

[edblysard]

If the person had done it on, say a large canvas or poster board, framed it, and offered it for sale on the street, I would call it art.

Or political satire expressed through art...

But on the side of private property, its vandalism.

Dont mis-understand, I have seen some "work" that was so detailed, and so beautiful that I wi***he tagger had put his or her name to it, so I could find them, and offer to pay them to recreate their work on canvas.

Houston has quite a few art galleries, and I am sure one of them would love putting on a show of this type of work.

Somewhere out there is a boxcar, the side painted as a dark, deep forest, with the door painted like a tree stump, and a cougar is looking at you from behind the stump...so detailed, and so well done that from a distance, it looks real.

If I could, I would pay that person to recreate that work on one of the walls in my study...

and if I caught them doing it to another boxcar, I would have them arrested.

I was raised by people who felt that the end result didn't alwasy justify the means used to achive it.

Ed

[Big_Boy_4005]

I have never argued that it wasn't vandalism, IT IS!!!!. With that said, is it not also art, misguided as it may be?

[ericsp]

It is vandalism, no question about it.

[railman]

just because he called it art doesn't mean that it's right. We can appreciate, but at the same time we also must wonder, who does somebody waste so much time painting a railroad car? Because the don't have anything better to do...which is / could be a very off topic battle, so I'll stop my sermon.

Later.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxmu

I dont care what any one says to me this is Art. This is sitting on a siding next to my house, when I went to investigate I seen this.... Looked like a big billboard from downtown!

If you are going to post a photo, at least make sure that it can be seen.

This car has a strong political statement. Among other things it says, "Deutchland security", with a charicature of Hitler. Also note the upside down flag. This is not nonsense, this is art. Even if we don't find it pleasant, it is very thought provoking.

[Big_Boy_4005]

You guys all need to lighten up. Frankly, I wouldn't care if that was done to my car or my house. It isn't a big deal, especially on a railroad car.

Even though this is vandalism, it is also art. NOTE: None of the reporting marks are obscured. This has no tangable effect on the car or railroad. For the most part, the railroads make little or no effort to cover it up, unless it contains profanity.







I actually go to a lot of trouble to collect these images and apply them to my models. I think they make otherwise dull paint jobs more interesting.

[Hawkeye251]

Definitely vandalism. I'm going to save this image though and make a decal out of it to use on my next HO scale hopper car project. Then it'll be art.

[locomutt]

Try to copy and paste.
I'm no good with this,but hit the red X,
Go to properties,copy the web address,and go
from there.
Like I should be telling any of you how to do it.
When they invented illiliterate,I came along.(computer)[:)]

[alcodave]

damn vandals!!!!! but i would like to see the pic though....................lol!

[Anonymous]

Nope, no pictures.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by locomutt

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

I don't see any pictures....

That's funny,there was one up,when I started.

All I see at the moment is a red "X" [*^_^*]

[Anonymous]

Art or vandalism? Well put it this way if Leonardo Davincy painted the Mona Lisa on my car even if it was a Honda I'd kick his head in unless I asked him to do it. It's not his property so that is that. I don't hate all graffitti designs but it is vandalism. I do think freight cars look cool all rusty, dirty, dented and graffittied on, it's called weathered in my book.

People who get caught painting graffitti should be charged just like a tresspasser and vandal.

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

I don't see any pictures....

That's funny,there was one up,when I started.

[Hugh Jampton]

It's like a dwarf with learning difficulties.......




It's not big,, and it's not clever........

[Anonymous]

I don't see any pictures....