UKC

As I mentioned on the capital punishment thread, there are instances of graffiti writers being sentenced to longer prison sentences than those who have sexually abused children. Obviously that is extreme and ludicrous, but I find it interesting how negatively society at large perceives graffiti.

I don't really understand it. It's often fairly self-policing - it's not considered the done thing to vandalise private property, for example, or go around painting dicks on walls, and if left to flourish it usually blooms into vibrant art that gives the whole area colour. I must declare I'm biased - I love colour and creativity in my world, and I think the subculture behind graffiti is fascinating and quite brilliant. And I've heard more than one young person say when interviewed that falling into graffiti kept them from falling into gang crime in their youth.

People are always going to graffiti - but if it's always risky and walls get "buffed" quickly, all you'll end up with is the very sort of graffiti that most people least enjoy - tags and other quick things. You won't get the art, and you'll spend a huge amount of money in the process.
 
I'm quite interested to hear how the average UKCer perceives graffiti. 
  
(I was going to attach a few photos of what you can have if you let it be, but "server says no" so I shall try again tomorrow.)

In reply to tehmarks:

I you like graffiti you should move to Madrid. 

Almost all the bare vertical surfaces of motorway infrastructure are  are covered in 'TAGS'.  (Think odd shaped letters/names in multiple colours and shapes).  Nothing escapes these polluters.   Private property? They don't care.  Mile after mile of tags. on every surface including the fences on properties backing onto the road network.

I gather a few of them have received Darwin awards when they've either fallen off overpasses or were simply smeared across the road in underpasses and other dangerous places.
Any newly created surface or one thats been cleaned off simply gets sprayed over during the night by the taggers.

In reply to tehmarks:

I do like to see graffiti that is interesting and original, I think it does improve the urban landscape. I remember being struck by works that I later found out were by Banksy, and thinking that if all graffiti were this good it would be a positive thing.

But, this sort of graffiti is about 0.001% of the total. The other 99.999% is mindless vandalism by morons with nothing to say beyond a desperate urge to stand out from their equally worthless peers. It's a blight on our lives and it's a depressing experience to be surrounded by it. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Cocks and graffiti on private property is commonplace 

In reply to tehmarks:

Massive fan. This is my favourite ever piece, 2 Whole Cars in Straight Letters and Wild Style by Duster Lizzie, photographed in The Bronx in 1982 by Martha Cooper.

In reply to Billhook:

Setting aside the vandalism/art debate, I must confess to being incredibly impressed by some of the inaccessible locations where graffiti appears. I imagine the motivation and psychology involved is very similar to making first ascents in the climbing world.

In reply to tehmarks:

I can’t think of any graffiti in our town that has any merit at all.
In fact the tags that get drawn on the lovely Victorian red brick tunnel that I walk through regularly really annoy me, just mindless ugly vandalism.

In reply to Andypeak:

I used to do a long run in Manchester. Down the Mersey and back up a canal path, behind Man Utd. On my way back I was always broken and hobbling. There was a bridge by the canal with the words 'Soapy Tit W*nk" in meter high letters. That always made me smile.

In reply to tehmarks:

If they've got permission to paint on a surface that's great. If not, it's a lack of respect for other people's property.

If not policed it would get out of hand. 

In reply to montyjohn:

I agree

An interesting punishment for doing it without permission on private property would be to go and do graffiti on THEIR place and see how they like that

Rant over

In reply to profitofdoom:

They are probably kids so don't have their own place. So it would have to be their face.

In reply to tehmarks:

I pass a graffiti wall in Manchester (Salford technically) on many lunchtime walks by the river. It's bright and noticeable and a completely different language to anything I understand - I have trouble even making out any letters let alone words in the various graffiti "typefaces".

But it's ok there, it's not spoiling a beautiful place and it doesn't obviously seep beyond that particular wall - which is long enough for about a dozen works.

Next time I actually see someone creating one, I might actually stop and ask them about their art - because whether we like it or not, that's what it is.

