A lot of the people comitting this crime, are in their 20s, you think they'd
know better, a lot are in work some highly paid and in responsible
positions, apparantly they deface the world for the thrill.

I lothe graffiti, it make the world an ugly threatning place, it's not art
thats for certain.

ISII
"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

It's *all* ****. There is no such thing as "the artistic sort of
graffiti"
as far as I'm concerned. It is all vandalism and criminal damage.
Let's
not try to pretend that these malicious trespassers are creating
anything
of value.

Totally agree. It's just little kiddies with spray paint or magic markers
who think - in the depths of their ignorance - that they are creating
'art'
by desecrating other people's property. Still, we used to do silly,
naughty
little things when we were children, I suppose - I guess this is just an
extension of this. Smack their bottoms and put them to bed with no supper,
I
say!

Ian

In message , Ishmael
Sayle III writes
A lot of the people comitting this crime, are in their 20s, you think they'd
know better, a lot are in work some highly paid and in responsible
positions, apparantly they deface the world for the thrill.

I lothe graffiti, it make the world an ugly threatning place, it's not art
thats for certain.

I could *possibly* agree with you about some graffiti but I don't think
Picasso would have agreed with you when he painted Guernica.
Art isn't *only* pictures suitable for chocolate boxes.
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Ishmael
Sayle III writes
A lot of the people comitting this crime, are in their 20s, you think
they'd
know better, a lot are in work some highly paid and in responsible
positions, apparantly they deface the world for the thrill.

I lothe graffiti, it make the world an ugly threatning place, it's not
art
thats for certain.

I could *possibly* agree with you about some graffiti but I don't think
Picasso would have agreed with you when he painted Guernica.
Art isn't *only* pictures suitable for chocolate boxes.

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

In message , Richard J.
writes

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Ishmael
Sayle III writes
A lot of the people comitting this crime, are in their 20s, you think
they'd
know better, a lot are in work some highly paid and in responsible
positions, apparantly they deface the world for the thrill.

I lothe graffiti, it make the world an ugly threatning place, it's not
art
thats for certain.

I could *possibly* agree with you about some graffiti but I don't think
Picasso would have agreed with you when he painted Guernica.
Art isn't *only* pictures suitable for chocolate boxes.

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.

http://www.graffiti.org/faq/graf.def.html
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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.

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.

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

"Kat" wrote in message
...
In message , Ishmael
Sayle III writes
A lot of the people comitting this crime, are in their 20s, you think
they'd
know better, a lot are in work some highly paid and in responsible
positions, apparantly they deface the world for the thrill.

I lothe graffiti, it make the world an ugly threatning place, it's not
art
thats for certain.

I could *possibly* agree with you about some graffiti but I don't think
Picasso would have agreed with you when he painted Guernica.
Art isn't *only* pictures suitable for chocolate boxes.

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.

http://www.graffiti.org/faq/graf.def.html
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

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.

"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)

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.