The post that was quoted here has been removedCome on, that has nothing to do with the point of the art itself.
I feel that public authorities should support more the graffiti. I'm sure that if they allowed people to spraypaint some trains and underside of bridges, that would add something to the urban environment.
To say that this would ruin graffiti art is nonsense, in my opinion. So I do not defend the illegality of it and find it somewhat absurd that some do.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI kinda see where you are coming from, but forward-thinking councils do provide wall-spaces for the graffiti, which are largely ignored.
Continuing to then tag/graffiti trains or whatever else "in the name of art" is simply defacement and vandalism, there's no middle ground here.
It costs money to remove, and comes out of (y)our pockets.
Years ago, there was a good one on the approach to Paddington station from the west, I've no idea if it's still there...:
"I am an angry passionate soul screaming out in this torturous mediocrity."
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhy? I really don't understand it.
And I don't really care, actually. If the town hall is supportive of artists and provides at least some significant urban environments for them, then I am staunchly against doing it illegally. I'm even in favour of a short jail term for repeated offenders.
Edit - Or better yet, forcing them to do public service.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the old berlin wall graffiti.
For instance,
http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/xgraphics/photographs/eastsidegallery/19970503-26-0502.jpg
We don't seem to have as much of a problem with graffiti around here, compared to days past. But public restrooms still get tagged horribly.
In my mind, it should be illegal, plain and simple. Graffiti art is extremely rare, and the vast majority of graffiti is trash. Graffiti art will always find a place for itself in legal places (designated areas). College campuses in particular seem to all have places where graffiti art is both allowed and flourishing.
The post that was quoted here has been removedNo they don't -- they are just little tossers with no excellence in any area of their lives so they deface public and private property to can gain acceptance and recognition from other people who don't know the difference between right and wrong. If you think otherwise, you should probably ask yourself: Why is graffiti the favored mode of expression of gang members? Clearly, they do it because if it is allowed to stand, then that indicates there is no order or authority in place and they are free to further mark their territory, much like a dog does when it lifts its hind leg and whizzes all over everything. In short, graffiti is mind pollution or worse -- a means for criminal gang members to communicate with one another and mark their "turf" -- and should not be tolerated.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterKind of like your posts then?
Clearly, they do it because if it is allowed to stand, then that indicates there is no order or authority in place and they are free to further mark their territory, much like a dog does when it lifts its hind leg and whizzes all over everything.
Come on, I know that the vast majority of wall scribblings are vandalism pure and simple but even you have to recognise that you're generalising just a little bit to excitedly?
Originally posted by agrysonIt's really pretty simple: If it's commissioned art, then it's a mural. If it's some punk or gangbanger wannabee "tagging" a wall, telophone booth or overpass, then it's vandalism.
Kind of like your posts then?
Come on, I know that the vast majority of wall scribblings are vandalism pure and simple but even you have to recognise that you're generalising just a little bit to excitedly?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI agree, tagging is mere vandalism, though Graffiti often is not explicitly so, but why must it be commissioned? Many of these artists don't seek payment for their work. That's why I suggested offering public space and punishing anyne who doesn't want to use it and defaces public property without permission, that way those who are just doing it for kicks will get their kick, up the ass, while those who genuinely seek a space to express their art have the mechanisms to do so.
It's really pretty simple: If it's commissioned art, then it's a mural. If it's some punk or gangbanger wannabee "tagging" a wall, telophone booth or overpass, then it's vandalism.
Graffiti comes under the umbrella of guerrilla art, and I think it would be a shame to ban it outright as you suggest.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterJust the sort of thing generated by the catfood 'pure' gatherers of this world.
No they don't -- they are just little tossers with no excellence in any area of their lives so they deface public and private property to can gain acceptance and recognition from other people who don't know the difference between right and wrong. If you think otherwise, you should probably ask yourself: Why is graffiti the favored mode of expres ...[text shortened]... embers to communicate with one another and mark their "turf" -- and should not be tolerated.
Yes there's lot of random crappy smearing going on. But then there's stuff like this very simple stencil of a beautiful dove throwing bombs... the first time I saw that it got me thinking, and something like that can only work if it's in some random, unexpected location. Not everything that is illegal is wrong in my opinion, and people and governments do the most horrible things under the guise of the law. Legality is not even a criterion for me in deciding wether something is vandalism or art. Yes, much graffiti is the equivalent of a dog peeing somewhere, but not all. Some stuff simply needs to be said, or even painted.