dominic_. Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 If you're gonna "vandalise", at least make it beautiful.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 <a href=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007hXG">remember this one?</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_diaz Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 SP, "the pursuit of happiness" is from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and "property" is from John Locke, whom Jefferson and other anti-tyranny revolutionaries studied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Beautiful Dominic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Most graffiti is rubbish the same as most art. I acknowledge it's wrong but I can condone it to an extent if it's good. I like Banksy, he's done some good stuff around London -- I got a pic of his Mona Lisa with a SAM-7 just of Poland Street in Soho before it was painted over. The analogy of slashing a painting is inexact. Firstly because defacing a work of art is different to defacing a wall. Secondly because there's usually only one original copy of a painting but there are a million walls. I also think it's different spraying a public or corporate building to private property. It's wrong to spray anywhere, but wronger to spray an individual's house than the Shell Centre on the South Bank.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_diaz Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Richard, you're implying that architecture is not art. I feel that defacing an architect's art is similar to defacing a painter's art. In regard to your second point, there is only one Mona Lisa, just as there is only one Chysler Building. There are millions of paintings by unknown painters and millions of walls designed by unknown architects. I don't want to see any of them defaced. And the difference between defacing a residential building versus a corporate/government building is negligible because in the end individuals always pay for the repairs. To pay for repairs vandals cause, Shell just raises their prices. In essence, Banksy is ripping off the public just like those "evil corporations" becuase the costs of cleaning and repainting buildings is paid for by individual consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 The corportations are not evil as you say. They just have placed profit WAY above any responsibility to the public. I admire corporations who can make profit AND not harm the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Grafitti can also be art criticism.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 @brian diazwell.... could you say the same of sketches at Lascaux. those are the early graffiti as we know, drawn by people on the rocks in places where they lived. the events they recorded were close to their hearts . so why modern graffiti can't be seen the same way ?, simply because we have an abstract idea of a private property.<a href="http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/">lascaux</a>k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I should say last picture was ripped off a Banksy's site. <A HREF="http://www.banksy.co.uk/">Banksy</A>-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 OK that site is awesome and I'm only through 1/3 of the chambers. Thank you K! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
embley Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 thanks for getting it art is art art is subjective art should make you feel make you think make you pissed off make you inspired just let people do their thing...why is that so difficult?...censorship is such bullocks tagging (gang names) is not the same as the stenciling that banksy and other artists do and yeah stenciling is quite easy to do hence the reason some of it has been going mainstream with ad campaigns but banksy creates to make a statement like the girl hugging the torpedo and that i think is a valid reason to do what he is doing and i dont feel the need to condemn him i support him and other artists who do the same type of work i think grafitti can be very ugly of course but sometimes it can be beautiful as well and thanks for the props on new sites and artists to check out....brilliant stu: <<Same crap at the railyard. Go down there and play.>> was that a shit comment or a supportive comment? sounds kinda shit xxemilyxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_legge Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 "art is art art is subjective art should make you feel make you think make you pissed off make you inspired just let people do their thing...why is that so difficult?" Emily, first it is difficult because I have no idea what that first sentence you wrote means.. "...censorship is such bullocks" Emily, thank you for NOT getting it. This is not censorship as no one is saying you cannot express yourself. But to vandalize property is not self expression. If you want to find someone to donate you a wall or if you pay for wall space, go ahead, make your art. But vandalizing architecture cannot be justified your imaginary rights to free expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 <center><img src="http://members.shaw.ca/mywebspace88/grafeetee.jpg"></center><center><i>~~~</i></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_diaz Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Lascaux? Okay, 17,000 years ago, society was much different, and their ideas of property was much different. As I recall, anthropologists speculate that the Lascaux caves were sacred places, and the artists were most likely commissioned by their society's leaders. It's like the pope calling in Michelangelo to paint his ceiling. But I imagine that if someone decided to carve his name in someone else's spear, they would be taking it outside. <P> I know that art is subjective, and I fully support people doing their own things, UNLESS that infringes on other people's rights. I appreciate Banksy's statements and enjoy his visual style, and I'm blown away by work like <a href="http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/images/people-di-everyday2.jpg">this</a>, but if your canvas belongs to someone else, it doesn't matter whether what you do is beautiful or ugly. <P> I find Agnes Martin's work boring, but would you support me if I went into MoMA and wrote that on one of her paintings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominic_. Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Kent, all compliments should only be given to the artist, whoever he/she may be. Thanks anyways tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aizan_sasayama Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 sometimes it increases property values, sometimes it lowers it. i know that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_morriss2 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Part of a piece by Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Hi Brian, >Richard, you're implying that architecture is not art... No, I recognise that architecture IS art but, like other art, 80% of it is crap. I have no problem with a great piece of graffiti on a soul-less concrete wall of a parking structure or something. I do have a problem with crap graffiti on peoples' homes. Graffiti is wrong but sometimes subversion and lawbreaking are needed to make statements. Banksy can have a web site but stuff he puts there won't have the same expressive effect of the stuff he does in public spaces. I don't argue that graffiti isn't a crime and shouldn't be prosecuted, but there are worse things going on in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Graffiti "artists" can do all the "art" they please ON THEIR OWN WALLS. If someone stole your camera, would you say "it's OK, maybe he'll take some good photos with it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 You can do all the photography you want in your own house. Suppose you weren't allowed to shoot anything outside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k2 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 @brian diaz ... true, but intentions were the same, to be in the presence of art. modern society has norms to control everything. we are surrounded by law and rules, left and right. the angst of a human soul to break away from this structure is oneway represented by what bansky is doing. average crowd does not go to see art anymore so art goes to see them, to provoke, to challenge, to question the grey mentality and social norms. i have no problem with your agnes act, it might actually enhance her work to another level. your act if you were to do, would be in the true spirit of dada. agnes might be pissed of about it, but then we ( the audience ) could decide upon if. so.. , many spat on reinhart's work. he did not get angry about it, he then painted another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmo Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 <i>No, I recognise that architecture IS art but, like other art, 80% of it is crap. </i> <p> Architecture is not art, it can be in certain isolated cases but in most it's a business that deals with solving programmatic issues for clients within their budgets. Artists create art without any restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_milner2 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 >Artists create art without any restrictions. Do we want to get into the discussion about the nature of art? Many supposedly great artists have done work on commission, for example the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Does that invalidate their art? We may have to talk about fine art rather commercial art or craft. If architecture isn't art, the argument that graffiti is defacement of art goes out of the window. Graffiti is anti-social behaviour, and draws its power from being subversive. If art is created by artists working for their own ends, graffiti is truer art than anything made for galleries, which is produced to be sold. Perhaps a more interesting discussion is whether stencil graffiti is a valid form of graffiti compared to freely drawn spraycan work. Relating this topic back to street photography, what do people think about shooting other anti-social behaviours on the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Richard, re-read what Ed said - <I>...it can be in certain isolated cases...</I> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now