Air Force One tagged by Marc Ecko.

[exigeracer]

And exigeracer, a grey underpass belongs usually to the government, so it is someone's property. Everywhere is owned by at least one person.

I know who it belongs to. It's not a person. You don't say, well hey! That's Stephen Harper's wall over there! It's an underpass.

Vandalism is illegal, but I know you do something illegal every time you drive your car. How is that different? The government doesn't want you to speed, but you do, every time you go out for a drive.

 

[tait]

I'm in the same position as Exigeracer. I've recently become a fan of graffiti and learning more about it has become a hobby. Great post Exigeracer. He basically summed up how I feel of advertisement vs. art in public spaces.

 

[Omnis]

Here are a bunch of works done by an online friend's late brother, who is remembered as "Dream".

























Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if there was graffiti like this painted around at appropriate places. Like, you know, urban walls and stuff. Painting on cars and building that are actually in use is kind of tacky, though.

 

[crimson_menace]

Regardless.......that's freakin' awesome! GO DUDE!

 

[Keef]

l4s, we all know it's vandalism if you do it without permission. So get permission. Create an organization to beautify the decrepid walls and buildings, or even some in use. Tags are gay, art is good. But I don't think the art should have anything to do with political issues or personal opinions. That "Tax Dollars Kill" painting in Omnis's post could be and probably was offensive to someone. But if you painted a happy pony or unicorn floating amongst the clouds and fishies under the sea, well, who would be offended? It's just a pretty picture. I'm sure you've seen those weird school folders that have pictures of whales and dolphins under water and a nice sunset behind them or whatever. That stuff would look great on a crappy concrete wall. People should stop using nicknames, too, and use their real names so they don't seem like a gang person and stuff.

 

[Joey D]

I live in the upscaled suburbs so I rarely see graffti, although there are a few here and there, and even when I go into the city it's not horrific. But when I was in Europe, it seemed like it was everywhere, especially in Berlin.

 

[Delirious]

So if it was made legal...how would you tell the difference between well done graffitti and 'trashy' graffitti? Who is to be the appropriate judge, and how will you judge it?

 

[Omnis]

Well, if people are okay with it, it stays up. That's kind of the way it works now, anyway. Hahaha. Yeah, some stuff can be seen as offensive. I don't agree with everything, but I still have some respect from an artist's perspective.

 

[ND4SPD]

Graffiti, gotta love it, its almost like a forgotten art where the public never sees it as art and why it never usually gets the attention (well GOOD attention) it truly deserves. Well, except for the pointless crap I see sometimes that is horribly drawn by a marker by someone with no skill. Although the above examples are quite beautiful. I wish I could do graffiti like the examples. People who can do artwork as skilled as that get my upmost respect for their skill, its truly a great way in expressing yourself. Just like how in the wishes thread how I'd wish that "Graffiti was made legal and the world was our canvas to truly express ourselves." Hey Exige, how about posting up some of your drawings?

 

[Gen.]

Graffiti has been done since Roman Times. Why stop now?

 

[exigeracer]

Graffiti has been done since Roman Times. Why stop now?

Anyone thinking of the Life of Brian right now? Hahahahahah

I'd also like to say a little about 'going over' or 'crossing' which was mentioned a couple posts back. When someone disrespects by going over a piece with a tag, there is always a reason. There is beef between the writers so one dude tags over the other dudes work. There are gangs and crews, and this is a common part of innercity graffiti culture. Bottom line is that if you go over someone's work, you are either getting them back for something or are trying to tell them something. Either way, you will get it back, someone will cross somehting of yours or you will simply get your teeth knocked out.

There are kids who just cross other people to start shtuff, to get a rep as a badass guy who crosses, but those kinds of writers never last because they get their asses kicked in or they simply drop out because they get ignored.

Delirious: there is no definition of good and bad graffiti. It's all opinions, like any other art. I see a throw and I am sort of disgusted by the impersonal level of art is has. There was a quick one-colour fill and then a line outline. Nothing fun, nothing special. But then there are graffiti artists who marvel at a well-crafted throw or tag. Not my cup of tea, and to anyone outside the graffiti world, it's pretty ugly.

