In message , Ishmael
Sayle III writes
Oh dearest Kat,
My sister is an art teacher, I visited her degree show many years ago, one
exibit was a box, clear plastic with a hole and a fan attached to the hole,
there were also some holes to let the air out, inside the box were locusts,
cockroaches and all sorts of insects being blown about.
Now thats ART.

Well, I bow to your superior knowledge gleaned at your sister's degree
show... what do I know, I'm just a humble station assistant.


Now thats Art, graffiti could be art but only in the right environment, if
we were in a communist state and our only form of expression against the
state was writing on a wall, then that is a valid expression of our feeling
as all other avenues are closed off, but we live in a country were in
general free speech is allowed, so the writing of political expression isn't
needed, the writing of TOX 01, 02, 03 ,04 is just criminal damage, these
scumbags ruin our environment, make people feel threatened especally
travelling at night, and need to be caught & punished.

I do know, however, that a bit of spray paint on a passing train doesn't
make me feel threatened, not even late at night when I'm on the platform
with a load of drunks who've missed the last train. But then, I'm not
easily scared; not even by a bunch of creepy-crawlies blowing around in
a perspex box.
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:23:23 +0000, Ishmael Sayle III wrote:

Now thats Art, graffiti could be art but only in the right environment, if
we were in a communist state and our only form of expression against the
state was writing on a wall, then that is a valid expression of our feeling
as all other avenues are closed off, but we live in a country were in
general free speech is allowed, so the writing of political expression isn't
needed, the writing of TOX 01, 02, 03 ,04 is just criminal damage, these
scumbags ruin our environment, make people feel threatened especally
travelling at night, and need to be caught & punished.

I see a difference between tagging (which just makes things look untidy)
and some rather more impressive designs which do make boring concrete
bridges etc. look more interesting. I don't have too much of a problem
with the latter - as long as it's only sprayed onto otherwise unused,
boring surfaces like concrete bridges. The former, or anything sprayed
where it will get in the way e.g. on a train, is just ugly.

Neil

Kat wrote the following in:


In message ,
Robin May writes
I believe I've mentioned it before, but there is a foot bridge
over the District line near me that seems to be a designated
location for people to do graffiti, and the people who've done
things there really do have talent (I should probably take some
photos of it actually).

There's a bridge/fence just east(?) of Bromley-by-Bow that's very
attractive.

This one is between Plaistow and West Ham. The graffiti isn't actually
visible from the trains or station platforms (the bridge is). It's on
the walls on either side of the bridge and is only visible while
crossing the bridge. The bridge carries the greenway and sewer over the
District line and is about a few minute's walk away from the Upper Road
entrance to the Greenway.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Crime is confusing.

"Richard J." wrote the following in:


Even if the graffiti perpetrators think they have some talent,
what makes them think it's legitimate to impose their designs on
someone else's property, which the owner has decided will be
painted in a particular colour? What really annoys me are
graffiti vandals who destroy the quiet dignity of a brick wall
that has stood for perhaps 130 years serving the people of London.
I don't care whether it's a mere tag or something more elaborate
and colourful. It's still criminal damage. Please don't be
tempted, Robin, to give the criminals the recognition they crave
by photographing their mutilation of our environment.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I hate graffiti on trains,
stations and other similar things because that is done without
permission, messes up things that already look good and well designed
like a station or train and generally make things look worse. I noticed
some of TOX's graffiti at Canning Town today and it made me incredibly
angry because there was a station designed to look a certain way and
here some person had come and ruined that.

The bridge I'm talking about is not like that. It's an ugly concrete
structure and the work on it is better than art I've seen in galleries.
I'm pretty sure that it is authorised by the council or at the very
least known about and accepted. The graffiti on it is not threatening
or scary, it doesn't represent urban decay in the way broken windows or
walls covered in tags on council estates do. It looks like something
that members of the community have put a lot of time and effort into
improving the appearance of. This graffiti has more in common with
things like the (organised by the school) painting done by school
children on the side of Upminster Station than it does with the sort of
stuff done by people like TOX.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Crime is confusing.

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard J.
writes

You're missing the point, Kat. It's not a question of whether it's nice
to
look at. The difference is that Picasso used his own canvas to paint
on,
not someone else's property without their permission. It's the total
lack
of respect for our, yes *our*, property that people find threatening.

I don't think I missed the point at all... the previous poster was
implying that because it made the world a threatening place, it was not
art. It may well be art in spite of the effect it has on you, the
viewer, and in spite of the fact that it's not on the perpetrator's own
property.

Whether you and I enjoy it or not, Graffiti is a valid form of visual
expression.

