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.

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)

In message , Richard J.
writes
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.)

In the contract I signed, there was nothing that said I should give up
my right to independent thought.
You still misunderstand the point I was making.
I came into this thread in a response to someone who said that graffiti
is NOT art; nothing to do with its legality (in the sense of vandalism
or criminal damage)
I have explained, at length and in spite of some highly patronising
comments, that it can be considered an art form.
Nothing more, nothing less.
If that doesn't suit your understanding of art, then tough!
--
Kat Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.