Graffiti Art

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Lose twenty pounds, start wearing your slim clothes again, and give your fat threads to the homeless.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That was back in the days of CFC's being used to pressurize the cans, alternative gases have been found.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ha! But you did not address my flat out "No" in response to your question.

Originally posted by agryson
It's true that one injustice can't condone the other. (Though the advertising hoardings do get my goat). But have you thought that maybe the point is not to condone it but to explain it? While it's a very healthy economic freedom type of thing to say that people shouldn't have to see it if they don't want to, the flipside is that by considering that it is an with their skin peeled off qualifies as art, I don't have to pay the door charge.

Why should some random, possibly talented, artist decide when I should be challenged. I get challenged plenty of times but generally when I feel like it. Furthermore I am aware that pretty pictures aren't what art is. There is challenging art in many buildings in many cities around the world. I usually choose to visit them whilst many choose to walk past,

I think the notion that someone can "challenge" me on a wall I have to pass every day is slightly different than you have to turn the page of your newspaper.

Maybe you would rejoice if someone enters your house and paints a masterpiece all over your computer screen but it's still inconvenient and if you don't happen to like it you're stuck with it.

Sorry but I don't believe forcing values or opinions on people is something that should be condoned.

EDIT: I have a sneaky suspicion that much of the defending of graffiti is inverse elitism and it's a culture people are identifying with rather than an unbiased analysis of the issue.

Originally posted by Wheely
Why should some random, possibly talented, artist decide when I should be challenged. I get challenged plenty of times but generally when I feel like it. Furthermore I am aware that pretty pictures aren't what art is. There is challenging art in many buildings in many cities around the world. I usually choose to visit them whilst many choose to walk past,
...[text shortened]... don't believe forcing values or opinions on people is something that should be condoned.

Forcing values and opinions? My values, opinions and thoughts are only affected if I choose to consider the work that's been put in front of me. As for choosing when you get challenged, are you sure of that? What makes you step into a conventional gallery? Probably an image which you didn't choose to see, but it piqued your interest enough to look further. I'm not saying that the analogy fits perfectly, but that is very much like graffiti. If I see an image that I like (admittedly rare, but it happens) I look out for it next time, part of it is seeing how long it will last. How it will age etc. Take a picture maybe if I can, which is something I should really start doing more of actually.
Point is, if the purpose of art is to make people stop and look at something differently, I personally find graffiti much more effective at doing so than more conventional pieces. For that reason, I'm willing to put up with the tagging (though still prosecute taggers to the full extent of the law, let graffiti artists take their own risks for their art) if it means that every so often I end up seeing a jewel in the rough.
The Bristol article in catfoodtims post has some excellent examples.

Originally posted by Wheely
EDIT: I have a sneaky suspicion that much of the defending of graffiti is inverse elitism and it's a culture people are identifying with rather than an unbiased analysis of the issue.

Sorry, just saw your edit now, I'm sure you're right on that, art has a habit of attracting pretentious wannabes. But there's just as much of that stuff going on with conventional works and I find it devalues the culture of appreciating art rather than depreciating the art itself.

Originally posted by agryson
Forcing values and opinions? My values, opinions and thoughts are only affected if I choose to consider the work that's been put in front of me. As for choosing when you get challenged, are you sure of that? What makes you step into a conventional gallery? Probably an image which you didn't choose to see, but it piqued your interest enough to look further. I ...[text shortened]... a jewel in the rough.
The Bristol article in catfoodtims post has some excellent examples.

We are talking about challenging art. I believe that the vast majority of challenging art is ultimately the artist trying to tell me something or sometimes asking me to look at things differently. The artist is consciously attempting to pass his or her idea on to me. In other words, an opinion, a point of view or even a feeling. I would like to choose when the artist can do that and I would like the choice if not having it done at all.

There's plenty of places to put these messages across and my garden fence (if I had one) isn't one of them.

I agree that there is great graffiti art out there but I also see many people find it threatening and disturbing and I see no reason why they can't live in their own little cocoon when walking the public streets. These people take a chance when they open a newspaper or turn on the telly and they should know that. If they have to take a chance when walking down the street as well then there is no refuge for them.

It's unnecessary, it's illegal and it upsets some people so why condone it. If you like to see great images, go look for it. You don't have to go to Madrid, Paris or Amsterdam. Mind you, I found some cool images in the sex museum next to Amsterdam Station in amongst the hilarious stuff.

Originally posted by agryson
Sorry, just saw your edit now, I'm sure you're right on that, art has a habit of attracting pretentious wannabes. But there's just as much of that stuff going on with conventional works and I find it devalues the culture of appreciating art rather than depreciating the art itself.

You're right, it does work both ways. I hate art snobbery of any persuasion.

EDITED: to clarify that I don't really hate people who are, in fact, art snobs as they might be very pleasant people in other regards 🙂

Originally posted by Wheely
We are talking about challenging art. I believe that the vast majority of challenging art is ultimately the artist trying to tell me something or sometimes asking me to look at things differently. The artist is consciously attempting to pass his or her idea on to me. In other words, an opinion, a point of view or even a feeling. I would like to choose whe ...[text shortened]... me cool images in the sex museum next to Amsterdam Station in amongst the hilarious stuff.

Fair enough, I agree with what your saying, look back to my first few posts on the thread and you'll see that I fully support prosecuting graffiti artists and taggers to the full extent of the law while offering public spaces for them to work with so that they have an alternative.
At the same time, if a graffiti artist makes the choice to go ahead, despite the possibility of prosecution, and puts up a good image that I like, I'm not going to say I dislike it just because it was put there illegally, as people such as Cartan earlier on were suggesting should be the case.

Originally posted by agryson
Fair enough, I agree with what your saying, look back to my first few posts on the thread and you'll see that I fully support prosecuting graffiti artists and taggers to the full extent of the law while offering public spaces for them to work with so that they have an alternative.
At the same time, if a graffiti artist makes the choice to go ahead, despite ...[text shortened]... s put there illegally, as people such as Cartan earlier on were suggesting should be the case.

I certainly agree that there's no need to dislike a great piece of art purely because it is slapped on a wall. I have been arguing more against the practice in general.

I would say that I feel differently about pavement art. I have seen some incredibly good examples and it is usually gone by the next day.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

No, it is an attack on private property.
No. By attacking private property, they negate whatever argument they may have.
And, er, no....they are no different to little children scrawling on walls, or teenagers breaking bus shelter / telephone windows...