"The Art of Graffitti Writing"

[Busman747]

Originally Posted by Ceejache

Graffiti when done properly ie. not just a tag, is in my view an art. I am against idiotic scrawlings of the form "I was 'ere Y2K+4" and all that but I have seen great pieces too.

Sorry Ceejache, I for one look upon Graffiti as vandalism pure and simple no matter how good it is! If I want to see a work of art, I go to a gallery, I don't want it staring down at me as soon as I leave the house. You say it is "not just a tag" but that is ALL it is. Most of these "artists" practice for months or years to get their own pretty pattern and then paint it on every conceivable wall they can but the majority are incapable of changing what they spray. That is not art, its "paint by numbers" doing the same design time and time again.

If they are truly artistic, there are so many ways that skill can be channelled but Graffiti is not one of them.

[Ifty]

It should not be encouraged. They can learn better art but not to do this.

[Ceejache]

Sorry but thats not all graffiti is I'm afraid. If people have just seen tag graffiti then I can understand their views, but if you have seen other graffiti then you would maybe have a different opinion. Why is Jackson Pollack (sp?) considered art but not graffiti - they both look the same to my eye. Maybe HBC should encourage kids to do some installations in the style of Hirst or Ermine (sp?...again)?

No-one wants to see it shoved down their throats and daubed everywhere myself included, but I think a responsible channelling or these energies is better than doing nothing.

[Busman747]

Ceejache, I never thought I would agree with you on this particular thread but all of a sudden, I want the HBC to start this project.

I noticed today that directly opposite the council offices, there is a brick wall which would be ideal for the paint dabbers! It would give me so much pleasure knowing that those stuck-up office workers could look down out of their windows every morning and admire what you consider to be "Art!"

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Ceejache

Why is Jackson Pollack (sp?) considered art but not graffiti - they both look the same to my eye.

Personally I don't consider what Jackson Pollock has created to be worthy of the title "art" either. I sometimes wonder if it isn't a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Maybe the definition of art should be that it is on a canvas or something similar which can be placed wherever the owner of it wishes to place it (within their own premises) wheras graffitti is forced upon us whether we want it or not and most cases it is 'not' and daubed upon the premises of those who do not want it by people who have no right to do so.

[Bazf]

n. pl. graf·fi·ti (-t)

A drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public. Often used in the plural.


[Italian, diminutive of graffio, a scratching, scribble, probably from graffiare, to scratch, scribble, probably from Vulgar Latin *graphire, to write with a stylus, from Latin graphium, stylus, from Greek grapheion, graphion, from graphein, to write. See gerbh- in Indo-European Roots.]

Usage Note: The word graffiti is a plural noun in Italian. In English graffiti is far more common than the singular form graffito and is mainly used as a singular noun in much the same way data is. When the reference is to a particular inscription (as in There was a bold graffiti on the wall), the form graffito would be etymologically correct but might strike some readers as pedantic outside an archaeological context. There is no substitute for the singular use of graffiti when the word is used as a mass noun to refer to inscriptions in general or to the related social phenomenon. The sentence Graffiti is a major problem for the Transit Authority Police cannot be reworded Graffito is... (since graffito can refer only to a particular inscription) or Graffiti are... (which suggests that the police problem involves only the physical marks and not the larger issue of vandalism). In such contexts, the use of graffiti as a singular is justified by both utility and widespread precedent.


art1 A drawing or painting on paper,canvas or material that can be hung
or placed on a wall, stand or implement for that purpose.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. 1. <LI type=a>The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. <LI type=a>The study of these activities.
   2. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Well there's an obvious distinction between the two, and the reference to the police in the context of Graffiti re-affirms the popular conception that it is a social problem/vandalism.

If any of you consider it art ask yourself how you would feel if one of the artists decided to decorate your house wall without your consent. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer of constantly trying to clean up after these "artists".

[Ceejache]

If I was to come home and find the Mona Lisa painted onto the side of my house I would still be annoyed, as I would be if the Medici Quartet started playing Vivaldi outside my house at four in the morning.

[Acrylic-bob]

Where then, is the difference? As Sartre points out, "Hell, is other people."

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Ceejache

If I was to come home and find the Mona Lisa painted onto the side of my house I would still be annoyed.

I said those very same words myself only this weekend.

The thing about graffiti is that it isn't commissioned art. It is painted where people don't want it by people who have no right to do so.

[Acrylic-bob]

Do we really want to encourage this? Is this really an asset to the built environment?

[Ceejache]

I agree its a nuisance where people dont want it - I have never said otherwise. I just think people are failing to see the art in a piece of well done 'proper' graffiti - the first picture above (toilet doors) is not a good example of that, the others aren't clever either but hint at what can be achieved.

[Acrylic-bob]

Sorry mate, but I think we are going to have to agree to differ on this one.

[Ceejache]

Each to their own and all that....no worries!

Have a look at this though.....I would say that the artist had a talent.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I don't say that artist hasn't got talent just that it should be put to use elsewhere other than on walls, unless specifically commissioned by the owner of a building as a mural.

Do you seriously think the graffiti workshop is referring to things like that? I suspect it would be more akin to the illustrations posted by A-b above.