Graffiti Subway Tagger Electrocuted On Third Rail in Brooklyn

What a shocking story.

 

Good god 42 years old and still tagging like a 12 year old. That's fucked up.

 

Shit happens. I used to write when i was younger. I've had a couple close calls. You have to understand that hitting the good spots is what its all about. Others respect you more if you get up in awkward/dangerous/very public spots.

 

I laughed. I'm probably a bad person for it, but I laughed.
 
You can't make art without vandalizing property that isn't yours? I guess "DG" just isn't so impressive on a canvas

 

#Yolo

 

This man earned his Darwin Award!

 

If he was a skilled graffiti artist then this is too bad.
 
If he sucked then he can get a Darwin award for dying for something he sucked at.

 

yeah thats pretty shitty.. and sounds like the caliber artist he was along with doing it since the beginning of the hip hop movement can assure me this was a freak accident and not something he did not knowing it would kill him. check out his skill, very talented. im not a graffiti artist but i know quite a few who do it and i would say its far from vandalism especially in the tunnels where they frequent to not ruin public property. some pieces are uplifting for a city its not like this dude was just scribbling his name everywhere!
 
lots of haters in here! RIP

 

Graffiti is only respected by non-writers when it is done in 'safe spaces' such as art galleries, fashion events, and corporate advertising.
 
The vast majority of graffiti writers don't engage in their practice for money. In fact, it is actually a huge liability and still carries social stigma. The fact that some people are making light of, or even cheering on, the death of a human is sad. This man was not a bad person and did not deface private property.
 
Ethically speaking, defacement of public property, in the application of graffiti, should not even be considered a crime. What they are doing is changing the color of a wall, adding about a tenth of a millimeter of paint to a surface. Often, the amount of 'damage' done is negligible, and is done intentionally for artistic purposes. 'Public' property can barely be deemed to be public. The fact that in some places, people need special licensing and permissions just to maintain public property speaks to this. Public property, if it were truly to be public, would belong to the people and would be a product of their labor and desire. Public property is funded by taxation, essentially an involuntary payment, and its use is rarely decided by public opinion, but instead what a small majority in local governments deem acceptable or capable of generating revenue. Because the public is often shut off from interaction and ownership of the property that they pay for, forcibly I might add, there is no place for people to engage in artistic expression in the public sphere. In some cultures and regions, graffiti, or defacement of public property, is not deemed to be morally unacceptable and is actually encouraged so long as private property is respected. Because of this, some areas of Europe, Asia, and South America have a vibrant public art scene which, arguably, actually adds value to those areas and creates a palpable amount of cultural significance. When graffiti is allowed in certain areas the quality of productions is heightened and an atmosphere of collaboration is established. When graffiti is outlawed or combated in certain areas, the quality of productions is generally poorer, rushed, and there is a combative and often dangerous atmosphere present. Without graffiti, artists are often limited to gallery spaces that are very exclusive and present costly barriers of entry. Graffiti is the poor man's art form, the people's art form, and something that should be understood as a complex culture of creativity, not something that is limited to immature teenagers, gangbangers, or malicious individuals with a vendetta against tax-payers and property owners...