I was in the city today, and as came home I saw some stunning graffiti by the tunnels. They were beautiful tags, declarations of love and other artistic designs, including random faces and the like. As I was looking at it, it suddenly hit me how beautiful it is. It's a wonderful alternative to the bleak greys and browns we all usually see, and it gives the area some personalisation, some community soul. I've seen similar artworks in other places, on the sides of buildings and that, but unfortunatly it's washed away. Some people prefer blank, fugly walls, or consider the act defacement. I think that, although as the property owners they have a right to act as they do, but it still seems wrong to ruin someone's efforts so in the end, the wall is nothing yet again. The police sometimes step in at night and stop these artists too, and again it doesn't seem right. How can we really say we prefer blankness or a smattering of posters over actual art that reaches us? Tags, those shitty man-claiming-territory scrawlings should go, for sure. But works should stay. I think governments around the world should ease up on this a bit, or even consider hiring artists for city projects (possibly even consulting bussiness owners for thier involvement) to show that their cities are indeed lived in. Train stations and tunnels would look brilliant with some colour, provided they were skillfully done and not distracting to drivers. What do you all think?
Graffiti should be allowed
I love looking gang tags and racial slurs.
Things that are illegal are usually illegal for a reason.
Shoot me a PM.
Bs want the D.
I think you should have to take a test, and get a license to be able to spray paint things. There's a lot of ugly stuff that goes up, but if everyone was 'approved' it would definitely be pretty cool! To my understanding graffiti in the Europe is handled totally different than it is over in America. Sometimes people do get paid to put up projects, but that's usually pretty rare, and only in cities like New York.
I'm a sucker for color, I'd love to see it everywhere :3
The problem with it is that like you said, the building owners probably don't want it on the buildings because the people tagging it aren't the owners and because graffiti is consistently associated with less desirable areas of living. Most building owners don't want to have potential customers of stores or tenants of apartments to be scared off because of it. Not taking care of graffiti also gives a sense of less security being in the area where the tagging is going on and that's not good for business.
I see part of why you have your argument, but simply put, having more vibrant colors isn't enough of an argument for artists to tag wherever they want especially when it costs someone else money out of their pocket to clean it up. I've seen places in various cities where tagging is acceptable. They designate certain walls for artists to go to and make their work there and a lot of artists, especially ones who have decent skill, comply and draw on those walls.
At 2/5/09 04:36 AM, BlueHippo wrote: I think you should have to take a test, and get a license to be able to spray paint things. There's a lot of ugly stuff that goes up, but if everyone was 'approved' it would definitely be pretty cool! To my understanding graffiti in the Europe is handled totally different than it is over in America. Sometimes people do get paid to put up projects, but that's usually pretty rare, and only in cities like New York.
I'm a sucker for color, I'd love to see it everywhere :3
It's also different her in Australia. It's more like the Euro version here, where people do thoughts and expressions over 'BLUDS4LYF'. Never seen a gang tag - then again, Melbourne is more Mafia, so they keep quieter.
It really depends on the quality of the art and If it looks good were it's been layed down. Most of the time it looks pretty good.
At 2/5/09 04:38 AM, 36Holla wrote: The problem with it is that like you said, the building owners probably don't want it on the buildings because the people tagging it aren't the owners and because graffiti is consistently associated with less desirable areas of living. Most building owners don't want to have potential customers of stores or tenants of apartments to be scared off because of it. Not taking care of graffiti also gives a sense of less security being in the area where the tagging is going on and that's not good for business.
I see part of why you have your argument, but simply put, having more vibrant colors isn't enough of an argument for artists to tag wherever they want especially when it costs someone else money out of their pocket to clean it up. I've seen places in various cities where tagging is acceptable. They designate certain walls for artists to go to and make their work there and a lot of artists, especially ones who have decent skill, comply and draw on those walls.
Yes, I was meaning more government property and sponsered projects over private property, and i understand that reasoning entirely and do agree with it. For those other places though, and bussinesses that desire to take part, it should be encouraged more than it is.
Yea man, I'm from melbourne and some of the graffiti is mental. I live in the suburban areas and when I catch the train to school I see all these tags and art. It became so extensive that the Government actually made areas of the bridges and skate parks legal to tag, as long as its art. I think that its great although free speech should be allowed anywhere, not just restricted areas.
I think it should be resticted, not banned. And it should not be abusive.
At 2/5/09 05:14 AM, gamer425 wrote: Yea man, I'm from melbourne and some of the graffiti is mental. I live in the suburban areas and when I catch the train to school I see all these tags and art. It became so extensive that the Government actually made areas of the bridges and skate parks legal to tag, as long as its art. I think that its great although free speech should be allowed anywhere, not just restricted areas.
Really? I wasn't aware we'd passed a law for that. That's an awesome first step. And I agree entirely; Melbourne has a nice architecture (sort of like a mix between English and American styles, with some New York elements) but there are far too many blanks walls that offset that. At least inner-city we have some signage, stickers and that, but more permenant is better. And you know places in the city you pass that's cluttered with useless posters from old gigs no one went to that could be put to better use :P
At 2/5/09 05:21 AM, UnregisteredIdiot wrote: I think it should be resticted, not banned. And it should not be abusive.
I mean the govornment sould restict it. I've seen some walls in my neighbourhood are designated graffiti walls.
At 2/5/09 05:23 AM, UnregisteredIdiot wrote:At 2/5/09 05:21 AM, UnregisteredIdiot wrote: I think it should be resticted, not banned. And it should not be abusive.I mean the govornment sould restict it. I've seen some walls in my neighbourhood are designated graffiti walls.