Oh dear. Criminal damage is valid? In what sense?

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

Robin May wrote:

The bridge I'm talking about is not like that. It's an ugly concrete
structure and the work on it is better than art I've seen in galleries.
I'm pretty sure that it is authorised by the council or at the very
least known about and accepted. The graffiti on it is not threatening
or scary, it doesn't represent urban decay in the way broken windows or
walls covered in tags on council estates do. It looks like something
that members of the community have put a lot of time and effort into
improving the appearance of. This graffiti has more in common with
things like the (organised by the school) painting done by school
children on the side of Upminster Station than it does with the sort of
stuff done by people like TOX.

Agreed. I was in a taxi last night and somewhere between Essex Road and
Dalston I think was a rown of shops with their metal roller shutters
down.

I assume that they had the agreement of the shop-owners, but the whole
row had had the "artistic graffiti done on it. It was done very well,
and looks a whole lot better than a row of grey metal roller shutters.

(The same thing is very common in Paris too.)

The results are good: the "artists" have a legal outlet, the shops still
look normal in the day when the shutters are up and they don't look as
desolate, grim and threatening when the shutters are down at night.

"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
"Richard J." wrote the following in:


Even if the graffiti perpetrators think they have some talent,
what makes them think it's legitimate to impose their designs on
someone else's property, which the owner has decided will be
painted in a particular colour? What really annoys me are
graffiti vandals who destroy the quiet dignity of a brick wall
that has stood for perhaps 130 years serving the people of London.
I don't care whether it's a mere tag or something more elaborate
and colourful. It's still criminal damage. Please don't be
tempted, Robin, to give the criminals the recognition they crave
by photographing their mutilation of our environment.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I hate graffiti on trains,
stations and other similar things because that is done without
permission, messes up things that already look good and well designed
like a station or train and generally make things look worse. I noticed
some of TOX's graffiti at Canning Town today and it made me incredibly
angry because there was a station designed to look a certain way and
here some person had come and ruined that.

The bridge I'm talking about is not like that. It's an ugly concrete
structure and the work on it is better than art I've seen in galleries.
I'm pretty sure that it is authorised by the council or at the very
least known about and accepted. The graffiti on it is not threatening
or scary, it doesn't represent urban decay in the way broken windows or
walls covered in tags on council estates do. It looks like something
that members of the community have put a lot of time and effort into
improving the appearance of. This graffiti has more in common with
things like the (organised by the school) painting done by school
children on the side of Upminster Station than it does with the sort of
stuff done by people like TOX.

In that case it's not graffiti, it's art. I've just checked the definition
of graffiti in the New Oxford Dictionary, and it refers specifically to
*illicit* painting etc. in a public place. Your example is (probably)
authorised, and therefore not illicit.

I must admit that my refusal to call graffiti "art" is a deliberate attempt
to persuade people not to regard it as in any way valued by society.
That's not the case with your example.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard J.
writes

You're missing the point, Kat. It's not a question of whether it's nice
to
look at. The difference is that Picasso used his own canvas to paint
on,
not someone else's property without their permission. It's the total
lack
of respect for our, yes *our*, property that people find threatening.

I don't think I missed the point at all... the previous poster was
implying that because it made the world a threatening place, it was not
art. It may well be art in spite of the effect it has on you, the
viewer, and in spite of the fact that it's not on the perpetrator's own
property.

Whether you and I enjoy it or not, Graffiti is a valid form of visual
expression.

Oh dear. Criminal damage is valid? In what sense?

Read the URL I posted.
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
Whether you and I enjoy it or not, Graffiti is a valid form of visual
expression.

Oh dear. Criminal damage is valid? In what sense?

Read the URL I posted.

I did. It talked about "the illicit nature of graffiti", and said "This
illegal expression constitutes vandalism to the larger society". There was
also an interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but nowhere did the word
"valid" appear.

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

In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
Whether you and I enjoy it or not, Graffiti is a valid form of visual
expression.

Oh dear. Criminal damage is valid? In what sense?

Read the URL I posted.

I did. It talked about "the illicit nature of graffiti", and said "This
illegal expression constitutes vandalism to the larger society". There was
also an interesting analysis of the phenomenon, but nowhere did the word
"valid" appear.


Why should it; it was my choice of word but look at the last paragraph.

"Graffiti can be understood as concrete manifestations of personal and
communal ideologies which are visually striking, insistent, and
provocative; as such, they are worthy of the continued attention of art
historians, social scientists, and policy makers alike."

Seems like a fair summing up of its validity to me...
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.