YouTube tagger busted
Police: YouTube Videos Helped Snag 31-Year-Old Serial Tagger:
Another vandal that claims to be an artist has been busted by way of YouTube. This time it’s 31-year-old Jason Williams aka ‘Revok’. Who the hell still considers himself a tagger at the age of 31?
He would go around vandalizing public and private property around the Coachella Music and Arts Festival for the past three years.
Williams would promote his vandalism on YouTube and even more sad is this quote…
Williams apparently had corporate sponsors who backed his efforts as cutting-edge artistic expression, Guitron said.
If you want to do this on a canvas or on your own property or a commissioned work then you can call it art. Anyplace else it’s just a stain on society.
Grow up and get a real job.
Tags: Coachella, Jason Williams, Revok, tagger, vandalism, YouTube
67 opinions for YouTube tagger busted
Cindy
Jul 28, 2008 at 9:56 pm
What a loser! Anyone over the age of 21 who is a tagger is a total douchbag! And people who are stupid enough to videotape criminal acts, even just vandalism, and put it up on YouTube should never reproduce!
Phil
Jul 29, 2008 at 1:21 am
Funny you say that. Cause that vandal makes more than both of you and is flown all over the world for his art, has his own boost mobile phone, Rebok shoe among many other things.. what do you have to show for your life?
Trench
Jul 29, 2008 at 1:40 am
No criminal record and the fact that I don’t make a living from petty vandalism.
BW
Jul 29, 2008 at 11:26 am
Oh man, if only I had my own Reebok shoe. Then I could die happy. Oh, and the boost mobile phone? Forget about it.
Frame
Jul 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm
First of all Revok is an artist, NOT a tagger!
Most people wouldn’t understand or don’t even care to understand what Graffiti artist are all about. If you have kids, there is a good chance they either do graffiti or are fans of it!
If you want to know what its about, come out to this years West Coast Graffiti Party held in Los Angeles, Ca in Sept, 2008.
Trench
Jul 29, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Not an artist, just a vandal.
Scared Faggot
Jul 30, 2008 at 9:30 am
revok is hunk and eats his own cum
Missi
Jul 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
Vandalism is not art. Those of you that are defending him are people that probably still live with your parents and never had to pay for something only to have one of those “artists”destroy it. I am younger than Jason and I see nothing artistic about destroying something. I bet his cellmate will show him a whole new world of jailhouse art.
Skate All Cities
Jul 31, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I guess that makes all of us (who have our own company) douchebags for being taggers… LOL!
Trench
Jul 31, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Yeah, pretty much.
BW
Aug 1, 2008 at 11:06 am
I’m actually an artist, for real. I’ve never used the side of a house before, but if any defender is willing to put their money where their mouth is, let me come over and draw on yours.
VYAL
Aug 1, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Whats a REAL job?????….A 9 to 5 where you sit in traffic for half your life and become a slave????….. REVOK has an obvious talent that corporations as well as art collectors , can see……Learn about the man and his work before you rush to your narrow minded judgement…….
war42tv
Aug 1, 2008 at 2:08 pm
face it revok is one of the best at what he does and is enjoying the finer things in life as a result of being a vandal.
Chuck D.
Aug 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Funny how Vyal accuses people of making a “narrow-minded judgement”, yet he does the same for people who have normal jobs that don’t require breaking the law…and I agree w/BW, if he’s just showing off his talent (LOL), then I guess it’d be OK if I just came to one of these guys’ houses and started drawing on it.
Jerk*
Aug 5, 2008 at 7:16 am
Graffiti is a modern art form which does not belong on a canvas in an art gallery, legal or illegal, art is art because it exisists where it wants to and it flourishes where ever necessary. Most historical paintings were not considered art until it was accepted. So I thank Revok for pushing the limits of art and making us accept it by injecting our minds with a beautiful array of color where ever we choose to look be it walls, buildings, vehicals and or jail cells.
