Talk:Pichação

history
apparently these are descended from runes.

there may be some truth to this, but i have no way of verifying it.

71.253.25.182 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

no, this is just a type of graffiti, whose purpose is to vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbarrios (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't exclusive to São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. You can see those sorts of stuff in Montevideo, London (District Line tracks), Ciudad de Mexico, etc. --189.100.160.179 (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pixação with an X
There is no such thing as "Pixação or pichação". Pichação is written with CH and the X variant is simply a misspelled word. --Feen (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't cleared up how to spell it. You claim that there is no such thing as pixação or pichação. So if you don't spell it with either the ch or the x what do you spell it with? Ceaseless (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, according to Michaelis http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=picha%E7%E3o the correct form is "pichação", from piche. I suggest to rename the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.66.2 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this article
The whole article was vastly based in one single source (Manco, Tristan, Lost Art, and Caleb Neelon) and the citations given don't look serious. For example: "There is no country on earth with a worse distribution of wealth than Brazil" is an exageration, as there are several countries with way worse wealth distribution, such as South Africa, Namibia and Bolivia. The statement that "pichação" is a way poor people found to punish the "nice buildings" living rich people is another dubious information. The most affected areas are abandoned buildings in downtown and pichação is easily found in favelas and other poor areas, where it doesn't affect the rich at all. From my own observation, I believe that the main reason for pichação is just self-promotion of individuals or gangs and, sometimes, a way to show territorial control. The idea that it is used for seaking social justice via punishing rich areas doesn't fit with the fact that rich neighboorhoods suffer less from this than the poor ones. Also, this article in Portuguese doesn't show pichação as a Brazilian phenomenon, but just as ilegal graffiti, regardless of where and why it is made. 189.119.69.197 (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are a paulistano municipal worker? The Pt Wikipedia paints a much more nuanced picture than "just illegal graffiti". Eladynnus (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not from São Paulo, nor a municipal worker anywhere. I said pichação is not a phenomenon with Brazilian origns, it is just a word to describe ilegal graffiti, regardless on where it is made and regardless of its motivations. The Pt Wikipedia shows a photo from El Salvador and a another from Germany before any photo from Brazil. It also starts the history section with acient Pompeii, Middle Age's monasteries and the 1968 revolts in Paris. I really don't see how could you say that Pt Wikipedia contradicts what I said.189.13.109.1 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence in the No Brasil section says that pichação is different from ordinary graffiti that article discusses its political and social aspects. You might disagree, but the sources are against you.
 * No they aren't. That section elaborates on how graffiti is used as a means of social and political speech, but the word still just means graffiti.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.4.166.176 (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There are some flaws in the Pt article, though. While most of the article says that pichação is a phenomenon with a distinct origin some editors there seem to think that the word simply means "political graffiti". Again, the sources say otherwise, and anyone who has seen a few pictures of pichação can confirm that its aesthetic is also distinctive. That History section is especially bad, since it exclusively cites one person's university dissertation and misleads the reader into believing that there is continuity between this and the graffiti of Pompeii, when the author is only comparing it to historical instances of graffiti that had political and social themes. But whatever, I am not a Pt editor. Eladynnus (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Which source is against me? The translation of "Pichação" is graffiti. The only difference between the words is the fact that the Brazillian law reserves the use of pichação just for illegal grafitti while "grafite" is the general term for both illegal and legal. That is the reason spray cans in Brazil must have the saying "Pichação é crime". The law also states that "grafite" is not a crime when the owner agrees (http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2011-2014/2011/Lei/L12408.htm), however, if it is not agreed, it is a crime, called pichação. It does not matter what you draw, it does not matter the message, "aesthetic" or whatever, every single illegal graffiti is considered pichação and it is weird to see this word been used for a Brazilian born phenomenon when it just means illegal grafitti, which happens in most countries of the world. If a man makes illegal grafitti, Brazilians will call him pichador, even if this man lives in another country (for exemple:http://www.anda.jor.br/27/07/2009/pichador-ataca-animais-em-fazenda-escola-nos-eua). Were pichação a word for a distinct kind of draw and writting, with a well defined aestheic, then it would be possible to see legal Pichação, as this kind of draw and writting can be made with concent of owners or even in the pichador's own house. However, if someone makes any draw legaly, including the ones you are defining as "pichação", he is never called a pichador but a grafiteiro. The fact is that the word is defined just by its legallity, not the style. If it was made legaly, it is not pichação, if it was illgeal, it is pichação, no matter the style, country, or motivations. 201.58.169.82 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename to "Graffiti in Brazil"
There's no sense in having an article called "Pixação" in the english wikipedia, when such article is non-existent even in the portuguese wikipedia. I was going to propose this article to be removed, as many people pointed out here in the talk page that it is just a form of graffiti. But looking at the article, I see there is plenty of information and references, so I propose it be renamed to "Graffiti in Brazil", and a link be added in a subsection of Graffiti. Also, the article should be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.115.12 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 September 2012‎


 * I want to echo this sentiment. The word "pichação" is literally just a synonim for graffiti. The single source that claims that pichação is a specific form of artstyle is foreign, and mostly unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.4.166.176 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also second this idea. Msbarrios (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Pixação with an X, again
User Mini.fb insists that pixação be considered as valid as pichação, but according to Portuguese spelling rules, it is not. I have provided references from dictionaries and grammar sites, but he/she continues to revert me. Can someone else please intervene? —capmo (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Os Gêmeos and Nunca as Pichação
This article states that Os Gêmeos and Nunca are street artists who have been 'formed' by pichação, however, the article about Os Gêmeos contradicts this. Aforementioned article states that Os Gêmeos' influences were people like Allen Benedikt and Barry McGee, both of whom were American graffiti artists. I can find at least one article that unequivocally states that Os Gêmeos is not a pixador. In addition to this, it is clear after viewing works by pixadores and Os Gêmeos, that the aesthetic style of the later is much different than what is commonly referred to as Pichação.Mcnrny (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)