I get what you mean. The sort of graffiti I'm reffering to is the more arty stuff, or well done tags. Not gang stuff or penis', but the stuff you look at and think how long it took, how good it is. The stuff you actually appreciate looking at. It's good to know where you live government projects working towards this beautification and enrichment is going ahead. That mode of thought will hopefully difuse people's ideas graffiti ARTISTS aren't scum and instead should be supported.
OP is certified not a bel-air
Definition of wall of text
I was in the city today, and as came home I saw some stunning graffiti by the tunnels. They were beautiful tags, declarations of love and other artistic designs, including random faces and the like.
As I was looking at it, it suddenly hit me how beautiful it is. It's a wonderful alternative to the bleak greys and browns we all usually see, and it gives the area some personalisation, some community soul. I've seen similar artworks in other places, on the sides of buildings and that, but unfortunatly it's washed away.
Some people prefer blank, fugly walls, or consider the act defacement. I think that, although as the property owners they have a right to act as they do, but it still seems wrong to ruin someone's efforts so in the end, the wall is nothing yet again.
The police sometimes step in at night and stop these artists too, and again it doesn't seem right. How can we really say we prefer blankness or a smattering of posters over actual art that reaches us? Tags, those shitty man-claiming-territory scrawlings should go, for sure. But works should stay. I think governments around the world should ease up on this a bit, or even consider hiring artists for city projects (possibly even consulting bussiness owners for thier involvement) to show that their cities are indeed lived in.
Train stations and tunnels would look brilliant with some colour, provided they were skillfully done and not distracting to drivers. What do you all think?
FTFY
Oh and in Melbourne, we have Hosier Lane, one place in the city where graffiti is legal, it's wonderful to walk around there.
At 2/5/09 05:49 AM, jimmick wrote: OP is certified not a bel-air
Definition of wall of text
FTFY
Oh and in Melbourne, we have Hosier Lane, one place in the city where graffiti is legal, it's wonderful to walk around there.
Yes, I could have used the enter more efficiently. Though at least I didn't 'omg grafiti suld belegal lololol' on you. You're right though, Hosier Lane is nice from what I've seen in the pics. Haven't actually gotten around to it myself. TOURISTS MUST VISIT NAO
I'd get sick of looking at it if it were everywhere. But it sure beats some of the shitty half-arsed murals I see around my local shopping centers.
Some local governments tried to make a solution. But alas...........
The bottom line is: if you don't have permission it's illegal. As for designated areas, i think it's a good idea.
The only graffiti i've seen arround here is your typical "bridge tagging", and the god awfull shit you see on trains (railroads are working on paints for freight cars that spray paint can't stick to very good, and can be washed off, ha ha).
That's right I like guns and ponies. NO NEW GUN CONTROL.
Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.
I don't think graffiti should be allowed because it wouldn't hold the same meaning to me if it was.
Yes I fail. No one cares. Especially not me.
At 2/5/09 08:11 AM, KAMM666 wrote: I don't think graffiti should be allowed because it wouldn't hold the same meaning to me if it was.
Rebelion against authority and ensuring individuality huh? Fair enough, and that's a valid concern. But it is a nice artform that could use less descrimination.
At 2/5/09 04:36 AM, BlueHippo wrote:
Sometimes people do get paid to put up projects, but that's usually pretty rare, and only in cities like New York.
Nah,in downtown kansas city there are quite a few wonderful spray paint murals on the sides of local business's,you have to stop your car just to take it all in,then you'll go into the diner that has the mural on it.
just as planned,those sneaky bitches.
BoshansStudios made this awesome sig.
My gamertag is Kirbykiller13,add me,we'll go hard and kill some scrubs.
Good plan for tourism.
Graffiti Tourism -- sounds good. Good graffitists should be given licences and a specific length of wall to work on. Backalley graffiti and the like (gang shit) should stay ONLY if they are not clear eyesores to tourists travelling the main road.
Look everywhere; walls would be multicoloured. Great entertainment on dreary walks to school/office/etc.
I don't think it should be allowed in subway TUNNELS, though. Too distracting for drivers, trains could crash or something. Subway PLATFORMS and related ilk? Good idea, that's something to look at when waiting for the train. If you don't have a book or a game or something.
Hello.
There is some beautiful graffiti out there but not everyone wants graffiti on their property, it should be their choice. Besides, for every talented graffiti artist there are a hundred more little kids with a spray paint can who will only end up writing "X--- I peed here".
Maybe if a few buildings had their owners approve of artists painting grafitti on their buildings...
Graffiti should be restricted, not banned. Not allowed everywhere though I'm sure graffiting a house would definately not be a socially acceptable thing ;P
"Without love there is no hate"
"But good sir isn't love what bring everyone together?"
"To only pretend to love each other when they despise they're very existance... fools"
Its an art, it should be allowed, but just in certain areas
On public surfaces, hell yeah. Private owners should have the right to decide, though.
And if someone sprays something you don't like, you can grab a can and paint over it.
whenever i start traveling in the car thats all i do look at graffiti
At 2/5/09 10:47 AM, Davidzx wrote: mabye, but not in public bathrooms or other public areas, mabye in some weird tunnel far off but thats it. grafitti is only good elsewhere. sometimes people wanto go to a clean bathroom.
...not gonna happen. What's the point of painting somewhere no-one sees?
I mean yeah, there's this derelict house in my town that's completely covered in the inside, but it's more of a playground/practise space. The real kings are the ones that pull those things off in places where peole see them.
Im all for graffitti i guess its how they draw the line in between. Designated areas is ok but how do they really stop the vandalising of it everywhere else.
If you want to set up a painting on a building there is legal ways to do it.
You can't tag property that does not belong to you without the owner approving.
Who says they want your art on their building, they have the right to say no.
