I can’t help but feel that in some ways, an “artistic” ad is even worse than one that doesn’t try to appeal so strongly to aestheticism for the sake of beauty. It’s somehow more deceptive and insidious to me. I don’t think the founders adhere to much of an ethical code if they are commissioned for any ads.
If you're into robots watch one of the FirstInspires events on Twitch. Sitting in the stands at the Greater Pittsburgh Regional ATM ... It's pretty amazing what high school students can build!
I don’t think that will get you a competition livestream. Most competitions this week haven’t started yet (they’re usually ~Fri-Sun). The game changes every year, but here’s a sample match from last year: https://youtu.be/jYjztOCT79M
The FIRST Robotics Competition is really cool (it turned 30 yesterday!), and if you like the look of it you should consider checking out or even mentoring a nearby team. They exist in many US high schools, and in some other countries as well.
It will get you a live stream of the practices I our region ...equals are all day Friday and Saturday morning and the finals are Saturday afternoon (about half an hour from now).
The definition of graffiti pretty much includes property destruction. I don't get why that's ok with so much of Western culture.
I think street art is great and with permission have zero issues but going around trashing other people's property seems like a net negative to society as a whole. It sets a precedent. If you can trash my stuff then it should be okay for me to trash yours. That seems like a bad direction to me.
Is it your understanding that non-Western cultures would be more or less okay with graffiti? Seems like everyone else is if anything less absolutist about private property rights.
I'm sorry you think that what I did to your stuff trashed it, but I think I enhanced it/everyone else thinks I enhanced/I didn't think you cared? It's on your outside wall, everyone else in the world has to stare at it/pass by it too, whereas from inside you can't even see it.
Sure, strictly speaking, legally no one has any right to do anything to it but you. But like, if you're asking why societally, culturally, it's socially acceptable to do stuff to that wall, I don't understand why that's hard to understand? No harm no foul; like, if I set fire to your building, no one thinks that's harmless or acceptable. But if I paint something on your ugly outside wall, why would anyone be up in arms about that on your behalf?
then maybe you should grafitti the Sistine Chapel. You claim you're making it prettier but why is that up to you? If want to paint it make a proposal and ask for permission.
Besides beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 95% of the graffiti I see is just someone's name/callsign/initials. It's not remotely pretty. It's just blatent selfish self promotion
> then maybe you should grafitti the Sistine Chapel. You claim you're making it prettier but why is that up to you?
Of course it's not up to me? You asked how it could be "ok with so much of Western culture". If we collectively think it's prettier, like those Banksy pieces that were going to be removed but were instead made permanent due to public outcry, then we're okay with it. If we collectively think it's dumb/ugly/meaningless, like tagging (which is what it's called when people just write their name or initials or gang sign or sports team is apparently really common, too), then no one minds if we remove it, and there's certainly not much respect for it. If someone destroyed priceless cultural heritage like the Sistine Chapel by spray-painting over it, do you really believe that would be "ok with much of Western culture"?
I did a good bit of graffiti when I was younger. 10 years later, I'm still in the creative industry and I still love graffiti. But I'm mostly very ashamed, now that I'm old enough to have property of my own and skin in the game. Just a preface in case your gut response is that I'm an old prude and don't "get it". I definitely get it.
I'll mimic the parent you're responding to: street art is great. By "street art" I mean things that err more towards murals than tagging, and that are ideally consensual/legal, but if not are at least harm-reducing (side of an abandoned warehouse is not on the same moral plane as the side of a church or dwelling unit).
1) If I took the bumpers off a car because I thought it looked slicker that way, would the owner care that I felt I enhanced it? I would guess not.
2) Pollsters would have a very hard time finding any cohort of people that are pro-graffiti enough to be described as "everyone else". You can test this on some random passersby. "I did this to a guy's house without him asking. I made it better, right?". What type of responses do you imagine?
3) That people get upset by graffiti on their property is common knowledge. I don't believe that you don't think anyone cares. Nobody thinks that. You might think they shouldn't care, which is closer to the excuses I subsisted on when I was doing that kind of thing, but it's a very different argument.
