It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graffiti: The bad news and the good news

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
"They don't hire them to tag the walls. They hire good ones to create works of art on it. Not idiotic tags."

looks to me like u havent ever seen good tags




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The only way to stop this problem is to shoot to kill. As OOPS so magnificently illustrates the graffiti criminal is a sociopath who believes that his will transcends the greater good and that he is justified in destroying public property (the property owned by the people). There is no cure or hope for rehabilitation from such degredation and a call to 911 is far less effective than well placed bullet at center of mass.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I don't know if I keep enough salt on hand to handle such a comment but, sure - watch episodes of "COPS"... I always felt that a little heat from a standard issue should be legal to enter one's center mass if s/he happens to run from the police! (If you run, you've done something wrong or know they know you've done something wrong in the past.) I'd say a little graffitti doesn't warrant death, but (and I'm loosely interpreting here) Oops said he was willing to pay the consequences, so I gather he wouldn't run.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The only way to stop this problem is to shoot to kill.


Pardon? So you believe the only way to stop me graffiti'ing is to kill me? I think your in the wrong here, very in the wrong. I believe that if someone was killed for dropping a tag on a bus stop there would a HUGE backlash. Family, friends, graffiti artists all over the country, the world would be in anger for what has happened. I bet you couldn't pull a trigger on someone who's doing a bit of graffiti could you, so who do you think you are to say someone else should kill them.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
and tenements halls and whispered in the sounds of silence....

Paul Simon

Comment: Thinking about how graffiti may have began as the same idea as people carving on trees to mark an event as love or destiny, one can ponder that there is more culture and tradition here than at first glance. Just as the ancients blotted out names of former leaders, and Stalin airbrushed out former comrades, society now in some light may be blotting out graffiti due to its pertinence.

As ugly as graffiti can be, it is still a message with more actual content than say the graffiti you hear from major news outlets. Much more, the artistic variety we have seen in this posting would cost thousands of dollars if you had it airbrushed on your SUV or Van. In fact it would be vandalism itself to paint such a thing over in one color! The "war against graffiti," although for the sake of beauty, is really a drive for uniformity. It can itself be even more ugly than the graffiti itself, especially when you really want to understand a culture. Graffiti from ancient eqypt suggests a more deep understanding as indicating a wider literacy than previously assumed. Mindless rap music and devil poo poo has taken the place of graffiti whereas it tends to have almost none of the relevance or content surfacing through graffiti as occasional poetic works of genius. Any writing anywhere can be a scratch pad, and provokes thought even when not so thoughful in its ugliness. Perhaps some of the best writing and books of the last century may have resulted from observations of graffiti as who knows where thought can arise? It is difficult to strike a balance here, but the certainty with which officialdom attaches to the trivial, indicates a serious matter of truth to it. Graffiti may be another internet to the deprived.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
SkipShipman you are falling down Oops's hole of idealizing something that actually has no redeaming value whatsoever. Sure in the 60's and 70's it may have, but they were a generation trying to get their political messages out.

However now grafitti, or more precicely tagging, is nothing more than vandalism with paint. There is no more artistic or cultural merit than that of a dog marking his territory.

There is no message, except "I was here" "I am bored". "Please shoot me I''m an idiot," or "my gang of socially maladjusted adolescents are trying to gain an ego boost by pretending we own this piece of public space".



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
In some Dutch cities their are graffiti "allowed" zones, basically they invite all the kids from a neighbourhood to come to a workshop of some of those REALLY GOOD ARTISTS on some designated walls,

this way, give them a place to express themselves, by setting the artistic standard high and creating some competition, you create a genuine atmosphere of creativity and enthousiasm for improving your neighboorhood, and most of hem kids loose interest in doing ugly tags on metro-bus seats and other inappropiate places, wich they now consider below standard and was usually born out of boredom and projecting some form of discontent rather than astistic intentions....At least that is the idea, it all the depends if those neighbourhoodstewards are able to connect to the kids and get their parents involved...

I really hate those tags, because usually they are the visible first signs of a degrading socio-economic atmosphere in a neighbourhood, followed by vandalism, urine and pretty soon robberies in broad daylight and crackdealers on the corner...


There is one important difference with the american situation and that is that Dutch graffiti usually isn't a tool to mark gangterrytories, but who knows, we might pretty soon see elobarate Arabic graffiti in the "Osdorp-westside" hood





[edit on 6-3-2005 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Yeah here in England we have several 'graffiti zones' which may be a skate park, basketball courts or just an old park, where it is legal to graffiti. There are several drawbacks to these 'graffiti zones';

1. Not enough wall


If everyone who wanted to paint a piece on a wall went to these graffiti zones there would be a war broken out over who gets the use the wall! You can probably fit eight pieces in an average graffiti park here in the UK, so where does everyone else go?

2. Not enough skill


To have the guts to put something up over someone else's piece is hard. If you go over someone’s piece in the street you could have got yourself into a lot of grief. People go to these parks who know they are good; people who know not many people will come along and go over their piece. As soon as you go over someone’s piece you really need to show you’re worth it. So where do you go to practice? If you’re not amazing, where can you get better? You can't just get really good on paper and then expect to be the same standard with paint on a wall; it takes a lot of painting on walls to get to a high standard.

