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.

(Scotsman)   With resurgence of street murals and stencils, politicians try to decide what is graffiti and what is street art. How about if you do it on property you own it's art, but if you don't own it, it's vandalism. That seem a good definition, guys?   (edinburghnews.scotsman.com) divider line 101
    More: Obvious, historic buildings, stencils  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 10:12 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-03 08:25:57 AM
Keep that definition in mind when you spray-paint the side of your house or condo and the local HOA comes calling.
 
2014-03-03 08:31:20 AM
Don't forget it's OK if you have the permission of the owner.  (in writing would be smart.)
 
2014-03-03 09:05:30 AM
Just don't forget what happened to Bill Stickers.
 
2014-03-03 09:09:37 AM
Bill Stickers is innocent.
 
2014-03-03 10:15:49 AM
Some street 'art' really brightens the place up a bit. Some is good political comment.

Unfortunately some is just 'tards scrawling their name on stuff and it's hard to think of anything more useless than that.
 
2014-03-03 10:19:41 AM
thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-03 10:23:37 AM

Pocket Ninja: Keep that definition in mind when you spray-paint the side of your house or condo and the local HOA comes calling.


If you look in detail at the Declaration documents of your condo (I don't have any experience with HOAs) you'll note that in most cases the exterior walls are owned by the corporation. Individual unit owners only own the interior space.

/If you don't want someone telling you how to live your life DON'T buy a condo or HOS controlled home.
 
2014-03-03 10:23:52 AM

Pocket Ninja: Keep that definition in mind when you spray-paint the side of your house or condo and the local HOA comes calling.



Just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't in violation of some other (civil) contract you're party to.
 
2014-03-03 10:24:00 AM
And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?
 
2014-03-03 10:24:21 AM
Can't wait for all the whiners that will complain that there isn't anywhere for the poor, repressed and downtrodden to express themselves so we must allow this vandalism to continue unabated.
After all, who are we to say what is art and what isn't?
 
2014-03-03 10:24:24 AM

Gothnet: Some street 'art' really brightens the place up a bit. Some is good political comment.

Unfortunately some is just 'tards scrawling their name on stuff and it's hard to think of anything more useless than that.


Now you're getting into the argument of "it's not vandalism if it's art, so what constitutes art?" I don't disagree with you, it's just something to think about.

There's a debate in the knitting/crochet community about whether yarn-bombing (it's a thing) is vandalism. They make some gorgeous stuff, but I can see if you don't appreciate fiber arts that you would just see that knitted tree cozy as just litter or vandalism.
 
2014-03-03 10:27:59 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?



3) Profit
 
2014-03-03 10:28:31 AM

Pocket Ninja: Keep that definition in mind when you spray-paint the side of your house or condo and the local HOA comes calling.


Which has what to do with this thread?  You've already signed a contract that stipulates exactly what will happen if you vandalize HOA property
 
2014-03-03 10:28:33 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


I would recommend selling it as fast as possible so you could finally afford to move out of Detroit.

/not subbs
 
2014-03-03 10:29:55 AM
It surged a first time?
 
2014-03-03 10:30:06 AM

Gothnet: Some street 'art' really brightens the place up a bit. Some is good political comment.

Unfortunately some is just 'tards scrawling their name on stuff and it's hard to think of anything more useless than that.


Look at this. It's worthless - made by a tagger in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless. Like this graffiti:

http://www.heavy.com/comedy/2013/03/the-20-awesomest-pieces-of-ancie nt -graffiti
 
2014-03-03 10:31:29 AM
I'm with subby on this one.  Respect for graffiti "artists" is insane.  Washable chalk on public property?  Okay.

A few rare cases are beautiful work.  Too bad the artists also vandalized someone else's stuff in doing so.  Take a picture and let it go.  Buy some oaktag at the dollar store and put up posters to sell (or jut display) legitimately.

On the other hand, it's certainly sad to see a store owner cover up a really nice piece of actual art, on an unotherwise blank wall, with flat paint, and then to have a common crappy spray paint graffiti vandal hit it, and then to have that ugly replacement stick around for years.

/DRTFA
/should I?
 
2014-03-03 10:34:02 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


Then it's still vandalism?
 