The whole debate of getting permission: unfortunately it is not easy as that. The public doesn't really like the look of graffiti because of the destructive connotations it has to it. That's where I try to change people's minds. If more people appreciate how good graffiti looks, the more it will become accepted.

ND4SPD, here are some of my prefered drawings.

Some mostly marker sketches.


This one is intended for a wall somewhere. I cannot see how someone can get mad at this style of graff.

Some basic graphic design/presentation work with this one:


Here is some graffiti-related art that I have also done.

Inspired by a Shepard Fairy poster (the Obey artist)

Follow-up poster:

A canvas-style piece reading MAKE REAL ART (my personal slogan)

Graffiti-related cartoon strip inspired by Vaughn Bode's Deadbone cartoon lizards:

4x8 of drywall in my backyard a week or two ago.


Enjoy.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

About the Air force one tagging:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/tagging.asp
It's just a cool video, it's not real.

 

[Appie]

You, the viewer of the preceeding are hereby advised that the video does not depict a real event. It is intended for the sole, limited and express purpose of entertainment and to induce you, the viewer of the video, to think critically about freedom of expression and speech and the government's responses to the same. Therefore, and by reason of the foregoing, the producers, creators and distributors of this video hereby verily certify that the foregoing fictionalization and dramatization was not real.

 

[a6m5]

exigeracer made his point intelligently, so I will respect him for that. However, I agree with live4speed completely. Those "beautiful" graffiti might please your eyes, but to some, it just looks dumb. Not everybody appreciates graffiti, no matter how skilled the artist might be. As live4speed said, private or public property, if it does not belong to you,then it's not your decision to decide some wall or underpass looks dull.

If you are music lover like me, you'd rather listen to music while you work. If there was no music on, it would be bit boring for me. What if I liked only rock music, so I start listening to AC/DC, but my coworker only likes Classical. Do you see my point here? If every "boring" concrete surfaces were covered by graffiti, it will drive some of us nuts. IMO, most people do not appreciate graffiti art.

Now, I'm not your dad or anything, so if you are painting graffiti stuff in some other town, I could care less. But in the town where I work, there's is this old part of the town, that looks like something out of a movie based in pre-1950's. Beautiful trees, grass, nice railroad with beautiful cargo container train on it............................... wait. Somebody painted bunch of graffitis on them. 👎 Every summer, when it's just so beautiful to drive by this area, it just totally ruins the scenery.

 

[exigeracer]

exigeracer made his point intelligently, so I will respect him for that. However, I agree with live4speed completely. Those "beautiful" graffiti might please your eyes, but to some, it just looks dumb. Not everybody appreciates graffiti, no matter how skilled the artist might be. As live4speed said, private or public property, if it does not belong to you,then it's not your decision to decide some wall or underpass looks dull.

If you are music lover like me, you'd rather listen to music while you work. If there was no music on, it would be bit boring for me. What if I liked only rock music, so I start listening to AC/DC, but my coworker only likes Classical. Do you see my point here? If every "boring" concrete surfaces were covered by graffiti, it will drive some of us nuts. IMO, most people do not appreciate graffiti art.

Now, I'm not your dad or anything, so if you are painting graffiti stuff in some other town, I could care less. But in the town where I work, there's is this old part of the town, that looks like something out of a movie based in pre-1950's. Beautiful trees, grass, nice railroad with beautiful cargo container train on it............................... wait. Somebody painted bunch of graffitis on them. 👎 Every summer, when it's just so beautiful to drive by this area, it just totally ruins the scenery.

We both understand both halves of the argument, and so should everybody. That's my problem. People don't see both sides to it, they just see 'vandalism'. That's all they can say, it's just wrong because it is illegal. They are too thick to even consider seeing it as art, and not as a law. To those who see the art and the vandalism, the vandalism half of it is stronger than the art half of it so they disapprove, whereas for me, I see a canvas where you see someone's precious property. There is still knowledge of the vandalism portion of it because I know someone will always say "damn that's ugly and is ruining everything." I will see this and I will always consider it. If something gets painted, it is because the art portion was chosen to be greater than the vandalism portion. Sort of like "that wall deserves to look pretty."

