" wrote in
ps.com:

BIG SNIP
Get a life.


As those here who know me on a social level can testament, I certainly do
have a life. And one I live to the full (too much, some may say).

I appreciate modern conceptual art for what it is and some of that includes
graffiti art. Yes, I do have "Wall and Piece" by Banksy and I have even
been to a Banksy event. I also read on the tube, occasionally watch films
on my PSP too, but I can also appreciate some great art in the form of
graffiti on a disused siding.

And to answer another reply on this thread, if Banksy came and stencilled
one of his artworks on my front wall, no I would not be ****ed off in the
slightest. You may find that hard to believe. I don't care, to be honest.

Tristán White wrote:

" wrote in
ps.com:

BIG SNIP
Get a life.


As those here who know me on a social level can testament, I certainly do
have a life. And one I live to the full (too much, some may say).

I appreciate modern conceptual art for what it is and some of that includes
graffiti art. Yes, I do have "Wall and Piece" by Banksy and I have even
been to a Banksy event. I also read on the tube, occasionally watch films
on my PSP too, but I can also appreciate some great art in the form of
graffiti on a disused siding.

And to answer another reply on this thread, if Banksy came and stencilled
one of his artworks on my front wall, no I would not be ****ed off in the
slightest. You may find that hard to believe. I don't care, to be honest.

Tristan, whilst I am the first to defend someone's personal expression
and enjoyment of freedom (whether that is to paint in an asinine way or
for others to enjoy such visual concoctions) that really isn't the
point is it? The real point is that it is uncivilised (to say nothing
of criminality) to take a paint brush or spray can and use it on
property that does not belong to one, or over which one has no
perimission to paint. To that extent, I refuse to accept that the
product of such activity is "art".

Once one goes down the path of allowing the end (though I would
disagree that the "end" in this instance is anything but visually
unappealing, but that's just my opinion) to justify the means, you end
up with some very dangerous results. You may not like plain brick walls
- to wit your reference to "boring" journeys. Well, actually, I do. I
am far more impressed by the engineering skills and hard work of
Victorian navvies who built our railways and whose work has stood the
test of time, and to marvel at their brickwork, than the graffitii
vandals who despoil the brickwork. So, whose preference should prevail?

Well if those "artists" are so popular and have a following, of which
you seem to be one, then let them have their work exhibited, have
prints made, books published etc. If they have a large enouhg
following, they will do well financially and good luck to them. Then,
your thirst for such "art" can be quenched, and leave those of us who
enjoy plain, unadulterated brickwork to do so.

But, for Heaven's sake don't attempt to justify their criminality -
trespass, criminal damage and, presumably, unlawfully purchasing (or
stealing) spray paints if underage.

And, just suppose you had a treasured and unique piece of "Banksy's"
work on your wall at home. Are you really saying that you would not
mind some lesser-known graffiti vandal using his spray can over
"Banksy's" masterpiece? That seems to me to be the logical conclusion
of the strange attitude you express.

Marc.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, 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.

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

On 13 Jan 2007 10:07:47 -0800, John B wrote:

While the current government have a lot of ideas related to justice
that I disagree with (I'm not a fan of hate speech laws or internment
without trial, for example),

You disagree with some aspect of the law? Then I take it you will be
standing for Parliament in the next election.

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, 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.

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place
where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect
us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and
they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to
make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of
making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a
defensible political act.

"John Rowland" wrote in
:

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a
place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order
can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from
being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped
or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the
potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden
materially better, and so is not a defensible political act.

Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.

E.

John Rowland wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, 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.

I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport
system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place
where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect
us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and
they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to
make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of
making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a
defensible political act.

John, I couldn't have put it better myself. Well said!

Marc.

eastender wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in
:

It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a
place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order
can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from
being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped
or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the
potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden
materially better, and so is not a defensible political act.

Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot
better there.

E.

Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a
misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the
cap fit?

Marc.

Richard J. wrote:

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

The canvas was there to be painted on. Someones wall isn't. Perhaps
this is too complex a concept for you to understand?

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 )

Is that supposed to be the best example you can find? It looks no
better than a million pictures in childrens books. Its hardly on par
with Da Vinci.

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.

What if the owner didn't want it on his shutter? Does that not matter
to you? Perhaps he ran a nice sophisticated little cafe and doesn't
like a bloody kids cartoon character all over the front of it , not to
mention the fact that ANY graffitti is generallty a turn off to anyone
old enough to vote. You seem to be under a standard juvenile impression
that just because YOU like someone and don't think it does any harm
then everyone else should be of the same opinion. You're soon might
learn that the world doesn't work like that.

I'm not sure where you would draw the line between vandalism and art.

Vandalism is any kind of change to an object or surface that is
unwanted by the owner. Is that simple enough for your lonely braincell
to comprehend?

B2003

If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the
murder of the trespasser, then why not stand for Parliament and try and
get that enshrined in law?

Breaking into an occupied dwelling more that the "civil offence of
trespassing."