Oh, There He Is!

It's like I'm a regular Pol Pot over here! Hey-Oh!

paper or not. adamr is having none of this. Unless its dull concrete and costs way too much, it should not be allowed. Artistic minds and valued people of this community do not matter anymore.

I'd just like to point out that these specific waldo pieces were done by pasting painted paper to the wall therefore not technically damaging any property

Also: It takes a village to ruin the soul of a city. Oh, and private property is dumb.

Every morning I wake up and leave my cans of spray paint under the sink. Then I step out onto the street and start to sweat. It's at this moment that I take the soul of Austin in my hand as it were a doughnut and take a bite. I glut myself as the music capital of the world jelly oozes down my square jaw and I categorize the multitude of SUVs that cruise by. Some have Ws, some have Ws crossed out, most of them have cow heads. Soul-glo.

adam, its ppl like you that are killing the soul of this city. thank you for the ignorant post.

What about that stupid alien bobo bs on the side of the Baja Fresh cavity? I'll take a Waldo anyday over that, he gots the brand recognition. I don't care who Daniel Jonestown is either. Nuff said.

Of course the land owners' opinions should matter. And they do. The law is on their side, completely. And if this work was done on some person's car, or on the front facia of an operating business that was harmed by its presence (some businesses actually welcome graff or other public marking), then I too would be against it (some of Banksy's, Obey, or Seek's work, while really good, have pretty ruthless placement that really does screw with hard working people who are just trying to make a living).

But the vast majority of this work is done on obviously abandoned buildings, or on surfaces which do not front anything particular (side walls, transformer boxes, parking lot fences, dumpsters, etc).

Again, the law is on the side of landowners, as it should continue to be. And I'd like to point out: the fact that it IS illegal to do what these people are doing, is what gives it the impact and exposure it receives and needs. If this type of expression were legal, it wouldn't be near as interesting or impressive to anyone, and we wouldn't be discussing it here.

As for "cute" vs the other categories of tagging/graff, well, that IS in the eye of the beholder. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. The categories I mentioned are based on INTENT ("I want to make something cute"), rather than outside interpretation ("wow, doesn't that look cute!"). One index is static while the other is hopelessly, uselessly and infinitely random.

Does anyone remember "Eminem Is God" written on the train bridge? I know who did that one, and yes, it was a joke.

Or how about "This Hood Needs More Dance Parties" in West Austin?

My current favorite is the "You Are Now Leaving South Austin" stickers seen when traveling north on Lamar on the blue panels right before 5th.

OK then, so maybe the folks that own these walls don't want someone to paint Waldo on them. Should their opinions not matter if you think its art? Should everyone that owns a building accept it because its not their house and more of us will see it because its more visible?

Let this guy dress up in a Waldo outfit and walk around and hide behind things so people can appreciate his message. But once he starts to damage property without consent of the owner, he is breaking (existing) law.

I am all about art in public places, but it should not encroach on a individual's right to own something without threat of it being damaged/ruined (in the owner's opinion) by someone else.

I'm curious about the distinction between what is 'cute' and what is threatening or boastful...isn't it in the eye of the beholder/owner? And if so, how can we encourage any sort of graffiti or unsupported public art?

Yalls got it alls wrong. Ain't art. It's a warning to those triflin' bitches in Carmen San Diego's crew. It means: "Waldo's got the juice, this his turf, he ain't hidin like some skerred ass bitch no mo', rekkenize and get yo' self gone or catch a hollow point, blap-blap-blap."

It's so hard to find Wald-O cause he gots so many bodies on that pistol. Damn son!

You decide whether it's art or graffiti. I decide. That old dude at the bus stop decides. Of course, the authorities will decide for themselves as well.

No, I probably don't want a character painted on my house. But no one would WANT to paint anything on my house (except to mark territory, make a boast, or threaten) because few people would ever see it. More importantly, no one who would understand it would see it. So there's no point in wasting the effort if the result is invisible.

I also don't want some douche preaching jesus shit on my front lawn, but if they're in a public place, well, more power to 'em.

OK. I agree its not a claim, boast, or threat. So, you would be OK if someone painted a huge cartoon character across the front of your house? Or maybe your car? Or anything else that you own or have to maintain?

Sure, its cute...its Waldo. But its still graffiti which is still destruction or damage to private property.

People love it as long as they dont have to deal with it, only look at it.

Just curious, but who decides what is "art" and what is "graffiti"?

There is no way to stop graffiti, especially in a young, creative hub like Austin. Jean-Michel Basquiat started as a lowly street graffiti artist, now look how the art community views him.

And to think, if we were more strict on street art, we may go from this...

http://www.banksy.co.uk/

to this...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755

Worst case: it's a slight inconvenience for a wall owner. Best case: it's a fantastic expression of random creativity that inspires or renews the human spirit of thousands who happen up on it. It's not a claim to territory, boast of conquer, or threat.

It's Waldo. And the shit's funny to many.

We aren't in need of more goddamn laws. We're in need of more imagination and independent thought.

This reminded you of your childhood??? Jeebus I'm old. This reminds me of my college years.

It beats looking at fast-food signs. If we ban street art on the drag, let's ban corporate logos as well.

..and why is this good? I believe its called graffiti. Is this a good thing?

http://www.downtownaustin.com/daa/cleansafe/