Just because you think someone is a good artist doesn't mean that their vandalism should be left, all graffiti tagging should be treated the same, it is all an eyesore. Like it or not, it isn't up for one person to decide, we should be concerned with what is legal or not. Even if this was legally done, it should be removed, having the word "thug" publicly visible downtown makes the city look defaced and is embarrassing to New Haven.

It's art and humor. Can't you see the little girl at the bottom? I am glad we have it; it makes the city look complex and interesting.

I agree: it's not for one person to decide. That's why I'm saying here: I like it. I hope it stays.

As for legality, the property owner can pursue it. For all we know, they like it and want to keep it. In that case, I don't see how illegal it can be.

I don't think this embarrasses New Haven at all. A city with a good graffiti is better-looking, and its citizens get a grin once in a few blocks.

"Whatever" guest: cheers.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

I don't like it either. So it's not just one person deciding. And I think it does embarrass New Haven a little bit.

This isn't a case of the property owner making a decision, its about what is appropriate for the city.

By your logic, a property owner can paint offensive messages on his own building and leave it for all to see.

This is ILLEGAL graffiti tagging and it obviously OFFENDS some people, vandalism shouldn't be revered, allowed, or encouraged. One special vandal doesn't get the benefit of having his graffiti tags left because someone thought they were pretty. Frankly, I'm offended that someone on here would close this issue, as if it was a non-issue. I thought this website was to help the city.

actually the "supathug' piece was sanctioned by a university student who has the privilege of being invited to create pieces like this. it was permitted by the property owner, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to love it. i'm interested by just how quickly this issue is closed by SCF, who are direct supporters of the artist in question.

Actually this article from the New Haven Independent says:

'The owner, Chris Nicotra, said they didn’t have permission: “Frank just assumed that they were there to do work for me.”'

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/supa-thug/

It doesn't seem to be legal, either way I don't like this piece and would agree its an eyesore.

It's a commentary on graffiti, not an endorsement of thug behavior. Relax. It's funny and well done. New Haven has bigger issues than something like this benign street art.

This is art. And it enhances the community. It is not a word on a wall that defines this city, it is attitudes like this that don't recognize a healthy city environment. Graffiti that is not gang affiliated is a contribution, and actually often cuts down on crime and less desirable activities in that neighborhood. This is not an eyesore, it is situationally appropriate and should remain. There should be more art like this around town...even art to please these other folks, like impressionist lake views or something you could find in a museum.

As I said before, the city should not be encouraging people to do graffiti or endorsing it. Whoever did this doesn't get special treatment because their vandalism is pretty by your ( or anyone else's) standards.

Please refer to :

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/LCI/ReadMore.asp?ID=%7B0A2A00F1-94BC-4F37-9FDF-71E64F37B7E2%7D

Violations include:

Section D1:

(vii)
All storefronts, both occupied and non-occupied, and their walls exposed to public view shall be kept in a good state of repair and free of graffiti.

Also Section C

(3)
It is attracting illegal activity as documented in police department reports.

Also based on the votes it seems as people agree with me, should those of us who don't find vandalism that is "well-done" pleasant to look at have to suffer? I didn't think they let graffiti supporters on this site.

It's not graffiti it's a mural. Murals are not illegal.

I think graffiti supporters, if they have an internet connection and a device to access said connection, can hop on and comment on this site, just like you "CONCERNED NEW HAVNITE".
The owner of the building knows about this. He doesn't seem concerned and even said he thought it looked "cool".
Directly from the mouth of the building owner :
“I guess from the scuttlebutt that I’ve heard, he’s an up and coming artist,” he said. “So that’s kind of cool. ... I’m not opposed to it. I’m a big supporter of the arts community.”

So, this seems to be less of a case of graffiti and more like a surprise mural that has the endorsement of the building owner (who would be responsible for repairing it, if he wanted to).

Also, I hardly see how this is attracting illegal activity. Can you prove that?

