We should all be thankful that they haven't written obscene words or swastikas. Where did you say they work???

This issue is not resolved. And if u destroy my property or my neighbors property it is my business. If u destroy public space and my tax dollars pay to remove it, that's our business as well. If the work was decent I would not post but scribing your name in bubble letters is whack.

Also, I can't help but point out your hypocrisy..."if the work was decent I would not post but scribing your name in bubble letters is whack." If your mission is to clean up illegal graffiti, why are you playing art curator? You do not get to pick and choose based on your own personal tastes. Public Art is a very debatable thing, but currently, it's illegal or it's not. You can not be the self-appointed judge and jury of street art. Sorry.

REM,

No one said that my mission or SeeClicKFix's was to clean up illegal graffiti? The mission of both myself and the company is to empower people and communities in new ways. I'm sure that providing a public forum for that conversation is on track with that mission. Allowing more people be a judge of what's appropriate on a public wall is a step better than only allowing only the opinion of the person that puts it there. Not everything has to be black and white.

Personally, and this is not a company opinion, I think its silly to sign your name on a wall to nothing especially if you're signature is not that interesting and the property is not yours. That's my opinion.

Why don't you tell us why this belongs there as opposed to why its ok to ruin other people's property.

As well your comment about the NHPD is inaccurate and will be removed from the site as it is libel and against our TOS.

Ben,

It is clearly part of the site to report and clean up graffiti. I'm not sure why you are saying it is not... when you google seeclickfix new haven it says- report potholes, graffiti, etc...and you yourself have reported hundreds of tags to be cleaned up. Did I miss something? I see that the site has many useful purposes and I think I commented on it's good work, so I'm not sure why you are getting defensive about that.

I believe my posts were addressing your first comment on the matter of directing people to others' work places. Anyone who reads it can see the intent. Having this site up and wanting to do good by your community is commendable, but there are boundaries. Public forums and open dialogue are great. Your comment insinuated crossing the line from dialogue to harassment.

I also never said it was a black and white issue. Actually, I said, "Public Art is a very debatable thing..." I just think it's silly of you to report one piece of graffiti over the other depending on whether you think it's "good" or not. Is that not a touch hypocritical? I am neither for nor against graffiti and in no way said that I think it's okay to ruin other people's property (so please don't put words in my mouth). If you'd like to engage with me about what I actually said and not your assumptions then, please do. Otherwise, I'll say good day to you.

REM,

All fair points. Graffiti is one of the most prominent civic concerns meaning that a large group of people to not like a large amount of the graffiti that is out there. It sets a good context for those who want to understand what the site is used for.

Why is it silly for myself or anyone else to have an opinion on vandalism and to be vocal about the stuff that I don't like? The site is also used to request public art and murals. It is part of the site to report and clean up graffiti as much as it is to request and place public art. It turns out that more people on our site are concerned about graffiti but I take your point that we could be leading them.

I think we could definitely take that into account the next time we work on our messaging.

Regarding my comment about visiting the business: The DOA folks have caused thousands of dollars in cleanup efforts for private citizens in our neighborhood and they are not secretive about who they are. Talking to them does seem like a good resolution. I have done this previously and believe that the outcome was pretty good in the end.

Is there a reason my last comment was deleted? I'm trying to engage in a dialogue with you but you don't seem open to other's opinions if they are not aligned with your own. That's really a shame as nothing I said was unreasonable or malicious. Seems you are unwilling to let my comment be seen because I made a good point...

I was not expecting unwarranted censorship on a site devoted to community. That's unfortunate, Ben. Does SeeClickFix really advocate such behavior?

Your comment fell into moderation because of a libelous comment which was flagged on your account previously. Moderation just means that a human sees it before it is posted. All of your comments save the libelous one should be posted now.

I am truly enjoying the conversation with you and want to continue to the conversation here. Its something I'm personally very interested in and think you have a lot of insight on the matter.

Ben: Could we please discontinue this nonsense? This guy is whack-a-doodle. Thanks.

Ben,
Thank you for your response. I completely agree with you that engaging in conversation with the persons you believe to be doing the graffiti could be a productive one. I just question whether or not the way you suggested going about that is appropriate. Suggesting that those who have cleaned up the graffiti track people down at their jobs seems a bit like instigating a confrontation that would not be a positive one. Can you agree that perhaps inviting artists to engage in a dialogue about public art outside of their places of employment would be more productive and feel less like harassment? If you go back and reread you comment I think that even you could admit it comes off instigative, not helpful.

