Can anyone confirm the death of ED BOXX?
Also - can we use this post to provide locations of his work?
Also - can we use this post to provide locations of his work?
- 2,772
How do people even know he was killed? I really want to see what the guy looks like and stuff. I am betting that graffiti wasn't the only illegal activity he was involved in if he was shot/stabbed as was reported in another post. Well, even Ed Boxx probably had a family, so it is sad that this happened.
Good luck confirming it unless you can attribute the pseudoname to an actual identity. But here's where many of the local taggers hang out: http://www.bombingscience.com/graffitif ... 03&page=40. Only one guy named uppchuck has been providing information about it. There's no verification so it could be a little suspicious...ttricamo wrote:Can anyone confirm the death of ED BOXX?
Also - can we use this post to provide locations of his work?
uppchuck wrote:to all that thinks this is a hoax www.eastsidenewstopicgraffiti
also my homie told me cristo has been put back in the hospital with a staff infection fron the gun shot would to his neck and probley wont make it.
bump solo cristo
Although, I wasn't able to access the website he mentioned. Can anyone else find this?
- 2,772
Bloboner wrote:ed box was one of the only writers bringing something new and different to the stl graff scene, im going to hate to see what happens now...
The people on these forums are absolute morons.
Now, this is art.
I spoke with a prolific local graf writer on Friday evening, and it was relayed to me regarding Ed Box's untimely death that, "That was a joke." It was a rather brief encounter with this individual, and I didn't have a chance to inquire further. I'm not sure exactly what was meant, but I got the impression that the writer who wrote Ed Box might not actually be dead. Perhaps simply the persona is dead, e.g. "Samo is dead."
BTW, as for the debate about Grafitti being good/bad, right/wrong, legal not. Clearly grafitti is illegal. Does that mean it's inherently wrong or bad? Not necessarily. Christianity was at one point illegal as was beer, and I doubt most St. Louisans would think either are wrong or bad. The law is informed by morality and ethics, but it does not dictate it. In fact, in many cases, only through outright defiance of unjust laws can they be abolished. Am I saying that anti-grafitti laws are unjust? Hardly. I'm simply saying that grafitti falls within the domain of normal human activity that we have seen as far back as the caves of Lascaux, an inherent desire to communicate and to leave our mark on the world. I would not want my house randomly defaced by a hoodlum, but "getting up" is not about respect in the sense recognized by "civilized" society. Furthermore, there are many artists who work in more traditional media who also write grafitti whom I would be happy to have painting a mural in or on my home. Ultimately, it's a bit more complicated than "it's bad, good riddance" or "it's cool, they're so misunderstood." I wouldn't have it any other way!
Best!
BTW, as for the debate about Grafitti being good/bad, right/wrong, legal not. Clearly grafitti is illegal. Does that mean it's inherently wrong or bad? Not necessarily. Christianity was at one point illegal as was beer, and I doubt most St. Louisans would think either are wrong or bad. The law is informed by morality and ethics, but it does not dictate it. In fact, in many cases, only through outright defiance of unjust laws can they be abolished. Am I saying that anti-grafitti laws are unjust? Hardly. I'm simply saying that grafitti falls within the domain of normal human activity that we have seen as far back as the caves of Lascaux, an inherent desire to communicate and to leave our mark on the world. I would not want my house randomly defaced by a hoodlum, but "getting up" is not about respect in the sense recognized by "civilized" society. Furthermore, there are many artists who work in more traditional media who also write grafitti whom I would be happy to have painting a mural in or on my home. Ultimately, it's a bit more complicated than "it's bad, good riddance" or "it's cool, they're so misunderstood." I wouldn't have it any other way!
Best!
shownde wrote:Christianity was at one point illegal as was beer, and I doubt most St. Louisans would think either are wrong or bad.
Beer? Agreed. Christianity? Debatable...
- 6,775
CWEnder wrote:shownde wrote:Christianity was at one point illegal as was beer, and I doubt most St. Louisans would think either are wrong or bad.
Beer? Agreed. Christianity? Debatable...