To you and others, you would rather see a normal (new or old and rusted) train go by, whereas I and others would like to see art roll by. Either way, I can't see it being worse if it had some colour to it or just rolling rust.

PS, graffiti is a form of art, you can't have graffitis, you have graffiti. Somebody can write on your cargo container, someone can paint your cargo container, someone can bomb your cargo container. Not trying to sound offensive, just a comment on the vocabulary at hand.

 

[Dave A]

Graffiti can be very artful, but the people saying it is just vandalism, when it's done of private or public property are spot on. Becasue it fit's very well within the definitions of vandalism. Graffiti is not illegal to do, on your own property. This is the key, right there, if you do not own the property or have permission to graffiti that property it's against the law, and it always will be and it always should be. Like i said, if someone came to my area and saw the side of my house as a canvas and decided that the art portion was greater than the vandalism portion and painted his art on there I'd kick his head in and if he's lucky, only sue him for the thousands of pounds damage he's done to the value of my house. Even if it did nothing to the value of my house (even though it would, just for arguments sake) I'd still kick his head in because I don't want it there and I never said he could put it there.

The same can be applied if I owned a block of flats, if somone paints some graffiti on them without being told by me, he can, he's a vandal and should be punished.

The same can be said if I ran a bus company, I had a fleet of buses and somone decided to paint graffiti on them or in them etc.

l4s, we all know it's vandalism if you do it without permission. So get permission. Create an organization to beautify the decrepid walls and buildings, or even some in use.

Then go and create one and get permission then, and don't do any graffiti until you have succeded.

I know who it belongs to. It's not a person. You don't say, well hey! That's Stephen Harper's wall over there! It's an underpass.

Vandalism is illegal, but I know you do something illegal every time you drive your car. How is that different? The government doesn't want you to speed, but you do, every time you go out for a drive.

So, it belongs to a group of people then, no difference, you still need permission.

Secondly, that's very specualtive, care to point out what laws you know I break every time I drive my car. If I said I never wen't over the limit I would be lying, but certainly not everytime I drive my car, besides that, driving a car wrong isn't defacing somones property and costing other people lot's of money. It's still wrong, but it's nothing like graffiti.

 

[Danny]

Is this graffiti?

 

[a6m5]

I am a fan of the first guy(Beever?). While it's a valid point, one thing about his art is that it's done with chalk. They are not permanent. God, he's amazing.

 

[exigeracer]

Graffiti can be very artful,
...

Then go and create one and get permission then, and don't do any graffiti until you have succeded.

Secondly, that's very specualtive, care to point out what laws you know I break every time I drive my car. If I said I never wen't over the limit I would be lying, but certainly not everytime I drive my car, besides that, driving a car wrong isn't defacing somones property and costing other people lot's of money. It's still wrong, but it's nothing like graffiti.

I never ever said that graffiti should be legal. It never will. People just don't even try to consider it as art. They don't even want to see anything but the legality. It can be illegal and still be nice, but these people don't even want to say it. That's what I'm trying to show people.

I'd never ever ever ever ever ever paint on someone's house, nor any business which doesn't have a set budget for vandalism. As ignorant as that sounds, the alloted money is there and it is better that it is used on something beautiful than ugly.

If you drive 66 in a 65, it is illegal. There are people and organizations that spend millions of dollars because they don't want you to do anything illegal on the roadways. This is the exact same argument as with graffiti, someone doesn't wnat you to drive over the limit on their road, and if you don't have their permission, why do you do it? Illegal is illegal! Speed bumps cost money, enforcing the law costs money, exponentially more than vandalism. Speeding kills people, other than the odd murder or train accident, graffiti has never killed anyone. There are far larger bills to pay for far more harmful and pointless things that removing art. How many millions are spent per day bombing other people's countries? Any consent or permission there?

It is art. It can't hurt you.

 

[Dave A]

I never ever said that graffiti should be legal. It never will. People just don't even try to consider it as art. They don't even want to see anything but the legality. It can be illegal and still be nice, but these people don't even want to say it. That's what I'm trying to show people.

