|
Inascent
   
location:
Henderson, Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Male
Photographer. Explorer. Dreamer.
 |  |  |  | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 220 on 1/5/2008 7:59 AM >
|  | | | I really just want to throw my opinion out here. It could be entirely moot by this point, but here it is:
I’ve personally come from a stencil graffiti background (I know, shock! I’m aware that this makes everyone here instantly suspicious and perhaps angry.) But I came to the conclusion a while ago that I’m committed to the exploration and preservation of the integrity of the sites I encounter.
The problem one faces in the “is graffiti okay?” argument is that sometimes one can get too caught up in the side they agree with. That’s not the wrong thing to do, by all means if you believe something it’s best to stand by it. But I have personally experienced both sides of this coin and can vouch for the different mindsets that I went through with both acts.
As a vandal/artist I saw a wall as a canvas for thought. Many times I felt as if I were doing the site a favor by making it more beautiful. And to be honest there was a certain thrill to be gotten from the act of vandalism.
As an explorer I see a wall as just that: a wall. I see walls now and admire them for their quality in of themselves, and their part of a greater structure. If there is graffiti on the wall I admire that along with the wall, and take into account other aspects as well.
Saying one of these mindsets is wrong simply neglects the merit that both sides possess. Trying to say that graffiti is wrong indefinitely could be likened to saying that one religion is better than another. Because that’s what we’re talking about: two belief systems that happen to clash.
Keep in mind that I do not condone graffiti, nor do I abhor it. I'm stuck in the middle at the moment.
www.DanJClarkPhoto.com |
|
Explorer Zero
   
| | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 221 on 1/5/2008 12:08 PM >
| | | | well articulated
welcome to UER
|
|
rainman8889
location:
H.T.S.F.C. Time to gain and a time to lose.
Bye for now.
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 222 on 1/6/2008 4:06 AM >
| | | | Posted by Biscottie
Good advertising if you ask me. Nothing like graffiti to catch the eye.
|
Sadly, it makes the business look pretty tacky. Not the kind of image you want to project to potential customers.
Gone for a while. Be back when I'm back. |
|
UE TWF
location:
Mass
Gender: Male
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 223 on 1/6/2008 4:10 AM >
| | | | thats because potential customers are typical people
and typical people dont see graffiti as a positive, but rather a negative
companies have used ideas from graffiti artists to incorporate it into their advertising for a while and they still are, especially the past few years
|
|
rainman8889
location:
H.T.S.F.C. Time to gain and a time to lose.
Bye for now.
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 224 on 1/6/2008 10:20 PM >
| | | | Posted by UE TWF
thats because potential customers are typical people
and typical people dont see graffiti as a positive, but rather a negative
companies have used ideas from graffiti artists to incorporate it into their advertising for a while and they still are, especially the past few years
|
Good point. But when the "typical people" are your bread and butter, you want to be able to attract them or to be more precise, their money.
As for using ideas from graffiti artists, if it works, great!
Gone for a while. Be back when I'm back. |
|
CGII
location:
new york city
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 225 on 1/7/2008 4:41 PM >
| | | | what i find laughable about those who believe 'graffiti is not art on the grounds that it is vandalism' is the refusal to accept other world views. you say graffiti isn't art because it's property damage, but what if i don't believe in property? what if i find the only way to express this belief is by damaging what someone believes to be their 'property?' because then you just laugh at the people who say you are a vandal.
i may not think it's necessarily right to do so, but you must acknowledge it is art. you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be art.
[last edit 1/7/2008 4:47 PM by CGII - edited 4 times]
|
|
joeyofnepal
location:
Memphis
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 226 on 1/7/2008 6:25 PM >
| | | |
| i may not think it's necessarily right to do so, but you must acknowledge it is art. you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be art. |
I couldn't agree more.
Graffiti has interested me for so many years now, and it's amazing what some people can put on walls. Not just gang signs and profane statements, but actual expression of emotion and situation.
