Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think:
Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a
disused train a work of art.

Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a
waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't think we should tar
all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

I don't know which kind these were - and the loss of life is tragic whether
they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones - but please don't diss all
grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really
quite beautiful.

Now the media investigation is hinging on whether they were being
"chased" by LU or security staff. And if they were no doubt the
do-gooders will claim the so-called "tragedy" was all the authorities'
fault since they had a "human right" to deface other people's property.

John Rowland wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote:

It's clear that these people knew what they were doing. I was in
America last week and there was an accident where two 17 year olds
were killed on motorcycles, having been drinking and street
racing. I was quite surprised to see that the media and even
friends blamed them for their stupidity. Rather than saying 'Poor
lads' or 'it was a tragic accident' or blamed someone else (the bike
manufacturers or something), they were quite clear - a stupid
'accident' that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
idiots.

That is quite different: by drinking and street racing, they were
risking others, whereas the graffiti artists weren't endangering
anyone's life.

You mean graffiti vandals. I've just complained to the BBC for their
use of "artists" on their website.

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

Tristán White wrote:
but please don't diss all grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really quite beautiful.

It is to some people. Not to others. Banksy is an overrated **** IMHO.
I live in Bristol, and I've seen a load of hs stuff.

Tristán White wrote:

they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones - but please don't diss all
grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really
quite beautiful.

So if I came and painted all over your car/house/furniture which would
cost you thousands to fix , then so long as it some sort of vague
artistic merit that would be ok would it? Shall I get my brushes?

B2003

Tristán White wrote:
Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty
(think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring
journey, or make a disused train a work of art.

Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are
utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't
think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to the
word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally defaces other
people's property.

I don't know which kind these were

You must be the only one who doesn't.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are
utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't
think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to the
word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally defaces other
people's property.


So if the Mona Lisa had been painted on a stolen canvas, it wouldn't be
an artwork and Leonardo wouldn't be an artist?

Under any sensible definition, that BNP ballerina is still an artist.
Even Hitler was an artist, although not a very good one. Similarly,
graffiti-ers who go beyond scrawled tags are artists.

They are also vandals, but an immoral life - or even a crime being
committed in the course of making the artwork - does not stop it from
being art.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
the use of sanctions such as ASBOs.

*sigh*

ASBOs don't work very well and they're just a way of the government
appearing to do something without actually doing anything:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/conte..._feature.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...954804,00.html


There are plenty of other examples if you google.

thuggery seems broadly right - which makes it unsurprising that crime
continues to fall on any sensible measure.

Street crime and murders, general thuggery etc? Or ALL crime including
white collar , computer crimes which may well bias the figures? It
matters.

B2003

Tristán White wrote:

Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful,

That's a matter of opinion, and don't be such an idiot as to begin to
justify acts of criminality by "ends justify the means" arguments.

some is gloriously witty (think:
Banksy).

When I think "Banksy" I think of space-wasting moron without whom
society would not have been one iota worse off.

Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey,

You must have a really sad life if you rely on graffiti (i.e. others'
acts of criminal vandalism) to brighten up a "boring" journey. Have you
never read a book on a train, for example? What about tunnels - should
we provide luminous paint sprays so that your tunnel journeys can be
"brightened up too", so should we contribute to climate change by
installing lights in tunnels so that you can see the "artwork" on which
you seem so keen?

or make a
disused train a work of art.


That really is the most outrageous and pathetic comment I have read on
this thread! How would you like some hoody-weaing thug to make a "work
of art" of the outside of your can or inside of your house?


Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a
waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism.

And the "artwork" isn't vandalism??

But I don't think we should tar
all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

Tarring and brushing, now you're talking!

I don't know which kind these were - and the loss of life is tragic whether
they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones

I beg to differ.

- but please don't diss all
grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates.

Why not, pray? Isn't that JUST what they are. Or are they poor
misunderstood, victims of a nasty horrid bigited capitalist state?

Some of it is really
quite beautiful.

Get a life.


Marc.

John B wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are
utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't
think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here.

I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to
the word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally
defaces other people's property.

So if the Mona Lisa had been painted on a stolen canvas, it
wouldn't be an artwork and Leonardo wouldn't be an artist?

I would hardly call painting the Mona Lisa "defacing" the canvas.

Under any sensible definition, that BNP ballerina is still an
artist. Even Hitler was an artist, although not a very good one.
Similarly, graffiti-ers who go beyond scrawled tags are artists.

Yes, there *are* graffiti artists who create real works of art on
surfaces which previously had no visual value. For example, a
café-front shutter in Paris (see http://images.fotopic.net/y74ltp.jpg )
where the painting was sprayed on to a previously blank shutter, doesn't
interfere with the café business (because it's out of sight when the
café is open), and was attractive or at least interesting to look at.
Unfortunately it's since been obliterated by graffiti *vandals* with no
apparent artistic ability or respect for what they sprayed over.

They are also vandals, but an immoral life - or even a crime being
committed in the course of making the artwork - does not stop it
from being art.

I'm not sure where you would draw the line between vandalism and art.
If I managed to spray a black splodge over the Mona Lisa's face, I hope
you would agree that that was pure vandalism.

As for LU graffiti attacks, the fact is that LU have decided, like all
train operators, to paint their rolling stock in a particular livery
which is recognised by the public, and anyone defacing that livery on LU
premises is committing criminal damage and criminal trespass. They may
also be committing other criminal offences such as endangering safety or
obstructing trains, both of which carry a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment. Coupled with the generally low or non-existant artistic
content of their work (as distinct from mere scribblings and daubing), I
have no hesitation in placing them firmly on the side of vandalism
rather than art.

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