And I agree with all who view "Graffiti" - non-gang affiliated, as a sign of a healthy urban environment. It's part of our daily conversation. If this bothers you so much perhaps you should move to a suburb?

I'm far more concerned with the pot-holes and shabby road conditions then I am with something like this.

Concerned New Havenite: thanks for posting the anti-blight ordinance, that's good to see.

Though, I think you quoted it a bit out of context. It doesn't say that all graffiti attracts illegal activity, and that there are police reports documenting this causative effect. It says that, if police have documented a piece graffiti attracting illegal activity, then it counts as an anti-blight violation.

Here's a fuller quote, from the section on definitions:

(c)
Anti-blight violations. The following conditions existing on any real property within the city shall constitute anti-blight violations under this section:
(1)
It is determined by the building official or by health department reports that existing conditions pose a serious or immediate danger to the community (i.e. a life-threatening condition, or a condition which poses a health or safety risk to the public).
(2)
It is becoming dilapidated as documented by the building division of the Livable City Initiative's housing code inspection reports.
(3)
It is attracting illegal activity as documented in police department reports.

And let's remember, this is a civic forum. Everyone is welcome, and everyone can have their opinion. Everyone gets to speak.

I was too flippant in thanking guest "Whatever" for closing the issue, but as guest "Nhv" proved by example, it's easy enough to re-open it. So cheers to Nhv as well.

Graffiti is NOT art, it's vandalism. The building was not his to draw on. But I do agree the potholes and shabby road conditions are a larger concern and should be dealt with first.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/supa-thug/

"Graffiti is NOT art, it's vandalism. The building was not his to draw on."

Yep. Fair point, but...the owner embraced it, as have many members of the greater New Haven community, as evidenced by the coverage on the NHI and some of the responses here. Since the aim is to critique something, not incite violence or criminal behavior, I think it's not worth opening a thread on this site about.

Also, I think once the owner of the property gives the work, and the artist, his approval and *doesn not* seek to have the artwork removed, then it moves outside of the category of graffiti.

At the very least this piece is creating a dialog about public art (that's what this is, sanctioned or not) and that's a positive thing.

I'm posting a contrary opinion mostly because I found the attitude of the original poster a little out of touch and inflexible. There are multiple voices to be heard in New Haven. Embrace it or move on. This is not a serious problem and hardly, at this point, a criminal matter. Spend your energy on something positive.

I'm going to venture a guess that the offense is in Supa-Thug appearing to glorify thuggery, which to some people (including me) means someone who is violent toward others in a criminal way. Not a great thing to glorify, is it? Can we all agree on that? It's possible that the initial reporter did not see anything but the wording on top, because it is the most visible part of the wall. Nor did they likely know that the building's owner was okay with it at the time of the initial report. Not everyone reads the Independent daily, as great a resource as that is (thank you, NHI!). As someone who had $700 of damage done to their car parked in that lot, yeah, maybe thuggery in New Haven is not something we should encourage, let's agree on that! By the way, that doesn't get paid by insurance, people, and it certainly diminished my quality of life. I'm interested in changing New Haven police policy to allow them to investigate car vandalism in the city... currently they will not come to the scene for a vandalized car, even when they can view footage from a surveillance camera that is readily available --against policy. So, I'm with you, initial poster, New Haven could do with less thuggery, and our policies could help. Sorry that you hit on such a sensitive piece of public art, but I'm sure the artist could be happy with the discussion it provokes.

As a slightly different perspective- consider how much agency citizens have regarding billboards, cell phone towers, GIANT NEW SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT BUILDINGS that dwarf even dinosaurs, etc, etc, etc.

Everyone needs to relax and enjoy what they enjoy and try to "avoid seeing" things that bother them. That's what I do when I drive through downtown New Haven, I mean Yale, I mean downtown New Haven, I mean Yale (my mother, my sister, my mother, my sister...)

