5 ms·

We're talking about public property here. Many authorities have a 'no tolerance' approach to graffiti. Even if it looks nice, it will be removed. There is a bel

by ldjb 2y ago

We're talking about public property here. Many authorities have a 'no tolerance' approach to graffiti. Even if it looks nice, it will be removed. There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. If graffiti artists find that their work won't last long, they may be discouraged from doing it in the first place. Aesthetics doesn't really come into it.

TillE 2y ago
I dunno about the entirety of Germany, but I don't think I've ever seen graffiti removed in Berlin, and there's a ton of it. It's fine, nobody cares.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Graffiti on trains in Berlin is very quickly removed.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    Haha thanks for the light chuckle as I wake up
- wiseowise 2y ago
  Is it fine or public just fed up constantly removing it?
lloeki 2y ago
> There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. If graffiti artists find that their work won't last long, they may be discouraged from doing it in the first place. Ephemerality is known, understood, accepted, and even leveraged in art. I don't think this is an efficient deterrent, or even a deterrent at all.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whilenot-dev 2y ago
> There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. It's the other way around, if it isn't quickly removed it will be encouraged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
- Thorrez 2y ago
  That's not really the other way around. That's 2 ways of stating basically the same thing.
  - whilenot-dev 2y ago
    I'll have to disagree... the goal is to stop encouragement, rather than to start discouragement - stopping acceleration is not the same as starting deceleration.
    - Thorrez 2y ago
      When it comes to acceleration, it's possible to define 0 acceleration. So we can define acceleration and deceleration in relation to that 0 acceleration. What is 0 encouragement/discouragement? It's not obviously easy to define. One definition is doing nothing = 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement. By that definition, not removing graffiti (aka doing nothing) is not encouragement, it's simply doing nothing: a lack of encouragement and a lack of discouragement. Because we haven't agreed on a definition of 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement, saying "decreasing encouragement" and "increasing discouragement" mean basically the same thing.
      - whilenot-dev 2y ago
        > By that definition, not removing graffiti (aka doing nothing) is not encouragement, [...] "Doing nothing" results in encouragement in the broken windows theory: Under the broken windows theory, an ordered and clean environment, one that is maintained, sends the signal that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated. Conversely, a disordered environment, one that is not maintained (broken windows, graffiti, excessive litter), sends the signal that the area is not monitored and that criminal behavior has little risk of detection. In my understanding stopping encouragement is maintenance work, while starting discouragement is social work. And by doing the (simpler) maintenance work a (costlier) social work won't be necessary.

by ldjb 2y ago

TillE 2y ago

I dunno about the entirety of Germany, but I don't think I've ever seen graffiti removed in Berlin, and there's a ton of it. It's fine, nobody cares.

Symbiote 2y ago
Graffiti on trains in Berlin is very quickly removed.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  Haha thanks for the light chuckle as I wake up
wiseowise 2y ago
Is it fine or public just fed up constantly removing it?

lloeki 2y ago

> There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. If graffiti artists find that their work won't last long, they may be discouraged from doing it in the first place. Ephemerality is known, understood, accepted, and even leveraged in art. I don't think this is an efficient deterrent, or even a deterrent at all.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

whilenot-dev 2y ago

> There is a belief that removing graffiti quickly discourages it. It's the other way around, if it isn't quickly removed it will be encouraged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Thorrez 2y ago
That's not really the other way around. That's 2 ways of stating basically the same thing.
- whilenot-dev 2y ago
  I'll have to disagree... the goal is to stop encouragement, rather than to start discouragement - stopping acceleration is not the same as starting deceleration.
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    When it comes to acceleration, it's possible to define 0 acceleration. So we can define acceleration and deceleration in relation to that 0 acceleration. What is 0 encouragement/discouragement? It's not obviously easy to define. One definition is doing nothing = 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement. By that definition, not removing graffiti (aka doing nothing) is not encouragement, it's simply doing nothing: a lack of encouragement and a lack of discouragement. Because we haven't agreed on a definition of 0 encouragement and 0 discouragement, saying "decreasing encouragement" and "increasing discouragement" mean basically the same thing.
    - whilenot-dev 2y ago
      > By that definition, not removing graffiti (aka doing nothing) is not encouragement, [...] "Doing nothing" results in encouragement in the broken windows theory: Under the broken windows theory, an ordered and clean environment, one that is maintained, sends the signal that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated. Conversely, a disordered environment, one that is not maintained (broken windows, graffiti, excessive litter), sends the signal that the area is not monitored and that criminal behavior has little risk of detection. In my understanding stopping encouragement is maintenance work, while starting discouragement is social work. And by doing the (simpler) maintenance work a (costlier) social work won't be necessary.