Can Graffiti be Explained ?

Blossy said:
9T

Could the same not be said for some mordern architctural deisgn? , its not to everybody's taste!?

i personally dont mind the graffiti, some of it can be really nice to look at, there is a difference between that and the DAMO WOZ ERE 9T9 scratched across a wall!!!

that is disgraceful and they should be made clean that!!
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I take both of your points of view. Regardless of how monstrous a building looks it has a few purposes. First of all the architect designed a building according to the owner's wishes. For this he was paid. Secondly, the building has a function ....... commercial, retail or for habitation. It contributes to what makes the world go around. Each segment of it's life is part of the economic wheel. The graffiti/tag vandals do not have permission to desecrate the building. It costs money to clean up and lends itself to urban decay. Not to mention the CFCs. Would any of you like to have your house tagged? And Ron, it is alsi illegal;) As for the Spire ..... it adds a nice focus to the city:)
 
Simeon said:
I take both of your points of view. Regardless of how monstrous a building looks it has a few purposes. First of all the architect designed a building according to the owner's wishes. For this he was paid. Secondly, the building has a function ....... commercial, retail or for habitation. It contributes to what makes the world go around. Each segment of it's life is part of the economic wheel. The graffiti/tag vandals do not have permission to desecrate the building. It costs money to clean up and lends itself to urban decay. Not to mention the CFCs. Would any of you like to have your house tagged? And Ron, it is alsi illegal;) As for the Spire ..... it adds a nice focus to the city:)
Click to expand...

Did i say it wasn't ??
 
No Ron, you idn't. But neither did you say it was illegal. I may have jumped the gun here as I'd forgoten to take my medication:). My apologies for any inferences to the contrary.
 
Simeon said:
No Ron, you idn't. But neither did you say it was illegal. I may have jumped the gun here as I'd forgoten to take my medication:). My apologies for any inferences to the contrary.
Click to expand...

My point is that some of this is a serious talent and is lovely to lok at. Just because its not on canvas doesn't stop it being art.

If painting on walls is all bad then get on your bike to the vatican with a pair of handcuffs:D

Work with the kids and give them a space to do it, then paint it white................and start again.
 
What interesting mindsets have been revealed in this thread.
Gives a whole new meaning to tagging to me. Tagging, in the context of which I'm thinking of the word could well solve the problem because problem it is.

I am advised by one who knows that in law, any sprays, paints or dyes improperly applied in a public place or applied without authorisation in any manner to the property of another is defined as malicious damage.

There is something of a tattoo mentality about this tagging business in that there is no logic to it's application beyond what appeals to the mind of individual. Ask them why they do it and you will immediately be immersed in Alice-in-Wonderland type speak. Entertaining, largely inoffensive, vague but in the real world purely idiotic.
 
I think that yes, sometimes artistic talent is evident.

But really, it's simply vandalism and should be treated as such.
If there is genuine artistic merit it should be noticed (but I certainly don't think it always will be) and encouraged - via an appropriate, legal medium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top