That's fine, I have no problem at all with somone showing their art, but not on buildings, walls, busses, trains etc. Not when they haven't been told they can do it there.

I'd never ever ever ever ever ever paint on someone's house, nor any business which doesn't have a set budget for vandalism. As ignorant as that sounds, the alloted money is there and it is better that it is used on something beautiful than ugly.

So because they have money set aside for that you think it's right to do it, your still costing somone money, if you don't vandalise thier property they don't have to pay to fix it.

If you drive 66 in a 65, it is illegal. There are people and organizations that spend millions of dollars because they don't want you to do anything illegal on the roadways. This is the exact same argument as with graffiti, someone doesn't wnat you to drive over the limit on their road, and if you don't have permission, then why do you do it? Illegal is illegal!

No it's not actually. But I do see your point, however without sounding like I'm saying speeding is fine, because it's not, speeding and spraying somones wall are two very, very different things. By spraying someones wall your directly defacfing that wall, costing them money, reducing the value of that property etc. By speeding your not directly doing anything other than speeding, now as I said, I'm not saying speeding is right, it can be very dangerous, but they're two very, very different things.

There are people and organizations that spend millions of dollars because they don't want you to do anything illegal on the roadways.

Governments do, and they do it for very different reasons than keeping the law that graffiti is illegal.

This is the exact same argument as with graffiti, someone doesn't wnat you to drive over the limit on their road, and if you don't have permission, then why do you do it?

No it's not the same, driving over the limit isn't reducing the value of somones property, it isn't defacing anyone's property, no you still shouldn't do it, but it's very different.

Illegal is illegal! Speed bumps cost money, enforcing the law costs money, exponentially more than vandalism. Speeding kills people, other than the odd murder or train accident, graffiti has never killed anyone. There are far larger bills to pay for far more harmful and pointless things that removing art. How many millions are spent per day bombing a countries?

Doesn't make any of it right, and it doesn't gve anyone a valid excuse to do it.

It is art. It can't hurt you.

Financially and emotionaly, yes it can.

 

[exigeracer]

So because they have money set aside for that you think it's right to do it, your still costing somone money, if you don't vandalise thier property they don't have to pay to fix it.

Doesn't make any of it right, and it doesn't gve anyone a valid excuse to do it.

Financially and emotionaly, yes it can.

I'm not trying to convince you that graff is supposed to be legal. I'm pointing out that there are far worse things, in terms of money and lives, than the writing on the wall.

There is a budget set in place to remove paint. If wouldn't paint there, someone else would. If I would paint, the next writer wouldn't. The budget will be used up in roughly the same time regardless if I would do it or not. If you didn't speed on the highway, the government would still be paying just as much to enforce their laws. Same thing either way.

When you are walking under a bridge, colours and phrases on the wall do not hurt you financially or emotionally. They also don't emotionally hurt anyone who owns them, that's why nobody gets their face kicked in for painting, like you would do.

Plus., this business of getting permission is almost like rubbing it in our faces. Nobody will give permission for me to paint their wall and you all know that. They don't because of my initial argument. They don't see the beauty of it, they don't see the artistic content.

 

[TB]

Nobody will give permission for me to paint their wall and you all know that. They don't because of my initial argument. They don't see the beauty of it, they don't see the artistic content.

So if I walk into a bank and ask nicely if they will give me money and they say no, I should rob them?

 

[Dave A]

I'm not trying to convince you that graff is supposed to be legal. I'm pointing out that there are far worse things, in terms of money and lives, than the writing on the wall.

Yes there are far, far worse things, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to spay on somone elses wall.

There is a budget set in place to remove paint. If wouldn't paint there, someone else would. If I would paint, the next writer wouldn't. The budget will be used up in roughly the same time regardless if I would do it or not. If you didn't speed on the highway, the government would still be paying just as much to enforce their laws. Same thing either way.

Now your making an assumption that somone will paint there, besides ignorig the fact that no-one should paint there and if no-one did paint there then no money would have to be spent on removing the paint. And if no-one even speeds n their car's, do you really think the government would be spending so much on cathcing speeders? I don't, besides the fact that speeding and vandalism are two completley different things.