Trench
Aug 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Petty crime is not art. If that was the case shoplifitng would be an art. Tagging is nothing but visual pollution.
Jerk*
Aug 6, 2008 at 4:47 am
Its obvious petty crime is not an art. I never mentioned Revok doing a simple tag, he is not a teenage tagger without experiance. Revok paints very intricate masterpieces full of color he has been doing so for the last half of his life. Let me just add this shoplifting is not an art but if taken to the next level it is for example all those famous missing paintings from galleries which where never recovered where stolen by talented people it was never consider a petty crime.
FYI!!!
Aug 6, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“Revok” is a trademark in graffitti…A really good graffitti artist. he was just touching his real graffitti roots…All i gotta say is he was willing to take the risk before..for the love of it..And hes still willing to take it…Real shit..Props to revok.
Trench
Aug 6, 2008 at 9:55 pm
He’s a real shit all right.
By the way, spell check is your friend.
Mrs Garda
Aug 8, 2008 at 4:59 am
You know…IVe seen his stuff. I like it. But he needs to ‘tag’ where he has permission to tag. It’s that simple.
Mrs Garda
Aug 8, 2008 at 5:00 am
oh…and if he’s that famous, then he should have tons of takers. So. No need to do it the illegal way.
monster masher
Aug 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Revok is a king who makes a living from doing an artform birthed of disenfranchised youth,, he has been part of the reason style writing has been taken from the streets and put into art galleries and legal venues, the problem with doing graff for aliving is you will never stay employed by doing legals because it is not what the culture is about..Writing lives and breaths revolution and is a voice for those who have no way to communicate to a larger audience,,What revok does is not tagging… tagging is just a way to attract people to his larger works its all self promotion, and if i can’t walk down the street without seeing a mcdonalds bill board, or cellphone advertisement, why would i care to see a revok piece or burner that is one of a kind masterwork painted solely for the love of art, instead of a another discusting display of corporate advertising aimed at seperating the people from there money and imagination, fuck you sheep who disagree, cause it’s you assholes that will be buying a mass produced revok print in the ikea catalogue when it becomes the latest trend.
Trench
Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 pm
cause it’s you assholes that will be buying a mass produced revok print in the ikea catalogue when it becomes the latest trend.
Um…no I won’t. Again, graffiti is not art, it’s just vandalism. Call me when you get to the real world.
mad cow
Aug 9, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Billion and multi-million, dollar corporation advertising on any, and every space via illegal billboards in los angeles owned by viacom, c.b.s., clear channel, etc. , are the real criminals of visual pollution. Take note haters.
Art is subjective, to each his own. Takashi Murakami who is a world reknowned contemporary artist who has done work for louis vuitton and others, had a billboard in Los Angeles advertising his show at the museum of contemporary art that was painted on by Revok and a partner. The two of them painted on the billboard in such away that it incorporated Murakami’s style. Murakami saw this and asked for the billboard to be taken down and sent to his studio in Tokio, Japan. He was honored by this display of raw urban art paying homage to him.
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 12:12 am
Trench, if your that butt hurt by these opinions, I suggest you start a movement by boycotting all companies that support this form of art ( art is evocative and provocative ).
start with scion, boost mobile, nike, addidas, converse, vans, reebok, puma, dc shoes, etc etc. I really got into the shoe companies here, however the list goes on to multi billion dollar corps. that use this medium you condemn. Refocus your opinions and energy and maybe you can start a movement similar to that of the nazi’s in germany with their campaign to outlaw art selectively.
