Personality i like Tagging and Graffitis but i only like to see it on LEGAL places where it is allowed like on ruines or under bridges
But on illegal places i h8 them like on a hospital or some other houses wich they dont own or are historical.:thumbsdow
Now a suggest
Does somebody can make a LEGAL graffity of the LFS logo?
that would be cool
The "broken windows syndrome" is here since the 80's, hell, even earlier maybe. I first heard it in Style Wars (1982 graffiti documentary, i recommend it) when the mayor of NY was talking. I did read it, well..ok, i didn't, i quicky browsed through it, found nothing new and closed it.
I think you'll find a little thing called the 'broken window' theory comes into play here - people see a broken window and think 'oh this place mustn't be well looked after, I ight as well dump my waste/graffiti/whatever here as a) I'm not likely to be caught and b) it'll be a long time until it is cleaned up', and as more people notice the degeneration more stuff gets dumped, graffitied or whatever. I'm not a huge fan of the 'tagging' side of things, the throw-ups, stuff like that. What I do like, whether it is in a legal place or not, are properly artistic forms of lettering, or people. As long as it is done skillfully - I'm not talking about 16 year old 'artists' with marker pens here - it really does brighten up otherwise dull streets and some of the skill involved in the painting of some of the pieces I've seen is astonishing
my god if I could invent a device to punch people in the face over the internet, I would use it right now. Although I actually agree it has gone a long way off the 'revolution' side of things, what you have posted there is absolute first class A-Grade BOLLOCKS. Full of the sweeping generalisations I am all too familiar with and have grown up around (banger racers = pikies, graffiti artists= drug fuelled....) and it shows either how naive, or misguided, you are. Please come back when you have a better understanding of the subject
What is considered art depends on context and how people sees it, just like Marshall Duchamp's work, he has no personal input in creating the object nor does it has much asthetical value, but he made a point with it and it changes opinions, hence it is considered one of the most important modern art.
Graffiti itself as a form isn't art (art is used very generously nowadays), but when done with a solid intend, and strong message and when the artist full ultilzes its context on the street, it is art. (although most of them isn't)
I do think some graffitis are talking to the society, but whether the public actually bothers with the issue they are talking about is another matter. Banksy for example not only talk about the cliche repressive nanny state kind of stuff, but also about the art circle, the advertising business and subject on war. Posterboy is another group working against the overwhelming presense of advertising - sure, I think most of the people don't feel the problem with seeing billboards everywhere and thinks these arts somehow make their neighbourhood a degenerated place, but for some who see visual symbols the same way they are making a statement.
If you think they are mostly talking to themselves, fighting imaginery enemies of the society and should have find something meaningful to do.....well that's why it's art, you see art in an extent is a form of masturbation - it is self expressive and does not have to achieve understanding in the audience, and that's why most of the time it is shit, since every self important punk think they are fighting the society, and they have no clue on what constitutes meaningful arrangement of graphics.
The crime itself is a performance art/action art, when done correctly, but it sounds too pretentious to put it that way.
However I would bare with the shit ones because some are really good, not only in an asthetic way, but it tells alot about the society.
Generally i find graffiti to be a waste of good paint. The only exception to that is, as has been pointed out by a couple of people already..... Banksy
I love his work, and I'm lucky enough to live in Bristol and pass some of his work most times I'm out.
Graffiti isn't regarded as art. When it's done with intent, it's no longer what is commonly regarded as graffiti and becomes what is regarded as art. The question of who gets to decide what is art and what is not is recursive. The intent behind graffiti, as opposed to works of urban art (Banksy being one of the exceptions that prove the rule), is ultimately what confirms that graffiti will never be art.
Once you've differentiated between graffiti and urban art, graffiti pales in significance, exposed for the tripe that it is. It's just tagging. Though many confuse scale for artistry (perhaps an easy thing to do when the graffiti is on a significant scale and alludes to three dimensions - impact, in other words) but the truth is that large scale wall graffiti is no more artistic than a hand grenade is invigorating.
Oh indeed it does.
I used to put my kids' kindergarten artwork on the refrigerator. I think we're talking the same level here. That's the limit to which I've gone to accommodate dismal art, though. There is real art being made all the time.. some of it with profound meaning. I've always believed that good art will seek you out and actively communicate its message. If you have to sort through the tripe to find the message, or overlay your own interpretation in the hope that it corresponds with the intended meaning of the piece of "work".. well, to cut a long story short, the art industry is rife with nepotism and fraud. There's enough of that without graffiti "artists" trying to muscle in on the act. And, for the record, any "tagger" that claims that his is art, not just pantone defecation is a fraud.
