In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
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.

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.

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

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.

"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
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.

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

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.

Unfortunately I can't really think of anywhere else that I've seen
stuff of the same quality, so I suppose the vast majority of graffiti
probably is just rubbish.

Most of it is boring rubbish but occasionally I've seen a train (usually
H&C) come in and thought "Wow, that really is worth looking at"
I suppose it like weeds really, they're just flowers in the wrong
place..
--
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 article ,
Richard J. wrote:
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?

No. But I could believe that a London Borough would give permission
to tart up a railway bridge.

However, I'm picking nits in your posts; I suspect that we're all
agreed that vandalism (by which I mean unathorized, deliberate
damage, including by paint) is to be discouraged.

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

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.

On 30 Jan 2004 06:48:04 -0800, (trainspotter)
wrote:

what do you all think of graffiti?

Whenever I see it on my local streets, I reach for this:

http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/newfault.shtml

I complain, and the graffiti gets mopped up (or the bollards repaired,
or the street lights replaced, etc.). The feedback is nonexistant so
I can't tell if it was *my* online complaint that triggered the
repairs. In any event it's a good tool for improving the mental
health of the public. Part of the problem with graffiti is that it
enrages people and they feel powerless to fight back. Here is a tool
that seems to even the odds a bit.