If it was, it was 2000 years ago, I would think.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:CWEnder wrote:shownde wrote:Christianity was at one point illegal as was beer, and I doubt most St. Louisans would think either are wrong or bad.
Beer? Agreed. Christianity? Debatable...
If it was, it was 2000 years ago, I would think.
Right... Christianity was illegal 2000 years ago... Beer was illegal 1919-1933 (and still is in some counties.) My point is that MOST St. Louisans (not all St. Louisans or St. Louisan in particular) think that both beer and Christianity are just great.
Sheesh! Y'all are giving me heartburn.
- 6,775
shownde wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:CWEnder wrote:
Beer? Agreed. Christianity? Debatable...
If it was, it was 2000 years ago, I would think.
Right... Christianity was illegal 2000 years ago... Beer was illegal 1919-1933 (and still is in some counties.) My point is that MOST St. Louisans (not all St. Louisans or St. Louisan in particular) think that both beer and Christianity are just great.
Sheesh! Y'all are giving me heartburn.
Beer > christianity
Beer is something that can be enjoyed in moderation w/out hurting anyone. Tagging specifically damages personal and public property. I don't care how much weed you smoke, you still can't rationalize that tagging is a noble act. If you want to commission a tagger to perform artwork on your property (I doubt you own property), go for it. If you want to express yourself, learn to do it in ways that don't hurt others. How would you like it if I knee'd you in the balls? Please don't take offense, it's just my way of expressing myself. 
innov8ion wrote:Beer is something that can be enjoyed in moderation w/out hurting anyone.
Many folks would disagree with that. I don't happen to imbibe any alcoholic beverages partly because I have a family history of alcholism, and I don't want to risk putting my loved ones through the agony of dealing with another. Broad generalizations just don't work, because the situation is much more complicated. But it's okay. Life is complicated, and that's wonderful.
innov8ion wrote:Tagging specifically damages personal and public property.
Again with the broad generalizations. It depends. In some cases, e.g. scratched windows, the results are damage. In some cases, e.g. ink-based markers, it doesn't harm anything, but you won't be able to remove it without causing harm. In the case of paint, then you would be hard-pressed to show that the application of paint causes damage. In most cases there are solvents that easily remove paint, or the surface can be repainted if the desired results are disliked. Paint can actually create a layer of protection for a surface otherwise subject to the onslaught of environmental conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.) This is part of why freight train companies tend to leave graffiti on their trains unless the identifying numbers for that care are somehow covered up. Graf writers have learned this and intentionally avoid these numbers so their work will stay up longer. Even when they do paint the numbers on a freight car again, they will often only paint the numbers, leaving the existing graffiti. And there are other kinds of graffiti like posters, stickers, chalk, etc. that are essentially benign.
innov8ion wrote:I don't care how much weed you smoke, you still can't rationalize that tagging is a noble act.
First, I'm assuming you're using a figure of speech. I don't use drugs, and abhor their use. Second, you're right. I wouldn't rationalize tagging as a noble act. It is what it is, but that doesn't mean that very similar if not seemingly identical behavior couldn't be noble.
innov8ion wrote:If you want to commission a tagger to perform artwork on your property (I doubt you own property), go for it.
Actually, I've been a property owner (or mortgage payer more specifically) for 4+ years. I'm also a small business owner. And I may just commission artists to <i>create</i> artwork on my property, though I'll probably eschew the contributions of the neglected-suburbanite-teenager tagger. I really love the wild fence the Venice Cafe has, ya know.
innov8ion wrote:If you want to express yourself, learn to do it in ways that don't hurt others. How would you like it if I knee'd you in the balls? Please don't take offense, it's just my way of expressing myself.
I actually do express myself in ways that don't hurt others. In fact, I hope my work enhances people's everyday lives. Leaving the world better than I found it is a part of how I was raised. I would hardly compare tagging to assault, though. Damaging people is quite different from damaging things, as much as we both abhor both. Tagging is more akin to spitting on someone than kneeing them in the groin. Though, there are even times when kneeing someone in the groin would be a truly noble thing. Gadzooks!