Mrs Garda
Aug 10, 2008 at 1:41 am
the PROBLEM with that sort of art is this. If I want a picasso painting, I go out and buy a picasso painting. If I dont want a picasso painting I have a choice to not buy one. If I abhore picasso and the man just comes up and paints one of his paintings on my house’s side, then it’s not art I want now is it? And then I have to pay money to get that unwanted art OFF my house. Art I never wanted in the first place. That’s the problem with tagging. Yes, he’s talented. Yes he’s very good at what he does. I understand that and like I said, Ive seen it and liked it, But can you people who are defending him understand that some people just may not enjoy this type of art and do not want it on their things? If he wants to ‘tag’ then he needs to pick Nike, and reebok and boost and etc buildings since they enjoy and sponser his stuff, instead of people who do not want or appreciate his art. It is vandalism if it is not wanted, not art, because the person who owns what it is on does not want it.
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 2:39 am
Clearly you are in the minority in your sweeping generalizations of the graffiti medium. You have every right to not like graffiti, you may feel as you wish. However there is a very viable market for graffiti and graffiti influenced art. You clearly cannot relate because your life could possibly be in complete contrast to that of the “average” graff head. I assume nothing about you except that you have a sadly narrow view of the world. I dont condone destroying private property, if any one painted graffiti style art on the side of your house then they are a complete novice to this medium or have used bad judgement in regards to placement of their medium. Believe it or not, there are unwritten rules amogst the graffiti community.
In retrospect i can combat your argument with, the native american indians did not ask for their home to be vandalized yet here we are today the proud Republic of the United States of America.
Home of the mentally inslaved….
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 3:01 am
How about living in front of a corporate illuminated billboard flashing various advertisements for products i abhore. I have trouble relating to your argument, because i live in this scenario. I live in a city that chooses not to inforce laws governing placement and quantity of these types of advertising methods that pollute the city of Los Angeles’ landscape…
Mrs Garda
Aug 10, 2008 at 4:52 am
You see MC I disagree just as much with being forced to see corporate things as I do taggers deciding one’s house or fence is a great place to make a name for themselves.
You’re right, I dont know much about the ‘unspoken rules’ of graffiti artists, but I’m not above learning and I certainly, as I Said, dont have a problem with this particular artist. I can just see the point of the people who think they’re all vandals. After all, that’s how it started, and unfortunately a lot of people have to deal with that aspect of it as opposed to the artistic merit that some folk have.
Mrs Garda
Aug 10, 2008 at 4:54 am
As far as the native americans go, the only way I can fix that is move to europe again. And I dont agree with that either so it’s not really a good point to make as it’s not a situation that can be changed by single persons.
Chuck D.
Aug 10, 2008 at 5:02 am
Interesting how the same people defending Williams castigate the “brainless sheep” living in “corporate America”, yet have no prob w/their boy recieving CORPORATE sponsors for his “artwork”…apparently it’s OK to sell out when one of their own has a shot @ the big time.
Mrs Garda
Aug 10, 2008 at 5:03 am
chuck you’re either quicker than me to catch that or it’s just too late here…
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I never said i was a fan and he aint my boy, just callin out the artificial art officials…
Corprations are evil yet capitalism rules supreme, play both sides of the fence and you make the man spread the name on the corp. side and keep it real the street side…
come to l.a. and you will see corps. steeling graffit practices to promote their wares ( wheat pasting on public and private property ) illegally. your point is moot to me.
i know your still buyin their products…
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm
in addition, you can help native americans by getting involved, contribute to the tribes that dont have casino ties. would you donate to some foreign country or well to do corp. charity before you would think about taking care of the people whos land we took…
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Unfotunatly for you, vandalism was here before you and will be here after you.
In regards to R, let’s just attribute this to “when keepin it “real” goes wrong”.
Everyone makes bad judgement calls, everyone.
Trench
Aug 10, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Clearly you are in the minority in your sweeping generalizations of the graffiti medium.
No, you just exist in your insulated fantasy world. Most people think graffiti is nothing more than petty vandalism.
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm
opinions are like arseholes my friend and you won the donkey prize. If i live in my own world why do you support giant conglomerations that use this medium to court your daughters buying power. I believe you live in your fantasy blog world, now stop bloging and raise your daughters…
Trench
Aug 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Actually I raised my daughter to be smarter than that but thanks for playing. Don’t you have some personal property to deface?