2014-03-03 10:34:47 AM
Not all graffiti is vandalism.
not all graffiti artists are Banksy.

If you graffiti my house with a piece of clever artwork criticizing mass market consumerism that I can sell to a millionaire actor who has made their fortune by appearing in mass market films and from endorsements for mass market goods that I can sell sell for six figures then I'm cool with that. If you're writing to inform the neighborhood that "Boz Woz Ere", then you're an asshole.
 
2014-03-03 10:35:14 AM

zepher: Can't wait for all the whiners that will complain that there isn't anywhere for the poor, repressed and downtrodden to express themselves so we must allow this vandalism to continue unabated.
After all, who are we to say what is art and what isn't?


My pressure washer and I, will say it.

/Oh yeah, I forgot, the "utes" are expressing themselves.
//Oh well, to bad.
 
2014-03-03 10:37:07 AM
I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.
 
2014-03-03 10:37:18 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


As an architect, I don't really mind street art most of the time, since I think that it's both a way to express an idea in an open forum for everyone to see, or a part of problem that needs to be corrected (both big points in urbanism), unless the client says otherwise. In fact, One of my designs have had street art in mind (then again it was commissioned by a client who had intended to have something outside).


That being said, I'll just leave this here.
 
2014-03-03 10:40:19 AM

RockofAges: Far Cough: I'm with subby on this one.  Respect for graffiti "artists" is insane.  Washable chalk on public property?  Okay.

A few rare cases are beautiful work.  Too bad the artists also vandalized someone else's stuff in doing so.  Take a picture and let it go.  Buy some oaktag at the dollar store and put up posters to sell (or jut display) legitimately.

On the other hand, it's certainly sad to see a store owner cover up a really nice piece of actual art, on an unotherwise blank wall, with flat paint, and then to have a common crappy spray paint graffiti vandal hit it, and then to have that ugly replacement stick around for years.

/DRTFA
/should I?

Public property is ostensibly owned by the public, therefor, according to subby, fair game for street art.

No, you do not have a right to not be offended.


Owned by the public and owned by each individual are quite different.
 
2014-03-03 10:41:29 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


Then if you have the vandal arrested and thrown in jail, it will become his most controversial work and increase in value.
 
2014-03-03 10:43:39 AM
"How about if you do it on property you own it's art, but if you don't own it, it's vandalism.   That seem like a  good definition, guys?  "


Yes, it does sound like a good definition
 
2014-03-03 10:44:23 AM
I think it is possible to be art and vandalism at the same time. I should also point out that just because something is art, that doesn't mean it isn't crap. And even if it is art a private owner who doesn't want it there has a right to remove it.
 
2014-03-03 10:44:27 AM

RockofAges: Far Cough: I'm with subby on this one.  Respect for graffiti "artists" is insane.  Washable chalk on public property?  Okay.

A few rare cases are beautiful work.  Too bad the artists also vandalized someone else's stuff in doing so.  Take a picture and let it go.  Buy some oaktag at the dollar store and put up posters to sell (or jut display) legitimately.

On the other hand, it's certainly sad to see a store owner cover up a really nice piece of actual art, on an unotherwise blank wall, with flat paint, and then to have a common crappy spray paint graffiti vandal hit it, and then to have that ugly replacement stick around for years.

/DRTFA
/should I?

Public property is ostensibly owned by the public, therefor, according to subby, fair game for street art.

No, you do not have a right to not be offended.


That's a false argument.  The White House and your local courthouse are owned by the public, but you can't blow them up arbitrarily, or so much as set foot in them without being controlled.  But maybe that's what you're saying.

We all own public property, but YOU don't and I don't own any particular piece of it.
 
2014-03-03 10:44:52 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


Can that really happen?   Got an example?
 
2014-03-03 10:46:07 AM
Bu..bu..but the city owns that wall!
 
2014-03-03 10:46:14 AM

JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.


No room for political speech in your world?
 
2014-03-03 10:48:57 AM
I had a vandal/artist once ask my opinion on this topic. I can't find my way around the block with a map and a compass...as long as you aren't covering up directions or street signs that people need, then IDC, knock yourself out!
 
2014-03-03 10:49:11 AM
I could be just imagining this, but when I was in San Francisco last spring it seems like there were whole blocks of buildings under construction and signs encouraging street artists to decorate the temporary walls that separated the sidewalk from the construction site. Some of those were incredible. I'm calling that "art".
 
2014-03-03 10:49:12 AM

AugieDoggyDaddy: robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?

Can that really happen?   Got an example?


With Banksy it does. Collectors pay well into the six-figures + removal and repair costs to take away a section of wall with an interesting Banksy on it.

Of course that is the exception rather than the rule.
 
2014-03-03 10:53:47 AM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?


www.imcdb.org
 
2014-03-03 10:55:14 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


How the hell can "street art" increase the value of your property?! You're full of shiat.
 
2014-03-03 10:57:33 AM
Any Ingress player would be happy to give a street artist permission to do a mural on the side of their house.
 
2014-03-03 10:57:43 AM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?


Surprisingly, you can convey a political message without vandalizing property.
 
2014-03-03 11:03:56 AM

MelGoesOnTour: robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?

How the hell can "street art" increase the value of your property?! You're full of shiat.


How much do people pay for a Bansky?
 
2014-03-03 11:05:43 AM

Target Builder: With Banksy it does. Collectors pay well into the six-figures + removal and repair costs to take away a section of wall with an interesting Banksy on it.


So, they are still waiting then?
 
2014-03-03 11:06:34 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: MelGoesOnTour: robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?

How the hell can "street art" increase the value of your property?! You're full of shiat.

How much do people pay for a Bansky?


WTF does that have to do with anything?!
 
2014-03-03 11:07:19 AM

lostcat: Any Ingress player would be happy to give a street artist permission to do a mural on the side of their house.


I'll admit that I like the look of graffiti art, and have asked some of my friends involved with it why they don't do pieces on walls that give them permission.

A lot of them get off on the fact that it's a risk and lose interest when it's approved. Personally, I think showcasing their art could propel some of them into careers as artists, but many are in it for the subversive nature.
 
2014-03-03 11:12:23 AM

RockofAges: Pangea: Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?

Surprisingly, you can convey a political message without vandalizing property.

Suprisingly, you can convey a political message by erecting a guillotine. Actually, it tends to work much better than a polite, legal, letter to the editor.


Are the enraged citizenry, who are killing off politicians in your fantasy, actually dissuaded from spray-painting privately owned walls in between their anarchistic beheadings?

Because your imagined revolutionaries sound like incredible pussies if so.
 
2014-03-03 11:13:55 AM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?


So you'll be happy when Mr. Skinhead puts his swastika and SS runes up on a wall of some public park, because he's conveying a political message.
 
2014-03-03 11:14:27 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: MelGoesOnTour: robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?

How the hell can "street art" increase the value of your property?! You're full of shiat.

How much do people pay for a Bansky?


They leave money hidden in the safebox.
 
2014-03-03 11:14:32 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


And if you didn't want to sell your property, but now are stuck paying taxes on the extra $100k in value?

Better hope Wal Mart doesn't realize that they can force people to sell them real estate this way.

/1. Bansky-quality vandalism
//2. Pay just $100k over the property value instead of the millions needed in political bribes to win "eminent domain"
///3. Profit as mega-malls become more common than Starbucks
 
2014-03-03 11:19:22 AM
When caught without the express consent of the property owner, this is vandalism. The property owner may later drop the charges based on the personal opinions of the property owner. We do not need to have a discussion as to whether or not this is art due to the heavily subjective nature of art, simply we all accept the property owner is the one making the decision as to whether or not to allow the works onto the property or whether to remove, the latter of which costs the property owner.

I think graffiti is a little akin to moonshine. Aside from quality, the difference between graffiti and street art is the same as the difference between moonshine and whiskey: legality. Painted a mural on a fence without permission? Graffiti. Painted on a brick wall after being asked to by a business owner? Street art. Distilled a batch of liquor at home without permit? Moonshine. Distilled a batch of liquor in a plant with all of the registration and taxes paid? Whiskey.

Advantage to graffiti, however, because there is the possibility for later approval.
 
2014-03-03 11:20:43 AM

MelGoesOnTour: Tyrone Slothrop: MelGoesOnTour: robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?

How the hell can "street art" increase the value of your property?! You're full of shiat.

How much do people pay for a Bansky?

WTF does that have to do with anything?!


Lol
 
2014-03-03 11:21:34 AM
fitzrovianews.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-03 11:43:54 AM

robbiex0r: And if that vandalism increases the value of your property by $100,000....then what subbs?


"In the years since, Banksy has continued to make his feeling on the commercialism of his art exceedingly clear. He calls galleries that sell his work "unauthorized", and is represented instead by The Pest Control Office, which is, in effect, another extension of the artist's darkly humorous manifesto. The simple website informs owners, anxious to authenticate and sell their freshly excavated and exceedingly valuable Banksy treasures, that the authentication process is "lengthy and challenging", as many pieces "are created in an advanced state of intoxication." As for legitimately buying a work from the artist - forget about it. Pest Control states that there is currently "something/nothing available."

Banksy doesn't want you to step 3. Profit off his work. He won't authenticate anything that doesn't go through his official channels, thereby killing the value.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieller ahm/2013/10/22/banksy-the-20-mil l ion-graffiti-artist-who-doesnt-want-hi s-art-to-be-worth-anything/ sorry can't link on mobile
 
2014-03-03 11:44:24 AM
Subby, you fascist you. That's community property!
 
2014-03-03 11:45:24 AM
Was it vandalism when a group of developers lobbied the city to allow them to build a giant condo on the bay, blocking the view of the waterfront from everyone who lives in town?
 
2014-03-03 11:47:54 AM

zepher: Can't wait for all the whiners that will complain that there isn't anywhere for the poor, repressed and downtrodden to express themselves so we must allow this vandalism to continue unabated.
After all, who are we to say what is art and what isn't?


So you're whining about whining that hasn't happened yet? How very non-whiny of you.
 
2014-03-03 11:53:27 AM

Nick Nostril: Subby, you fascist you. That's community property!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzUPG8olnO0
 
2014-03-03 11:55:50 AM
global3.memecdn.com
 
2014-03-03 11:55:55 AM
For Subby

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-03 12:08:51 PM
Obsession with property rights isn't good for our national ethos.

//no that isn't permission to libertarian idiots who don't understand this to pretend my property is their property, as long as that obsession exists at least.
 
2014-03-03 12:10:43 PM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?


Not sure if you are trolling....

There are countless alternatives for expressing political speech, that do not require defacing other people's property.
 
2014-03-03 12:13:44 PM

JeffreyScott: Not sure if you are trolling....

There are countless alternatives for expressing political speech, that do not require defacing other people's property.


Are there? Really? And how's that working out for you?
 
2014-03-03 12:15:34 PM
1. "Look, a Banksy!"
*crowds go nuts
*people rush in to take a portion of the wall

2. "Look, a Banksy!"
*property value goes up $100,000
*tax man decides to raise your taxes

Most of the time it is 3. "Graffiti? Where are we, Europe?"
 
2014-03-03 12:17:02 PM

ikanreed: Obsession with property rights isn't good for our national ethos.

//no that isn't permission to libertarian idiots who don't understand this to pretend my property is their property, as long as that obsession exists at least.


Can you explain?  Property rights were central to Lockean philosophy, of which this nation is directly based
 
2014-03-03 12:29:03 PM

bhcompy: ikanreed: Obsession with property rights isn't good for our national ethos.

//no that isn't permission to libertarian idiots who don't understand this to pretend my property is their property, as long as that obsession exists at least.

Can you explain?  Property rights were central to Lockean philosophy, of which this nation is directly based


Yeah, I can explain.  And thank god I can explain with the assumption that Locke's writings are underlying to our governance.  Locke described value as arising from the work people do.   That work can be hindered by an over-accumulation of raw materials and property in the hands of the very few.  Obsessing too much over the rights of owners can actually hinder our ability to create.  Especially in situations where wealth(of the physical sort) becomes enormously unbalanced in its distribution.  The disenfranchised lose their ability to participate in the basic life of being human.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that neoliberalism is a practical constraint on the ethical philosophy that underlies it.
 
2014-03-03 12:35:17 PM
Member of the Golden Mongol Horde.
media.morristechnology.com
\I am  so going to hell.
 
2014-03-03 12:39:07 PM

Slypork: Member of the Golden Mongol Horde.
[media.morristechnology.com image 640x480]
\I am  so going to hell.


Wrong thread! I am a member of the horde.
 
2014-03-03 12:40:38 PM
Vandalism:
farm9.staticflickr.com

Street Art:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-03 12:44:35 PM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: Not sure if you are trolling....

There are countless alternatives for expressing political speech, that do not require defacing other people's property.

Are there? Really? And how's that working out for you?


Let's see, we have mostly legal abortion, unions, civil rights, etc. Was graffiti the main thing that brought about those changes?
 
2014-03-03 12:47:48 PM

Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]


And if the latter was on the side of your home, it would be fine right?

If you say yes I'll be skeptical but at least you are consistent.
 
2014-03-03 12:49:32 PM

ajt167: Gothnet: JeffreyScott: Not sure if you are trolling....

There are countless alternatives for expressing political speech, that do not require defacing other people's property.

Are there? Really? And how's that working out for you?

Let's see, we have mostly legal abortion, unions, civil rights, etc. Was graffiti the main thing that brought about those changes?


In his world, it probably is. Or he'll say the Boston Tea Party was the graffiti of their time.
 
2014-03-03 01:00:49 PM

Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]


No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.
 
2014-03-03 01:17:18 PM

Smackledorfer: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

And if the latter was on the side of your home, it would be fine right?

If you say yes I'll be skeptical but at least you are consistent.


Yes, actually I would be fine with it. One of the coolest gifts I ever received was a book on the history of street art, and how it evolved. I would post the name of it or a link to it, but all my books are packed away at the moment. :/
 
2014-03-03 01:20:33 PM

Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.


I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.
 
2014-03-03 01:38:19 PM

Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.

I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.


No matter what they put there?  Cockles and ballsacks?  Naked ladies?  Hate crime material?  Insults to your business?  Just ugly work?  One person's art is another's offensive material.

I guess the point is it would simply be correct of them to ask you first. (I think your statement kind of implies you're making an agreement of sorts with them.)    All other permanent street art is vandalism, even when it's pretty.
 
2014-03-03 01:43:18 PM
I always like looking at the train cars as they go by, when I'm waiting for a train to pass. That being said, NOBODY graffitis a building's roof.

/Those poor plane passengers. I wonder what they look at as they go by.
 
2014-03-03 01:52:04 PM

Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.

I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.

No matter what they put there?  Cockles and ballsacks?  Naked ladies?  Hate crime material?  Insults to your business?  Just ugly work?  One person's art is another's offensive material.

I guess the point is it would simply be correct of them to ask you first. (I think your statement kind of implies you're making an agreement of sorts with them.)    All other permanent street art is vandalism, even when it's pretty.


If I didn't like it, I would either tell them to redo it, or have a different crew go over it. I probably would give them terms, first. No this, none of that. I am all about the color schemes of graffiti, more than the actual picture.

When I lived in Chicago and took the train downtown, there was a cemetery along the way where the outer wall was nothing but spray can. Most of it was fantastic, even if it was just a name. That was my favorite part of the trip. Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

/just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop
 
2014-03-03 01:53:39 PM
Far Cough, I just got your name. Nice. :D
 
2014-03-03 01:54:37 PM

Clint_Torres: Tell me this isn't art (SFW).


It's ugly, whatever it is. It also looks like it came straight out of the ghetto.
 
2014-03-03 01:59:59 PM

Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.

I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.

No matter what they put there?  Cockles and ballsacks?  Naked ladies?  Hate crime material?  Insults to your business?  Just ugly work?  One person's art is another's offensive material.

I guess the point is it would simply be correct of them to ask you first. (I think your statement kind of implies you're making an agreement of sorts with them.)    All other permanent street art is vandalism, even when it's pretty.

If I didn't like it, I would either tell them to redo it, or have a different crew go over it. I probably would give them terms, first. No this, none of that. I am all about the color schemes of graffiti, more than the actual picture.

When I lived in Chicago and took the train downtown, there was a cemetery along the way where the outer wall was nothing but spray can. Most of it was fantastic, even if it was just a name. That was my favorite part of the trip. Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

/just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop


Well, then what you're describing here with your hypothetical building isn't graffiti at all.  It's commissioned artwork.

And I didn't love your link and wouldn't necessarily call it "art", but that's in the eye of the beholder, and those samples are still a hell of a lot better than what the idiots were doing in the 70s.

I suppose there's a distinction between "tags" and more artistic stuff, but I don't care enough to find out.  :)
 
2014-03-03 02:07:44 PM

Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.

I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.

No matter what they put there?  Cockles and ballsacks?  Naked ladies?  Hate crime material?  Insults to your business?  Just ugly work?  One person's art is another's offensive material.

I guess the point is it would simply be correct of them to ask you first. (I think your statement kind of implies you're making an agreement of sorts with them.)    All other permanent street art is vandalism, even when it's pretty.

If I didn't like it, I would either tell them to redo it, or have a different crew go over it. I probably would give them terms, first. No this, none of that. I am all about the color schemes of graffiti, more than the actual picture.

When I lived in Chicago and took the train downtown, there was a cemetery along the way where the outer wall was nothing but spray can. Most of it was fantastic, even if it was just a name. That was my favorite part of the trip. Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

/just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

Well, then what you're describing here with your hypothetical building isn't graffiti at all.  It's commissioned artwork.

And I didn't love your link and wouldn't necessarily call it "art", but that's in the eye of the beholder, and those samples are still a hell of a lot better than what the idiots were doing in the 70s.

I suppose there's a distinction between "tags" and more artistic stuff, but I don ...


Fair enough.

Ned Flanders: Well, I guess this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Principal Skinner: I don't agree to that.
Mrs. Krabappel: Neither do I.
 
2014-03-03 02:09:36 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

It's ugly, whatever it is. It also looks like it came straight out of the ghetto.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYtlo

NSFW Language.
 
2014-03-03 02:10:14 PM

Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Vandalism:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 850x637]

Street Art:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

No way, you've got it backwards.  It is WAY WAY easier to get the unwanted paint off the glass.  Surely you meant to caption the second photo as the vandalism.  It will be much more difficult and costly to get rid of the unwanted image on that person's building.

I've always decided that if I ever owned a business, I would let some street artists do up the sides and rear. But at least let me have the (front) facade.

No matter what they put there?  Cockles and ballsacks?  Naked ladies?  Hate crime material?  Insults to your business?  Just ugly work?  One person's art is another's offensive material.

I guess the point is it would simply be correct of them to ask you first. (I think your statement kind of implies you're making an agreement of sorts with them.)    All other permanent street art is vandalism, even when it's pretty.

If I didn't like it, I would either tell them to redo it, or have a different crew go over it. I probably would give them terms, first. No this, none of that. I am all about the color schemes of graffiti, more than the actual picture.

When I lived in Chicago and took the train downtown, there was a cemetery along the way where the outer wall was nothing but spray can. Most of it was fantastic, even if it was just a name. That was my favorite part of the trip. Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

/just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

Well, then what you're describing here with your hypothetical building isn't graffiti at all.  It's commissioned artwork.

And I didn't love your link and wouldn't necessarily call it "art", but that's in the eye of the beholder, and those samples are still a hell of a lot better than what the idiots were doing in the 70s.

I suppose there's a distinction between "tags" and more artistic stuff, but I don ...

Fair enough.

Ned Flanders: Well, I guess this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Principal Skinner: I don't agree to that.
Mrs. Krabappel: Neither do I.


Her last name's Krabappel? All this time I've been calling her Krandel. I feel like such an idiot!
 
2014-03-03 02:24:14 PM

Clint_Torres: MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

It's ugly, whatever it is. It also looks like it came straight out of the ghetto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYtlo

NSFW Language.


Very mature. Now go back to your fantasyland.
 
2014-03-03 02:34:33 PM

MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

It's ugly, whatever it is. It also looks like it came straight out of the ghetto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYtlo

NSFW Language.

Very mature. Now go back to your fantasyland.


Says the guy making cliched, white suburban generalizations about a culture.
 
2014-03-03 02:57:46 PM
I'm not a fan of graffiti, but if you own a huge old warehouse or vacant factory beside the railroad tracks, and you're just sitting on it because you don't want to pay the taxes when it's sold, and you put zero maintenance into it and let it just gradually rot into a worse and worse eyesore? You're worse than the kids who spray paint it.
 
2014-03-03 02:58:11 PM

Clint_Torres: MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: MelGoesOnTour: Clint_Torres: Tell me this isn't art (SFW).

It's ugly, whatever it is. It also looks like it came straight out of the ghetto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9cT_fzYtlo

NSFW Language.

Very mature. Now go back to your fantasyland.

Says the guy making cliched, white suburban generalizations about a culture.


Says the guy making cliche generalizations about white suburbia.
 
2014-03-03 03:01:11 PM

Gothnet: JeffreyScott: I agree with subby and most other: If you don't own the property or have the owner's permission it is vandalism.

I would also add:  If you have to do it under the cover of night, than it is also vandalism.

No room for political speech in your world?


Spray painting other people's property isn't speech. The Constitution protects freedom of speech (that is, talking) and freedom of the press. You want to amplify your words, you have to own a press (or billboard, or megaphone, or something).
 
2014-03-03 03:27:29 PM

Clint_Torres: /just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop


This made me laugh.  I don't know what is going on here, but this was my first real laugh of the day.  You can't threaten people like that on here.
 
2014-03-03 03:36:04 PM

trappedspirit: Clint_Torres: /just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

This made me laugh.  I don't know what is going on here, but this was my first real laugh of the day.  You can't threaten people like that on here.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-03 03:43:12 PM

trappedspirit: Clint_Torres: /just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

This made me laugh.  I don't know what is going on here, but this was my first real laugh of the day.  You can't threaten people like that on here.


Hahaha. It wasn't a threat, I was just trying to convey my fondness for street culture.
 
2014-03-03 04:00:45 PM

Clint_Torres: trappedspirit: Clint_Torres: /just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

This made me laugh.  I don't know what is going on here, but this was my first real laugh of the day.  You can't threaten people like that on here.

Hahaha. It wasn't a threat, I was just trying to convey my fondness for street culture.


img2-2.timeinc.net
 
2014-03-03 04:16:16 PM

dittybopper: Gothnet: Some street 'art' really brightens the place up a bit. Some is good political comment.

Unfortunately some is just 'tards scrawling their name on stuff and it's hard to think of anything more useless than that.

Look at this. It's worthless - made by a tagger in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless. Like this graffiti:

http://www.heavy.com/comedy/2013/03/the-20-awesomest-pieces-of-ancie nt -graffiti


The thousand years did all the work, you did shiat.
 
2014-03-03 04:41:53 PM

DrDude: zepher: Can't wait for all the whiners that will complain that there isn't anywhere for the poor, repressed and downtrodden to express themselves so we must allow this vandalism to continue unabated.
After all, who are we to say what is art and what isn't?

So you're whining about whining that hasn't happened yet? How very non-whiny of you.


The whining has happened in just about every past case when this has been brought up.
So going by past history there will be whining.
 
2014-03-03 04:42:56 PM

Clint_Torres: Yes, actually I would be fine with it.


Please post your address so I can paint some crap on the side of your house.

/just kidding.  I know that people who claim they are fine with vandalism don't actually own anything more expensive than their tennis shoes.
 
2014-03-03 04:58:53 PM

JuggleGeek: Clint_Torres: Yes, actually I would be fine with it.

Please post your address so I can paint some crap on the side of your house.

/just kidding.  I know that people who claim they are fine with vandalism don't actually own anything more expensive than their tennis shoes.


I'm renting right now, so no go. And while I admit some really cool hip hop, wild style graffiti would be cool on the side of an urban brick building, it would look a little out of place on a suburban home on siding.

I own quite a few bicycles that are worth a little bit more than tennis shoes. I'm trying to sell one actually. Can I interest you in a XL full suspension Specialized?
 
2014-03-03 05:00:10 PM

Slypork: Clint_Torres: trappedspirit: Clint_Torres: /just a heads up, you are talking to someone that has several graffiti fonts for Photoshop

This made me laugh.  I don't know what is going on here, but this was my first real laugh of the day.  You can't threaten people like that on here.

Hahaha. It wasn't a threat, I was just trying to convey my fondness for street culture.

[img2-2.timeinc.net image 458x610]


My turds have more cred than that waste of oxygen.
 
2014-03-03 05:18:22 PM

Clint_Torres: My turds have more cred than that waste of oxygen.


So sorry. Are you more this:
 djhouseshoes.com
or this:
file.trendhunter.com
 
2014-03-03 05:23:54 PM

Slypork: Clint_Torres: My turds have more cred than that waste of oxygen.

So sorry. Are you more this:
 [djhouseshoes.com image 334x327]
or this:
[file.trendhunter.com image 300x300]


I'd say more like this...
cdn.stereogum.com
 
2014-03-03 05:41:13 PM
Before this gets any more out of hand (to Slypork's dismay)...I like art, I like hip hop (not just hip hop, mind you). Why wouldn't I like graffiti? I think some of it is a legitimate art form. Unfortunately, some of it does fall under petty and stupid vandalism.

But done right, it could belong in a museum. I would definitely go see a gallery show of it.
 
2014-03-03 05:53:37 PM

Clint_Torres: Before this gets any more out of hand (to Slypork's dismay)...I like art, I like hip hop (not just hip hop, mind you). Why wouldn't I like graffiti? I think some of it is a legitimate art form. Unfortunately, some of it does fall under petty and stupid vandalism.

But done right, it could belong in a museum. I would definitely go see a gallery show of it.


But Clint, the quality or artistic nature is entirely beside the point, or at least it is to a lot of us.  Mozart shouldn't be using your sketch book to write a symphony without your permission.  Somebody shouldn't take your bike to make a modern art sculpture out of it.

It sounds, from your other posts, that you are fine with graffiti under your own circumstances and controls.  But that's hardly the kind of graffiti that people are objecting to.
 
2014-03-03 06:15:08 PM

Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Before this gets any more out of hand (to Slypork's dismay)...I like art, I like hip hop (not just hip hop, mind you). Why wouldn't I like graffiti? I think some of it is a legitimate art form. Unfortunately, some of it does fall under petty and stupid vandalism.

But done right, it could belong in a museum. I would definitely go see a gallery show of it.

But Clint, the quality or artistic nature is entirely beside the point, or at least it is to a lot of us.  Mozart shouldn't be using your sketch book to write a symphony without your permission.  Somebody shouldn't take your bike to make a modern art sculpture out of it.

It sounds, from your other posts, that you are fine with graffiti under your own circumstances and controls.  But that's hardly the kind of graffiti that people are objecting to.


True, I just hate to see it all lumped together, and badmouthed, even if most of it is 'unauthorized'. As long as it wasn't racist, I would probably be fine with most anything put up. Especially if it looked like the photos in the link I posted.
 
2014-03-04 08:48:20 AM

RockofAges: Far Cough: Clint_Torres: Before this gets any more out of hand (to Slypork's dismay)...I like art, I like hip hop (not just hip hop, mind you). Why wouldn't I like graffiti? I think some of it is a legitimate art form. Unfortunately, some of it does fall under petty and stupid vandalism.

But done right, it could belong in a museum. I would definitely go see a gallery show of it.

But Clint, the quality or artistic nature is entirely beside the point, or at least it is to a lot of us.  Mozart shouldn't be using your sketch book to write a symphony without your permission.  Somebody shouldn't take your bike to make a modern art sculpture out of it.

It sounds, from your other posts, that you are fine with graffiti under your own circumstances and controls.  But that's hardly the kind of graffiti that people are objecting to.

Yeah, most people are objecting to colourful paint being applied over an otherwise beautiful pitted gray and brown brick wall.

/Kids these days


You sound sarcastic, but that's exactly right. Your neighbor's toddler's drawings may be "colourful" but you might not want them randomly all over your bedroom.
 
2014-03-04 10:07:21 AM

RockofAges: But on a scale of 1-10 in terms of social harms, graffiti is something old people generally crank on about.


Because old people own property, and the "utes" you are backing don't own crap, they just spray paint their shiat on other peoples property.
 
2014-03-04 11:59:25 AM
 
Displayed 101 of 101 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report