In reply to montyjohn:

Led Zeppelin did a concept album about this

In reply to tehmarks:

A couple of great pieces from an underpass near me in Nottingham. It's a shame this is out of the way as it's brilliant and should be seen by more people.  I've no idea if they've been done with permission or not.

The second one is a good example of 'good' graffiti and bad.  The detailed image on the bottom shows imagination and technique.  And above it a load of scribble that's not pleasing to anyone.

So, it depends one the quality of the work and the location.

David

In reply to dread-i:

Many years ago when I was far more immature (I'm definitely all grown up now honest) a few of us had a Facebook group called "the Wanksy appreciation society" where we just shared photos of cock and balls graffiti. It still makes me laugh a bit every time I see some

In reply to Andypeak:

You'll enjoy this then if you missed it at the time..
https://www.livescience.com/roman-penis-graffiti-stone-uk

In reply to tehmarks:

That’s insane, no wonder Banksy keeps his head down

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

The second picture sums up my view.  The lower picture of the skull is art and I like that sort of thing, in the right place.  But the tagging above the skull isn’t art, looks terrible and ruins everything.

In reply to tehmarks:

I'm not a fan of the scribbly/tag sort of graffiti but as someone interested in the past, old graffiti is extremely interesting and informative. It allows ordinary people to speak across the centuries and tell us so much about their world view. The fact that they weren't even intending to do this makes it all the more extraordinary. The inner oldgit in me still finds modern graffiti dismaying. There were some very witty ones in the student union toilets when I was a lad though.

In reply to afx22:

There are more examples of the artist's stuff here...

https://kid30.smallkid.co.uk/about

In reply to afx22:

Though presumably some small subset of the scribbly tags are early efforts by people who eventually go on to create really worthwhile pieces. Not necessarily a justification for inflicting those early efforts on the general public, just that I think there's more of a spectrum from one to the other that some people probably develop along, rather than binary categories of graffiti artists who add value and graffiti vandals who just wreck surfaces.

In reply to tehmarks:

A post I made on FB in 2016:

Walked into town this evening, to get some breakfast cereal. On the way home, I spotted some f**ktard 'tagging' a building with a cretinous scrawl in red spray paint.

So I went over and asked him what he was doing. "It's complicated". "No it isn't; it's criminal damage. Someone will have to pay to clean that up. Why did you do it? Is it marking your territory?" "Yeah, I'm marking my territory." "It's not your territory. You don't need to mark your territory. Have some respect"

He was about 35. He's not f**king Banksy; it was a pathetic, self-indulgent daub.

I didn't do what I have sometimes contemplated, and grab the spray can and spray it all over his clothes. To see how he likes having his property damaged.

In reply to captain paranoia:

On the other hand, I have admired some excellent pieces of graffiti art. But the pathetic, self-indulgent daubs dominate.

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

I dont actually mind stuff like the three artworks which shows actual talent, and probably covered up some meaningless, mindless scrote scribbles (see above the skull).

There is a disused Newark to Bingham rail way where I walk the dog and which has a number of old victorian roadbridges. Someone with talent took it upon themselves to adorn them with various artworks of incredible quality, presumably with permission given the time it mist have taken.

It took a matter of weeks before the scrotes reappear and overspray with crappy tags, prat-woz-ere daubings, and spiteful vandalism (the irony, vandalising the 'vandalising'). There's one common tag which you see on junction boxes, fences, walls, all over Newark which also appeared on a home and someone's wall in my residential area and this covers the artwork too.

The mind boggles

In reply to tehmarks:

When it's good it's awesome, when it's bad and just for the sake of it it's utterly dire!

Birmingham, in fact I believe the whole country and in to France if memory serves me right, is plagued by 'Lupo- Ca' who thrives on leaving his tag absolutely anywhere and it does nothing in terms of creative use of space, bringing colour, being thoughtful/disruptive.

It's just sh*t!

And the bloke doing it must be well in to his relative dotage now as I've seen it for a good few decades across Brum.