When you are walking under a bridge, colours and phrases on the wall do not hurt you financially or emotionally. They also don't emotionally hurt anyone who owns them, that's why nobody gets their face kicked in for painting, like you would do.

I might think they look ungainly and make my walk less pleasent, and they cost the governmenn.

Plus., this business of getting permission is almost like rubbing it in our faces. Nobody will give permission for me to paint their wall and you all know that. They don't because of my initial argument. They don't see the beauty of it, they don't see the artistic content.

I'ev seen people given permission, and by a local council of all thnigs. If you put a good thng together, brighten up a run down building even one ready for demolition perhaps, you may well get permission. It's been done.

 

[exigeracer]

Yes there are far, far worse things, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to spay on somone elses wall.

Now your making an assumption that somone will paint there, besides ignorig the fact that no-one should paint there and if no-one did paint there then no money would have to be spent on removing the paint. And if no-one even speeds n their car's, do you really think the government would be spending so much on cathcing speeders? I don't, besides the fact that speeding and vandalism are two completley different things.

I might think they look ungainly and make my walk less pleasent, and they cost the governmenn.

I'ev seen people given permission, and by a local council of all thnigs. If you put a good thng together, brighten up a run down building even one ready for demolition perhaps, you may well get permission. It's been done.

I'll say it again. I'm not trying to convince or change the legality of it. I'm not looking for excuses. I'm telling you how it is done.

I make that exact assumption because I know it is ture, I know someone will paint somewhere if I don't. When you actually understand how graffiti works, you'll understand why something was painted where it was. I know how kids go out and tag the place up, I know why they don't as well. Besides the fact besides the fact: that's the whole point of this discussion. In a perfect world you would drive your grey car in a straight line and and you would never speed and nobody would be hungry and nobody would have wars and nobody would have any problems. That is not how it is. You cannot stop graffiti. There is no way it will ever die.

Speeding and vandalism are different, but they both have something in common. They are both illegal. Crime is crime, the law is the law. The government can screw you any way they'd like to, but you're touched because it will cost them pocket change to make a wall uglier?

My whole point of getting into this thread was to try and show maybe one person that graffiti can be beautiful. You obviously don't think so. Don't get mad at me for something I did not do. Don't come down on me just because I am speaking up. You fail to see anything positive in it, and I do. That's the bottom line.

So if I walk into a bank and ask nicely if they will give me money and they say no, I should rob them?

There is no creativity in theft, there is no beauty in theft, there is no art in theft, there is no public happiness with theft. If comparing speeding and graffiti was a stretch, comparing bank robbery and graffiti is even more out there.

 

[TB]

My whole point of getting into this thread was to try and show maybe one person that graffiti can be beautiful. You obviously don't think so.

Incorrect. I've seen a lot of graffiti that looks very cool. I don't question the skills behind some of it. My only problem is the canvas - if it's not yours or you ask and the owner says no, leave it alone. Don't justify it with a "If I don't someone else will" and "It's in their budget" attitude. Be the better man. If you like public art, then become a public artist. At least that way, you have permission and a paycheck.

There is no creativity in theft, there is no beauty in theft, there is no art in theft, there is no public happiness with theft. If comparing speeding and graffiti was a stretch, comparing bank robbery and graffiti is even more out there.

And I bet that if you asked a thief, he/she would disagree, just like you are about graffiti.

 

[Famine]

There is no creativity in theft, there is no beauty in theft, there is no art in theft, there is no public happiness with theft.

Out of interest, have you ever watched The Thomas Crowne Affair, Gone in Sixty Seconds, The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven?

 

[Joey D]

Graffti is art as long as you do it on a building with permission, on your own canvas, or just anywhere as long as you have the ok to do it. But it do it on something that isn't your's, or to do it without permission is wrong.

If I came home and someone was painting graffti on my house they would get a punch in the face and then the police called on them, followed by a lawsuit for damages. I can respect anything to be art, but to do it while breaking the law or while being a vandel, I can not respect and you should be punished for such actions.