The piece does not glorify "Thuggery". The little girl in the corner, who we presume was the one who painted it due to the roller next to her, is clearly not a Thug. So...the piece is more about the facade of graffiti, and the reality...or maybe it's just a clever sight gag. I didn't paint it. I don't know the intention...but the original poster clearly mis-read the mural / graffiti, whatever, and then opened a completely unwarranted thread on the issue. This is *not* a problem. Which is the point I'm trying to make....
Having your car vandalized (it has happened to me, several times)
being mugged in broad daylight (same)
Having your car stolen (again, multiple times)
Those ARE problems.
Potholes are a problem.
This site is useful when people zero in on ACTUAL quality of life issues. A Mural on private property, which is basically innocuous (no vulgarity, nudity, blatantly offensive content) is not an actual problem. It's a matter of taste.

Don't conflate the actual problems of this city with a playful mural. Not related...

I did not quote the anti-blight ordinance out of context, it clearly says:

Section D1:

(vii)
All storefronts, both occupied and non-occupied, and their walls exposed to public view shall be kept in a good state of repair and free of graffiti.

"FREE OF GRAFFITI" is the key phrase.

Even if this "mural" as you've been calling was sanctioned by the building owner, it still has to apply to sign regulations:

http://www.newhavenmo.org/documents/NewHavensignageregulationsFAQ.pdf

I don't think the graffiti tagger that did this, applied for a non-commercial sign permit. Never mind the fact that:

Prohibited Signs:
Obscene, indecent or offensive signs 
Paper posters or signs painted directly on exterior walls 
Roof signs 

I've seen many successful threads on here about graffiti around New Haven and it being successfully removed, why am I (among others who agree with me) not allowed to request that something that I consider and eyesore be removed? Especially when it was done originally illegally and I'm obviously not the only one who sees a problem here.

Also the section I quoted from the anti-blight ordinance states that if the PROPERTY (not a graffiti) is attracting police documented illegal activity then the building is in violation. That property is attracting illegal activity considering the graffiti tag was done illegally.

Thank you Dan for your comments, I do enjoy the repartee, although I am more concerned that people feel the need to defend a criminal.

I still don't see how this is offensive. Most of the graffiti threads on this site deal with graffiti that is promoting a gang or is blatantly offensive.

Again, this seems more like a matter of taste than an actual community threat/problem.

Why waste your energy on it?

Especially after it has been present and, enjoyed, by many citizens for months. I would again suggest relaxing and focusing on more important things but, you seem like the type to fixate (though I guess I'm doing the same thing here).

So, try to get it taken down if you like. Just do so knowing that for many it makes New Haven a brighter place to live.

Cheers!

I could be wrong here, but It seems to me this is on private property and just because the artwork is a satire on graffiti does not mean itself is graffiti. I would be willing to bet this was a volunteered effort or possibly a paid commission by the property owner. (Disclaimer: I like this art work)

This has actually been part of the discussion.

It is on private property. It was not commissioned. The owner, in January (I think) was alerted of the presence of the mural / graffiti, and said he thought it was cool and he supported it.

So, yeah. Really not a graffiti issue.

There's an old New Haven Independent article about this.

All of the above doesn't make it any less of a public eyesore, apparently 20 people want it removed, now I ask again, why should they suffer because you think this is art?

Go for it, concerned. Start a petition, get signatures, present it to City Hall, DPW, whomever...
Do what it takes to get this "eyesore" out of public view. Be the crusader the 20 people on this website want you to be.

Relevant Internet Rules for this thread:

14. Do not argue with trolls — it means that they win.

also

22. Copy 'n paste is made to ruin every last bit of originality.
23. Copy 'n paste is made to ruin every last bit of originality.

also

This is piece is awesome and it took some thought and skill to pull off. Mad props.

also

LEAVE IT!

