Yes, this is the citizenry: After an anonymous complaint from a citizen, Restaurante Michoacan, a family mexican restaurant on 15th Avenue Northwest, will have to paint over the happy face next to its sign, leaving the owners and some community members upset. "It's been a part of the building before the owners of Michoacan, (8311 15th Ave. N.W.), moved in," Rudy McCoy-Pantoja, manger of the Ballard/Fremont Clean Streets Program said. "We had graffiti here yesterday (on the mural) and we took it off." Michoacan received a call from Seattle Public Utilities and were told to paint over the happy face by Aug. 1, or they would be fined $75 a day until it was painted over, McCoy-Pantoja said, who often helps the owners of Michoacan communicate in English. (Espiritu) And an interesting call from the city government, too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Graffiti? "Restaurante Michoacan has been told by Seattle Public Utilities to paint over the happy face next to its sign, after a citizen complained that it looked like graffiti. Jose Silva Jr., son of restaurant owner Jose Silva Sr. said it is unfair" (Photo by Espiritu) Some people are annoyed by the decision. Well, the owners and the restaurant manager, to be sure. And, apparently, a local resident who called it "mean spirited". But, aside from being painted on the façade after the fact, is it really graffiti? That's the thing I don't get. ____________________ Notes: Espiritu, Alllison. "City forces restaurant to remove painting". Ballard News Tribune. July 29, 2009. BallardNewsTribune.com. July 30, 2009. http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2009/07/28/news/city-forces-restaurant-remove-painting
is it even possable to graffiti your own building? isnt that defined as "distruction of property" and by definition you cant destroy your own property
1graf·fi·ti Pronunciation:\grə-ˈfē-(ˌ)tē, gra-, grä-\ Function:transitive verb Inflected Form(s):graf·fi·tied; graf·fi·ti·ing \-(ˌ)tē-iŋ\ also graf·fi·ting \-ˈfē-tiŋ\ Date:1964 : to draw graffiti on : to deface with graffiti <graffitied walls> So yes, you could deface your own property according to the laws governing what graffiti is in your part of the world.
This reminds me of those alien space invader graffiti images scattered around London to show how ineffective CCTV really is. http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/Graffiti/the toasters_space_invaders_graffiti.htm Main website: http://www.space-invaders.com/
No matter what it looks like, the subject or the painting doesn't make it "graffiti". We have several wall murals in Dallas that were commissioned by the owners of the buildings ...and they're definitely NOT "graffiti". As to the OP, ....it's graffiti if the laws define it as such. And not knowing the laws in Seattle it's impossible to make a determination. What's the laws say? It should be simple for Tiassa to find out and report to us. Baron Max
The law makes it even more puzzling Do you have no opinion independent of the law? At any rate: C. "Graffiti" means unauthorized markings, visible from premises open to the public, that have been placed upon any property through the use of paint, ink, chalk, dye or any other substance capable of marking property .... .... I. "Responsible party" means an owner, or an entity or person over the property or is responsible for the property's maintenance or management. Irrespective of any arrangement to the contrary with any other party, each owner shall always be a responsible party for the purposes of this chapter. There may be more than one responsible party for a particular property. J. "Unauthorized" means without the consent of a responsible party. (Ordinance 118082)___________________ Notes: Office of the City Clerk. "Ordinance 118082". 1996. clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us. July 31, 2009. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scri...ITOFF&d=CBOR&p=1&u=/~public/cbor1.htm&r=1&f=G
Yes, but that wasn't what you asked in the OP. Now, since you asked, ....I think the smilie face is graffiti and should be removed. My personal reasons? It's ugly. If it had been a cute smilie face, I might have a different opinion. Baron Max
Then why not make them clean it all up? I suppose I wasn't particularly explicit. Would you have called it in? In a slightly different direction ... the happy face appears to be part of a former sign on the façade. See the numbers "83" behind the Michoacan sign. And, yeah, I can even see the the argument behind cleaning up the prior signage. But even in that context, look at the horrible cover-job on the Pepe's sign. Minor irony. I think if they should have to clean up the happy face, they should also have to do a better job with the Pepe's sign. I mean, that is ugly. Says me.
Yeah! Tiassa, it really causes me lots of pain to agree with you on anything, but .....for me, it's not the happy face, it's the whole freakin' building! The whole thing is ugly ...all the way from the ground up and from left to right. As an aside, I was once on a committee that dealt with retail signage on the streets of a city/town. At the first meeting, they all joined forces and threw me out because I told them that only one or two signs in the whole freakin' town was acceptable! They didn't like my attitude. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
This might be considered graffiti because although it’s a well know product it’s still painted on with dyes, paint, or colors to the side of a structure and does not fall under the definition of a fixed / attached sign. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
