Rude, you know very wellwhat you need don't you?
Really? That's nice to know. Never really thought that, meself. I'm a follower of music, and what goes on on this forum, but as for art, well, I just know what I like, not what supposed intellectuals tell me I [i]ought[/i] to like. I go to the Summer Exhibition every year because it's an opportunity to see a wide variety of styles by an equally wide variety of accomplished artists who I would otherwise never get to see in one venue. And have the possibility of purchasing a piece as well. I was brought up in a working-class home, had a Secondary School education, never had an opportunity to go to University, but I was brought up to not have a closed mind to anything, to make my own mind up, regardless of what others with supposedly "superior" intellects might say, be it art, music, religion, whatever. I enjoy well executed grafitti, but abhore mindless vandalism, and if certain people on here see a dicotomy there, then blame my poor education. After fifty-four years I see no point in changing to suit other people's narrow views.Countzero seems to be a follower of art modern or otherwise.
I guess the trouble is Countzero is that a lot of Grafitti, due to it's nature, well executed or otherwise is often in the public domain. Whilst I can appreciate the aesthetic of certain pieces or work, be it actual grafitti, street art, or commissioned work I [i]personally[/i] believe that if the place it is painted belongs to someone, be it an individual, company, public and it is done without permission then it is extreamly arogant. If I want to practise my 'art' (playing the guitar) then I don't drive round the streets with a Tannoy on top of my car blasting out tunes, as by my own admission i'm pretty piss poor and i'm pretty sure it would get people backs up.
I'm sure a lot of the posters in this forum can also appreciate the skill required to do much of the work - and many probably think that quite a bit of it does make the dull streets look more interesting and vibrant. They probably just don't like it being where it detracts, rather than adds to the enviroment.
It's all about context:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
❓
[i]I still can't decide on Bez[/i]
Good. Decision is the end of the thought process and, given the subject at hand, the whole point is to not stop thinking.
[i]They probably just don't like it being where it detracts, rather than adds to the enviroment.[/i]
That's entirely subjective, though. To my mind expanses of concrete, blank rendered walls and corporate colour schemes and logos detract from the environment.
coffeeking - Member
kimbers, I'm 27 and very definitely not "old fashioned".
Blimey; I hope you mellow out a bit by the time you get to my age, mate (37 and still childish and irresponsible)!
To my mind expanses of concrete, blank rendered walls and corporate colour schemes and logos detract from the environment.
I agree. A blank wall is a blank space, like a blank canvass is. It is not natural, or within our Humanity, to be surrounded by blank spaces. It is praps almost instinctive, to want to fill in a blank space.
Of course, this needs to be done with sensitivity and consideration. Unfortunately, this is virtually impossible to achieve, as it would need someone to oversee operations; this would undoubtedly introduce individual agendae, and therefore be constrictive. And you can't just say 'oh, it's ok to graffiti a boring motorway support, or a warehouse wall'. Because not all motorway supports/walls would be in locations where graffiti is appropriate.
I do object to the amount of public space that is festooned with advertising hoardings. I don't believe the vast majority of adverts add anything to the aesthetic appeal of places. In fact, many are just downright offensive; 'Buy, Consume, Spend'. Obscene. But I have little say over this. Because it is allowed by Law, public spaces are fair game.
Why not have billboards that artists can fill with material of their choice? I know there's an element of 'control', with this, and not all would want to participate, but it would act as a showcase for individual talent and expression.
Question: What is socially more damaging; a bit of graffiti on a railway siding, or an advert objectifying female sexuality, reinforcing ideals and stereotypes?
Good question RudeBoy - one I don't pretend to know the answer to. I like your thinking on the boarding space thing, although i very much doubt it would work, those with real talent might want to 'exhibit' their work, others without much probably wouldn't get much out of it, I don't know, it's not anything i've thought of doing?!? I liked your point also:
""Of course, this needs to be done with sensitivity and consideration. Unfortunately, this is virtually impossible to achieve, as it would need someone to oversee operations; this would undoubtedly introduce individual agendae, and therefore be constrictive.""