Ah, "But is it art?" The hazy grey gray zone wherein' the mere dispute seperates man from monkey.

Were it acting as a bane upon the area you might have an arguement, but that corner is bumping with internet startups, performance spaces, and small business without being impacted. Were it merely illegible tripe you might have an arguement, but it is quite a tangible and well executed presentation. And had it no meaning, you might have a point, yet there is a four year old girl, illustrated with great care acting in juxtapostion to the quality of the THUG we are led to believe she embraces within herself. Tho she seems to have the means to tag better than the best THUG even while dressed and posed like a Norman Rockwell all while holding the least practical of thug art tools. And yet she is merely an illustration, and perhaps conceivied by a thug!? And yet that THUG choose to draw THIS!? If find this work only slighlty less offensive than the rotted loading dock, dumpsters, parking pagoda, and barely paved lot filled with thespians smoking cigarettes. But FAR more offensive than the nudies up at the "proper" galleries.

Paint over it! Art is completly USELESS! Especially when you are forced to look at it!

$10 says this objection is the artist trying to drum up some press.

It seems as though this website is not moderated in any fashion and open discussion about an issue just devolves into people boasting about their opinions and teasing me about how I should just look away. And to " The same New Haven resident who supports this "graffiti" " that is exactly what this website is for, that is why I posted it here, in hopes that it would gain the attention of an official from the city, not a slew of criminal supporters telling me I shouldn't worry about letting someone be awarded for their illegal activity.

Will an official from the city please address my issue?

I don't know why a city official would respond if this is on private property, and especially if the property owner is okay with the grafitti. It's not your crusade.

Ah ha ha ha. "Criminal Supporter"...that's rich.

Your issue concerns something on private property. Take it up with the property owner if you really want to be proactive.

And, I'm not ridiculing your opinion. Just acknowledging that it is just one opinion on a matter that is not black/white. Some of us like the mural. Just saying, your eyesore is my bright spot. I'd be upset if it was painted over. Do you care about my opinion, or, for that matter the other "criminal supporters" that posted in this thread.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go help some fine gentlemen launder some money...Ta ta!

Full disclosure: I like public art in its many forms and I fully believe it enhances the city, but I'm also rational enough to realize that I am not entitled to curate illegal graffiti/street art based on my personal taste. I accept that even illegal graffiti I like is probably going to be removed eventually and I don't appreciate anyone who thinks that they get to decide what stays or goes based on what they like and don't like. The Independent, who I mostly enjoy, "ooohs" and "aaahs" about one artist doing illegal work, and in the same article calls other graffiti artists vandals. I'm just not a fan of glaring hypocrisy. Sorry. Illegal is illegal, no matter how qualified you believe you are to curate public space and art. It's wildly elitist and hypocritical for anyone to think they get to pick and choose for all of us.

p.s. anyone who has been following the articles and public commentary on this particular artist knows what I am referring to.

Curious why my first comment was removed....

Has my vote also been removed? It was 26 after I voted, it now says 25. I thought this was a public forum for the use of the community? Why are comments and votes being deleted without cause?

REM, I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit on this...
I think graffiti can ask valuable questions about public/private space. While I do agree that the fact that BiP, working in a style heavily indebted to Banksy and his ilk gets a sort of unfair pass from the NHI, I also think that BiP's work is a more of a boon to NH than a blight. The murals BiP produces start dialogs like this one. That's more of a service to our community than, say, a gang tag, or some silly, off-the cuff vulgarity. I think it's not as black and white as "illegal is illegal". The law has to live and breathe with the members of the community it serves. If the people of NH like this piece, and want it up, why shouldn't it stay up?

One commenter raised a good point about the pervasiveness of billboards, advertisements, in public viewing space...Why don't we get a say about that?

This BiP piece is on private property. The owner seems to be intent on keeping it up...so that makes this, as a black and white issue of graffiti, moot.