There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum. -Arthur C. Clarke |
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 227 on 1/7/2008 7:50 PM >
| | | | Posted by rainman8889
Sadly, it makes the business look pretty tacky. Not the kind of image you want to project to potential customers.
|
Exactly, it's unprofessional.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
Air
location:
Canada
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 228 on 1/7/2008 10:39 PM >
| | | | Posted by abandonedNH
Ok, my personal opinion: there is such a thing as artistic graffiti. But it's still wrong if you're tagging up someone else's property. If you're a graffiti artist, you can find other locations to display your art. You don't need to splash it all over various abandoned buildings. Because, artistic or not, if you're going to mark up someone else's property, it's considered vandalism.
|
So tell me, how to compartmentalize the fact that you trespass in abandoned buildings, because it is trespassing regardless of your intent -and that's also illegal.
or better yet, explain this one. In Toronto, police are going around fining property owners who don't whitewash their buildings. Funny that, because some of these property owners either GAVE permission to have their property painted and/or paid for the paint job themselves. Its a perfect example of the city sticking its nose into an area where it doesn't belong citing quality of life offenses when in they same breath they cut funding to more serious programs like, giving sleeping bags out to the homeless.
Just saying.
A well executed piece on wall is great for a business, just as poorly painted one is not professional and makes the business look bad. Funny tho, I don't see the police taking an interest and acting as style police when fugly, brush painted murals go up.
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
UE TWF
location:
Mass
Gender: Male
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 229 on 1/7/2008 11:05 PM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
Exactly, it's unprofessional.
|
who said graffiti artists are professionals?
open your eyes, life is not about being professional and looking good so other people see you as a well rounded person, dont fake the way you look, talk, or express yourself just because others think your unprofessional or different.
why should you care if its "professional" or not
loosen up a little, were not all here wearing suits and ties everyday
Posted by rainman8889
As for using ideas from graffiti artists, if it works, great!
|
I wouldn't say its a great thing to steal someones idea and use it yourself
especially if your using it to make money
some examples of stolen art
not all graffiti artists but a way to get a good idea of how much it happens
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com
[last edit 1/7/2008 11:07 PM by UE TWF - edited 1 times]
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 230 on 1/8/2008 2:09 AM >
| | | | Posted by UE TWF
who said graffiti artists are professionals?
open your eyes, life is not about being professional and looking good so other people see you as a well rounded person, dont fake the way you look, talk, or express yourself just because others think your unprofessional or different.
why should you care if its "professional" or not
loosen up a little, were not all here wearing suits and ties everyday
I wouldn't say its a great thing to steal someones idea and use it yourself
especially if your using it to make money
some examples of stolen art
not all graffiti artists but a way to get a good idea of how much it happens
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com
|
When you have tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more invested in a business, you don't want an amateur hack to screw it up.
Most people don't like it, and most businesses could care less about using it.
Try that line of yours as a sales pitch and see just how well it works.
-fucking hilariously delusional misfits... keeping it real-
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
rainman8889
location:
H.T.S.F.C. Time to gain and a time to lose.
Bye for now.
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 231 on 1/8/2008 2:28 AM >
| | | | Posted by UE TWF
who said graffiti artists are professionals?
open your eyes, life is not about being professional and looking good so other people see you as a well rounded person, dont fake the way you look, talk, or express yourself just because others think your unprofessional or different.
why should you care if its "professional" or not
loosen up a little, were not all here wearing suits and ties everyday
|
Businesses are there to provide a livelihood for the owner and employees. So it is very important for the owner whether it looks professional or not. Being able to feed your family and support yourself is very important and if you want to be competitive, appearances do matter.
Also, I find that many times, graffiti will attract other forms of vandalism and arson. Places like Ringwood Manor which stood untouched for a long time got tagged and then wound up being trashed and burned. That's only one example.
Posted by blackhawk
When you have tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more invested in a business, you don't want an amateur hack to screw it up.
Most people don't like it, and most businesses could care less about using it.
Try that line of yours as a sales pitch and see just how well it works.
-fucking hilariously delusional misfits... keeping it real-
|
Very well put blackhawk.
Gone for a while. Be back when I'm back. |
|
rainman8889
location:
H.T.S.F.C. Time to gain and a time to lose.
Bye for now.