In reply to tehmarks:

Spotted this in a dark alleyway in Gloucester

In reply to tehmarks:

Some of the wonderful little dears tagged the **** out of holmfirth cliff a few years back. It's still not recovered and that's after lots of money and time expended on sorting it. If it was just underpasses and skateparks fine, but it's everywhere now

In reply to tehmarks:

In Glasgow there is the mural trail. I often look at the murals and wonder where graffiti stops and "art" or "murals" start. Some of the murals do have a sort of graffiti style to them.

I sometimes like graffiti, sometimes don't. I think context and skill level both play a big part in whether it seems worthwhile or not

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

Is this under the A52 where it passes over the Trent, or somewhere else?

In reply to tehmarks:

Reading's taggers have gone a bit meta...

In reply to Alkis:

That's the one - under Clifton Bridge/the flyover that takes you off the A52 and onto Queens Drive. If I'm running a 10k loop in the summer I sometimes head that way.

In reply to Andypeak:

I can't find the article now, but I read a great story about the discovery of what was thought to be the oldest cave paintings ever discovered. So, as far as we know the first graffiti in human history. The paintings include a cock and balls.

In reply to tehmarks:

I like this one

In reply to tehmarks:

Another one

In reply to tehmarks:

You're suggesting that graffiti is art. Its not

If I want art, I'll go to a gallery. I don't have that choice with graffiti.

In reply to birdie num num:

What's your take on architecture?

In reply to broken spectre:

The same as my take on art really

In reply to birdie num num:

Yes.

In reply to broken spectre:

Really?

In reply to Wimlands:

But after a thousand years or so it could end up being rather important. Just look at the the graffii at Maweshoe which can be summed up (mostly) as "bored young lads waiting for the weather to clear".

Require them to use an axe, ice or other, maybe?

In reply to Michael Hood:

A couple of the photos below are along the River Irwell as you come out of Salford. The entire river path is end-to-end graffiti, most of it really quite good. I imagine that's at least partially because it's not a spot where one is likely to be "rumbled" and chased off down the street and people can chill and take their time.. 

In reply to birdie num num:

If I want advertising, I will turn on ITV - but I don't have that choice if I go virtually anywhere outside.

In reply to birdie num num:

Are you opposed to any kind of public art then? No sculptures or statues in any public space?

I don't know much about art myself, but I'd say some of the pictures posted on this thread are a damn site more interesting than some of the junk in the Tate Modern.

In reply to Dexter:

Yeah I expect so. The level of passion some people have for putting their name on walls is really quite fascinating. 

In reply to wilkie14c:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jun/21/my-secret-life-graffit... 

In reply to Hooo:

Rothko, anyone...?

In reply to tehmarks: 

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/58/3/511/4056547?login=false

This is a really interesting bit of acaedmic writing on graffiti that I read recently. If nothing else it makes a good attempt at explaining the culture.

In reply to Hooo:

No, of course not. There's some fantastic street art in Berlin. But I wouldn't class it as graffiti. Anyway, it's all a bit subjective. Personally I think Banksy is crap. It's not cutting edge, it just relies on a bit of popular political/social satire that you that you might get in any newspaper cartoon. It could never match the likes of Schiele or Oppenheimer for avant garde.

Nobody can choose what they have to look at when they go outside, that's just a pointless discussion. I was answering the OP's question on my (personal) perception of graffiti. The vast majority of it is just crap vandalism 

In reply to birdie num num:

An example of Berlin street art

In reply to captain paranoia:

I'm impressed that anyone could come out of the Rothko room at Tate Modern thinking that it was uninteresting. Oppressive, tragic, frightening, disturbing I could understand - but boring? Oh well, each to their own.

In reply to tehmarks:

I liked this one that just popped up in the news.  https://news.sky.com/story/viral-video-of-grandmother-caught-in-shop-shutte...

In reply to birdie num num:

I agree that the vast majority of graffiti is mindless vandalism, I said so up thread. But when it comes to the good stuff you're just being elitist. That Berlin picture is great, but if that's art then so are the other examples on his thread. Popular art might not be cutting edge, but it's still art. 

