trainspotter wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Robin May wrote:
(trainspotter) wrote the following in:
om
what do you all think of graffiti?
It's generally ****. The graffiti you get on the tube is not the
artistic sort of graffiti, it's just rubbish looking tags and
meaningless things scratched in windows.
It's *all* ****. There is no such thing as "the artistic sort of
graffiti" as far as I'm concerned. It is all vandalism and
criminal damage. Let's not try to pretend that these malicious
trespassers are creating anything of value.
you are very, very narrow minded who probably watches too much
eastenders.
I watch *no* EastEnders, so I don't understand the connection.
why isn't the 'art' side art? If I sprayed a picture of a
person for example on a wall (a legal wall)... what would you call
that? vandalism?
It depends what you mean by a "legal wall". If it's a wall inside your
house, or someone else's house and they have given you permission, then it
might be a work of art. However, if you live, say, in a Victorian terrace
house of unpainted London stock brick like its neighbours, and you spray a
picture of a person all over the front wall, I *would* call that vandalism.
And if you lived in a conservation area, it would probably be illegal too.
You are trying to expand the boundaries of what you call "art" while
denying that the existing environment can be "art" in its widest sense too.
What gives you the right to decide unilaterally to impose your "art" on
other people's property, and in doing so destroy the visual effect that
they have deliberately created?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)