|
|
that's awesome!
Now start vandalizing your school!
|
Graffti is nothing but vandalism.
|
google banksy it is hard to call what he does vandalism, this on the other hand would be 100% vandalism
|
9070 Posts
On December 13 2010 08:42 Celestii wrote: Graffti is nothing but vandalism.
Graffiti is the art of rebellion - check out guys like above or d-face. I fucking love Street Art, its a great form of expressing your thoughts on society, of being creative and addressing pop culture problems. Simply put, you are just out there - ppl see you. Graffiti is very influential, if it has the right message presented in the most creative, but easy for the guy on the street to understand, way possible.
DivinO, thats really really cool. Keep it up
|
On December 13 2010 08:52 disciple wrote:Graffiti is the art of rebellion - check out guys like above or d-face. I fucking love Street Art, its a great form of expressing your thoughts on society, of being creative and addressing pop culture problems. Simply put, you are just out there - ppl see you. Graffiti is very influential, if it has the right message presented in the most creative, but easy for the guy on the street to understand, way possible. DivinO, thats really really cool. Keep it up Unless the OP is getting permission before spray-painting people's walls, it is vandalism, and calling it "Street Art" is not going to change that.
|
9070 Posts
why? because you are doing smth thats prohibited by the law ?
|
Destroying or defacing private or public property is against the law, yes. It's also vandalism. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Doing something that's prohibited by law as an act of rebellion does not entitle the result to be called "Art."
|
|
I think you're drawing a false dichotomy there, its not either street art or vandalism. Street art made against the will of the property owner is definitely filed under vandalism as well. Sure it can look nice and display powerful meaning, but what of the owner of the property? they now have a defaced wall and depending on whether they want to keep it or not they may have to pay for the cleanup and restoration cost. Graffiti can be beautiful but its oftentimes at the expense of an innocent individual who had no say in the matter.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2010 09:12 disciple wrote:1. Made with the support of the local police and the owner of the property - Street art ![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/Ku5TphpPMPcNye8bRO9uPSOHCpvW-vlswol5Uujia94LGSZl411od-0Uk3kSBCi1LD9ZigL4oN-JLofPGTguHPNAuU4ukHdO/RobinHoodPrint.jpg) 2. Made against the will of the property owner and without the support of the state - vandalism ![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/Ku5TphpPMPcNye8bRO9uPSOHCpvW-vlswol5Uujia94LGSZl411od-0Uk3kSBCi1LD9ZigL4oN-JLofPGTguHPNAuU4ukHdO/RobinHoodPrint.jpg) is that what you are trying to say ? OK I don't know what your deal is but you need to read my post.
Doing something that's prohibited by law as an act of rebellion does not entitle the result to be called "Art." I'm gonna stand by that because in my eyes rebellion does not make something artful. Lighting a car on fire is not artful. At least not when it's someone else's car.
Nowhere did I say that Street Art can't exist. Now, in regards to the image above I would say that one is vandalism and the other is not. That much is obvious. Whether or not either of them is art is up to the individual on the street to decide, but if you are implying that the illegal one is more art than the legal one, i'm worried for you.
|
9070 Posts
so then you see vandalism purely as act of behavior. I mean if the picture explicitly said "made with the support of the owner and the local police" you were going to look at it in an entirely different way. am I right?
|
It's on a pizza box guys, chill.
|
On December 13 2010 09:07 gogogadgetflow wrote: Destroying or defacing private or public property is against the law, yes. It's also vandalism. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Doing something that's prohibited by law as an act of rebellion does not entitle the result to be called "Art."
.... Illegal = Not art?
|
On December 13 2010 09:39 OmgIRok wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 09:07 gogogadgetflow wrote: Destroying or defacing private or public property is against the law, yes. It's also vandalism. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Doing something that's prohibited by law as an act of rebellion does not entitle the result to be called "Art." .... Illegal = Not art?
... Wrong and not what I said at all. Maybe you don't have top notch english comprehension but give me a break.
On December 13 2010 09:29 disciple wrote: so then you see vandalism purely as act of behavior. I mean if the picture explicitly said "made with the support of the owner and the local police" you were going to look at it in an entirely different way. am I right? I didn't post in this thread to be an art critic. I'm here to point out that altering people's property without their permission is vandalism. Not only is it against reasonable laws in most countries but most level-headed people will agree that vandalism is not a cool thing to do to your fellow man.
