'Graffiti Artists' - hang them or hug them?

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

'Graffiti Artists' - hang them or hug them?

1. Hang them!
11
31%
2. Hug them!
3
9%
3. Leave them be. It's art!
16
46%
4. I have no strong feelings either way. I don't care.
5
14%
 
Total votes : 35

Postby caine » Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:25 pm

check your PM's.

i had a few run ins with the long arm of the law over my painting exploits. :( and boy do they do they their homework when they're pissed off with you!!
caine
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:52 am

Postby Sharon » Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:30 pm

caine wrote:check your PM's.

i had a few run ins with the long arm of the law over my painting exploits. :( and boy do they do they their homework when they're pissed off with you!!


You would really think they had better ways they could use their resources.
Beware of yawning dogs.
User avatar
Sharon
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7492
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:30 am
Location: Galloway

Postby caine » Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:33 pm

::): you would have thought so!
caine
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:52 am

Postby kn0wledge » Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:41 pm

They're too busy doing people for speeding and double-parking.
Eat a ham for Jesus.
User avatar
kn0wledge
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Bonkle (seriously)

Postby caine » Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:25 pm

you seem bitter! :wink:
caine
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:52 am

Postby Sharon » Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:40 pm

Ok, here's a question. Its all very well having personal views and opinions on graffiti. BUT, If you were a policy maker what would your policy on graffiti be?

Would there be any scope for subjective differentiation between styles or quality?
Beware of yawning dogs.
User avatar
Sharon
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7492
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:30 am
Location: Galloway

Postby kn0wledge » Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:45 pm

If I were a policymaker I absolutely would not tolerate graffiti in anywhere other than designated areas. Exactly where I would set up areas for artists, I don't know. But I know that I would.
Eat a ham for Jesus.
User avatar
kn0wledge
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:30 pm
Location: Bonkle (seriously)

Postby duncan » Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:56 pm

my policy would be every major city would have several large walls available to be painted on. these would be in nice visible areas. free use of scaffolding and ladders if the wall was high enough.

rail companies would be actively encouraged to let graffiti artists paint their trains, to keep the commuters happy


when they make me king...
User avatar
duncan
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:54 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby Apollo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:49 pm

On the policy side, I would have to say they wouldn't be tolerated. They are basically vandalising something that belongs to someone else. What they do may well be pleasing and artistic, but why should thay be treated differently for abusing someones else's property simply because they using paint rather than hammers and crowbars.

It may not be ideal, but as stated here, available spaces should be provided for the pastime. It would probably be cheaper than the cleaning that goes on, and would make it clear to offenders that is just what they are.
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby duncan » Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:12 pm

Apollo wrote:What they do may well be pleasing and artistic, but why should thay be treated differently for abusing someones else's property simply because they using paint rather than hammers and crowbars.


this is public art:
Image

this is vandalism:
Image

discuss.
User avatar
duncan
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:54 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby YokerBloke » Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:20 pm

duncan wrote:
Apollo wrote:What they do may well be pleasing and artistic, but why should thay be treated differently for abusing someones else's property simply because they using paint rather than hammers and crowbars.


this is public art:
Image

this is vandalism:
Image

discuss.
I'd rather have both than the usual crap scrawled over the walls. I couldnt give a flying fuck who 'Johnny C' is or who fucked who (allegedly)
http://www.tracertong.co.uk
User avatar
YokerBloke
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:05 pm
Location: Ma hoose

Postby Apollo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:09 pm

duncan wrote:discuss.


What's the criteria for classing the second as vandalism?

I guess the Calton mural was commisioned and permission given to put it on the gable.

The second (dragon?) is neat and as a art, public or otherwise, is fine (agreed it is certainly better than Johnny C etc.) However, if it appeared on my wall one night, I would expect whoever placed it there to be treated in the same was as if they had spent the night cheseling the rendering off. Just because their destruction of the (my) wall happens to look nice, does not make said destruction of my wall any less. I will have to pay the same to have it restored whether thay painted a nice picture on it, or threw the paint at it.

Just complicate matters further, this is a principle thing. If they asked before they did it, I might say "Yes thanks", and be happy to live with it.
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby caine » Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:12 am

i would ban it all completely, a zero tollerance system, you get caught, you get charged, as there's no easy way of defining "art" and "vandalism" to the people who make these laws. setting up legal walls would be good, but unfortunately the graffitti scene is full of idiots who think bombing and tagging is art and dont respect other painters piece's.

if business's want to allow people to paint walls then fine, let the artists do the work and get permission from the owners, its what we had to do, and sorts the people who have a passion for it from the ones who dont, because often as not, they dont have the skills to pull off such a piece.
caine
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:52 am

Postby Sharon » Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:15 pm

Interesting. And I suppose probaly obvious where policy really has to be.

You can't ever condone the subjective "vandalism" of peoples property. Therefore unsolicited (no permission granted or sought) graffiti is essentially wrong. Doesn't stop some of it being stunning. But is the property owner didnt grant permisioion ...well...

But then we live in a society with soooooooo many rules...... is zero tolerance the answer?
Beware of yawning dogs.
User avatar
Sharon
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7492
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:30 am
Location: Galloway

Postby turbozutek » Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:04 pm

Sharon wrote:But then we live in a society with soooooooo many rules...... is zero tolerance the answer?


Zero Tolerance = Zero Thought, Zero Common Sense.

Stupidity.

That applies to most concepts of 'Zero Tolerance'.

Chris...
User avatar
turbozutek
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:56 pm
Location: Central

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests