What's appearing on our streets.......vandalism or art?

Discussion in 'Street and Documentary' started by embley, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. Hey Guys

    I am wondering how everyone feels about graffiti stencil art

    I have recently fallen for banksy and i know there are other
    grafitti vandal artists out there as well. Some of the art makes
    for great street photography moments and when i come across one it
    makes me smile like walls don't just belong to advert
    agencies...they belong to us. The streets are our playgrounds for
    expression.

    www.banksy.co.uk

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. Let 'em draw on their own walls on their own property.

    Ad agencies rent space on walls from their legitimate owners. Graffiti "artists" don't ask, they just deface. A very big difference. They're vandals plain and simple.
     
  3. It is clearly an art, until your walls get hit! lol <br>
    <br>
    I think they should draw not on the walls, rather on the bilboards, instead of these boring adds. :)
    <br>
    ...but seriously, to steal a millon dollars, you have to be an artist, but that still will be criminal.
     
  4. Unless those walls are on public property, they don't belong to "us" or "the people" and
    even if on public property, how does yours or "Banksy's:" right to vandalize square with
    your neighbor's right to see it unadorned with your wit or name?

    No amount of paint huffing intellectuallizing or rationalization changes the basic concept
    of Western Civilization of private property. Even if you think you think that it is okay for
    any of "us" to come into your bedroom and do anything we the people might like to do at
    anytime of the day or night.
     
  5. Art and vandalism aren't mutually exclusive. That said, I don't
    advocate tagging on private structures nor oversaturated boring
    ads neither.
     
  6. Visit www.woostercollective.com for some really brilliant sticker and graff art.

    I support it fully. But that's not to say it should be legal. Part of my support of it is that as a medium it relies some what on subversion to be effective, and, if properly done, on subtelties that poor graff art and tagging lack.
     
  7. I think it's great.
     
  8. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'm not sure what the question, as phrased, has to do with photography. Whether or not people like it or not has nothing to do with photographing it.
    I often photograph graffiti and/or use it as backdrops. A lot of it is in abandoned buildings.
    [​IMG]
    Hands, Marin Headlands Fort Series, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer
     
  9. Can't get enough of the stuff.
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Me either.
    [​IMG]
    GraffitiMoon, Copyright 2003 Jeff Spirer
     
  11. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I found it interesting that Pompeii had lots of graffiti.
    [​IMG]
    Enterance to Hell, Marin Headlands Fort Series, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer
     
  12. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I found it interesting that Pompeii had lots of graffiti.
    [​IMG]
    Eddie70, Marin Headlands Fort Series, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer
     
  13. Like a fine wine needs time.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Prague has lots of interesting stuff too.
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Banksy seems to be introducing to the UK what a number of artists/provocateurs have been doing in the US for years. Banksy doesn't strike me as being too interesting, though having a self-promoting website is a novel twist.
     
  16. By the way, is de la Vega still incarcerated? I haven't seen his work in awhile.
     
  17. I like Banksy. I realize private property has always been a sacred thing, esp in America but maybe the times they are a-changin'. Look at how public entities (Enron, Halliburton, FDA, Merck, etc.) are ripping off the public. And getting away with it! You're going to have some backlash. I am much more interested in the responsibilities of these Goliath public entities toward the public than I am the responsibilty of the street tagger toward private property. Artless grafitti is an eye-sore but Banksy is a different story. It's interesting to me that grafitti is everywhere, ubiquitous. It is a phenomenon of our times. I know I would think different if I was the auto dealer but I laughed when an ecologically concerned group tagged a bunch of brand-new Hummers. The taggers are outlaws. Some outlaws are really distastefull to me like those public entities (think Minimatta) and some outlaws are heroic to me. I always try to live by Dylan's immortal line "To live outside the law you must be honest."
     
  18. Sea wall, China Beach, San Francisco. Who is this hurting? [​IMG]
     
  19. Does it make a difference if your car is keyed in an artistic fashion? Or of the artist is some juvenile student with a "mission?" the vandalism of the SUVs in this area was a part of spree of hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. Excusing vandalism because some corporation also is "robbing" some one is the kind of juvenile excuse we always hear and the same one your mother should have cautioned against. Just because somebody else does it, doesn't make it right.

    And in our streets it's the gang method of pissing on the fireplug or leaving a "marker" on the trail - I'll kill for my territory.
     
  20. To me it makes all the difference in the world if the grafitti or the Hummer tagging is done artfully. The object is to get the audience into your message. Artlessness will loose the audience you're trying to reach. The pissing-on-the-fire-plug level I find artless and an eyesore. Still there are beautiful things out there that enrich the environment. In LA there are wonderful murals on the Harbor freeway and along the LA river. Maybe to lump all the grafitti into one category and then condemn it is over-simplification.
     
  21. Beau, don't know last time I heard anything about him he was getting sentenced and running for state senate at the same time. But yeah haven't seen his stuff for awhile.
     
  22. Does it make a difference if your car is keyed in an artistic fashion?
    Aboslutely, if you are going to key something you should put all your efforts into doing the best you can...just like taking pics.
     
  23. Heh. Make it count eh Ed?
     
  24. "To me it makes all the difference in the world if the grafitti or the Hummer tagging is done artfully"

    And which branch of the Art Police is going to decide on that?
     
  25. << The streets are our playgrounds for expression. >>

    Same crap at the railyard. Go down there and play.
     
  26. And which branch of the Art Police is going to decide on that?
    Personal preference, same as gallery hopping...some is good and most of it sux.
     
  27. Same crap at the railyard. Go down there and play.
    Ahh, the joys of elitism...
     
  28. Edmo 7:31 is beautiful to me.<BR>
    Art police? Aren't there enough serious crimes for the "police" to handle? I want the police for Halliburton, Enron, Lincoln Savings and Loan, Merck, etc to stand and be counted. And I want them to do their job. And I want the media to keep me informed of their performance. I am the customer here.
     
  29. Look at how public entities (Enron, Halliburton, FDA, Merck, etc.) are ripping off the public. And getting away with it!
    I agree completely ! And I hate billboards and all of those stupid idiots who pay Nike, etc to be walking billboards for them! I also like looking at really well done graffitti Even so, the logic behind saying that Enron, etc. rip off people legitimate vandalism? Wantto do something revolutionary? Invest in those companies and give your profits to to groups that subvert them. It worked for Fredrich Engels!
     
  30. It's natural, like moss and grass growing between cracks of cement. Some people think you need to pour poison on the growth and make everything antiseptically clean, but I don't, not always anyway. It's normal for people to want to make their mark in some way, and to be expected where they have little other means to make themselves heard. If its intent is purely vandalism, then that's no doubt another issue, but I don't think that's the normal situation.
     
  31. In fact all of Edmo's grafitti is beautiful to me. <BR>What say those here that think grafitti is the scourge of the universe. In the big picture I don't understand the rage against grafitti while there is silence against the Goliath public entities ripping off the public.
     
  32. Early 1900s abandoned military base - no harm here.
    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images4/Headlands_Web_9-4-04/
    image/damned.jpg
     
  33. So Kent, you justify vandalism because of the actions of Enron??? I fail to see the connection? Or are you saying some crimes are not worth pursuing? So if someone goes into a museum and slashes a few old masters, the police don't have to bother with it because there are worse crimes they should be dealing with? I thought the police had different sections for dealing with different crimes?
     
  34. Kent: Nice catch. China Beach, that's right below the Sea Cliff area, right? Anything else
    interesting there?
     
  35. So if someone goes into a museum and slashes a few old masters, the police don't have to bother with it because there are worse crimes they should be dealing with?
    You gotta be f*cking sh*ting...
     
  36. Outstanding Brad. The only shame is that so few people ever get over to the Marin Headlands and climb down into those batteries and see this. This grafitti needs a larger audience which is what you're giving them. Thank you for that.

    Ellis said: Even so, the logic behind saying that Enron, etc. rip off people legitimate vandalism? Wantto do something revolutionary? Invest in those companies and give your profits to to groups that subvert them. It worked for Fredrich Engels!

    Logic is not the only valid cognitive function. There is as much validity in the unlogical. Engel's idea is interesting. Also if you can organize a boycott you can also get Goliath's attention. The problem is a lot of people want their Nikes even if a woman in Indonesia and her children work 12 hours a day for low wages to make them. Most people don't know, maybe don't care, maybe don't care to know what's going on. I can't think humans don't care. But it seems we don't want to be bothered with the ugly facts when it means we have to do something. Artful grafitti addresses some of these issues. Yea Banksy!
     
  37. Kent, thnaks.
    [​IMG]
     
  38. Kent, thanks. Re China Beach, any other interesting stuff there?
     
  39. [​IMG] criminal activity
     
  40. Heh Brad. China Beach is below Sea Cliff over by the Legion of Honor. You drive thru Sea Cliff along the street closest to the ocean (forgot it's name) and I think there is stairway access down to the water. Or you can take the walk from old Sutros and the Cliff House. It's about a mile East of where the Sutro baths used to be. I only shot this one when I was there. I think it regularily gets painted out and then morphs into something else.
     
  41. Categorically condeming graffiti is overly simplistic, but categorically condeming vandalism is not. I enjoy much of these aesthetically and thematically, but I cannot support the defacement of other people's property.

    The irony is that because of Banksy's infamy, he cannot legitimatly make his art. Jamie Oliver tried to hire him, but he was unsuccessful because the police would just go to the restaurant and arrest him. That is a terrible way to live.
     
  42. he cannot legitimatly make his art
    I don't think he wants or needs to make his art legitimatly. He's an outlaw. He likes it illegitimate. It doesn't seem to stop him from making his art. If you legitimized it pretty soon you'de see it showing up in Macy's wanting to appear fashionable. They'd commercialize it and assimilate him and kill it that way.
     
  43. errata: showing up in Macy's wanting to appear fashionable
    should read: showing up in Macy's and on the front of t-shirts and blue jeans worn by those wanting to appear fashionable.
     
  44. ...They'd commercialize it and assimilate him and kill it that way....
    Keith Haring syndrome....then you can wear it with your Nike's and hang out in homogenous shopping centers.
     
  45. Meet Banksy

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  46. Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, owns a TV network, publishing empire and a casino (amongst other things).

    Someone once sprayed on one of the casino's walls

    "I couldn't afford to buy the media, so I bought paint"
     
  47. i did a lot of photographing of graffiti in east oakland, mostly along the railroad tracks in the nineties, but i don't feel like it is something i own. most of it, well all, actually, was destroyed and so what i have are documents. it really belongs to the artists and they were outlaws and who knows who they are. someday i will donate the pix to someone who will know what to do with them. but i am kind of burned out on the subject right now.
     
  48. Claudia found your comment about 'owning it' interesting. My take is the exact opposite, the way I see it and I'm only commenting on my pics is there are two different types of shots. Some of them documentary, while the others are extract the work out of context and stand on their own.
    Appropriation in art, nothing new with it and nothing wrong with it, could even refer to it as a process of transformation. When you think about it the graffiti artist transformed an architects design and chances are highly likely that the architect appropriated his details from yet another design. Worst possible scenario would be that the process comes to end.
    [​IMG]
     
  49. i tend not to think of graffiti artists in Oakland CA (one of the most violent places in the USA) fitting into your statement " When you think about it the graffiti artist transformed an architects design and chances are highly likely that the architect appropriated his details from yet another design." just doesn't fit the socio-economic facts of that particular place. bigger issues and i don't feel comfortable appropriating their images for my purposes. not judging what others do though.
     
  50. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with appropriation in art, there is a vital difference when it comes to vandalism. The majority of appropiation consists of ideas or copied images (as in photography), but vandals appropriate (read: deface) the actual original artwork of architects. The analogy to slashing paintings of the masters is apropos, because vandalism damages property.

    Banksy says, "Remember crime against property is not real crime." I could not disagree more. Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Crime against property is a real as crime against life or liberty. It may not be as serious, but it is crime nonetheless. Those who think that crime against property is not real crime would surely not mind if I destroyed all of their homes, cars, clothes, frying pans, etc.

    Also, property is more than a physical item. What of the labor it took to create the property and the labor it takes to restore it to its non-vandalized state? Does that have no value? If defacing property is justifiable and labor has no value, with what are we left?
     
  51. Claudia, what you feel comfortable with is your prerogative and no one can argue that. Truth of the matter is that Oakland is not much different than any other inner city environment. Maybe a different dialect but the same message and ultimately your same "socio-economic facts" bond it to others. It's all about the flexibility and adaptivity that come forth from these meager conditions. Every culture has the right to create and express themselves.

    I did work in Oakland for someone who researched and published a book on the subject of Oakland's socio-cultural conditions and it's urban landscape so I have a little bit of an idea what the city is about.

    Brian, the analogy of slashing paintings to creating murals is plain laughing out loud ridiculous. I would think slashing paintings is more akin to well slashing tires, where as graffiti would lie more in the realm of a transforming an environment through an expressive means.
     
  52. I think the slashing a painting analogy is appropriate. Paint can
    permantly deface stone for example. The pschological aspect can be
    very much equivalent.

    Graffiti vandals are simply selfish and arrrogant. They believe that
    they are an elite who are above everyone. They only have respect for
    their own egos.
     
  53. In a past life (ahem) I was known to adorn public property with spray paint but in my defence the vast majority was done on old abandoned factories etc and trackside walls as i got better at it, I gravitated towards dong legal stuff at youth clubs,commissions on shop fronts etc.Good graffiti can be bueatiful whereas mindless tagging I agree can be an eyesore.
    Have a look here for some fine examples. http://www.graffiti.org/ I also admire the work of Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant who documented the rise of graffiti on the new york subways,it was their fault I got interested in it in the first place.
    Incidentley I'm now a responsible adult and spray paint rarely comes into my life now only on special occasions!
     
  54. I agree that banksys work has merit, though I would feel less so if he chose to graffitti on non corporate property. Cant help feeling sympathy for his point of view and in particular enjoyed his take on the rebranding of the south bank of the thames as BANKSIDE by stencilling a massive BANKSYDE in the area.

    For those in london, he's got some photos on show and for sale in a makeshift gallery on tottenham court road. Do a search for xmas ghetto on google and you should find it. For my sins i went and bought one, should keep him in spray paint and turkey this xmas though.
     
  55. I can't help but think that all you graffiti-lovers would feel very differently if some stranger came and spraypainted all over your walls, or the walls at your parents' home, or inside your kids' school.

    The fact is, they do stuff to other people's property without asking first. That isn't freedom of expression, it's just mindless destruction.
     
  56. Guy

    I think theres a distinction to be made between the type of graffitti or 'graf art' as they would have it called and tagging. One generally is carried out on non residential property (round my neck of the woods at least) and tagging, generally carried out by snot nosed little urchins. Having recently suffered at the hands of taggers who put there mark on some nicely painted white walls in our comunal hallway, I can say that if i were to have caught them I would have dished out a little home justice there and then! However I have yet to see graf art in places that would cause offence to anyone other than commerce.


    Yes - tagging is vandalism
     
  57. Just re reading through the posts above....

    Edmo. ...They'd commercialize it and assimilate him and kill it that way....

    Banksys stenciling has been used in an animated fashion in the new smirnoff tv ads. If it isnt him the styling of the whole thing is so bang on as to be a copy. Once overground and part of the mainstream can the work have the same impact?
     