Hey That guy,

Yeah I totally see your points. I've made similar arguments on different threads about art, graffiti, street art etc. If my first comment hadn't been deleted you probably would have gotten that that I'm playing devils advocate to a certain degree. I understand that this mural was left up by the property owner, so my comments were more about the artist in general and the topic of illegal graffiti that has been a prevalent part of this site. I don't dislike BiP at all. I just think that him being supported by The Independent and SeeClickFix is contradictory to them calling other street artists vandals. (I'm not referring to gang tags or the like, I'm referring to other very talented artists who were reported/criticized for putting up illegal graffiti.) While I acknowledge everyone has a right to report whatever they want on this site, I'm seeing that my comments and my vote were deleted, obviously by the people who work for SeeClickFix, because they have the power to censor my opinion because they do not like it. (not because I was vulgar or any other posting violation). So its just more of the same from this camp. Hypocrisy.

And that was me that made the comment about billboards. Yes, why dont't we get a say? Because money rules the world, not art. LOL.

Okay, fair enough, REM. Yeah, it's a slippery slope with what is and isn't accepted as "permitted" graffiti. More abstract tags are generally chided as blight while something more literal, like BiP, is championed. A little unfair/hypocritical.
And yeah, money, that [removed] dirty devil. Anyway...

I think this thread is getting a bit off topic. Plain and simple: If SeeClickFix or the city wants to be taken seriously when they report and remove illegal street art, then they must treat all of it the same way. If it was illegally done, regardless of whether or not The Independent or SeeClickFix staff or anyone else likes it, it should be removed like any other graffiti would be. Period. If it is a sanctioned art piece, fine. Some will like it, some won't. Deal with it. It's part of living in a city. There's plenty of things we all have to look at every day that we may not like (billboards, for example. I dislike them, but I doubt anyone would take me seriously if I complained that I wanted them all removed. Especially so if I complained that I wanted some removed, but other ones I liked, so they can stay.)

I'm not even going to weigh in about whether or not I'm a fan of this artist or not because that is not relevant. This is not a forum to discuss or critique art. People can like or dislike whatever they want. But when it comes to street art, if it is illegal, remove it. It is not right that some people are called artists and others called vandals when they are doing the same thing. (And I'm talking about artists, not "gang graffiti"- that's obviously just territorial [removed].) Street artists are artists, but they know full well when they do an illegal piece that its days are numbered. Otherwise they get permission. Now it's up to others to accept that fact. Illegal graffiti gets removed, permitted stays. The ones doing the graffiti understand and accept this, why is it hard for others to grasp?

Aside from the fact that this is graffiti, it's hard to see how it was intended to offend anyone. Obviously, some people are offended by it, whether the offense is aesthetic or based on the message/potential misinterpretation.

To me, that's the important distinction between public art and vandalism.

LCI isn't going to act. I bet Dougie H won't comment. This thread might convince the property owner that the mural has run its course. Kinda wish the tone of this ticket was more... Civil.

Hi REM,

Just wanted to chime in and let you know your comment was not "removed" from the site! Occasionally, for a variety of reasons, comments can be "auto-moderated" by our system. Basically this means the comment goes to our moderation team to review, which is what happened here.

I understand this is an issue people are very passionate about from all angles. We always encourage healthy disagreement about civic issues, and do not remove any content unless it is in conflict with our Terms of Use which you can see here: http://seeclickfix.com/legal/terms-of-use .

As for your vote "disappearing", I am looking into this. And as for all, let's keep this discussion focused on the issue and, of course, respectful.

Regards,
BWC

What if wee got rid of the T and made it SUPA-HUG?

KTtheFROGLADY: yes! But only if we paint it tromp l'oeil, as someone trying to paint it out. That'd be hilarious.

Yes KT and Dan! Maybe you could change the black paint in the can to white paint and make it look liked the t was rolled over.