In reply to birdie num num:

Now that is a whole world away from the mindless territorial pissing that most graffiti looks like to me. However, that giant angst-ridden face just instills in me a horrible vision of Orwellian menace and threat. It's not what I'd like to encounter day after day if I had to live there. Pretty much all of the other examples I've seen on this thread also dismay me in some way. I don't regularly encounter concrete underpasses but looking at something that seems like someone else's nightmare vision won't cheer me up. I know beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder but to me they are ugly. I would prefer scenes of forests and hills with tinkling streams running through lamb pastures.

In reply to Lankyman:

Like this, on South Crofty mine after its closure in the mid 90s:

 

In reply to mbh:

Exactly. I assume the wall is long gone so the photograph becomes the only record of a heartfelt question that was so crucial to many people at the time.

In reply to captain paranoia:

If Rothko went around doing graffiti, no one would even notice, they'd just think it was a badly painted wall. 😂

In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

Another instance where climbing and graffiti have quite literally come into contact would be the boulders at Dumbarton. The names of routes and their descriptions were often defined by the graffiti. Way back when I climbed there it very much formed part of the intimidating atmosphere I felt surrounded the place. A bleak post-industrial landscape, difficult climbing and always the threat of being chased away by stone throwing neds. None of the graffiti could really be described as artistic, but some of it did have historical significance.  Interesting background story to it here, before some of it was removed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18841808

In reply to Hooo:

Elitist?! No. I was just answering the OP. The vast majority of graffiti has no artistic merit at all (in my opinion) 

But im not telling you what to think.

In reply to tehmarks:

Wow, great answer. Round of applause.

OP: I’ve grown to love well done street art, I often pass graffiti artists hard at it around the end of the Union Canal in Edinburgh. Their work has transformed what would otherwise be hundreds of metres of ugly timber shutters. There’s some under the old stone bridges as well, I’d rather that there wasn’t but as it’s done well I confess that I quite like it. I took a lot of photos of it during lockdown walks, it added a lot of interest.

As for tagging initials on a building or the side of someone else’s van, well it’s clearly not as deserving of jail time as abusing kids is, but many hours of community service and a metaphorical boot in the knackers is warranted.

In reply to tehmarks:

Upvote for the post above. Tagging is **** but graffiti art is as good or bad as the artist. Some is fantastic and greatly improves and area, some isn't so great.

No graffiti thread would be complete without a respectful mention to that great graffiti artist who launched it from obscurity to a celebrated enfant terrible of the art world, the neo expressionist Jean-Michel Basquiat! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Basquiat. Here's Banksy's homage painted on a wall (I used to walk through there at the time and saw them appeared on morning) in an underpass timed just before an exhibition on Basquiat opened nearby https://banksyexplained.com/basquiat-murals-2017/

Enjoy.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_and_Dog_in_a_Johnnypump

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Eye of the beholder, and all that.

I don't find them oppressive, tragic, frightening or disturbing; I think that's what you're bringing to it.

I'm with Hooo on this one.

In reply to birdie num num:

Yes, damn those people spreading art, what next? guerilla music, guerilla gardening (e.g. wildflower planted in public places) people leaving paperback books on trains for others to read. 

Is there no end to this altruistic madness...? Madness I say!!!

In reply to CantClimbTom:

Isn't it a little early to be pissed?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Well, one does have to bring something of oneself to abstract expressionism - or any abstract art, come to that. The viewing experience is an emotional and intellectual interaction between the artwork and the beholder. If you bring nothing, you'll get nothing. But you may well think that's just pollocks.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I may as well stare at a wall, then...

In reply to tehmarks:

We are spoiled for it in Bristol; we have festivals to celebrate it and even a local primary school recently got a couple of street artists in to liven up the walls. We don’t really notice poor graffiti like basic tags any more. It’s  very engaging; my children don’t know any different and in Dijon recently my 8 year old mentioned that some good graffiti would help liven up the place. 

