If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Graffiti store owner complains about graffiti. Tag has been waiting its entire life for this   (thestar.com) divider line 57
    More: Ironic, graffiti, Canadian Tire  
•       •       •

7387 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 8:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 08:34:01 AM
That's not ironic, it's hypocritical.
 
2013-06-15 08:34:19 AM
He's a paint seller shilling for business in his paint store, doomass.
 
2013-06-15 08:40:07 AM
I'm interested in this "blank paint" that he has.....I guess Toronto has solved invisibility and didn't tell the rest of us.
 
2013-06-15 08:41:32 AM
They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.
 
2013-06-15 08:41:45 AM
This is why we need a Graffity tag.
 
2013-06-15 08:43:11 AM
Graffiti snobs are the worst
 
2013-06-15 08:43:39 AM
This is standard for Graf Store owners, they say (or have a sign to the effect) that they don't endorse graffiti and the products they sell are for producing art, albeit street art. Then they don't get prosecuted for selling stuff that's only true purpose is vandalism such as the mops and buff-resistant inks/paints.
It's also standard procedure to paint a mural or piece on a public wall so as to discourage taggers, it works quite well in most places too.
Of course, same as tattoos which are enjoying a similar popularisation, graffiti & street art is divisive. There are those that see a good mural as a benefit to the community, others see any exterior paint other than grey or cream as a criminal act and eyesore.
I prefer to live in cities where art is encouraged, but it's a big world with room for those that prefer HOAs and buffers.
 
2013-06-15 08:43:57 AM
The ageism against teens in the article is ridiculous. It's not as if their graffiti is any less valid than the shiat this guy puts up.
 
2013-06-15 08:49:19 AM
I don't know much about art but I like this.

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-06-15 08:53:21 AM
Wait, wait, hold on here...  there's a graffiti store?  You mean you can just go to the store and buy some?  And here I've been making it manually all these years like a sucker.
 
2013-06-15 08:55:05 AM
Every thread on Fark has been tagged.
 
2013-06-15 08:58:06 AM

Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.


How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art.
 
2013-06-15 09:08:18 AM

CowardlyLion: Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.

How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art


I appreciate your presumption about who I am and what I don't know or understand, but I do understand two things: naïveté and vandalism
 
2013-06-15 09:10:26 AM

CowardlyLion: Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.

How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art.


No true scotsman?
 
2013-06-15 09:21:38 AM
No Wait!  I apologize!  You've persuaded me.  It is a precious part of who we are and our history as a civilization. Who am I to judge?  Once you've seen true beauty, once you've been so moved by such clear vision, such bold statement, how can you not feel awed and humbled? Greater minds, truer meaning, and the very essence of the expression of life.

img51.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-15 09:23:25 AM

cantsleep: CowardlyLion: Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.

How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art.

No true scotsman?


Not even close? Tagging (almost always--I'm sure there's one person, somewhere, who claims his tags are art, which would make him and his tags a special case) has no artistic intent, effort, or message. If someone sets out to create art (be it high art or not), as graffiti artists do, then they've made art. Possibly shiatty or failed art, but art in some form.


Bolo Jungle: CowardlyLion: Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.

How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art

I appreciate your presumption about who I am and what I don't know or understand, but I do understand two things: naïveté and vandalism


I wasn't making any presumption about what you, personally, know. I don't know you, likely never will, and frankly don't care to (nothing personal, just not keenly interested in getting to intimately know every random stranger on the internet). So I apologize if you mistook my original meaning (which was simply that someone saying "I don't understand how this is art" doesn't make something not art). I don't follow your comment about "naïveté and vandalism" though--please elaborate? I can guess that you regard any kind of graffiti as vandalism(?), although I don't know how that impacts whether or not something is art.
 
2013-06-15 09:25:43 AM
Too bad there's not a store where you can buy a canvas to paint upon.

Oh, wait, THERE IS!
 
2013-06-15 09:33:44 AM
"Once in a blue moon it happens, somebody who is just a jerk, but I'll clean it up personally, because I don't want my work defaced by a little kid."

And we don't want our shiat defaced by any of you spray-paint vandals, jackhole.
 
2013-06-15 09:35:04 AM

Bolo Jungle: No Wait!  I apologize!  You've persuaded me.  It is a precious part of who we are and our history as a civilization. Who am I to judge?  Once you've seen true beauty, once you've been so moved by such clear vision, such bold statement, how can you not feel awed and humbled? Greater minds, truer meaning, and the very essence of the expression of life.

[img51.imageshack.us image 500x375]


Think of it as a cave on wheels and that they are sensitive souls just getting in touch with their inner Neanderthal.
 
2013-06-15 09:43:09 AM

YoOjo: This is standard for Graf Store owners, they say (or have a sign to the effect) that they don't endorse graffiti and the products they sell are for producing art, albeit street art. Then they don't get prosecuted for selling stuff that's only true purpose is vandalism such as the mops and buff-resistant inks/paints.
It's also standard procedure to paint a mural or piece on a public wall so as to discourage taggers, it works quite well in most places too.
Of course, same as tattoos which are enjoying a similar popularisation, graffiti & street art is divisive. There are those that see a good mural as a benefit to the community, others see any exterior paint other than grey or cream as a criminal act and eyesore.
I prefer to live in cities where art is encouraged, but it's a big world with room for those that prefer HOAs and buffers.


Most people are fine with art work painted on property with PERMISSION.  However the scum that just pick a canvas and decide to call it art acting all 'you are anti-art' to the property owner that has to remove the spray crap,  needs to go to jail.  If done without prior permission it is criminal despite the 'artist' talent.  Most graffiti is not art, but rather gang tags.  A civilized society is about self control for the sake of common courtesy.  If you want to be free to spray paint my house, I shall be free to crack your head with a pipe.  I sleep light.

Kyosuke: Too bad there's not a store where you can buy a canvas to paint upon.

Oh, wait, THERE IS!


This.
 
2013-06-15 09:44:13 AM
its customers come mostly for the high-end European spray paint available in more than 250 colours.

That' so douchetastic that such a product even exists.
 
2013-06-15 09:49:25 AM

doyner: "Once in a blue moon it happens, somebody who is just a jerk, but I'll clean it up personally, because I don't want my work defaced by a little kid."

And we don't want our shiat defaced by any of you spray-paint vandals, jackhole.


yeah it could be art like the sistine chapel if you didn't have permission it's vandalism.
 
2013-06-15 09:51:08 AM
Waiting for 'no that's not ironic. It would only be ironic if..' and then the whole shebang about the story needing an angry dogowner, a waitress, an Englishman and a catholic who walk into a bar, three stooges, the milkman who was traumatized in his youth because he had a long nose and was bullied in class but made up for it with needy housewives when he grew up and landed his current job and you know what they say about men with long noses, and not a word, a word! I tell you about how that would be really ironic but for the endless jabbering on some people like to hear themselves talk that's for sure I tell ya.
 
2013-06-15 09:51:48 AM

CowardlyLion: Bolo Jungle: They use the word "artwork" in the article. I think that's ironic.

How's that ironic?

Tagging's certainly not art (any more than a child scribbling on a wall is), but actual graffiti can certainly be (and often is) art. Just because you don't like, understand, or care about something does not change its intrinsic properties. Art is art.


Art is art.
But a failed attempt at art is not art.
And 99.9% of graffiti isn't even an attempt at art - it's anti-art.  The graffitist takes joy in creating ugliness and disorder.  He takes joy in anticipating that others will have to perform work to remove what he did.  He gets a childish thrill from breaking a social contract, without proposing any improvement or change to that social contract.  The graffist is a 12-year-old who takes a dump on the neighbor's porch, just because he can get away with it.
 
2013-06-15 09:52:17 AM
"Although Homebase carries books, clothing and collectible Japanese toys, its customers come mostly for the high-end European spray paint available in more than 250 colours. "

Jebus farking Christ, is there anything that cannot be made pretentious?
 
2013-06-15 09:53:34 AM

BarkingUnicorn: "Although Homebase carries books, clothing and collectible Japanese toys, its customers come mostly for the high-end European spray paint available in more than 250 colours. "

Jebus farking Christ, is there anything that cannot be made pretentious?


Rule 34.
 
2013-06-15 09:59:26 AM

Bolo Jungle: No Wait!  I apologize!  You've persuaded me.  It is a precious part of who we are and our history as a civilization. Who am I to judge?  Once you've seen true beauty, once you've been so moved by such clear vision, such bold statement, how can you not feel awed and humbled? Greater minds, truer meaning, and the very essence of the expression of life.

[img51.imageshack.us image 500x375]


Just fyi, that picture just illustrates what the guy is saying in the article--that taggers suck and simply deface shiat.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:46 AM

CowardlyLion: Just fyi, that picture just illustrates what the guy is saying in the article--that taggers suck and simply deface shiat.


Except that it isn't defacing when he does it.
 
2013-06-15 10:10:17 AM
That's not Skam, THIS is Skam.
farm2.staticflickr.com
farm5.staticflickr.com
farm6.staticflickr.com
farm3.staticflickr.com
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-06-15 10:10:37 AM
Someone needs to tell this loser to go get real job.
 
2013-06-15 10:22:53 AM

FrancoFile: The graffitist takes joy in creating ugliness and disorder. He takes joy in anticipating that others will have to perform work to remove what he did. He gets a childish thrill from breaking a social contract, without proposing any improvement or change to that social contract.


Did a graffiti artist kill your parents? If so, I'm very sorry for your loss. That's one hell of a lot of projected hate, though. Unless you are (or were) one and are speaking from personal experience.

First: anti-art is still art.
Second: graffiti is often art (see: most of the images here)
Third: Your broad characterization of everyone who has ever made any form of graffiti as a childish version of The Joker would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. (Why are you so serious about this, by the way?)
Fourth: There seems to be some kind of notion, at least in this thread, that all graffiti is exactly the same and is done (inexplicably) for the sole purpose of pissing people off. I can't unpack how wrong all parts of that are, but, suffice to say...
This is tagging:
roxasgraffitiguide.weebly.com
This is graffiti art:
 
2013-06-15 10:24:31 AM
CowardlyLion:
This is graffiti art:
upload.wikimedia.org
/ ftfm (guess I should preview before trying to post)
 
2013-06-15 10:25:12 AM
If you don't own the place that you modify then its vandalism no matter how "pretty" or "meaningful" the outcome.

I can't wait for true augmented reality so I can have a real life "element hiding helper" to block out all advertisements, bums, and other eyesores.
 
2013-06-15 10:33:51 AM

CowardlyLion: CowardlyLion:
This is graffiti art:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 733x600]
/ ftfm (guess I should preview before trying to post)


Dadaism is not anti-art.  It's either absurdist art or minimalist art.

It still expresses the artist's ideas and/or an emotions, and it still attempts to evoke ideas and emotions in the audience.

Graffiti is anti-art.  It shows contempt for the audience.  It does not care what it evokes in the audience.  It is masturbatory, done solely for the pleasure of the artist.


I oppose graffiti because I believe in property rights.  My right to the peaceful enjoyment of my property, and the public's right to the peaceful enjoyment of public property.

Your urge to create 'art' is morally and artistically bankrupt when it must appropriate another person's property in order to do so.

The only exception to this is when your appropriation of property is done in order to convey a message that is directly opposed to an illegal or immoral establishment of property (the Berlin Wall is an excellent example).
 
2013-06-15 10:39:00 AM

Bisu: That's not ironic, it's hypocritical.


I'm beginning to think that irony doesn't really exist.  I'm not sure I want to live in a world without true irony.  Who's going to press my work shirts?
 
2013-06-15 10:44:06 AM

FrancoFile: Dadaism is not anti-art. It's either absurdist art or minimalist art.


Nope.
 
2013-06-15 10:45:56 AM

eyemarten: Graffiti snobs are the worst


THIS!  Seriously fark that guy.
 
2013-06-15 10:55:45 AM
Oh goody.  An art discussion thread wherein learned philosophers will compare the merits of various technical aspects and dispassionately critique ideas.

Y'alls just sounding silly.  Deal with it. Graffiti has always existed and will always continue.  Some of it is very pleasing for various reasons (see 'social commentary' and 'ooooh, pretty!), but any artist will tell you it takes a heap o' shiat to produce a flower.  And your property rights are only as good as you are at being a neighbor.  At least in this neighborhood.
 
2013-06-15 11:05:07 AM

CowardlyLion: FrancoFile: Dadaism is not anti-art. It's either absurdist art or minimalist art.

Nope.


You are confusing intent with technique.
 
2013-06-15 11:07:44 AM

gottagopee: Oh goody.  An art discussion thread wherein learned philosophers will compare the merits of various technical aspects and dispassionately critique ideas.

Y'alls just sounding silly.  Deal with it. Graffiti has always existed and will always continue.  Some of it is very pleasing for various reasons (see 'social commentary' and 'ooooh, pretty!), but any artist will tell you it takes a heap o' shiat to produce a flower.  And your property rights are only as good as you are at being a neighbor.  At least in this neighborhood.


You sound like an asshole.
 
2013-06-15 11:33:00 AM
ruthlessculture.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-15 11:44:30 AM
If it's yours it's Art, if it's someone else it's vandalism.
 
2013-06-15 11:50:47 AM

FrancoFile: CowardlyLion: CowardlyLion:
This is graffiti art:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 733x600]
/ ftfm (guess I should preview before trying to post)

Dadaism is not anti-art.  It's either absurdist art or minimalist art.

It still expresses the artist's ideas and/or an emotions, and it still attempts to evoke ideas and emotions in the audience.

Graffiti is anti-art.  It shows contempt for the audience.  It does not care what it evokes in the audience.  It is masturbatory, done solely for the pleasure of the artist.


I oppose graffiti because I believe in property rights.  My right to the peaceful enjoyment of my property, and the public's right to the peaceful enjoyment of public property.

Your urge to create 'art' is morally and artistically bankrupt when it must appropriate another person's property in order to do so.

The only exception to this is when your appropriation of property is done in order to convey a message that is directly opposed to an illegal or immoral establishment of property (the Berlin Wall is an excellent example).


stuffy: If it's yours it's Art, if it's someone else it's vandalism.


What if I enjoy the graffiti on public property? It's still not art?
 
2013-06-15 12:06:57 PM

stuffy: If it's yours it's Art, if it's someone else it's vandalism.


Yep, I would be more in favor of stand your ground laws if they were expanded to anyone holding a can of spray paint within 100 yards of my property
 
2013-06-15 12:19:46 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.netsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-06-15 12:21:40 PM
Sorry for the large pictures!!! Worth it though :-)
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net

fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-06-15 12:36:12 PM
I miss the "Stay Gold, Toronto" graffiti near the Broadview/Danforth bridge.

Soon after they painted over that with a blank wall (which was then covered with less awesome graffiti) they came up with a committee or something to decide what is art and what is graffiti.
 
2013-06-15 01:05:56 PM

gottagopee: Oh goody.  An art discussion thread wherein learned philosophers will compare the merits of various technical aspects and dispassionately critique ideas.

Y'alls just sounding silly.  Deal with it. Graffiti has always existed and will always continue.  Some of it is very pleasing for various reasons (see 'social commentary' and 'ooooh, pretty!), but any artist will tell you it takes a heap o' shiat to produce a flower.  And your property rights are only as good as you are at being a neighbor.  At least in this neighborhood.


Graffiti from the walls of Pompeii

"Weep, you girls.  My penis has given you up.  Now it penetrates men's behinds.  Goodbye, wondrous femininity! "
 
2013-06-15 01:23:32 PM

stuffy: If it's yours it's Art, if it's someone else it's vandalism.


i.imgur.com

That's 4,000+ year old graffiti on a pyramid in Egypt. As far as we can tell in terms of concepts of ownership the Pharoh "owned" the pyramids, in as much as he owned everything he saw. But it's just "vandalism" and Egypt should really get their shiat together and clean that place up, right?

/kilroy was here
 
2013-06-15 02:03:22 PM
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report