4) There are very few forms of graffiti that are "no-harm-no-foul". A building that is scheduled for demolition and is out of view of passersby, utility tunnels/infrastructure that are out of view, do not have markings that would be obscured, and where paint doesn't impact their functionality are the only ones that come to mind. And the second one's out if some guy has to come down there and clean it because the city makes him.
I like my outside wall blank. That's why it's blank. If I wanted it a different way, I'd make it so. But nevermind that graffers are violating the autonomy over my own space that I work hard to preserve. Even if I don't oppose what's on the wall there is a cost being incurred. For me to change what's on that wall costs money. If you're wrong, and everyone doesn't love graffiti, then my property is now less desirable. It's harder for me to sell my home. My economic mobility is decreased. Maybe that 2k in property value makes a real difference to my family. The city might get mad at me and fine me, which costs me money, unless I have the wall cleaned or painted, which costs me money. Graffers are having fun, selfishly, and sticking future-me with the bill. To break the law to violate my property and cost me money, and claim they did me a favor? Nah.
5) Why would people be up in arms on my behalf? Empathy! I know I don't like getting punched in the face, so I know how it feels when I see that happen to my neighbor. I don't want to see him harmed any more than I want that harm for myself, and because he and I are part of a community, his pain is my pain. Neighbors are there for each other.
----
But don't take my word for it....
If you really think everybody likes your work, ask the people whose building it is how they feel about it.
I'm confused. This reads like you're trying to convince me not to do graffiti. I've never done graffiti in my life. Maybe one time I scribbled over a particularly misogynistic bathroom stall tag, or I wanted to but didn't have a Sharpie with me, I don't even remember.
Lots of graffiti sucks? I'm not advocating vandalizing the Sistine Chapel like your sibling suggested? I'm just trying to explain to grandparent why street art would be "ok with so much of Western culture", because society is just not that absolutist about private property, because things tend to be socially acceptable roughly in proportion to how harmful/harmless they are.
I didn't know the city fines property owners for not cleaning up graffiti on their property, which they obviously didn't want in the first place, that sucks. Of course I empathize. That's not the kind of graffiti I would describe as "ok with so much of Western culture" though?
I think maybe you adopted the voice of someone else in your post, then, and it didn't read in an obvious way.
> I'm sorry you think that what I did to your stuff trashed it, but I think I enhanced it/everyone else thinks I enhanced/I didn't think you cared?
> No harm no foul; like, if I set fire to your building, no one thinks that's harmless or acceptable. But if I paint something on your ugly outside wall, why would anyone be up in arms about that on your behalf?
The "I"s in there make it sound like you're very on board with destroying property, so yeah, I was definitely trying to make a case against that mindset.
I don't think it's a mindset a lot of people have. They draw subjective and somewhat arbitrary lines between "art" and "vandalism", and when legality is indeterminable, that line probably has a lot to do with "whether I think it's pretty or not".
I guess I'm not sure what kind of graffiti you're advocating for. Public murals? Those are pretty cool. But the parent you were replying to also called those out as being great, so it seemed like you were making the case for more illegal, less well-meaning forms.
It sounds like either we're misaligned on exactly what kind of thing you're talking about, or maybe we all agree that a certain very pretty, fairly legal minority is relatively harmless.. If your first comment's words aren't your actual views, I don't feel the need to talk it to death.
I'm really not advocating for anything. I was trying to explain exactly what you said: "[A lot of people] draw subjective and somewhat arbitrary lines between "art" and "vandalism", and when legality is indeterminable, that line probably has a lot to do with "whether I think it's pretty or not"."
The comment I was replying to said they didn't "get" that, so I was trying to help them imagine what someone might subjectively, arbitrarily think of tokyodude's absolutist stance. I thought it was pretty obvious I've never personally vandalized any of tokyodude's property (the "I"s were equally as rhetorical as the "you"s).
I think the way you expressed it was much clearer, though.
I would use a single pivot at the top and two wheels in contact with the plane, the path of the robot would then be an arc around that pivot point. The rest of the mechanism is analogous to an ink-jet printer.
The other option would be to construct a large https://reprap.org/wiki/CoreXY like mechanism, forming a large etch-a-sketch. I have also seen devices that used venturi suction to drive on vertical surfaces. Or suction cups mounted on pivoting arms that could walk across the surface.
