Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
What about when the tag have a fancy letter?
Still has initials in the photo and a rejection.
And about this one? This artist always do that, big weird letter like things with a bit of some art.
That could be up to the reviewer. Guidance says no initials. But it does look like a cool piece of art to me. I would vote a 3 star and let niantic decide as we are supposed to.
We do also have to consider if the submission is a "temporary display" or not. We could do with more clarity about which takes precedence, if a place has cool graffiti art (not a tag) that is regularly painted over, it's currently unclear if we should accept it as cool art of reject it as temporary.
@Rostwold-ING That isn't the proper use for a temporary display.
Yes it is! From the Wayfarer help: "Nominations that are images of objects that are not permanent" - if it's going to be painted over, then it's not permanent.
@Rostwold-ING @Gabriel0322-PGO Please stay on topic. This is not about temporary vs permanent. We all agree temporary is not acceptable. This is not about "is it a tag?" We all agree common tags are not acceptable. The guidelines are very clear on both these issues. Please stay on topic.
The question I want answered is:
"Is VANDALISM, regardless of the artistic quality of the work, enough to merit instant one star rejection? Should all VANDALISM be rejected, regardless of artistic quality?"
I am on topic, because this is the answer to your question:
Vandalism is likely to be painted over by the property owner, therefore it is temporary, therefore it should be rejected.
Public Art, painted with permission of the property owner, is unlikely to be painted over, therefore it is not temporary, and can be accepted.
So based on the above suggestions. By @Hydraulinski-PGO What would you vote on them. @Rostwold-ING
Do people have some examples of vandalism vs art?
What about vandalism as art? Banksy, conducts a lot of vandalism, however, his pieces are considered art and are deemed valuable and become world famous.
Perhaps the question then should be regarding the context of the piece instead.
* Is the image artistic in nature? ie. a mural of a person, or a landscape scene
* Does the image provide a social statement? eg. Banksy's politically conscious pieces. I wouldn't include tags in this as they might see themselves as "rebels to society", which is just sad really
* Is the artist well known?
These questions lead to just a single question, which in turn re-opens the previous questions:
* What is the historic or culutural signifiance of the actual artwork?
It's a vicious cycle.
Whether a piece can be deemed temporary or not is irrelevant at the time of review. If the artwork is no longer there after it has been approved, report it for removal.
A good example of a mural that was created under vandalism, which meets the above considerations is the Scott Morrison bushfire mural: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/27/mural-mocking-scott-morrison-for-hawaii-holiday-during-bushfires-painted-over
This was put up as a social statement and in the next day the mural was being painted over. However, somebody managed to submit the mural and it is now a wayspot. This caused a huge uproar as the artwork, and its removal, made news across Australia. Should it be removed? Well it no longer exists, so it's not a tangible POI. The image itself is an act of vandalism that was deemed as art.
Generic tags or images (posters, traces, or a graffiti artist's cartoon character as a tag) should not be allowed as they have no true artistic merit or cultural importance. These can be commonly found and could be considered mass-produced in a sense.
Real artwork, whether it is paid or not, vandalised or done with permission, should be accepted (as long as it's not on private property). These pieces may invoke beauty in imagery or tell a story and would therefore have value in providing historic or cultural significance.
Yes there were links at the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2 of this thread. Loved to see your opinion.
This is interesting....
Technically the only AMA that has any suggestion on what to do about graffiti. (Is report after it is approved and created to let niantic decide. Art is allowed. Accept and if you disagree report after created. Would be the guidance to follow.)
March 2018 AMA.
Q46: Invalid portals - we know this is age old question, but in city were we play we have some portals, that are...let just say questionable, like some furniture shop outside city where portal pictures are furniture from inside, sculptures that are sold n years ago and etc. or some "artist" graffiti that is gone long time ago. There portals have no historic, visual or any other value. We want to clean cities from these no value portals. Could it be done, that when we are reporting portals like that, we could add photos from location, or video link from that place from youtube. Any way, we could provide more data.