I thought along those lines also - but as it is subjective, it would be next to impossible - i guess that is why there is the blanket policy of criminilization, as there are no set parameters of what constitutes art, all 'grafitti' must be criminal? Otherwise you could argue fly tipping was a performance piece, and you were adding to the mise-en-scene of your local beauty spot, if nothing else you have to admire the perseverance of someone that is willing to drive that far with a washing machine and hurl it over a 6 foot wall when the council will pick it up from right outside your house for a fiver! 😉
Graffiti is great, when you compare some graf artists talent to the likes of Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst, they are clearly (excuse the pun) streets ahead.
The amount of people young and old who bang on about Banksy when he's selling chin strokers pieces for thousands, but conveniently forget that he too is a graf artist.
Art is subjective, if its somone who sprays a c0ck on a wall because he thinks it's funny I would say it's vandalism, if it's someone who does this:
[img] 
[/img]
Deserves recognition as an artist.
For me, it brings a bit of colour to drab surroundings and proves to me there are better artists who do it for the love than the artists who spunk on a tent and try to pass it off as art for money.
We were all young once and did different thigs to be creative, some of us just never grew out of it, and thats a good thing
OK. Many people, like myself, obviously enjoy looking at the more 'artistic' side of vandalism.
So lets start a register. If you wish to have your property (house front, garage etc) sprayed, sign up and get put in touch with a local artist.
They get to practice their art and loads of free publicity, you get an original artwork.
Of course, anyone caught spraying where they don't have permission would be used as a mobile deterent themselves:
Sprayed with their own paint and whipped through the streets like a common dog.
Sound fair?
On Rochdale Canal between Tod and Hebden Bridge:
[img] 
?v=0[/img]
This is an old one, gets redone every few months.
Blimey; I hope you mellow out a bit by the time you get to my age
I'm completely mellow matey, just know what my opinions are and stick by them unless presented with a decent argument against, which I haven't seen yet and probably wont because its a personal choice thing. By suggesting I'm not mellow you seem to assume I must be ranting and raving against graffiti - I'm not, I just think its a disgraceful mess and believe it shouldnt be allowed, thats a calm and considered thought. I dont do "non-mellow" - I'm so laid back I might fall off my seat. Likewise, just because my choice of music is not hip-hop and my choice of art isnt meaningless shapes that can be interpreted any way, or can't be interpreted in any sensible way at all, doesn't mean I'm a fuddy duddy old whinge-bag, it just means I value things that seem to be somewhat lacking in a lot of modern "art" (both brush/sculpture and musically).
I'm mildly amused that people can accuse me of being an old man and not seeing the worth of modern art as if I'm somehow blinkered, yet those same people are so blinkered as to think I'm incapable of seeing their point of view and simply disagreeing with it. Just because it's modern and different doesnt make it worth while or worthy of praise or forward thinking in some way. I've considered the points that are raised for it and consider them to be wrong, in my opinion. This isn't an old vs new art thing, I dont like giant wall hangings of tapestry and dislike the latest pop tunes, I simply dislike most modern art sculptures (like those god-damn awful gormley statues at Crosby beach) and dislike most of the grim crap that gets sprayed on walls as "art". What I'm trying to say is just because I dont like the same things as you doesnt mean I'm wrong or old fashioned, simply that I value things not present in a lot of modern art of all kinds. I do like a lot of modern buildings. I have a whole heap of modern CDs. I have a have a whole heap of modern DVDs etc etc.
Some of the above graffiti is indeed vaguely interesting as art, but if they are actually "artists" then they should find the correct route to publicity rather than spray it on walls assuming everyone on the street wants to see it. The ultimate question is would they (do they?) spray the outside of their own house with it? If not, why not? Because it looks shit.
Because it looks shit
😆
Another question might be, how would some people like some 'artists' to redecorate their own living rooms in a manner not of their choosing. Probably not very much i'd imagaine.