John B wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are
utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't
think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to
the word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally
defaces other people's property.

So if the Mona Lisa had been painted on a stolen canvas, it
wouldn't be an artwork and Leonardo wouldn't be an artist?

I would hardly call painting the Mona Lisa "defacing" the canvas.

Under any sensible definition, that BNP ballerina is still an
artist. Even Hitler was an artist, although not a very good one.
Similarly, graffiti-ers who go beyond scrawled tags are artists.

Yes, there *are* graffiti artists who create real works of art on
surfaces which previously had no visual value. For example, a
café-front shutter in Paris (see http://images.fotopic.net/y74ltp.jpg )
where the painting was sprayed on to a previously blank shutter, doesn't
interfere with the café business (because it's out of sight when the
café is open), and was attractive or at least interesting to look at.
Unfortunately it's since been obliterated by graffiti *vandals* with no
apparent artistic ability or respect for what they sprayed over.

They are also vandals, but an immoral life - or even a crime being
committed in the course of making the artwork - does not stop it
from being art.

I'm not sure where you would draw the line between vandalism and art.
If I managed to spray a black splodge over the Mona Lisa's face, I hope
you would agree that that was pure vandalism.

As for LU graffiti attacks, the fact is that LU have decided, like all
train operators, to paint their rolling stock in a particular livery
which is recognised by the public, and anyone defacing that livery on LU
premises is committing criminal damage and criminal trespass. They may
also be committing other criminal offences such as endangering safety or
obstructing trains, both of which carry a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment. Coupled with the generally low or non-existant artistic
content of their work (as distinct from mere scribblings and daubing), I
have no hesitation in placing them firmly on the side of vandalism
rather than art.

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