Thanks REM for being civil about backing up my opinion it does seem strange on here that every other graffiti thread gets addressed but when one that some people want to call art gets made, there are people in here crusading to save it and give someone special treatment, it also makes me curious that an admin would come into here to address your post getting removed but not one single official has come in here to comment. Its a shame that a website like this is now giving preferential treatment to someone, that isn't fair at all.

Concerned New Havenite, it was the *other* part of the code that you quoted out of context, the part that I filled in. (I didn't look into the other part.)

We all share this neighborhood together. You care about it, so you want the graffiti cleaned. I care about it, so I'd rather it stay. When neighbors disagree about how to care for their neighborhood, you get discussion, like we're seeing here.

Even if this piece is cleaned up, it's clear that some people support some kinds of street art. I wouldn't be surprised to see the blight code revised in the future.

We should compromise on a solution. I proposed an awesome program for street art, which involved 8bit characters from videogames. Maybe that's something to consider.

As for subjective art opinion, don't you think trompe l'oeil is a little played out now? It's getting to the point where it's almost expected!

Dan it isn't about opinion, REM clearly stated that, its about the SeeClickFix community wants this issue to be taken seriously, and apparently it really isn't. And if you think the blight code will be changed in the future to allow "pretty graffitis" then I think you should separate yourself from this conversation as that isn't even the beginning of a real idea. Where are the city officials?

Can a moderator come in here and keep out the people who aren't serious about this issue?

Concerned New Havenite,
Part of the problem is that you are not open to conversation. As has been pointed out by participants this is not an issue for the city to handle. It's on private property. If you want it removed try contacting the property owner. Be proactive.
And I think the conversation should be opened to the idea of what is and is not acceptable street art. It has long been accepted into the framework of western art history (since the late 70s, but the history of street art goes back much further than that). Some graffiti is just blight, some is a means of people who are oppressed to express themselves and stand up for social justice. Some is a means of provoking dialog and engaging a community. It's not as black and white as you make it seem.
To try and silence this conversation by telling people
" if you think the blight code will be changed in the future to allow "pretty graffitis" then I think you should separate yourself from this conversation"
is to reveal your own ignorance and to show your own unwillingness to try and listen to and respect your neighbors. Try considering an opinion that is not your own...

Just because people do not hold your opinion does not mean they are not serious about this. I'm sure the moderators are keeping this open because THIS is a community conversation.

This website is for reporting problems and getting them fixed, its as simple as that, people agree with me, I didn't make this to get a lesson on street arts. Where is a city official!

I think the moderators should clean this up so we can hear some real words on this from someone who works for the city, even If they just address the issue.

This should at least advertise something fun and yummy

Too many nasty comments

But the graffiti is still there

Ugggg...
On Private Property. Take it up with the owner.

NEXT ISSUE!

This needs to be open.

Just because you're bored doesn't mean you can close something that is bothering over 30 people, thats not how See Click Fix works.

It's a shame SCF doesn't also take votes for people who disagree/think the matter should be closed. Then maybe you'd stop clinging to your 30 odd up votes as justification for your crusade.

How about leaving this issue opened and creating a separate issue that calls for leaving the mural then comparing the votes?

Well now its up to 40 so lets stop closing it okay? Thanks Anon I think thats fair.

40 people compared to the entire population of New Haven is nothing. It's potentially one person's circle of friends.

The question of whether this is blight or art is obviously open to debate. Get an advanced art degree and you still won't answer that question (although you'd likely start leaning towards it being art if you actually knew any art history). Since it's far from clear, it really should be left to the property owner to decide to do something or not. I seriously doubt anyone from the town government cares to get involved in a potential debate about private property and art, so really it's a waste of your time to do anything other than let it go.

Part of living with other people, especially in a city, is coming to the realization that you don't always get your way and you pick your battles. Maybe, if you are lucky, when you tolerate what other people like, they'll do you the same favor when they dislike something you care about.

