SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

Graffiti has been on my mind lately. Partially because it is awesome and partially because some jerks graffitied the big green signs over the highway that say eastbound exit and stuff like that a couple of weeks ago.

I think it is a great art and should be made legal under some conditions.

Must be in alleys or in places that the majority of tourists wont see
must not swear
and no nudity - thanks fred i forgot about this

when i'm talking about swearing i don't mean hell or ass i mean stuff worse than fuck.

All it is is a form of self expression. It doesn't hurt anybody. and if it is legal then cities wont have to spend money to buy paint to cover it up

so what are your thoughts

Joined: Jan 18 2009 Location: NYork Posts: 118

I'm gonna draw a penis on your house

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Mar 08 2009 07:17 pm

Quote:

All it is is a form of self expression. It doesn't hurt anybody. and if it is legal then cities wont have to spend money to buy paint to cover it up

You are WRONG. It is destruction of property. And if it's done on a public fixture, it's destruction of MY property, since my tax money pays for it and pays to fix it.

That said...it really depends on what it is. If it's actually art, then it's kind of cool. And I have a perverse kind of appreciation for someone who manages to get a tag on a place that seems impossible to get to. But just spraying your name on the side of the bulding is just like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. And about as attractive. And artistic.

And for the record, if you get the permission of the property owner, it IS legal.

Posted: Mar 08 2009 07:18 pm

Actually, I think in theory that would be a good idea. Some of the graffiti I've seen is good enough to be a mural or artwork.

In practice, it would be hard to enforce, and the guys who write ugly, stupid shit are gonna feel put-upon and possibly retaliate.

Still, I don't think a rule that allows certain kinds of graffiti under certain circumstances is necessarily a bad thing.

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote:

All it is is a form of self expression. It doesn't hurt anybody. and if it is legal then cities wont have to spend money to buy paint to cover it up

You are WRONG. It is destruction of property. And if it's done on a public fixture, it's destruction of MY property, since my tax money pays for it and pays to fix it.

That said...it really depends on what it is. If it's actually art, then it's kind of cool. And I have a perverse kind of appreciation for someone who manages to get a tag on a place that seems impossible to get to. But just spraying your name on the side of the bulding is just like a dog pissing on a fire hydrant. And about as attractive. And artistic.

And for the record, if you get the permission of the property owner, it IS legal.

This is why i said to put it in alleys or behind buildings

I do agree with you on the name thing. Just painting your name holds no value. but if you do it in style with different colors and stuff then its worth it.

Posted: Mar 08 2009 08:17 pm

Fred wrote:

I'm gonna draw a vagina on your face

Posted: Mar 08 2009 10:32 pm

As an artist/art student, I have a profound appreciation for graffiti. I'm a huge fan of Banksy's work and I'm considering doing some of my own, only because all the graffiti in this town is done in sharpie in some font that is completely unreadable.

Posted: Mar 08 2009 10:38 pm

Well, let's look at this logically. Let's start with the PSP.

FACT: The PSP is a vapid, stupid piece of trash.
FACT: Sony used graffiti to advertise the PSP.

Ergo, graffiti is vapid and stupid, and only vapid, stupid cunts (e.g. Sony executives) think it's cool.

#edit: Ross Rifile is exempt from the previous statement.
##edit: hacker, your signature is too long by three lines. Please shorten it. This is a formal warning.

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Mar 08 2009 10:59 pm

I like graffiti. It's the only form of entertainment I get while waiting in my car for the train to roll through town.

Posted: Mar 08 2009 11:01 pm

In nearby St. Louis, people kept making graffiti on the walls surrounding a river next to the Arch, so the city paid said artists to make "nice" grafitti on the walls.

I personally have mixed feelings about graffiti; some is absolutely beautiful, while others, like Ross said, looks like someone just wrote their name on a wall using a sharpie in the most generic font possible.

Joined: Oct 12 2007 Posts: 821

figured this was appropriate for this thread

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I think if we classify calligraphy and any other transcription as art, then graffiti should be allowed. People go out of their way to create elaborate writings as a form of talented expression. I consider all of it to be art, but I will debate whether or not each individual is good or bad art depending on different views.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 12:47 am

I think some graffiti actually looks pretty good. The stuff that is just a name that I can't read I think looks lame. Tagging I think is dumb, but some graffiti murals look pretty damned good. I agree that it is illegal unless you of course get permission of course.

I remember in high school watching a documentary in an anthropology class about graffiti. Some of the stuff that was shown were amazing pieces of art. There was one quote from the movie I remember. It was something like "If you want to know what happens in a city...read the writing on the walls."

Posted: Mar 09 2009 02:07 am

haha thanks for the exception there Syd.