I thought a lot about a similar concept, using drones (maybe even swarms). Has this ever been attempted? I guess the energy and posioning constraints would be much tighter, but it would make for a fun project.
One advantage I see to using strings and wheels is that there is no strict requirement for spray painting, as it can be done with regular rolls. I was a bit disappointed to see that it used spray painting here as well (and quite a bit of sprays bottles per painting).
Some time ago I was brain storming about something similar but with a different tech stack to be able to plot from the distance. I wanted to mount a spray can on a quad-copter and keep the power supply external initially. The ultimate goal was to mark an area of wall using a separate device (mobile phone maybe) and the quad-copter would then fly there and do its work.
It's just an ink jet printer, scaled really large. The print head moves via motors and pulleys in steps along two dimensions. Unless there are patents that specifically apply I think just about anybody could do it.
Their dedication to art vs. advertising seems doomed to failure once somebody replicates the device.
You're right about the competition, but I found their 'dedication' to be lukewarm.
Once someone realizes that there's a company turning away customers with deep pockets, someone will show up and happily take that work. Then if they're taking the high road they have to convince artists that they have the moral high ground and therefore if a city or company wants a large mural, they'll be working with the Spraypainter team.
But the fact that they've done advertising anyway... that doesn't project the romantic image of the underdog with a moral compass that seems popular with artists. And as an artist, do you really want to use the exact same medium that every auto dealer group in town is using to advertise? Yuck. That's not a problem yet, because there's only one company doing those murals and they are only taking a few advertising projects. But once the copycats show up they'll have to find a way to differentiate their look or get sidelined.
>It's just an ink jet printer, scaled really large.
Yeah, just like Dropbox is basically an FTP account, mounted locally with curlftpfs, and then SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. Not to mention that from Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
there are several versions of this basic robotic design available for purchase both diyish and fully fledged products (neither one I'm about to list is spray paint based though, but in the case of the diy version, it could be hacked in with a redesign of the 'shuttle')
This looks like the exact same system but because of the pendulum effect when you "turn a corner" these guys wen't with just running it up and down in vertical lines and only moving a bit to the side when the line is done.
Interesting as I just watched last night on Netflix, “Love, Death & Robots Episode 14: Zima Blue” which is a story very similar to the robot from the article.
The technical aspect is cool for sure but I think the more important point is the anti-advert/commercial art stance being taken. It is extremely refreshing and inspiring.
Except they took the Nissan commission. The aren't anti-commercial, they're just commercial averse. Like Google is evil averse. If you're neutral you get to do bad things without being bad.
A lot of people want to be good as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything for it. Really, as long as they don't see themselves as actively engaging in the other direction, they sleep really well at night. They aren't good, they're just normal, but it's enough to maintain the illusion of their self image as a good person. If I'm not an asshole then I must be a good person.
Which I think is why we have so much trouble changing our peers. The moment we bring something up we've already challenged their identity. We've issued an existential threat. We might as well be brandishing a knife.
From the other side, when I give up things for philosophical reasons, some people characterize this as self-destructive behavior. A sign of naivete. Of immaturity. I only know two things. They probably sleep better than I do, and I'll sleep even worse if I don't do these things.
I begin to wonder if it's the case that the only people who are good people will tell you that they aren't. Kind of depressing if true. Think of your favorite person and imagine that you like them better than they like themselves. Harsh.
Maybe I'm getting sucked in by stereotypes but it seems like the art community is much more concerned with 'selling out' than most.
On the other hand, a plot device from a scifi book (Tad Williams I think?) has stuck me with the idea of creating slowly evolving graphics. If I were an artist I might get pretty excited about a robot who can paint and repaint a mural for me as many times as I want. Being able to change with the seasons or local events might entice me, regardless of how many ads have done the same thing.
Moderators change titles when they break the site guidelines. The relevant guideline is "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
The submitted title was "Wall-climber robot spraypaints big murals, any idea how its hardware works?", which is actually more baity than the original (wrong direction!). It's also the sort of thing that will strike HN readers as transparently promotional, prompting them to flag a submission.