And yes, I probably have a fairly different perspective on the whole situation. I've had to study graffiti as part of my schooling because graffiti has become relevant, even accepted in some circle, in the art world, and some of the fine art produced by individuals with backgrounds in the graffiti world is truly wonderful. Like I said before, though, "getting up", as the taggers call it, is about a kind of respect that is very different from the kind you and I are probably interested in.
Best!
I agree, that's why I said "it can be enjoyed in moderation." I did not generalize because I never said beer consumption was good in all cases.shownde wrote:Many folks would disagree with that. I don't happen to imbibe any alcoholic beverages partly because I have a family history of alcholism, and I don't want to risk putting my loved ones through the agony of dealing with another. Broad generalizations just don't work, because the situation is much more complicated. But it's okay. Life is complicated, and that's wonderful.innov8ion wrote:Beer is something that can be enjoyed in moderation w/out hurting anyone.
Thanks for continuing this conversation. The morality of tagging depends on what? You stated that ink-based graf does not cause physical harm in and of itself but the act of removing it will cause harm to the underlying surface. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. The act of applying the ink-based graf w/o permission defaces (harms) the owner's property. That alone is a crime. In removing the graffiti, two more crimes by the tagger are unveiled. #1 - The owner of the surface must spend his/her own resources (money, labor, etc), perhaps sizable, to remove the unwanted graf. #2 - As you state, and in the process of removal, the surface is damaged. That makes three unique crimes that the tagger has committed in just one act of defacing.shownde wrote:Again with the broad generalizations. It depends. In some cases, e.g. scratched windows, the results are damage. In some cases, e.g. ink-based markers, it doesn't harm anything, but you won't be able to remove it without causing harm. In the case of paint, then you would be hard-pressed to show that the application of paint causes damage. In most cases there are solvents that easily remove paint, or the surface can be repainted if the desired results are disliked. Paint can actually create a layer of protection for a surface otherwise subject to the onslaught of environmental conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.) This is part of why freight train companies tend to leave graffiti on their trains unless the identifying numbers for that care are somehow covered up. Graf writers have learned this and intentionally avoid these numbers so their work will stay up longer. Even when they do paint the numbers on a freight car again, they will often only paint the numbers, leaving the existing graffiti. And there are other kinds of graffiti like posters, stickers, chalk, etc. that are essentially benign.innov8ion wrote:Tagging specifically damages personal and public property.
You state that the act of tagging utilizing paint is preservative and thus a good effect. That doesn't pass the morality test of Kantian ethics which states that an act is good and only good if the motive is good. The preservative effect you describe is only latent if that. I just can't think of one philosophical lens that will corroborate with your side. Sorry.
Of course I agree that some acts are more benign than others. However, I think we can all agree that the principle is still the same. The only thing that differs is the level of damage caused by the defacer.
A figure of speech, yes. It doesn't mean that very similar or identical behavior couldn't be noble? I will agree if and only if the difference is in gaining the owner's permission. Otherwise, I couldn't disagree more with your comment.shownde wrote:First, I'm assuming you're using a figure of speech. I don't use drugs, and abhor their use. Second, you're right. I wouldn't rationalize tagging as a noble act. It is what it is, but that doesn't mean that very similar if not seemingly identical behavior couldn't be noble.innov8ion wrote:I don't care how much weed you smoke, you still can't rationalize that tagging is a noble act.
Normally property owners show more respect for property, simply because they know what goes around comes around. I enjoy commissioned graffiti too, you know. And if you would eschew the contributions of the tagger on your property, why would you condone it elsewhere?shownde wrote:Actually, I've been a property owner (or mortgage payer more specifically) for 4+ years. I'm also a small business owner. And I may just commission artists to <i>create</i> artwork on my property, though I'll probably eschew the contributions of the neglected-suburbanite-teenager tagger. I really love the wild fence the Venice Cafe has, ya know.innov8ion wrote:If you want to commission a tagger to perform artwork on your property (I doubt you own property), go for it.