It's clear you feel strongly about the issue and you are entitled to your opinion, of course. But try to keep in mind that art is in the eye of the beholder. What you, and others, may see as scribbles could easily fall into the category of art to someone else. That's why I said it is very debatable. The question of whether or not something is legal is another matter. To say one thing should be reported and another left alone is what I found hypocritical. We know what is legal and what is not, but who's to say what is good art and what is not in a public medium?

I look forward to more conversation. Thanks.

REM,
Agreed that the comment could be construed as instigating something beyond what it was intended to.
I do think that having a conversation on middle ground would be good.

I'm not sure if this is of interest to you but this is something that I have been working on for a while which hopefully can move along as soon as this Spring: http://www.insideoutnhv.com

Wow, anonymous rude person..."whack-a-doodle" AND "this guy". I am neither, but thanks for your intelligent, open-minded, and mature addition to the conversation- that Ben and I were having respectfully.

Ben,
I checked out the site and it looks interesting. Not surprisingly, though, I have to play devil's advocate for a moment. Couldn't one argue that any public art project, even those you have permission from the city to do, is essentially doing the same thing graffiti artists have been doing? Again, I ask, who gets to decide what is good public art and what is not? Some people love graffiti, some hate it, some don't even see it anymore because it is just part of the urban landscape. People will feel the same way about a sanctioned public art piece, I think.

Everyone's a critic, but when you take public space away from one and give it to another, are you improving the community or are you becoming what you hate- someone who puts some crap on a wall that everyone has to look at. You are also deciding who is part of the community and who is not welcome by saying 'Your art is bad and ruins our neighborhood, our art is good and we are going to put it up right where yours used to be, and everyone will love it'. Of course, you do have the advantage of taking your time and making the project the best it can be. Graffiti is illegal and hastily done in the dark. It may look like a scribble under those circumstances but, look again. It's a creative outlet for someone. And when you look at a legal graffiti wall you see the full potential that could be when graffiti is not treated as a crime.

I personally love all public art. I think your photo project will be very interesting to see. As well, I think a doodle on a park bench is a moment of creativity left by someone, and that inspires me. I see a quote stenciled on a wall that I pass everyday, "DO NOT GO GENTLE". And in my head I finish it..."into the dark night." Whoever left that there, I'll never know, but I thank them. And anyone else who risks doing their illegal art in the dark of night so that I may enjoy it by the light of day.

I definitely agree on the Do Not Go Gentle Piece. I've tweeted about it and not put it on SeeClickFix intentionally. I think that's ok.

I see your point about the project. We are trying to make it as inclusive as possible by inviting anyone to help photograph or be a subject if they live nearby but there will always people who do not like it.

The goal is to include more people than previously in the process in a way that is safe an legal.

I'm trying to see your point of view. I REALLY am. But I still just see someone who wants to decide what should be deemed art and left on a public wall and what shouldn't. When you walk down the street and you see two pieces of graffiti, both illegally done, and you report one and not the other based on your own personal art taste, you are definitely playing art curator for the city and that seems a bit self-important to me. I'm not trying to insult you, but hopefully get you to see the multi-dimensional argument for public art of all kinds. You admit that not everyone will like the photo project, and that's okay. Why is that same grace not shown to common graffiti, which many people do enjoy? If your answer is one is illegal and the other is not, I could accept that, but you are going beyond that to pick and choose which illegal graffiti you would like cleaned up or left.

Also, I'm not apposed to the photo project, but it does appear that you will be using space that you wanted graffiti removed from. Was it just to make way for public art that is more to your liking?

You don't have to like all art. No one does. There's things I like better than others and if I were curating a gallery show of course there would be picking and choosing. Public art is a whole other realm. It is a huge part of the urban environment and has been a part of our culture for decades. The heart and soul of it is that there is no picking ad choosing. It's public and anyone can do it and no one should be able to say what stays and goes.

But I am just one user on SeeClickFix?

Yes, you are one user on SeeClickFix. I don't mean to single you out. However, you have been very active in trying to stop certain graffiti artists, but not others. If this were a site dedicated to critiquing public art I would not be taking issue. I like that people can report lights being out, potholes, and other things that if left unfixed could cause the city to fall into decay. Why turn such a great tool into something you use to go after just the graffiti you don't like? You said some is okay, but it's all illegal if not sanctioned by the city. If you actually reported all illegal graffiti you saw, I would accept your opinion. It's the hypocrisy that is frustrating more than anything. And perhaps your tactics. SeeClickFix is a great site. And you can report or not report whatever you like I suppose. And the city can clean up whatever they choose. That's what happens. However, I know it's gotten a bit more personal with you and the artist community, which is what made me comment on your remark about going to people's jobs in the first place. That goes beyond SeeClickFix and above your place as a city resident. Reporting it is one thing. Trying to track people down and do your own brand of vigilante graffiti police work is another. Especially when it is based on what graffiti you like and don't like, not on whether it's legal or not.