I wish that the graffiti in Chilliwack had more to it. For the most part, unless you know where to look, it's all sharpie tags, which is gay (now, there are certain people here who recall a certain thread and will call me a hypocrite, but that's not the case). There's three spots in town to see good graffiti, and one of them has been painted over. I kinda want to look into adding some flair to this town, maybe get a buddy or two and just run around town doing shit, Basquiat style.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 02:07 am

This is dumb.

Graffiti is the expression of those who wish to make a mark on the place they live. You can't declare half of it art and drop the other, they're both the raw feelings of the people living there for good or ill.

Graffiti is property damage. If the owner of the wall likes it, he doesn't press charges and its not a crime. Not all art is valuable, not everyone wants their business or house to be turned into an impromptu mural for the feelings of an angry kid or the messageboard for rival gangs. The fate of graffiti is to erased, just like its authors and everything else. Take it like a zen garden thing.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 02:10 am

I like that Gumshoe. Maybe, instead of legalizing or enforcing against graffiti, we should just learn to live in harmony. Like, sure, go ahead and paint on that wall, but it's gonna be gone tomorrow!

I dunno. But for me, the fear of getting arrested is a huge deterrent.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 08:25 am

hacker wrote:

All it is is a form of self expression. It doesn't hurt anybody. and if it is legal then cities wont have to spend money to buy paint to cover it up

No, all it is is a form of vandalism and destruction of property.
It does hurt people, because it hurts whoever's property it was done to.
In many cases cities don't have to spend money to cover it up, because it's done on private property. You want it to be legal in alleys? That means you want people to legally be able to graffiti the side of my work, and I'm telling you they absolutely should not. Private property is not your fucking canvas. It costs the property owners time and money to get it removed, and it lowers property values because 1. it looks like shit and 2. it's a clear indication that there is crime in the area (Even if there isn't other crime, there's THAT crime).

As for places that pay for "nice" graffiti, that's not the sort of stuff I would want where I live.

And hacker, the first thing you say is that graffiti is awesome, but then you say that jerks graffitied green signs on the highway. So graffiti is awesome, but the people who do it are jerks? Your first statement is really contradictory.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 09:21 am

"Nice" graffiti is generally referred to as murals. There's that warehouse-y building in Boston that has a whale painted on the side of it. Like, the entire side.

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

hacker wrote:

All it is is a form of self expression. It doesn't hurt anybody. and if it is legal then cities wont have to spend money to buy paint to cover it up

No, all it is is a form of vandalism and destruction of property.
It does hurt people, because it hurts whoever's property it was done to.
In many cases cities don't have to spend money to cover it up, because it's done on private property. You want it to be legal in alleys? That means you want people to legally be able to graffiti the side of my work, and I'm telling you they absolutely should not. Private property is not your fucking canvas. It costs the property owners time and money to get it removed, and it lowers property values because 1. it looks like shit and 2. it's a clear indication that there is crime in the area (Even if there isn't other crime, there's THAT crime).

As for places that pay for "nice" graffiti, that's not the sort of stuff I would want where I live.

And hacker, the first thing you say is that graffiti is awesome, but then you say that jerks graffitied green signs on the highway. So graffiti is awesome, but the people who do it are jerks? Your first statement is really contradictory.

not all of the people who graffiti are jerks. Just the ones who graffitied the green signs because that can cause some danger.

and if not making it legal in alleys why not just designate a wall or something that is out of the way to be legal for graffiti

Posted: Mar 09 2009 09:46 am

Yeah, I've seen murals before, and for some businesses or public parks or something if they want it that's fine, but I think it makes the area look cheap.

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

It only makes it look cheap if it isn't good

Posted: Mar 09 2009 10:37 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Yeah, I've seen murals before, and for some businesses or public parks or something if they want it that's fine, but I think it makes the area look cheap.

Maybe in the suburbs. But in the city, where everything is fucking gray all year round, they add much needed color.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Hacker, do you know how much it costs to buy a building? Do you have ANY fucking idea? Property, commercial or residential, is fucking INSANELY expensive.

Under no circumstances should an individual have the authority to alter another person's property. I believe this so strongly that I would actually argue to allow the owner to defend their property with the use of deadly force. Also, alley ways are just the space between buildings. Those buildings are owned.

Graffiti and other art done with the permission of the property owner is fine.

A side thought... perhaps deadly force is a bit too far, but they should have to pay to clean it up.

I was just thinking that my RAWR thread may have been some form of virtual graffiti and I would prefer if Syd didn't kill me.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 11:04 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Yeah, I've seen murals before, and for some businesses or public parks or something if they want it that's fine, but I think it makes the area look cheap.

Maybe in the suburbs. But in the city, where everything is fucking gray all year round, they add much needed color.

It was more suburbs that I was talking about, as that's where I've lived my entire life.

Posted: Mar 09 2009 11:14 am

Well, when do you ever see murals in the suburbs? Never. The only places I've ever seen them are Chelsea, Boston, and possibly Revere, all of which severely need them.