graffiti
 

what do you all think of graffiti?

graffiti
 

graffiti
 

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.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

graffiti
 

graffiti
 

Robin May wrote in message . 1.4...
(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.

The 'tagging' variety is indicative of a mentality like that of a dog
urinating against a lamppost.

The 'artistic' variety indicates that the perpetrator labours under
the delusion that he has some degree of talent.

graffiti
 

graffiti
 

Robin May wrote:
(Chippy) wrote the following in:
m

Robin May wrote in message
. 1.4...
(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.

The 'tagging' variety is indicative of a mentality like that of a
dog urinating against a lamppost.

I agree.

The 'artistic' variety indicates that the perpetrator labours
under the delusion that he has some degree of talent.

I believe I've mentioned it before, but there is a foot bridge over
the District line near me that seems to be a designated location for
people to do graffiti, and the people who've done things there really
do have talent (I should probably take some photos of it actually).
Unfortunately I can't really think of anywhere else that I've seen
stuff of the same quality, so I suppose the vast majority of graffiti
probably is just rubbish.

Even if the graffiti perpetrators think they have some talent, what makes
them think it's legitimate to impose their designs on someone else's
property, which the owner has decided will be painted in a particular
colour? What really annoys me are graffiti vandals who destroy the quiet
dignity of a brick wall that has stood for perhaps 130 years serving the
people of London. I don't care whether it's a mere tag or something more
elaborate and colourful. It's still criminal damage. Please don't be
tempted, Robin, to give the criminals the recognition they crave by
photographing their mutilation of our environment.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

graffiti
 

"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. 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? fool.

graffiti
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

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.

Totally agree. It's just little kiddies with spray paint or magic markers
who think - in the depths of their ignorance - that they are creating 'art'
by desecrating other people's property. Still, we used to do silly, naughty
little things when we were children, I suppose - I guess this is just an
extension of this. Smack their bottoms and put them to bed with no supper, I
say!

Ian

graffiti
 

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)