The most direct answer I can give to your question is that I'm actually going to look at the "artist" in an entirely different way, and the "art" perhaps slightly differently. I'm not really interested in continuing with this interrogation either.
|
That's pretty neat. Would be cool to see. Hopefully somewhere discreet or acceptable - like at a skate park
|
great stencil
keep it up! would love to see some extended work on other races/units
|
9070 Posts
On December 13 2010 09:41 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 09:39 OmgIRok wrote:On December 13 2010 09:07 gogogadgetflow wrote: Destroying or defacing private or public property is against the law, yes. It's also vandalism. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. Doing something that's prohibited by law as an act of rebellion does not entitle the result to be called "Art." .... Illegal = Not art? ... Wrong and not what I said at all. Give me a break. dont worry, I really see where are you coming from, I really do, but that was not my point saying graffiti is the art of rebellion. If you look at graffiti as an act of behavior, then you are absolutely right - just like making a sculpture is nothing more than shaping up a stone or another material. But in both cases I see graffiti and making sculptures as a way to express artistic thought, not as an activity. Vandalism is an activity and I dont see graffiti as an activity, its a tool, its means of saying something. Thats the way street artists see their work, thats the way ppl who enjoy it, look at it.
|
On December 13 2010 09:12 disciple wrote:+ Show Spoiler +1. Made with the support of the local police and the owner of the property - Street art ![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/Ku5TphpPMPcNye8bRO9uPSOHCpvW-vlswol5Uujia94LGSZl411od-0Uk3kSBCi1LD9ZigL4oN-JLofPGTguHPNAuU4ukHdO/RobinHoodPrint.jpg) 2. Made against the will of the property owner and without the support of the state - vandalism ![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/Ku5TphpPMPcNye8bRO9uPSOHCpvW-vlswol5Uujia94LGSZl411od-0Uk3kSBCi1LD9ZigL4oN-JLofPGTguHPNAuU4ukHdO/RobinHoodPrint.jpg) is that what you are trying to say ?
you can almost replicate your analogy with euthansia
killed with the support law = mercy?
killed without the support law = murder?
|
Disciple, please read my last post because I edited in some more.
I dont see graffiti as an activity, its a tool, its means of saying something Perhaps this dissociation alleviates the guilt you would otherwise feel from being a public burden.
|
9070 Posts
On December 13 2010 10:13 gogogadgetflow wrote:Disciple, please read my last post because I edited in some more. Show nested quote + I dont see graffiti as an activity, its a tool, its means of saying something Perhaps this dissociation alleviates the guilt you would otherwise feel from being a public burden.
most of the great graffiti artists are pretty damn good with simple pen and paper, they are using the color sprays because with them, they can reach a brighter audience. is it illegal ? yes ? should that devalue the art itself ? I think not. Many of the top street artists are already on the "other side of the fence", not only they are not chased by the law as ppl who violated public property and as criminals, but they are actually getting paid by different organizations and encouraged to put their work in the public. The end product is absolutely the same as before.
And btw how can you tell apart blowing up a building as an act of terrorism and as act of social revolution? I thought about the ending of Fight Club for some reason.
|
I've watched a lot of graffiti documentaries and movies and there is a lot of illegal that has to be done in order to get to the level where you can move onto legal. You can't just all the sudden come out and be notarized and recognized and sell your work if you haven't made a name for yourself in the streets. Infamy (2005) is a good documentary that follows a few different kinds of writers in different parts of the US to give you some what of an idea.
Graffiti is illegal and the majority of it is damage and crime but there is always bad that comes with the good in anything. Skateboarding/biking/blading are some other examples.
PS- Here is a 200 foot piece in the LA River (which is basically a disgusting ugly place), is this work bothering anyone? I honestly think the crime is the city paying 600$ for each can of paint to buff it.
http://blogging.la/2009/09/04/sabers-world-famous/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbonner/3887856511/
|
On December 13 2010 14:48 SpoR wrote:I've watched a lot of graffiti documentaries and movies and there is a lot of illegal that has to be done in order to get to the level where you can move onto legal. You can't just all the sudden come out and be notarized and recognized and sell your work if you haven't made a name for yourself in the streets. Infamy (2005) is a good documentary that follows a few different kinds of writers in different parts of the US to give you some what of an idea. Graffiti is illegal and the majority of it is damage and crime but there is always bad that comes with the good in anything. Skateboarding/biking/blading are some other examples. PS- Here is a 200 foot piece in the LA River (which is basically a disgusting ugly place), is this work bothering anyone? I honestly think the crime is the city paying 600$ for each can of paint to buff it. http://blogging.la/2009/09/04/sabers-world-famous/http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbonner/3887856511/ Ur back?
|
On December 13 2010 08:44 jamesr12 wrote: google banksy it is hard to call what he does vandalism, this on the other hand would be 100% vandalism
spray painting is just a medium, it's unfair to immediately associate that medium with vandalism. This is not 100% vandalism, it was done on a pizza box we bought from a pizzeria; the stencil was made from a paper plate Divino bought and the image was created with spray paint he legally bought. Nothing about this is vandalism.
|
Why must keyboard warriors so fervently ruin every thread they post in goddammit.
Sick stencil yo ^_^.
|
*Guy posts his cool artwork* *TL manages to derail it into an arguement*
Oh TL, you really can turn anything into a debate.
|
|
|
|