"The Art of Graffitti Writing" - Page 3

Ifty · 04-10-2004, 13:49

graffitti makes slums

WillowTheWhisp · 04-10-2004, 13:54

Well it certainly doesn't help does it? Can you see it ever being thought of as an improvement?

Acrylic-bob · 04-10-2004, 14:16

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

Refering to the comment I made earlier about art expressing things that no other media can. What is there in the the picture you post that cannot be expressed in any other way?
All it seems to me to be saying is "I am black, American and disadvantaged, isn't it a shame for me?"
Dead original that one Ceejache! What would be original would be something that described a way out the well of self-pity and self-loathing that most ethnic minorities, sooner or later, seem to end up in.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it is saying "I'm black, American and disadvantaged and what is more I am proud of it!" Which is fair enough. But does holding such a sentiment justify what is, in effect, criminal damage? And does it not also display a level of contempt for society and it's rules that is deeply disturbing?

Darby · 04-10-2004, 15:00

I too noted a couple of similar points A-Bob.....

WillowTheWhisp · 04-10-2004, 15:55

I can't help wondering if the owner of the wall in Cj's post was in favour of the decoration.

Ceejache · 04-10-2004, 17:49

The pictures obviously took a lot of time to produce so I would say that the owner of the wall was well aware of what was going on so I would say that yes it was commissioned.

I can express how I feel by writing those feelings down, or I could write a poem, or a song. I could express myself in all those forms so should I stop writing songs just because I could express myself through prose instead?

"I learn, I go to school" - the mural would seem to be an expression of pride in oneself and self-belief that one can escape the poverty of the ghetto.

WillowTheWhisp · 04-10-2004, 18:33

If it was commissioned it doesn't qualify as graffiti.

In the infants yard of the old Springhill School a mural was commissioned for one wall in order to brighten up the dull andcrumbling surroundings for the children. This was done with the agreement and support of the teachers and governors.

However, those same teachers and governors would be horrified should a similar mural appear on the wall of the brand new school which doesn't need brightening up in such a way.

The former was a type of art the latter would be classed as vandalism - even if it was artistically better than the first.

There are murals on several walls in Morecambe. They are not graffiti. They are murals.

Perhaps the artist who created the image in your post would be offended if he/she knew that you considered it graffiti.

Ceejache · 04-10-2004, 19:08

The artist took the picture himself and posted it on a graffiti website. It was done with a spray can (or ten) so counts as graffiti in that sense, it is also a drawing on a wall so again it qualifies itself as graffiti.

WillowTheWhisp · 04-10-2004, 21:10

What's the website?

Ceejache · 05-10-2004, 07:48

www.graffiti.org I think. There is quite a lot of crap on there though.....

I see I've lost a Karma point because of all this.....I am trying to see the good in something here so whys that eh? Bloody pathetic.....

Ceejache · 05-10-2004, 07:53

"Fighting a losing battle" - at least I'm fighting for something and putting my name to it instead of taking cheap little anonymous potshots.....

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2004, 07:58

Thanks for the website.

Funnily enough when I keyed that in, the title which appeared was "art crimes" which I think just about sums up what most people think of graffiti - criminal damage.

If I have enough spare time I'll have a wade through and see what there is.

I'm putting my name to my opinion too, which is that I don't really think this is something we should be encouraging with workshops.

Ceejache · 05-10-2004, 08:13

Hehehehehe......If people read what I have written they would realise that all I am saying is that it can look good and that some, not all, of the 'artists' have a talent. I agree that most is nothing more than wanton vandalism, but I'd rather worry about other anti-social types of juvenile behaviour - only this morning I find my wing mirror at an obscure angle because I politely asked a couple of lads to play footy somewhere else...after my car was repeatedly hit....graffiti is largely an eyesore but its the thing I least worry about.

Acrylic-bob · 05-10-2004, 08:35

Stick by your guns mate. It would be Bluddy Boring if we all agreed on everything.

I tried sending you some karma, but it won't let me. Pooh!

WillowTheWhisp · 05-10-2004, 10:07

I agree with you Ceejache that some of them have talent but I wish it could be channelled in other directions and not encouraged as graffiti. I sort of suspect too that those with talent wouldn't be interested in a workshop because they probably feel there's nothing of benefit to them whereas it is more likely to attract kids who've never done any graffiti but once they are taught how they then might decide to give it a go in the "real world"

Another interesting point I noticed following up a link from that site - a website whose owner insists that graffiti "artists" should show respect for each other by not painting over someone else's work. What about showing respect for the owner of the wall who probably painted it plain white in the first place?