I agree that damaging people is more harmful than damaging things. However, damage is damage.shownde wrote:I actually do express myself in ways that don't hurt others. In fact, I hope my work enhances people's everyday lives. Leaving the world better than I found it is a part of how I was raised. I would hardly compare tagging to assault, though. Damaging people is quite different from damaging things, as much as we both abhor both. Tagging is more akin to spitting on someone than kneeing them in the groin. Though, there are even times when kneeing someone in the groin would be a truly noble thing. Gadzooks!innov8ion wrote:If you want to express yourself, learn to do it in ways that don't hurt others. How would you like it if I knee'd you in the balls? Please don't take offense, it's just my way of expressing myself.
What does "getting up" mean? Some tags may be more pleasing than others, and some may even be called fine art. The problem is, it is still a crime if the property owner did not want the art there in the first place.shownde wrote:And yes, I probably have a fairly different perspective on the whole situation. I've had to study graffiti as part of my schooling because graffiti has become relevant, even accepted in some circle, in the art world, and some of the fine art produced by individuals with backgrounds in the graffiti world is truly wonderful. Like I said before, though, "getting up", as the taggers call it, is about a kind of respect that is very different from the kind you and I are probably interested in.
Likewiseshownde wrote:Best!
innov8ion wrote:
I agree, that's why I said "it can be enjoyed in moderation." I did not generalize because I never said beer consumption was good in all cases.
Fair enough.
innov8ion wrote:
Thanks for continuing this conversation.
NP
innov8ion wrote:The morality of tagging depends on what?
Tagging specifically is difficult to justify, though I'm quite sure one could find a reasonable situation in which tagging would be deemed moral. Graffiti more broadly defined is a bit easier to justify, though there are similarities between the two.
innov8ion wrote:You stated that ink-based graf does not cause physical harm in and of itself but the act of removing it will cause harm to the underlying surface.
I did indeed. At least in terms of permanent damage.
innov8ion wrote:I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. The act of applying the ink-based graf w/o permission defaces (harms) the owner's property. That alone is a crime.
I disagree with the first and agree with the last two.
innov8ion wrote:In removing the graffiti, two more crimes by the tagger are unveiled. #1 - The owner of the surface must spend his/her own resources (money, labor, etc), perhaps sizable, to remove the unwanted graf. #2 - As you state, and in the process of removal, the surface is damaged. That makes three unique crimes that the tagger has committed in just one act of defacing.
One is a hardship resulting from the initial act, but is not a crime. Two is a hardship resulting from the response to the initial act, but is not a crime.
^Pedantry at it's finest
innov8ion wrote:You state that the act of tagging utilizing paint is preservative and thus a good effect. That doesn't pass the morality test of Kantian ethics which states that an act is good and only good if the motive is good. The preservative effect you describe is only latent if that. I just can't think of one philosophical lens that will corroborate with your side. Sorry.
I would agree that it is usually only a latent good. I would not assume motive in all cases. My "side" isn't with taggers, it's with individual adjudication and recognition of complexity. Philosophically I lean towards Aristotle and Aquinas, but I'm not an intellectual purist in any regards. They all seem to be right up to a point. They're all fallible, after all.
How did we get from graffiti to philosophy, though?
innov8ion wrote:Of course I agree that some acts are more benign than others. However, I think we can all agree that the principle is still the same. The only thing that differs is the level of damage caused by the defacer.
Exactly.
innov8ion wrote:It doesn't mean that very similar or identical behavior couldn't be noble? I will agree if and only if the difference is in gaining the owner's permission. Otherwise, I couldn't disagree more with your comment.
I guess you're assuming that a property owner is essentially a fully moral actor, and that graffiti is inherently immoral simply based on property rights arguments? I would assume that some property owners are not fully moral actors, and that graffiti <i>might</i> be a moral act that transcends basic property rights in favor of some other fundamental rights. I also tend to distinguish tagging as a sub-genre of graffiti that would not be nearly as defensible as some other forms <i>might</i> be.
innov8ion wrote:
Normally property owners show more respect for property, simply because they know what goes around comes around. I enjoy commissioned graffiti too, you know. And if you would eschew the contributions of the tagger on your property, why would you condone it elsewhere?