 

[Kylehnat]

exigeracer made his point intelligently, so I will respect him for that. However, I agree with live4speed completely. Those "beautiful" graffiti might please your eyes, but to some, it just looks dumb. Not everybody appreciates graffiti, no matter how skilled the artist might be. As live4speed said, private or public property, if it does not belong to you,then it's not your decision to decide some wall or underpass looks dull.

👍 That pretty much sums up my opinion.

exigeracer, you say that your art would be pleasant for everyone, but I'm sure that the person who spraypaints "Heroin loves Willow" all over the University District feels the same way.

If you think that your art can only be placed on one canvas (public structures), then you're not really thinking like an artist. You can express your art in other ways. Some of the designs you've posted would look good as a simple print, or on a 3-D medium, like a cube or sphere. Be creative and showcase graffiti painting in a different way.

 

[Dave A]

I'll say it again. I'm not trying to convince or change the legality of it. I'm not looking for excuses. I'm telling you how it is done.

Then you admit it's wrong, yet you still do it. Like I said, you can find legal way's of doing it, if you want to. It takes a bit more effort than just going out with a spray can though.

I make that exact assumption because I know it is ture, I know someone will paint somewhere if I don't. When you actually understand how graffiti works, you'll understand why something was painted where it was. I know how kids go out and tag the place up, I know why they don't as well.

The discussion isn't about you, and only how you do it, it's about graffiti in general. If people didn't do it so much there wouldn't be this problem of if you don't do it someone else will. Well here's an idea, rather than you doing something illegal why don't you let the other guy do it instead, that way no one get's pissed at you.

Besides the fact besides the fact: that's the whole point of this discussion. In a perfect world you would drive your grey car in a straight line and and you would never speed and nobody would be hungry and nobody would have wars and nobody would have any problems. That is not how it is. You cannot stop graffiti. There is no way it will ever die.

In a perfect world there would be no greed either, but none of that makes it right for someone to decide that the owner of a wall doesn't have the right to choose how it looks.

Speeding and vandalism are different, but they both have something in common. They are both illegal. Crime is crime, the law is the law. The government can screw you any way they'd like to, but you're touched because it will cost them pocket change to make a wall uglier?

You keep comparing it to breaking the speed limit, but once your past the idea that both are illegal they're nothing a like, breaking the speed limit does not directly affect anyone else, it can do, but so can crossing the road. Like I said, I'm not sayingbreaking speed limit's is okay, not by any means, but it's nothing like spraying graffiti on someone else's walls.

My whole point of getting into this thread was to try and show maybe one person that graffiti can be beautiful.

It can be, it's not the art that's the problem, as was said before, it's where it's put.

Don't get mad at me for something I did not do. Don't come down on me just because I am speaking up. You fail to see anything positive in it, and I do. That's the bottom line.

I'm not mad at you, I'm just heavilly in dissagreement with what your saying. I can see plenty of positive things in public artwork, but not in painting it on someone's wall without permission.

There is no creativity in theft, there is no beauty in theft, there is no art in theft, there is no public happiness with theft. If comparing speeding and graffiti was a stretch, comparing bank robbery and graffiti is even more out there.

Are you sure?

EDIT: Does anyone think this would be more at home in the opinions forum?

 

[Jay]

Like i said, if someone came to my area and saw the side of my house as a canvas and decided that the art portion was greater than the vandalism portion and painted his art on there I'd kick his head in and if he's lucky, only sue him for the thousands of pounds damage he's done to the value of my house. Even if it did nothing to the value of my house (even though it would, just for arguments sake) I'd still kick his head in because I don't want it there and I never said he could put it there.

Exactly!



For example I might like doing burnouts in my car now I see someones nice clean driveway as canva's for my burnouts...... Weather I like it or not thats not the point its not my property.

People just don't even try to consider it as art

Sure I will see it as art if I'm looking at it on your property or anyones property that consent it, but If I come home and its on my property I wont see art I see red and rage.

Heres a question, exigeracer does every wall (canvas) in your house and all your property have your art on it? (not posted on the wall but actual painted)