A46: NIA OPS recommendation is to report these Portals from the scanner. If necessary, post an appeal in the Google+ Appeal Community with additional information if your initial report was rejected.
@oscarc1-ING "Whether a piece can be deemed temporary or not is irrelevant at the time of review." - this is obviously wrong!
Go look at the list of options for 1* on "should this be a wayspot", the seventh option is "Temporary or seasonal display".
If it's a temporary display, it should be rejected for being a temporary display!
@Rostwold-ING I disagree that you are use Temporary display on street art. As street art is written allowed per guidance.
@Rostwold-ING My point was that at the time of reviewing, you might not know whether the art is temporary or not. As per the example I posted, the Scott Morrison bushfire mural, that was removed the very next day, however it was approved as a Wayspot.
@Gabriel0322-PGO that's ridiculous! Temporary displays are NOT allowed per guidance!
Street art aren't temporary display!
They might be removed someday, but everything might be removed someday. That's not what temporary display category meant.
Guidance is all street art is accepted. If you have an issue with street art, after it is accepted you can report it and niantic will decide. That is the guidance that was decided long before me.
A christmas tree is more along the lines of what a temporary display is per guidance in wayfarer. Not art.
Graffiti and street art
While spray-painted artworks and murals are acceptable, graffiti tags that just include the graffiti writer's name or initials are ineligible. Additionally, graffiti tags are often regularly removed so they may also be ineligible under the non-permanent criteria.
This piece of street art, other informal artworks, and works created with spray paint are eligible so long as they represent cool pieces of art.
This graffiti tag is just the artist's initials.
If it’s a ‘cool piece of art’; good, if it’s a load of rubbish, not cool, not very nice or generally something your kids can do better then I 1*.
Edited to save Boris’s blushes
The people of Spain obviously didn't get that message.
It has been over a month since I asked this question. In that time, not one person has offered any snippet of Niantic guidance that says explicitly that VANDALISM, regardless of artistic quality, is an immediate 1* rejection. I therefore infer that no such guidance exists.
You might be correct that vandalism is not called out by name as being ineligible, but I think it is clear by the spirit of the street art versus graffiti conversation that vandalism would not be a high quality candidate. There is also not explicit guidance to 1-star reject diaper pails, but I will not assume they are good candidates because there is no explicit prohibition.
Let me turn the tables a little, what criteria would vandalism meet? Vandalism is lawless tagging or destruction of an object. Why would anyone assume it would be anything but a 1-star reject?
If it's clearly vandalism, I don't think it would be rash to assume that the property owner would fix things, and that therefore the work would be temporary in nature. I know in real life, though, that may not be the case in, for example, abandoned structures.
Street art that is not just initials is explicitly called out as acceptable. No mention of VANDALISM occurs anywhere in any guidance.
Trying to define if a work of art is temporary or not while reviewing, doesn't seem logical to me, because it's impossible.
When the Eiffel tower was built for the Universal fair in 1889, it was a temporary piece of art deemed to be dismantled at the end of of the fair. Part of the Parisien population were all forth dismantling the structure. In the end of fair, it was deemed an illegal stucture. There were a great percentage of the French/parisien population that deemed no value to the Eiffel Tower. It was nothing then a giant ugly piece of metal structure that tear the landscape. It took more them 20 years for the tower to be adopted as the symbol of Paris.
Art is like that. The scale itself doesn't matter. May it be street art, classic, modern, etc. We are to little to perceive of it's longevity or true value.
If you apply the same logic to graffiti, you cannot say if it's temporary or not, you cannot define it in terms of beauty or value. Even historical values cannot be apply.
There is only one true guideline, and it's Niantic's : graffiti are often accepted. Graffiti that are only composed of name tags and initial tags are not accepted. And it's because these often end up removed.
We can had, the privacy guideline, the school guideline, etc, the premise is the same.
So yes, basically, if a graffiti falls in the terms of acceptance of the guideline, it should be accepted.
This should be the case of every street art. I've seen mosaic pixel Art also falls in this consideration - like bansky art.