25 Sep 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think there is an important distinction to be made. Does the art derive its merit from it's illegality? Does good art need to be outside fo the mainstream? Sorry, but if part of the art is putting it in places that it's not supposed to be, then throw the book at such artists, it can only add to their artistic merit if that is the measure of their art. On the other hand, by going easy on such artists and not prosecuting, we end up in the exact same position you criticise of no longer being out of the mainstream.
That's why I suggest increasing public space or commons for such work but remaining zero-tolerance on the rest. That way, the artisits who are in it for the picture can go ahead, while those that are just in it for the image of being "out of the mainstream" can get exactly what they want... a few months scrubbing walls of the "art" they insist on placing where it's not wanted.
25 Sep 07
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedOf course not. But the question is: Does the fact that its spraypainted illegally on walls and trains make it more worthy?
How terribly conservative of you!
I'm particularly opposed to this reaction. I assign no value in keeping things as they are simply for the sake of keeping, nor to 'unkeeping' things simply for the sake of 'unkeeping'.
26 Sep 07
No one should have the right to to use paint on any property that does not specifically belong to the "artist." It is irrelevant whether or not it is "artistic" or a scrawl. Buy your own wall and paint it up to your heart's content. But leave public and private property alone!
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI love looking at good graffiti, but I totally agree with this perspective. Artistry has nothing to do with legality. That having been said I really think it's one of the best forms of modern art, especially compared to a good deal of modern art hanging in galleries.
No one should have the right to to use paint on any property that does not specifically belong to the "artist." It is irrelevant whether or not it is "artistic" or a scrawl. Buy your own wall and paint it up to your heart's content. But leave public and private property alone!
I went to an outdoor hip hop concert where De La Soul was playing years ago and they had breakdancers in one section, De La on stage and a place where you could look at/buy graffiti that had been painted on canvases. I assume it's still called grafffiti if it's not on a wall, but whatever you call it it was in the same style. My point is it was no less artistic for being on a canvas, and given the venue where it was seen/sold I don't think you could accuse the artists of 'selling out'. I don't even remember if it was up for sale. Private property is private property though.
26 Sep 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84I, too, have seen some beautfiful graffiti art. I hope all great graffiti artists will seek the permission of the property owner to show their talent.
I love looking at good graffiti, but I totally agree with this perspective. Artistry has nothing to do with legality. That having been said I really think it's one of the best forms of modern art, especially compared to a good deal of modern art hanging in galleries.
I went to an outdoor hip hop concert where De La Soul was playing years ago and t ...[text shortened]... don't even remember if it was up for sale. Private property is private property though.
26 Sep 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou make 'graffiti art' one term. Art doens't have to be graffiti and graffiti doesn't have to be art. Graffiti looks cool, the painters are amazing but it's because they're talented, not because they're painting on public property. There's something to be said for the culture, but it's illegal and doesn't in my opinion have anything to do with the art per se. It's intersting as a counter culture, but it doesn't make the art better.
And of course I agree graffiti isn't necessarily good just because it's on private property!
26 Sep 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedI definitely agree that as with everything, graffiti too comes under the mantra of "location, location, location". Though getting permission beforehand wouldn't diminish the value of the location. The removal of graffiti to make way for advertisement wouldn't be halted by that, and I agree that that's a pity. Though I can see little that can be done about that.
Interesting point about the cultural value of graffiti, did you know that the word "quiz" is supposed to have originated from a bet in Dublin? (Though there are alternative origins)
Apparently some guy a long time ago made a bet that he could invent a nonsensical word and have it in the mainstream within a day, so that night, he decided to scrawl the word "quiz" all over the streets of Dublin and by the next day, everyone was asking the question "what does quiz mean?" which is apparently where it got its final meaning.
http://www.sacklunch.net/personalnames/Q/Quiz.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-qui1.htm
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/quiz