"Kat" wrote in message
...
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...

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it valid. You
said it was "a valid form of visual expression". Frankly I find that a
shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU employee to make. Perhaps
we're using different meanings of "valid". I thought you meant legitimate
or acceptable.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
says...
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.


A thing that 'is' visible from the District Line is the wall between
Bromley-by-Bow and West Ham by the former Big Brother house [is it Three
Mills Studios?]

This used to be plain brick and used to receive the attention of graffiti
sprayers.

A year or so ago it was attractively painted, presumably by the studios,
with a series of pictures in an imitation film format.

It is sad to see that the sprayers have almost completely obliterated
with their crappy tags what actually was proper art.

"Richard J." wrote:

"Kat" wrote in message
...
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...

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it valid. You
said it was "a valid form of visual expression". Frankly I find that a
shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU employee to make. Perhaps
we're using different meanings of "valid". I thought you meant legitimate
or acceptable.

The words "legitimate" and "acceptable" are just as open to
interpretation as "valid".

Kat wrote:

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...

Doesn't NYC have a Museum Of American Graffiti?

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


To be honest - until you've actually hit someone in a 200ton train while
they've been spraying their 'art' all over a concrete bridge and killed
them, you've no real knowledge of the subject:

Simple fact: Graffiti perpetrators (and I deliberately refuse to use the
word 'artist' here) are breaking the law. They take it upon themselves to
cause criminal damage and delays. They trespass in areas they are not
qualified to be and do their utmost to cause the most havoc and disruption
while gaining all the notoriety they can with the minimal amount of effort.
Simple common sense - if you are not qualifed to be anywhere near a railway
line - don't go there - it's not worth losing your life, limbs or anything
else just because you want to write a four letter word over anything you
see.

In message , Richard J.
writes
You assume that the artist did not get permission from someone
authorized to give it. While I have no doubt that they normally
do not get permission, I rather suspect that this isn't univeral.

In the context of this newsgroup, i.e. transport infrastructure, I
damned well hope it's universal. Are you suggesting that a senior
manager of, say, Metronet has given permission for graffiti to be
applied to some of his company's assets?

The wall along the south side of Vauxhall overground station was, I
think, officially sanctioned.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

"Usenet" wrote in message
...

Martin @ Strawberry Hill

Ah - my home "town". Born in Wellesley Road.

Ian

In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
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...

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it valid. You
said it was "a valid form of visual expression". Frankly I find that a
shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU employee to make. Perhaps
we're using different meanings of "valid". I thought you meant legitimate
or acceptable.

Then you weren't following my argument very closely. One of the meanings
of validity, is "capable of being justified" and in that sense, graffiti
is a valid art form.
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

In message , Dave Newt
writes
"Richard J." wrote:

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it valid. You
said it was "a valid form of visual expression". Frankly I find that a
shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU employee to make. Perhaps
we're using different meanings of "valid". I thought you meant legitimate
or acceptable.

The words "legitimate" and "acceptable" are just as open to
interpretation as "valid".

Indeed, I could have said that graffiti was a legitimate form of
expression but it wouldn't be valid in any legal sense ;-)
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Kat wrote:
In message , Richard
J. writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
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...

The fact that something is worthy of attention doesn't make it
valid. You said it was "a valid form of visual expression".
Frankly I find that a shocking and irresponsible remark for an LU
employee to make. Perhaps we're using different meanings of
"valid". I thought you meant legitimate or acceptable.

Then you weren't following my argument very closely. One of the
meanings of validity, is "capable of being justified" and in that
sense, graffiti is a valid art form.

You're still saying in effect that criminal damage and vandalism are
capable of being justified, which is where our argument started. Not much
point in continuing it, I think, but perhaps I should remind you of the
words of your Managing Director: "Graffiti is intimidating and attacks
everybody's quality of life - it is psychological mugging." (LU press
release, 19 Nov 2003.)

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