That's not fair at all and you know it. Most of those votes are yours and your friends that you emailed the link to to gain support! You're banking on the fact that's it's already a dead issue to most people so the new issue won't get as many votes. That's not how this site works anyway. I can't believe you'd prefer an empty, dreary space to a mural. You are obsessing about this one thing and haven't said anything about the annoying advertising you look at every day.

Here's the problem:
You feel this mural is bad.
90% of the posts on here disagree.
You ask the question of why you have to look at it if you don't like it, and they ask the question of why they can't have interesting art because a few people don't like it.
I don't like every oil painting I have to look at, but I understand some people like them. I don't think that means they should be removed from walls if the owner wants it there. In this case, the owner wants it there, so this is the same situation.

People like you are contributing to New Haven being a dull, uninspired place. You are sitting in front of a computer wasting a lot of energy to get an empty wall. That's what will make you happy. An empty wall! That's what you truly desire.

This issue is dead. The mural will stay. Please spend your time doing things that actually improve the city.

Let's keep it civil. I think that SeeClickFix etiquette says that the original poster should make the final decision about whether the issue should be closed, unless it's an absolutely unreasonable or impossible request (such as moving the City of New Haven to Australia). Repainting a wall is not an unreasonable or impossible request. A separate issue can be created to call for leaving the mural in place, and the conversation can continue in both places. To risk stating the obvious, SeeClickFix is not the real world so ultimately it comes down to actual conversations and people doing things.

Before someone calls LCI, I think we should agree on it as a collaborative project between "BiP" and other local street artists. No more elitism, no more thuggery. Just cooperation and one-upcakes.

Congrats to everyone involved in this discussion! This has successfully made news.
http://nhvorg.blogspot.com/2013/07/problem-solved-1-upcake.html

It's true. For one week only, we're hosting a vote. The options available are:

(a) Replace the piece with the proposed "1up-Cake"
(b) leave SupaThug
(c) Remove All

Only one week to vote! Tell yo momma and your best friend.
http://nhvorg.blogspot.com/

ian, editor [http://nhv.org]

Voting ends in 1 week.

What happens when graffiti art gets vandalized with graffiti? I guess that will warrant a new SeeClickFix report. I'm standing vigil.

@1-Up Cake: can you provide a copy of that white wall background so the rest of us can have some photoshop fun?

@NHV Video Department: I want to vote but it seems to be broken

We will be planting trees along the street directly in front of the mural at 6pm Tuesday 7/16. I think we can all agree that trees will improve the city.

While we are planting the trees we can discuss the relative merits of the piece along with the rights of property owners.

Deal? Cool! See you there.

Really, the word "thug" is offensive and illegal? Its not a curse word, not a racial slur. What are you offended of? How about less sensativity class, a sense of humor and a healthy doe of the 1st amendment. There is nothing illegal about this, if the owner hasn't removed it or called 50, then he's accepted it. Relax. Maybe your neighbor doesn't like the way you paint your home or finds you to be an eyesore, that doesn't entitle them to anything. Just cause you don't like it, it doesn't entitle you to anything.

Its clear this should still be open..

you're offended, "Concerned New Havenite?" i'm offended that you aren't considering the piece's message. i'm offended that you decided to prioritize your personal discomfort over a message about race, class, and the tricky, unfortunately too-often exploitative relationship that white artists have with minority art forms. i'm offended that you would rather new haven citizens stare at a blank wall than be galvanized into critical thinking, aka the last thing most public schools teach our children. you want to not be offended? go hang out in the suburbs. we have too many real issues to talk about in this city, and if you don't fundamentally understand why pieces like this are important in a town as diverse as new haven, you have no business weighing in.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

I'm amused that nobody has put together that this mural is part of the view from the See Click Fix office..... hmmmmm.... ;)

Every time an unregistered "Guest" posts on SeeClickFix, a kitten dies. :_(

Stop the massacre.