Respect of property has it's limits, but I agree with the golden-rule-ish sentiment there. Commisioned graffiti is a glaring oxymoron.
I would eschew the contributions of certain taggers, true.innov8ion wrote:
I agree that damaging people is more harmful than damaging things. However, damage is damage.
I disagree. Painting on a building without permission is quite different from setting it on fire. I would think appropriate punishments for the two would be radically different.
innov8ion wrote:
What does "getting up" mean? Some tags may be more pleasing than others, and some may even be called fine art. The problem is, it is still a crime if the property owner did not want the art there in the first place.
"Getting up" refers to having as many tags in as many places as possible. It refers to obtaining attention for ones tagging. And you're right. It's a crime.
Likewise[/quote]shownde wrote:Best!
I'm glad we can have this discussion civilly.
Q: What do think of Western Civilization.
A: I think it would be a great thing.
Boring. Already been done in the infamous Highway 40 Graffiti thread (though without the beer and Christianity elements......seriously?.....facepalm). I was going to post that I noticed that Ed Bizoxx had tagged the facade of the (incredible terra cotta) Majestic Theater in E. St. Louis in that thread, but then I noticed this one. When I read the first post about Ed Boxx being dead I laughed. Then you guys got me all depressed with your "its just a rumor" talk. I certainly can't think of a better way for this guy to go out than in the line of duty.
- 185
so not dead..
i recently met some pretty big taggers, ie obces, onion, pilot, etc... found out alot about the world of graffiti, and they do not like ed box aka red fox..
i recently met some pretty big taggers, ie obces, onion, pilot, etc... found out alot about the world of graffiti, and they do not like ed box aka red fox..
shownde wrote:innov8ion wrote:The morality of tagging depends on what?
Tagging specifically is difficult to justify, though I'm quite sure one could find a reasonable situation in which tagging would be deemed moral. Graffiti more broadly defined is a bit easier to justify, though there are similarities between the two.
innov8ion wrote:It doesn't mean that very similar or identical behavior couldn't be noble? I will agree if and only if the difference is in gaining the owner's permission. Otherwise, I couldn't disagree more with your comment.
I guess you're assuming that a property owner is essentially a fully moral actor, and that graffiti is inherently immoral simply based on property rights arguments? I would assume that some property owners are not fully moral actors, and that graffiti <i>might</i> be a moral act that transcends basic property rights in favor of some other fundamental rights. I also tend to distinguish tagging as a sub-genre of graffiti that would not be nearly as defensible as some other forms <i>might</i> be.
innov8ion wrote:
Normally property owners show more respect for property, simply because they know what goes around comes around. I enjoy commissioned graffiti too, you know. And if you would eschew the contributions of the tagger on your property, why would you condone it elsewhere?
Respect of property has it's limits, but I agree with the golden-rule-ish sentiment there. Commisioned graffiti is a glaring oxymoron.
http://builtstlouis.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... nt-18.html
http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2007/01/ ... nally.html
http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2007/01/ ... rmont.html
Consider this situation. This graffiti provides visual evidence that the Blairmont LLCs have bought at least one property that was occupied (for 51 years, no less). The LLCs' lack of maintenance of their properties is well-documented. Is the property owner more morally upright than the previous tenants that wrote graffiti on the property?
This is clearly an exceptional situation, and it must be an incredibly small percentage of taggers that actually once lived in the property that they write on, but it still provides an example of a social function being played through graffiti. It was an effective form of communication expressing the startling fact that a now-empty property was occupied by a family for 51 years. Not every form of communication could have been this successful in raising people's eyebrows, and that may well be why this specific property's graffiti was removed.
Also, back to the topic at hand, I've never been one to enjoy or laugh at the idea of a person dying as retribution for a non-violent crime (frequently a misdemeanor), but then hey, that's just me.