  58. Edmo, you can't justify vandalism just by claiming it transforms an environment through an expressive means. Defacing property is still wrong, even when done in the name of artistic expression. Could one not claim to be a "cut artist" and transform the Mona Lisa by expressively slashing it with a razor? (Come to think of it, it's easier to tout that as artistic expression than slashing tires.)
    I would like to know if anyone knows the details about http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/suicide-jesus.html.
     
  59. it's freakin' kool [​IMG]
     
  60. Anyone remember the guy who worked in San Francisco in the 90's, I think his moniker might have been "Twist"? He would first paint the wall white and then spray his images over that with black spraypaint. He had a masterful control of the spraycan, he would move it in and out for very subtle shading effects. His style was totally recognizable and his images (usually cartoonish renderings of common objects) were mesmerizing. Anyone know the guy I'm referring to? He was the best I've seen. I once considered offering to buy a garage door that he'd "defaced".
     
  61. A little of A, a little of B...
    00AS1y-20922084.jpg
     
  62. The analogy to the slashing of the paintings is totally absurd, put your crack pipe down already.
    Will, paint can be removed from stone and other porous building materials via power washing and or with the use of chemical cleaners. In addition the owners could have their architects specify graffiti resistant coatings for their buildings.
    Graham, thanks for the link.
    Guy, I can't help but think that all you graffiti-lovers would feel very differently if some stranger came and spraypainted all over your walls?
    No way man, corners of my building get painted, got no problems with that. Beau mentioned a guy named "de la Vega", looking forward to his release so I can again see his work on the sidewalks as I leave my building in the morning.
    Kevin, that I wasn't my quote I was just quoting a previous post. Couldn't agree more about the tagging though.
    Bottom line is that in my opinion it's a form of folk art.
     
  63. [​IMG]
    but is it art?
     
  64. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    It isn't as simple as deciding whether you agree with it. For me, it depends in large measure on whether I like the image on display. just as I don't like all watercolours , all antiques, all photographs -though I like some of each of them - I like some graffiti and reject other examples.

    Second it depends where it is. Most of the graffiti I see doesn't detract from the environment because that was pretty poor to start with; and in some cases anything beyond the mindless scrawling of names or slogans is likely in my opinion anyway to make the place look more interesting. When I see beautiful buildings in Venice defaced by spray-painted initials though I have to say that gets to me and I'm unimpressed by the intellect and motives of the people that do it

    One thing I am clear about though- that I don't have to worry about whether the owner of the wall wanted it there it to determine whether I like it. Neither do I have to want graffiti on my walls to like it in some other environments. I wouldn't want an Edward Hopper painting as a mural on the wall of my house, but I can think of other privately owned environments that would (in my opinion) look better for it. I'm quite relaxed about the fact that my opinions as observer and ownwer might be different.

    PS I like Banksy's stuff too- couple of books of it around here somewhere in fact.
     
  65. k|2

    k|2

    a friend of mine has a cool website, he records grafitti over time at various spots in sf. grafarc k
     
  66. K, nice link...thank ya.
     
  67. Brian Diaz wrote: "Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property."
    Hmm, I always thought it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". But that's certainly an interesting turn of phrase.
    As for graffitti, for me it's like this: I know should probably take the high road, but I can't help it, I like a lot of it.
    -sp
    00ASID-20926784.jpg
     
  68. Thank you also for the link K.
     
  69. Brian Diaz wrote: "Our society is structured around the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property."
    SP wrote: Hmm, I always thought it was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
    Exactamundo. We DO hold property sacred. Jefferson's vision is trumped by Hamilton's. If we could just keep them in balance.
     
  70. k|2

    k|2

    i took those picture 2 years apart. the wall gets clean painted over in black often and somehow the face stays untouched and preseved each time, which puzzles me the most. now and 2yearsago k
     
  71. "The analogy to the slashing of the paintings is totally absurd, put your crack pipe down already.
    Will, paint can be removed from stone and other porous building materials via power washing and or with the use of chemical cleaners. In addition the owners could have their architects specify graffiti resistant coatings for their buildings."