3. Not enough law


These places where it is legal to graffiti are sometimes horrible. One I visited last year had syringes scattered about. I personally can’t stand syringes, let alone ones just lying on the street. How can this place attract people to come to when it’s like this? If it’s not syringes on the floor its kids out there looking to mug you of your paint, money, whatever you’ve got.

These places deter people rather than attract them, I’d rather hit a bus stop than a graff zone any day.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
SkipShipman you are falling down Oops's hole of idealizing something that actually has no redeaming value whatsoever. Sure in the 60's and 70's it may have, but they were a generation trying to get their political messages out.

However now grafitti, or more precicely tagging, is nothing more than vandalism with paint. There is no more artistic or cultural merit than that of a dog marking his territory.

There is no message, except "I was here" "I am bored". "Please shoot me I''m an idiot," or "my gang of socially maladjusted adolescents are trying to gain an ego boost by pretending we own this piece of public space".





Read the whole thing, I am actually praising graffiti with faint damnation. And you think thousands of dollars you would pay for the same airbrush on your van is rubbish? I think I made a point here that no one else even thought about. There is no "generation," where activity is any different from any other generation, what you may be seeing is the only messages they don't paint over. Certain thresholds are what should apply, not "zerio tolerence," everywhere. We live in a time that when "young people cannot breathe free as they did when I grew up,' that sooner or later you or your generation will not either. Hey it is the canary in the coal mine, and we just void it, how convenient.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Skip, at the very begining post, and all through it I am talking about "tagging" not wall art. There are no redeaming features of tagging.


To say that is "no "generation," where activity is any different from any other generation," " really does overlook the vast social changes in the last 40 years, from the 60's to the 00's. The battles forught over racial discrimination, war, sex, social structures (see any communes any more?)etc are not revisited in this generation and the music and "art" reflects that.

Tagging is an expression of the "me" generation, where kids live a nhilistic lifestyle. Look at the music produced by this generation, its messages, its style, and compare it with previous generations and you will see a massive difference. The issues faced by ealrier generations are not those of today.

Tagging is the first indicator of social decay, thats why its not tolerated. Just read the earlier post by a tagger who didn't like the places wher ehe was allowed to tag, because of needles and rubbish.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Hey I'm not a tagger! I've done it a couple of times but I don't tag now-a-days.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
!!BOING!!
Yup, I'm in the position to defend NetChicken - tagging, graffiti, wall art - whatever, it's FINE if you do it in a "designated" area (I'm in the US and didn't know it was legal anywhere anyway... legal paintings are usually called "Billboards" or "Advertisements" here.) But, as I said before, it is vandalism and wrong if someone decides it is a good idea to do ANYTHING to something the owner does not want (incl. gov't buildings - because, hey, beautiful as your art may or may not be, I don't want it on the pristine marble walls of my local courhouse that I have to pay for and maintain.)



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Are you joking? First of all there is a difference between tagging and underground art. Underground art in the right places can look great, but on someones property if not welcome is terrible. Secondly, Tags are garbage. When I see a tag created with style and technique, I just think to myself, what a waste of talent. Its an artist who could be doing something so much better in a different medium. If you are skilled at art and creation, than create on canvas, in graphic design, or in welcomed building art. Don't do it on the side of someones property. A tag is absolute garbage.

On the dial 911 when you see someone tagging, what a waste of time. Response times are crap, at least here in Miami. If on your property, take a picture of the guy. Rock salt also works pretty well, and stings real bad under the skin for a few hours.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Bravo, Infinite! art is art, but, as you noted - it is not art where placed where it is NOT wanted. Response times in FT. Laud may be slightly different here than in Miami (oh, gosh, I feel for you for you!) but it is still ridiculous that medics and fire-rescue need to worry about such things... If these "taggers" (or artists, whatever you wish to call yourselves - get a canvas like Infinite said - want to make a point, no problem) They need to find the proper spot. If I have some dunderhead trying to break into my house - and they are not bothered by some people with spray paint (if I am home and alerted he won't have much success - thank you 2nd amendment!) I want to know he'll be caught or halted.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
In my humble opinion it is impossible to simply use a sweeping statement either claiming that all graffiti is worthless rubbish or an insightful political statement/work of art, as with many things there is a spectrum of quality and competence. The most important statement ever concieved could be decorating a wall, yet if it is poorly executed it will meet with derision and scorn.

What really gets my goat is people scratching their tags on train windows, that gets me riled.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanWerewolf
looks to me like u havent ever seen good tags

A tag is merely one's symbol or name, usually wrapped up in some gaudy over stylizing. No doubt, spray paint and walls are just as valid artistic tools as paint and canvas. Regardless, the vast majority of grafiti is utter crap.


SkipShipman
society now in some light may be blotting out graffiti due to its pertinence.

Defacing public property is vandalism, vandalism is a crime. Removing noxious grafiti from city streets is not 'blotting out' part of history. If anything, the 'value' of at least half decent attempts at grafiti require that it be temporary, its part of the artistic statement. But overall, the average moron spraying walls out on the city street is not a talented and thoughtful artist, nor is the average suburbanite kid who fancies themself a rebel by 'tagging up' walls.

The "war against graffiti," although for the sake of beauty, is really a drive for uniformity

Grafiti is a crime. Artists can Tag their own property if they don't want to conform.


phixion
These places where it is legal to graffiti are sometimes horrible. One I visited last year had syringes scattered about.
\
Gosh, go figure, a place where normally criminal behaviour is tolerated has signs of, criminal behaviour. The fact that one finds syringes but not clippings from art journals should be enough to illustrate the point.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
In Nazi-occupied Poland, a group of Warsaw youths known as the "Little Wolves" painted the slogan "Poland Fights On" on buildings, vehicles and even personnel of the invaders - on a regular basis. They also made mimics of the "For Germans Only" signs that the Nazis used to enforce their privileges - and attached them to lamp posts and other potential gallows-sites.

"Vandalism"

Whether we know it or not, we exist in an escalating pattern towards tyranny, and the thresholds appear innocuous, an incremental "frog in the gradually boiling water." When does the frog jump out? Maybe never, maybe the frog gets cooked. Now consider "tagging," and even "vandalism," as a response to tyranny, not simply some delinquency stereotype.

Hey I don't like destruction of property, yet consider what people are facing on every front from both governmental and private sectors. Is government becoming more like NAZIs absent the "anti-semitism," substituting "muslims?"

So when you deface an unjust system such as NAZI occupied Poland during WW II, is such a thing justified?

Is it towards the truth that we actually do not know we are heading into tyranny due to long term gradualism, even though sweeping police powers enacted after 911 are ostensible?

One could consider those Polish youth as justified today, but why? It is because NAZI depotism affected everyone, except for a time those who "went along with it."

At what point would anyone consider "tagging," to be the "canary in the coal mine?" At what point is it justified? Does one wait 60 years later, or just quietly "approve," but never openly?

I reject mindlessness, whether it is by "tagging," or by "authoritative tendencies," from government anywhere, at any time outside the subject of tagging, and at some layer of perception inside that subject.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
A thorough post, however we are not living in an authoritarian country. People can leave if they want to or even vote out the administration. The Polish in Nazi ghettoes could not. Since a lot of people hate this country, let them vote with their feet. Don't make people who live and love the country pay for others' actions.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
In Nazi-occupied Poland,

Lets not pretend thta this is relevant. If its at all relevant, it shows that grafiti is an illegal act, here is was an act of rebellion against occupiers.



Whether we know it or not, we exist in an escalating pattern towards tyranny,

Because grafiti is illegal? I simply don't accept that.


as a response to tyranny, not simply some delinquency stereotype.

Problem is, the peopel doing grafiti are delinquents, not freedom fighters. They aren't politically active, or even politically aware. Not all of them of course, but the vast majority.


Is government becoming more like NAZIs absent the "anti-semitism," substituting "muslims?"[/'quote]
I don't see how, since they aren't inciting anti-mulsim attacks and are specifically meeting with and including muslims in talks on the sitaution.


So when you deface an unjust system such as NAZI occupied Poland during WW II, is such a thing justified?

Sure, its justified. So is strangling nazi soldiers and civilians in their beds, or releasing mustard gas in their barracks.


One could consider those Polish youth as justified today, but why?

I don't think anyone, even the nazis, thought that their grafiti was unjustified.




At what point would anyone consider "tagging," to be the "canary in the coal mine?"

It shouldn't ever be considered such. its vandalism. Destruction of private property and public property is vandalism. It can't serve as a canary, beacause its illegal to begin with. Now if they were ripping down offensive art in private galleries or burning books, I'd say there's a problem. But arresting dumbass kids who fancy themselves 'rebels' for smearing # on walls? No, hardly a concern, except when they aren't arresting enough of them.


I reject mindlessness

Then you should, and probably do, reject most grafiti. Come on, its almost all crap, unintelligeble garbage overlapping on itself mutliple layers thick. Its not art, its not 'rebellion', its crime. Maybe one could say that there's a rebellion element for a harlem youth who's going nowhere got nothing and hemmed in on all sides by 'the system and the man'. Sure, thats debatable, no matter how crappy their gibberish is. But suburban youthes or middle class kids who have nothing better to do so they pretend to be radicals, pretend to be sticking it to 'the system and the man'? Come one, those are the very people that make up the system, that are supported by it and that are enriched by it, which is why they don't ave to choose between buying food or spray paint. They are 'the man'.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Graffiti is one of the only "true" art forms left... Its in your face, its free to look at, and its expression of ones artistic self. Art is not meant to be bought by the rich and wealthy as a status symbol... Its meant to evoke a feeling... Wether you love or hate it, it makes you think and feel...

I personally think graffiti (pieces) are great, tagging someones fence or what ever is another issue all together...

But I hardly think WASTING the time of the people at 911 ia good for anything... What about the 11000 gun related offences you americans have each year, do you think the cops are going to be able to get to those people in time, if all they are ever doing is arresting artists every day...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join