* Art
What is there to know? I live in the same society as the "taggers"/"writers". I see the same walls they spread their crap on. Which subject am I ignorant of? I went to art college, my dad was an art gallery director (we tour Europe together every year, seeking out architectural and fine art), some of my earliest memories are of me being bored shitless, sitting in Henry Moore's studio while he and my dad yapped. I consider myself thoroughly baptised in what is, and is not, art.
to me, Graffiti is a work of art that not everyone can do. It's a way to express how someone feels about something in an artistic matter that makes places pop out with art! It takes it from dull, to modern and beautiful at the same time. So, Graffiti is a yes to me!
what there is to know here is that I'm not talking about the 'taggers'. I dislike the tags/throw-ups as much as you - they make a place look a mess. What I am talking about, and what you seem incapable of grasping, is the skill required to create those intricate, inter-woven/deformed lettering styles used by many artists. It's not just something everybody can do, it takes a hell of a lot of practise believe me.
Crickey, I can remember many a childhood afternoon causing mischief on his estate when I lived in Much Hadham! He showed us around one time and revealed these blobs he'd made called sculptures. Small things, that his workers would scale up into the ones that would actually get installed in places.
The difference between Henry Moore and a Grafitti tagger is hard to discern. Firstly, Moore made his blobs without committing a crime, so the purpose of his blobalisation (sculpting) was the finished article, but after that the result to the community was the same.
Look what happened to Harlow after this
It's like the most degenerated area outside of Stevenage in the whole East Herts / West Essex area.
Don't get me wrong, I love the fact he was too old to catch me scrumping, he was a very kind man, but i've never been taken by his art, and yet he gets to deface town centres with it.
My point being that a lot of grafitti can have just as much artistic merit as any classical or fine artist. Accepting of course that there is these two different forms of grafitti, the tag and the murial, and most people love murials where the art is in the result, most people hate tags where the alleged art is in the crime.
I think therefore, the conclusion must be that if it looks like shit then it's not art (with the exception of Henry Moore, which apparently is art).
hehe! I went to Bretton Hall College of Art, which is in the grounds of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. It has a lot of Moore's sculptures on permanent display. If you don't get his work, and you're curious, it's well worth a visit.
I've seen loads of his work already, his little shed with gazillions of the little blighters in there and his big workshops with the large scale ones. For me art is about metaphor, I like to look at art and make up my own meenings for it. The problem I have with Henry Moore is that the only parallel I can ever see is that Hollywood film with the Time Cops when the guy touches himself in the past and blobbifies.
A lot of the graffiti is too skillful to be used in mainstream education, Art qualifications have nothing to do with being able to draw, it has more to do with how much bullshit you can write to explain why your drawings suck balls.
You can quite clearly see my point. Taking your oh so beloved scultures, I find they simply block the way.. I can't walk straight across the courtyard to get to the bank, I have to take a 3 meter diversion around this immovable object, and this can really put me off schedule for the rest of the day. But do I term these fine pieces of masonry as degenerate and the like? No.
Why? Because it's art and while it may not appeal to me, there are other people that it surely does. Graffiti appeals to me (and a whole lot of other people) as being very artistic and incredibly detailed. While some of you (and it's generally older people because they are all goody goody conformity) may not like it, never forget that some people do indeed find it interesting. Just because it's deemed illegal, does not automatically mean it's not art, and just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean you can slate it with nothing but stereotypes.
If you want your 200 year old town to look like that, then go ahead. If you want old buildings collecting nothing but mould, and walls being just that, then be that way. Frankly, I'd rather see something interesting while walking to work.
If you'd taken the time to read my posts properly, you would have realised that the first three you linked I'd describe as potentially "art". The last one you posted is definitively "graffiti". As in NOT art, just shit.
I recognise the value of artists like Banksy (as I HAVE said, if you'd been following the thread properly) and I never said I thought Moore's sculptures were wonderful, I said I was bored shitless sitting in his studio when I was a kid. But I do "get" his work better, now that I've grown up.
well before your onslaught S14 absolutely everybody agreed with your point of view, you missread the other points of view completely as Sam pointed out, and I for one am tempted to disagree just to play devils advocate.
So, wai, if these are "tags", are the "tags" then "tagged" by the "taggers" who "tagged" them...
That is to say, if they are the tags of the artist, wai are they signed?
*snickers and runs back into the side of the room where everybody agrees* I really am just playing devils advocate
dude, I totally agree. It's art in a different but radical way to spice up the area. I have just one question though. How do you do the link thing like when it says click here, the "here" is a link? How do I do that?