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Wow, you are dense, unless you are creating your own clothes, food, magazines, cars. Yuo have been touched by a former vandal. Many of todays hip designers who help create advertisements and packging are former vandals who were able to fill these position because they are talented artist.
Hater keep hating. I can just imagine your parentng skills, you teach them what you practice by stereotyping someone who has views that differ yours?
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm
For someone who was formally accused incorrectly, you shure do alot of accusing yourself. I have read your blogs and have seen your blind accusations.
Pass that petty behavior on dow as well?
Chuck D.
Aug 10, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Once again, the “non-conformists” show that it’s OK to sell out if there are extenuating circumstances…how much of a non-conformist can someone be if they’re willing to go work for corporate America once they get “persuasive” ($$$)?
Oh, and we’re in the minority? Somehow I don’t think the overwhelming majority of our population approves of unauthorized “artwork” like that.
Chuck D.
Aug 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm
And interesting how Williams’ defenders accuse Trench, et al. of being narrow-minded, yet prove to be the same in their characterizations of those who don’t approve of breaking the law for the sake of art.
mad cow
Aug 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Trench can defend himself, chuck d ( chuck d of Public Enemy fame? Where is your clown flavor flav?). I never defended the subjects actions only the result, which ends up being a form of art. Wheather you or I like or not, this is a form of art that has validation from the international art community. When museums like the Whitney house and display artwork completed by Lee Quinonas, who cut his teeth in the 70’s painting whole car subway trains in N.Y. The results are the same. As Lee changed his canvas from subway trains to handball courts in the early 80’s he wrote “Grafiti is a art and if art is a crime, let god forgive all”.
A Level Head?
Aug 11, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Art, especially good art, is by its very nature thought provoking and controversial. Every groundbreaking movement has had its critics in the beginning with many artists later being acknowledged as geniuses. Whether you like a style of art or not is up to you but it would be incorrect to not regard it as art at all. For the sake of this discussion I am not referring to simple tagging as art. I am referring to graffiti art with all of its color and dimension. While I do not condone the defacing of private property (and really, how often does a house get painted?), the essence of graffiti art demands that it be in the public eye and on a large scale.
While it would be nice if there were enough walls being offered up for ‘legal’ painting that is just not the case. However, just because it appears somewhere unexpected or less than sanctioned does not make it an abhorrence. At least it is an original expression and not a blatant, market-targeted, cookie cutter ad. If artists are getting fame and making a living by expressing themselves in a unique and original manner then more power to them. At least it is not the mind numbing pabulum that oozes through our complacent society. We need things that challenge us and make us think and that means considering things that are different. I hope everyone, on both sides of this discussion, will take a closer look next time they see graffiti art and try to see it from a different perspective.
Mrs Garda
Aug 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I understand what you’re saying, level, and I agree with it for the most part. I used house because it’s the first bit of property that I considered mentioning, but house, or business, it’s the same thing. If I owned a deli down in new york and someone defaced my building with graffiti, I’d have to pay money to get it taken off.
Graffiti art can be -beautiful-. Ive seen some gorgeous designs, but the owner of a business should have a right to say whether they want something like that–anything really–on their business, wouldnt you agree?
Another arguement is, if you’re putting your art on my building, you’re, in a way forcing me to sell your art. You’re making me advertise for you when I dont want to. I wouldnt agree with coca cola doing that (I dont like their ads any more than anyone else but at least they -pay- to put them up instead of just putting them up and then running off into the night, and if this artist was paying to put his art up I’d have no problem with it) and I certainly dont agree with artists, graffiti, cubist, or otherwise doing it.