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 232 on 1/8/2008 3:17 AM >
| | | | Posted by CGII
what i find laughable about those who believe 'graffiti is not art on the grounds that it is vandalism' is the refusal to accept other world views. you say graffiti isn't art because it's property damage, but what if i don't believe in property? what if i find the only way to express this belief is by damaging what someone believes to be their 'property?' because then you just laugh at the people who say you are a vandal.
i may not think it's necessarily right to do so, but you must acknowledge it is art. you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be art.
|
And what I find very laughable is those who figure that their right to express themselves is the same as the right to commit vandalism. Your right to express yourself ends where the other person's property begins.
And as for the comment "you must acknowledge it is art", you've crossed the fine line between expressing an opinion and marched into the realm of dictating to someone else what they should believe.
I still believe that graffiti applied to someone's property without the owner's consent is a product of vandalism. Either get the owner's consent or confine your art to your own property.
Gone for a while. Be back when I'm back. |
|
Biscottie
location:
Southern California
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 233 on 1/8/2008 3:27 AM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
Exactly, it's unprofessional.
|
It all depends on the company. Businesses want to project a certain image, which could be professional and clean cut or perhaps they want to project an urban image.
I also believe you have a valid point. That kind of advertising could be tacky, and unprofessional, but once again it depends on the company and what kind of potential customers they are catering to.
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 234 on 1/8/2008 3:31 AM >
| | | | Posted by CGII
what i find laughable about those who believe 'graffiti is not art on the grounds that it is vandalism' is the refusal to accept other world views. you say graffiti isn't art because it's property damage, but what if i don't believe in property? what if i find the only way to express this belief is by damaging what someone believes to be their 'property?' because then you just laugh at the people who say you are a vandal.
i may not think it's necessarily right to do so, but you must acknowledge it is art. you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be art.
|
So you mean that charlie manson's cum sluts carving up Sharon Tate was fucking art?
When you violate other rights to express yourself, it nulls your rights, and the "art" is just another bloody mess someone else needs to clean up.
If there's one thing worse than a hippie, it's a born again hippie that's 40 years too late... eeeeiii they'll neeever catch meeee!!!
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
blacklines
location:
the red stick.
Gender: Male
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 235 on 1/8/2008 7:25 AM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
So you mean that charlie manson's cum sluts carving up Sharon Tate was fucking art?
When you violate other rights to express yourself, it nulls your rights, and the "art" is just another bloody mess someone else needs to clean up.
If there's one thing worse than a hippie, it's a born again hippie that's 40 years too late... eeeeiii they'll neeever catch meeee!!!
|
yeah, murder and sadism definitely = property damage--another quality analogy care of blackhawk... As for rights--as far as im concerned the judgement of what is and isnt art has nothing to do with "rights"... its a matter of aesthetic, and it has been and is completely subjective. Take the vandal/artist/graff writer/whatever "banksy" from the UK... while his work certainly defaces public and private property, it has gained a level of fame or notoriety where people are now preserving his work on their walls as it appears... others see him as a vandal and wish he'd take in inside to gallery walls, and others still would like to see him prosecuted... the point im making is that the legality and or morality of something doesnt determine its status as "art"... in fact that status is fairly nebulous as it is a decision that is made by cultures and individuals simultaneously... the piss christ was morally reprehensible to a large number of Christians, this fact didnt make it any less a work of art--its in the eye of the beholder, so why are all of you having a fucking pissing match about it?
|
|
CGII
location:
new york city
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 236 on 1/8/2008 1:56 PM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
So you mean that charlie manson's cum sluts carving up Sharon Tate was fucking art?
When you violate other rights to express yourself, it nulls your rights, and the "art" is just another bloody mess someone else needs to clean up.
If there's one thing worse than a hippie, it's a born again hippie that's 40 years too late... eeeeiii they'll neeever catch meeee!!!
|
I do think it's art. It's sick, disgusting, utterly detestable and absolutely unquestionably illegal, but I do believe it's art. it's self expression, regardless of who's rights are infringed. it's not necessarily good art, and again, it's a sick sick act and I'm glad they're doing time and 'paying' for it in state penetentiaries. But art is so much more than just going to the store, buying a canvas and some oil paints and painting on it.
Posted by rainman8889
And what I find very laughable is those who figure that their right to express themselves is the same as the right to commit vandalism. Your right to express yourself ends where the other person's property begins.
And as for the comment "you must acknowledge it is art", you've crossed the fine line between expressing an opinion and marched into the realm of dictating to someone else what they should believe.