Good luck with your project.

REM,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the hypocrisy piece. I strongly believe in empowering public curators and am not as interested in whether its legal or not. Lots of publicly approved decisions are criticized and reported on SCF.

There was a certain group of graffiti artists who have vandalized my property as well as my neighbors and as past President of the Upper State Street Association we did work with the police to identify those individuals who were caught on the video cameras of certain businesses in the neighborhood. Businesses and people are struggling and the cost of removing graffiti is excessive.

There has been no effort to seek police assistance for individuals who only tag public property. AOKE, KAMA ONE, and MOAB all persistently wrote their names on businesses in the area. Kama One and I have come to terms since our disagreement and for the most part they have all been respectful of private business in our neighborhood since. When this DOA tag showed up again it was frustrating as its on a piece of wall that abuts a private home owner's property which is managed by those homeowners. They have worked hard to plant trees an make the public space better and it does not appear that there are many people in the area who feel that this contributes.

Would be happy to continue the conversation over a beer in real life if you're up for it.

Yes, we will agree to disagree. I wish you the best on your future endeavors. Just try to keep an open-mind when looking around this city. There is diversity here that should not be cookie-cut by a select few. That's not to say I think anyone's private property is fair game. My comments were pertaining more towards public space like highway overpasses, abandoned buildings, etc.

We have had this conversation in real life and I'm quite sure we will never change each others minds, and that's okay. Although, maybe.

Bye for now.

Thanks REM,

We support anonymity so I do not want to encourage you to use your full name. I was assuming that we had not met before. I agree on the diversity bit and think I have my eyes pretty wide open.

REM,

Now that I understand who you are based on our past conversations I'd ask that you ask your three friends to not tag up the underpass while we are trying to get this project to move forward.

We as neighbors will spend at least 500 in cleanup of the mobile gas station and the historic brick building next to Dunkin Donuts as well as the cleanup of the graffiti on the underpasses which they did Thursday night.

No one is threatening your friends they are just asking that they stop so we can improve the neighborhood.

I would appreciate your help as these are local businesses that are struggling in a local economy just like the one that you work at.

REM, curious if you feel that this is ok to do to somebody's home? Same folks that write DOA.

Ben,

I think I made it clear in the previous conversation that I in no way think it's okay for anyone to paint anyone's home without permission. I also think that you are making the assumption that I know and speak for every graffiti writer in New Haven, which is false. I was speaking for myself and simply voicing my opinion. I do not write graffiti and can not control anyone's actions who does, so I'm not sure why you are asking me to be some kind of go-between in conjunction with your InsideOutNHV project or any graffiti removal endeavors. If my previous comments didn't express it, I love New Haven and support small businesses. I never said I condone private property being painted. I can not speak or act for others, but removing public art from an underpass to make way for your own project seems problematic, to me.

Just a side note, there are reasons you are not have this conversation with the people who you really should be having this conversation with. I am just an opinionated observer so I have no problem speaking with you, however the distrust you have garnered from your past and current tactics will probably only serve to widen the gap between you and them and the possibility of reaching a compromise. Something to keep in mind going forward. Trying to "befriend" certain people for info and other sneaky behavior or borderline harassment will not get you the results you are seeking. I think approaching people in a different way at the beginning could have had a really positive out-come.

Again, good luck with your project. Thank you for respecting my anonymity on-line, however you know I'm always down for face-to-face conversation like we've had in the past. Come have a drink. :)

Thanks REM,

I agree that we all could have started off on a better foot. Its hard to want to make friends and create any solution but punishment when your property has been destroyed. Today there are some very angry residents on State Street and I remember that feeling when the property was mine.

Insideout is an opportunity for anyone to get their photography or their face on the wall. Its not spraypaint but it is inclusive and for everyone who wants to to participate.

And I know you are not representing the graffiti community. I just saw the DOA bit in this most recent vandalism and well...you know the rest.

Agreed on taking the conversation off-line. I'll see you for a drink and not to get names. I don't do that to friends if their not comfortable with it.

B

*they're

Ben,

Yeah, let's. There's more I would say on the topic, but not in a public forum. Internet communication can always be read in the wrong tone. I much prefer real conversations.

Hope to chat soon.

Understood and agreed. I see that Kwote is much more prolific than New Haven now btw.

This was resolved!! Thank You.