SMEAR R.T.H
Aug 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm
My dick stinks.
mad cow
Aug 12, 2008 at 12:04 am
Smear, you burnt it, nuff’ said…
bootyj
Aug 12, 2008 at 9:54 am
Mad Cow - I can tell buy your post that you are nothing but an LA scenster/hipster who probably grew up in some rich suburban neighborhood (I am guessing Anahiem), you are just following what ever hot-topic, urban outfitters trend is hot at the moment. Tagging is vandalism, plain and simple, true artists can can put thier work on canvas and sell to the public, this guy’s work in nothing more than a marketing scheme and ad executives are just using him, the trend will pass, and they will spit him out and he will be back where he started.
And do not say shit about Native Amiericans, you have no fucking clue how those people live, I live in Oklahoma (Native American capital of the US) and married to a registered native american and my boys are card carrying memember of a nationaly recogonized tribe. The only way to make up for the years of oppression to them (you know stealing thier land, infecting them with deseases, forcing them to christianity) is to support casinos, each family in the tribe directly profits from the casinos revenue (yes they receive a check monthly with thier share) also they fund hospitals and health clinics, WIC programs (all of which I have personally used) and college education (my husband had all 6 years old college paid for by his tribe) it is an injuns way of getting back at the white man by stealing thier money in the form of casino profits.
So Mad Cow - you can just go back to being a groupie to some petty criminal, but like I said, his time will pass and you will be on to some new artsy fartsy trend.
mad cow
Aug 12, 2008 at 11:13 am
where did i write i was a fan?
read levelhead’s response, the same idea yet better articulated…
i went off topic on a native tangent. however your talking to someone who is part cree and ojibawe.
casinos? not all tribes split the pie evenly…
The idea & argument about folks who express themselves in this medium of selling out, goes back to the 70’s.
A Level Head?
Aug 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mrs Garda, I think you make very good points and I appreciate your contribution here. I think we are on just slightly different sides of this issue. The use of any private property is touchy, I agree. But I will let you know that I manage a store and someone very artfully graffitied something above our door. The first instinct was to paint over it but then we looked and admired the creativity and the judicious nature of the work. It is on this building to this day.
Let me pose another question to this forum. If people are painting on the backs of industrial buildings, along blank walls by cargo train tracks and on hidden underpasses and such does it still bother you as much? These are spaces no one much cares about. Would you be a little less critical of people painting at these venues?
Mrs Garda
Aug 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Honestly though Level, that’s exactly my point. YOu decided you wanted the art there (granted after it was put up) so it cost you nothing to allow it to stay. But had you decided you didnt like it, you’d have had to paint over it, which would have put you in the negative, profit-wise for something you hadnt wanted in the first place.
Private property is my biggest issue, and to me it’s all about the owner and what he/she wants. If the public/the owner doesnt care about something being there, then it’s no issue of MINE, and if no one cares that its’ there, then there’s no reason to make a fuss. Some of it can be pretty.
However a tagger doesnt -know- if the owner will or wont like what they put up when they tag. They’ve taken the choice away. That’s my problem. It isnt the art itself, it’s the choice.
stopurcrying
Aug 13, 2008 at 12:07 am
bootyj - I can tell by your post that you lack the intellect to judge character. mad cow is so completely far from your half-assed assessment, it is laughable. I have been to several art shows in los angeles where revok’s work has sold for thousands of dollars per piece- bergamont station in santa monica,ca. among many others. I’m sure you realize, Anaheim is in republican laden orange county, not in los angeles. Stop getting all of your info from the internet and cable. Artsy fartsy? When you use terms like that it begs the question, are you even mature enough to participate in this discussion, surely not.
REVOK number two
Aug 27, 2008 at 9:14 pm
haha what an idiot!
hope he gets 10 years to life!
1987 CBS
Aug 27, 2008 at 9:15 pm
MY BALLS ITCH.
knightmaer L.A.W.mob...