@zbeat: +1. Sign in with your accounts, people! Own your words. Be proud.

#Nhv Video Department: really? When I view the poll, it says 29% want to install 1upcake, 70% want to keep SupaThug, and no one wants to remove. What's up?

I'm amused that people think this thread, the poll, or anything else is going to change this.
It's on private property. Good luck getting the city of New Haven, which has far greater issues to tackle, to spend time on this. Good luck getting the owner to pay for repainting.

It's a just a mural.

Good Grief.

Close the issue already- Ben why haven't you removed this issue as it is on private property and is not an issue for click fix???

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

So you can push traffic to your site? I love how you insert yourself into a non-issue.

Stop piggybacking on other sites for your own venues. This will stay closed. I will check every 10 minutes all day

told ya

I think it's an excellent discussion and a public issue that promotes democracy.

No wall in any city should be left blank. They should all be filled with art.

lol

This site is not the proper forum as I have been told by Ben and Mark. Why is this issue different

The price of freedom is that if you don't like what you see or hear

don't look at it or don't listen to it.

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks "hi", we really believe that..

Thanks for explaining the price of freedom.

Keep the dream alive!

The piece isn't condoning being a criminal: it is an artistic criticism of graffiti culture.

By the standards of the law, the building owner would have to claim that this was a problem for them. They haven't, so it isn't illegal.

What is the point of this SCF report? There is plenty of art I don't like--some of it in MoMA or even the Yale Art Gallery--but I am not going to ask anyone to remove it.

The answer to "I don't like that art" is ALWAYS "more art". If you don't like a piece, make a response to it--in art. Make more art. Do something.

Don't spend your energy destroying others work. There isn't any future in that for anyone.

Ian, how many names are you using to comment on this?

I like it..

I think that this thread just hit the "Too many trolls" rule, where it gets shut down automatically when people pretend to be other people & use aliases and engage in conversations with themselves.

"Kid Analog": correction, you and I are not brothers. I had one, but he died. You have a great day.

Streever

Thanks for pointing out the total bs going on here. The fact that BiP rocks and you know who (wont call him out by name) is trying to edit this.....OMG!

Edit a website but not public art

this is not an issue. If you love New Haven you know we respect diversity and freedom.
Please stop ......this is art not a tag which is blight. WE have a history of murals from Congress Ave to water street.....our school kids express themselves around the corner. #notcoolbro

We are an arts and ideas city

Dont kill the vibe #out

how many votes does this get? Kill the vibe? Supathug gives me a bad vibe.

To answer Streever, just this one and the LS Aristotle. I voted on it twice.

That's still 63 people who aren't me.

and maybe it might be worth mentioning that nothing i've ever done, as far as art, has ever started an argument. but i will engage in an argument that i didn't start if it pertains to art, when i feel like there's something unjust about the situation. that guy, concerned citizen? I dont know who he/she is, but look at how he/she picked apart the whole 'unbiased' thing about this entire website.

personally though i dont think it's anything that anyone arguing in favor of this 'supathug' art piece will ever understand.

this thread which has been killed more times than a @#$% in a horror flick.

Parks Department: Data Entry将个问题分配给LCI Citywide Helper

Test

I find billboard advertisements more offensive than graffiti. What about women in sexist dirndl outfits with plates of sausages advertising beer gardens that are just butt-ugly I see around New Haven? Nobody seems to have a problem with that since some stupid business paid for it so it's "private property," right? If the person who owns the building doesn't have a problem with it, then it's case closed. I am new to this city and, quite frankly, am embarrassed by the provinciality of some of the posters here. You all need to spend some time in Brooklyn or Berlin or Boston or Philadelphia or...

Due to the nature of this debate we are re-categorizing this issue

This issue was recategorized from Graffiti to Other.

This is an urban area, with urban art. I think its awesome.

"Some people go through life looking to be offended....Rarely are they disappointed!"

Looks like we have moved on............................