On 2 Sep 2006 09:44:44 -0700, Jonathan Morris wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:
Graham Murray wrote:

Why do they have to spend money clearing up after them? Does 'well
done' graffiti actually do much harm? Some of it can be very artistic
and can add to the character of an area, and as far as trains are
concerned might even be considered to be preferable to the garish
colour schemes used by some TOCs.

How much is well done? Mostly it's a simple tag, which requires no
skill (take a pen and paper, now scribble some initials or a name; hey
presto.. your very own tag).

I'd agree that some stuff you see doesn't look too bad, but it's not up
to you or I to decide whether we should be 'adding to the character of
an area'. Covering the cab window of a train probably isn't
particularly safe either.

More important though is the fact that people don't feel safe around
graffitti, even if a lot of it is done when they're not there (rather
than the image of a train being attacked with helpless passengers
looking on).

http://ross.photobook.org.uk/p33582315.html is a good example of
bog-standard graffiti. It's not "well done", or artistic. It's just a
mess - and when it was done it quite clearly obscured the carriage
windows.

There is some artistic graffiti, but IMX it's probably less than one
piece in a thousand at best. Most graffiti is little more than damage.


This lot even advertise their work: http://www.milk.ten.lt - the
website URL was scrawled all over Lincoln last year.
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography: http://www.rosspix.me.uk - updated with NL & LU pix
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters occasionally gripped by me