Aug 27, 2008 at 9:53 pm
When art, become independent, depicts its world in dazzling colors, a moment of life has grown old and it cannot be rejuvenated with dazzling colors. It can only be evoked as a memory. The greatness of art begins to appear only at the dusk of life.
peace to the homie Madcow, coming wit’ it…
old schooler
Aug 27, 2008 at 10:38 pm
My opinion of this is simple. I too am a graff writer, been so for many years. I know the difference between art and vandalism.I also know that some vandalism has artistic quality.I also realize that what i consider art will not be accepted by everyone, and when i do it without permission I am taking a risk of getting arrested or assaulted by those who dont share my view. Revoks problem is he wants to be accepted by bolth sides. He wants his cake and to eat it too. Not very smart. Ive been in the game for a very long time, but have never been arrested. I stick to the streets alone and say to hell with corporate. I think Its pretty funny when i see graff writers supporting the guy, when he tries hard to separate himself from us. He has said on more then one occasion that he doesnt attend art events or graff shows unless its a 7th letter show. Well then, dig yourself out of the mess you you put yourself in and dont ask us to support you.
DEEZNUTS
Aug 28, 2008 at 2:06 am
bootyj loves the native cock, trench is a typical cock sucker, revok is an idiot, and you can all lick my hairy balls until you cough up hair balls choke and die.
Chuck D.
Aug 28, 2008 at 5:31 am
Deeznuts, is there something you’d like to tell us? After all, it’s a known fact that people who make assumptions about others’ sexual orientation are usually just covering something up…LOL
Chuck D.
Aug 28, 2008 at 5:46 am
Thanks for the insight, oldschooler…nice to see that not all graffiti artists have two sets of standards and can be swayed when the corporate media they claim to despise gets “persuasive” ($$$) w/them.
EZ
Sep 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm
BANKSY; is an GRAFFITI artist, no one on this earth can protest that, unless they are extremely, extremely retarded.
He puts his art on walls, at the end of the day its graffiti, he has caused well into the £100,000’s of damage….
But he makes more money than anyone on this blog put together, when bland people like Trench are complaining about it, Banksy is laughing all the way to the bank.
The TATE Modern, the biggest art, yes ART Gallery in the UK, which is recognised all over the world, had devoted an exhibition just to graffiti and even had graffiti 80ft tall painted on the outside on this historic building to promote the exhibition.
So to Trench, and any one so narrow minded on this forum that has the nerve to call amazing artists like Revok for example, mere “vandals”, really need to get a life, get a girlfriend and a hobby, you boring sad old people.
End of conversation.
Trench Reynolds
Sep 25, 2008 at 11:47 pm
It doesn’t matter how much money they have. A vandal is still a vandal.
mad cow
Dec 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm
trench, we are all vandals leaving our carbon footprint on this earth…
a vandal is a vandal…
Trench Reynolds
Dec 12, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Step away from the bong hippie.
Josh
Dec 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm
The fact that alot of you on here sound like you never heard of Revok or seen his work implies that you know shit about the art movement’s in the U.S. and the rest of the world. This being said your opinions hold no validity! So keep them where they belong, to yourself.
Trench Reynolds
Dec 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm
It’s only art when it’s on your own canvas. Otherwise it’s just vandalism.
Chuck D.
Dec 15, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Again, I love how Williams’ defenders accuse the regulars here of stereotyping, then do the same thing themselves…and Josh, I could give 2 shits about his work, like Trench said, a vandal’s a vandal whether his work’s considered “art” or not. Oh, and if you don’t wanna hear other people’s opinions, what are you doing on a site devoted to just that?
GregS
Dec 16, 2008 at 1:55 am
Trench, if I go around town posting up vote Obama stickers, or Bush 2000 stickers, is this also vandalism?
I think it’s speech. Are we supposed to contain free speech onto and into free speech zones? Or should we be able to express anything we want where ever we want?
Should commercial businesses have exclusive vandalism rights because they can afford to pay for ad space?
Should the government have the right to promote it’s own agenda in the “public” space using tax dollars?
What right does a consumer have to promote their agenda and where are they supposed to do it?
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: