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 (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report