I still believe that graffiti applied to someone's property without the owner's consent is a product of vandalism. Either get the owner's consent or confine your art to your own property. |
It doesn't matter if it's vandalism, it's still art. It doesn't matter if you believe their right to express themselves should be limited, it's still art. And I'm not saying that since it's art it should be entitled to a certain level of respect or appreciation or preservation or since it's art that the creator shouldn't be heald accountable for the illegality of his actions, I'm just saying it's art. Not all art is good, not all art is moral, but it's still art.
The argument isn't whether it's right to do it (or even, at this point, whether graffit can be attractive) it's whether it's art.
And the way you state 'your right to express yourself ends where the other person's property begins' crosses the line between expressing an opinion and marches into the realm of dicating to someone else what they should believe.
[last edit 1/8/2008 2:01 PM by CGII - edited 3 times]
|
|
blackhawk
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
location:
Mission Control
UER newbie
| | | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 237 on 1/8/2008 3:01 PM >
| | | | Posted by blacklines
yeah, murder and sadism definitely = property damage--another quality analogy care of blackhawk... As for rights--as far as im concerned the judgement of what is and isnt art has nothing to do with "rights"... its a matter of aesthetic, and it has been and is completely subjective. Take the vandal/artist/graff writer/whatever "banksy" from the UK... while his work certainly defaces public and private property, it has gained a level of fame or notoriety where people are now preserving his work on their walls as it appears... others see him as a vandal and wish he'd take in inside to gallery walls, and others still would like to see him prosecuted... the point im making is that the legality and or morality of something doesnt determine its status as "art"... in fact that status is fairly nebulous as it is a decision that is made by cultures and individuals simultaneously... the piss christ was morally reprehensible to a large number of Christians, this fact didnt make it any less a work of art--its in the eye of the beholder, so why are all of you having a fucking pissing match about it?
|
It's a good analogy. Western law places a high value on property ownership. You have a finite amount of time to live.
It takes time and hard work to earn money, and property is expensive; it costs money to acquire and own.
When you steal money, you steal life.
Vandalism is the most moronic of crimes; the fools waste their own time, and innocent victims time, and though the vandals are stealing in a very real sense, make no profit in doing so.
Grow up.
Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.
|
|
CGII
location:
new york city
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 238 on 1/8/2008 4:10 PM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
It's a good analogy. Western law places a high value on property ownership. You have a finite amount of time to live.
It takes time and hard work to earn money, and property is expensive; it costs money to acquire and own.
When you steal money, you steal life.
Vandalism is the most moronic of crimes; the fools waste their own time, and innocent victims time, and though the vandals are stealing in a very real sense, make no profit in doing so.
Grow up.
|
Charles Manson vandalised human life. Graffiti artists vandalise physical property. There is a great disparity of severity of the crime.
It is essentially indisputable that everyone has the right to live, however the debate over the right to actually 'own' stuff goes back millienia. This is why I don't think there's an argument whether graffiti is art or not. If I'm an anarchist, why the hell should I respect your right to property? It doesn't exist!
[last edit 1/8/2008 4:17 PM by CGII - edited 3 times]
|
|
Air
location:
Canada
| | Re: Graffiti
<Reply # 239 on 1/8/2008 4:50 PM >
| | | | Posted by blackhawk
It's a good analogy. Western law places a high value on property ownership. You have a finite amount of time to live.
It takes time and hard work to earn money, and property is expensive; it costs money to acquire and own.
When you steal money, you steal life.
|
I guess what I would say is it takes such precedence, that's the problem. Here in Toronto, I believe the police should stop harassing property owners to whitewash murals they paid for or provided permission for. They should focus on more important issues, which the city has plenty of.
Its amazing that in some places in the us, where neglected/abandonded houses pose such a safety issue for the surrounding community, because they can used as squat shelters and crack houses -- the cities still focus on graffiti eradication. I think its just because this is easy spot, and 'fix' with a coat of paint, unlike real social problems.
But that really sums up how our society operates. Bandage solutions, slap on some paint and voila! No other problems here!
"The extraordinary beauty of things that fail." - Heinrich von Kleist |
|
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 125 ms
|
|
Ethics