Paint by Jonathan Matas...

http://sfbay.craig...td/5340363324.html

I don't understand the relevance. Care to explain?

Posted by SurlySilverback I don't understand the relevance. Care to explain?

Me neither.

Posted by SurlySilverback I don't understand the relevance. Care to explain?

Maybe the link is that we might see some of his work in the places we go.

Looks like a for sale ad...

Posted by TRUE Maybe the link is that we might see some of his work in the places we go.

So this guy ruins Porsches and urban exploration locations.

You'll understand if I don't get in line to shake his hand.

Posted by SurlySilverback So this guy ruins Porsches and urban exploration locations. You'll understand if I don't get in line to shake his hand.

And pays beaucoup money for it...

Posted by SurlySilverback So this guy ruins Porsches

+1

Posted by SurlySilverback So this guy ruins Porsches and urban exploration locations. You'll understand if I don't get in line to shake his hand.

Nailed it.

Posted by SurlySilverback So this guy ruins Porsches and urban exploration locations. You'll understand if I don't get in line to shake his hand.

This.

I didn't know he had a bad rep. I thought it was relevant since he was a graffiti artist. Guess not. My bad.

I have a weird love/hate relationship with graffiti artists. On one level they're just vandals, no matter how much talent they have. In that same vein, I'm just a trespasser who occasionally takes a decent photograph. I think I dislike the "system" just enough to think what they do is interesting, if only because it pisses off the same people that I do. But again, sharing a common enemy doesn't always make a good ally.

Relevant: What he did to that Porsche was bad. It's artistic, but those are two separate fields of enthusiasm. A Porsche is a work of automotive/mechanical art in itself. Just slapping an out-of-place paint job on it is, in a sense, an attempt to upstage that. It fits into the same category that those camo painted Lambos do, ans that's not fair to the car or the artist in question.

Erm, how can you defend graffiti in abandonments while condemning paint on a mass produced, base model car of which there are several thousand exactly like it, and tens of thousands more that are similar?

Well, mostly it's a matter congruity mixed with individual tastes. A Porsche is a crappy canvas, and adds a sort of arrogance to the supposed free spirit, anti-establishment subtext that graffiti has. it would be like making a McDonald's Happy Meal with Kobe beef and artisan cheeses. Nobody is stopping you, but the two things are best served within their own environments.

In the end, it's all personal preference. I don't really care about graffiti, mainly because it's as old as the human race. When people try to mix it with luxury sports cars, it just doesn't make sense to me. Art or otherwise.

Yeah, it doesn't suite my palette either - but neither do Porsches. (Well, not post '65 Porsches anyway). Despite, I decided I really like it. It's uglay as sin - but I see a nifty concept: It's a painted Volkswagen. In my eye, it's a funny stab at what many of the hippie activists of the 1960s became in the 2010s - mostly greedy c-level execs. Of course, the artist and commissioner probably didn't have that in mind. All the more hilarious, IMHO.

I don't see any harm done, even if 2007 911s somehow become collectible. Classic cars almost always need to be repainted.

As for graffiti, actually I'm a-OK with it. I don't particularly understand it, but my experience with the graffiti world involved kids that were running with crews, so they were down in the train yards and dangling on overpasses and rooftops - not throwing their shit up in unseen rooms in abandonments. Regardless, I just see it as part of natural decay. No harm done. Historic landmarks almost always need renovations.

Posted by skrimace I don't see any harm done, even if 2007 911s somehow become collectible. Classic cars almost always need to be repainted.

Completely agree. The fact that I can't stand the sight of this car aside, the previous owner...owned it, presumably, so he can do whatever he fancies with it. Does no one watch Top Gear!? I might be a bit more offended if it were the latest McLaren model, but these things can always be repainted.

As for graffiti in abandoned places - it's never bothered me, as long as it's done with at least a modicum of skill and not ugly senseless crap. Underground tunnel in East Bay is a great example of awesome, clever work.

Posted by nohxpolitron As for graffiti in abandoned places - it's never bothered me, as long as it's done with at least a modicum of skill and not ugly senseless crap.

There's the problem. I'd say 90% of the graffiti out there is garbage. I hate it. My philosophy is: if you don't own it, you don't have the right to deface it. There's nothing worse than walking into a pristine room in a historical building at sunrise, only to have "COCK" in the center of your shot.

Posted by siper There's the problem. I'd say 90% of the graffiti out there is garbage. I hate it. My philosophy is: if you don't own it, you don't have the right to deface it. There's nothing worse than walking into a pristine room in a historical building at sunrise, only to have "COCK" in the center of your shot.

Haha, we can agree on that at least. A lot of bunkers are covered in stupid garbage, but I do like the random notes, collages and paintings that I often see. Some groups that host parties in abandoned spaces spend time "decorating" with different displays, and what I have seen is quite interesting and, in my opinion, adds to the scene. They only do it to buildings that are going to get torn down sooner or later, not bunkers and such that are rather permanent. I think most people would agree that "cock", "fuck the police", and "Dan was here 1988" we could do without, though!

edit: clarity