    EDMO, a slashed painting can also be repaired. As far a stone, chemical clears are not some miracle, the affect of cleaning can still be seen. And note, the coatings are graffiti "resistant," not graffiti "proof." That can be a big difference. So there is no difference between defacing a painting and defacing a piece of architecture. While both can be repaired, the repair is never as good as the original.

    As far as the arrogance of the vandal, there again slashing a painting and defacing a building is the same. The act clearly shows contempt for others while having no positive affect except to gratify the ego of the vandal.
     
  72. Lighten up, will ya?
     
  73. If you're gonna "vandalise", at least make it beautiful.
    00ASbq-20937884.jpg
     
  74. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

  75. 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.
     
  76. Beautiful Dominic
     
  77. 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.
    00ASuZ-20944684.jpg
     
  78. 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.
     
  79. 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.
     
  80. Grafitti can also be art criticism.
    00AT5C-20947284.jpg
     
  81. k|2

    k|2

    @brian diaz well.... 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. lascaux k
     
  82. I should say last picture was ripped off a Banksy's site. Banksy--
     
  83. OK that site is awesome and I'm only through 1/3 of the chambers. Thank you K!
     
  84. 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 *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* comment or a supportive comment? sounds kinda *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*

    xxemilyxx
     
  85. "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.
     
  86. 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.
    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 this, but if your canvas belongs to someone else, it doesn't matter whether what you do is beautiful or ugly.
    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?
     
  87. Kent, all compliments should only be given to the artist, whoever he/she may be. Thanks anyways tho.
     
  88. sometimes it increases property values, sometimes it lowers it. i know that much.
     
  89. Part of a piece by Lee.
     
  90. 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.
     
  91. 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"?
     
  92. You can do all the photography you want in your own house. Suppose you weren't allowed to shoot anything outside?
     
  93. k|2

    k|2

    @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.
     
  94. No, I recognise that architecture IS art but, like other art, 80% of it is crap.
    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.
     
  95. >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?
     
  96. Richard, re-read what Ed said - ...it can be in certain isolated cases...
     
  97. <<Emily, thank you for NOT getting it>>

    thanks for talking down to me like that, will, i really appreciate it


    i am glad that this topic has sparked a lot of responses and i respect everyones opinion on it and would expect the same respect from everyone else
     
  98. Emily, as you talked down to us by implying only the people who
    agreed with you could understand.
     
  99. >Richard, re-read what Ed said - ...it can be in certain isolated cases...

    Brad, I did read that. Some people object to graffiti because of the art defacement aspect.
    It follows logically that where architecture isn't art -- presumably dull, cookie-cutter
    buildings -- graffiti on it isn't defacing art. Other people object to defacement on general
    grounds.

    I'm not trying to convince everyone graffiti is right. I don't believe it's right. I think there
    are examples which are interesting and worth photographing. It's illegal. Legalising it
    would rob graffiti of its point.
     
  100. >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.

    in fact the vast majority of art up until the mid 20th century was done on commission and paid for.
    Rembrand worked almost purely on commission, Bach and Schubert were employed. Shakespeare wrote his plays on commission from theaters and the Royal family.

    Grafitti is vandalism, pure and simple.
    The few who use the medium as a form of art do so only in designated areas and usually either on order or at the least with permission from the owners of the property.
    They also aren't done with their work in 2-3 minutes, they take hours or days.
     
  101. Nike protest
     
  102. While fretting about "Graffiti is anti-social behaviour, and draws its power from being subversive." the real subversive behavior by power hungry bureucrats and politicians, many of which are just as mentally unbalanced as the taggers, goes unchecked and undiscussed, perhaps because their misbehavior is not manifested in photographs or smeared 2D hobglob; but when it becomes graphically interesting, as an example Lord Profumo and Miss Keeler, things suddenly can become quite interesting. My interest always is, what was the "tagger" mentality doing BEFORE spray paint became so readily available??????? (Stealing mopeds??)
     

Share This Page