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:
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)

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

Boltar wrote:
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?

No, it isn't, but the context of my comment to the preceding posts is
evidently too complex 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.

I didn't claim it was. It happened to be one I saw being painted, and my
photo of it was already on the web. I merely said that I regarded it as
a work of art without commenting on how good a work it was. If it was
done without the owner's permission, it was also vandalism.

[Rest of your post snipped, as you seem to have completely misunderstood
the drift of my posts in this thread.]
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)