In reply to tehmarks:

I worked in Cergy Pontoise outside Paris for quite a while, and used to take the metro and the RER. I was always fascinated watching all the tags out of the window, and on the times I got a lift or a taxi out, seeing the same tags on the motorway bridges. There wasn’t any great art to be seen, unlike the walk into Chamonix past the swimming pool where there was often some stunning pieces of work.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I did say it was an interaction - ie a two-way process -  but I'm labouring the point now. Do you like any abstract art? Please tell me you at least acknowledge Kandinsky as the greatest painter since Tintoretto.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

And, as I said, eye of the beerholder. I don't feel any need to stare at an abstract daub to evoke thoughts about life, the universe & everything.

Not really into abstract art, no. The original works and artist's prints I have collected are more figurative.

And Kandinsky? No. A bit of a mixed bag.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Well, if you're always under the influence of alcohol when you look at art, no wonder you don't appreciate abstraction. Try it sober.

In reply to tehmarks:

At risk of presenting as a pompous buffoon and a deluded fool and egotist here's a little sketch I just went and did that won't stand up to too much scrutiny (although I'm pleased with the 'C') but I like to think it would cheer me up briefly if it flew past through a train window...

I give it 8.5/10 your opinion will probably differ.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Well I don't appear to possess anything suitable to bring along to a viewing of abstract expressionism, so I just get nothing. I suspect that a large proportion of the population are similarly lacking, so, to get back to the thread subject, public art should probably be of the kind that doesn't require viewers to bring stuff along.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Art appreciation is entirely personal. That's my point. The 'beerholder' was trying to keep it lighthearted, but you seem to have opted to be a dick. I'm out.

In reply to captain paranoia:

My reply was meant to be equally light-hearted. I certainly don't agree that art appreciation is entirely personal but I do agree this isn't going anywhere.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Okay; my apologies for the 'dick' comment, then.

Art is entirely subjective. There is no objectively 'good' or 'bad' art. That means that it is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

The technical skill or craft used to perform art is more amenable to being characterised as good or bad (but even that's pretty hard to measure), but that's not art; it's craft. And separating the selection of a craft style from and art style blurs that measure; the draughtmanship skill of, say, the pre-Raphaelites (or, Tomasz Mro, to use one of my local artists) would not be applicable to something like Lowry's work. Or Rothko's.

If you want to get into the realm of someone telling you that some particular art is good, or how art should be appreciated, then I'm afraid you're into "emperor's new clothes", and "you don't understand it because you haven't spent enough time studying it/you're cognitively impaired through drink/not clever enough" territory; that's not a good place to go, IMHO.

Yes, there's a whole industry telling you what art is good, and selling you 'good art', and another academic industry of art appreciation, but I'm not sure there's any validity in either; it's emperor's new clothes.

Then again, I never understood the point of analysing books in 'english literature', or spending hours studying paintings; I read the books, and look at pictures. Sometimes I like them, sometimes I don't. When I walk around a gallery, it's usually pretty quick. The pieces I have bought have always stood out immediately as something I like, and I have bought them immediately, without much further thought. I like them. I buy them. The last one I bought, the gallery owner asked me what I liked about it. "I have no idea". I replied. Something undefinable. I'm not sure I gain anything by trying to understand why I like what I like.

In reply to broken spectre:

A couple of finishing touches.

Mods: I can (and do) work for chicken feed 

In reply to broken spectre:

I think with your talent, you could probably be the next Rolf Harris

In reply to birdie num num:

Unnecessary.

In reply to broken spectre:

He was a good artist.

In reply to birdie num num:

You're welcome.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Totally agree with all your points. You get the same thing with music - I don't bother with anyone who thinks that there is objectively good music, as I can pretty much guarantee I won't like anything they recommend.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Our ideas about art are diametrically opposed. I find it fascinating to analyse the complex and subtle techniques by which artists in all kinds of media achieve their effects. For instance, I don't think there's any emperor's new clothes involved in analysing the intricate patterns by which  Shakespeare or Milton or Tennyson or Eliot create the verbal music which can produce such a strong emotional response in a reader. But since I spent several decades studying and teaching English literature, I would say that wouldn't I? If some readers don't want to bother with this level of understanding, that's fine, but that's no reason to disrespect or disparage those who want to go deeper. I do believe one can apply standards to art beyond simply whether one likes it or not. These may be contested and developed over time but that does not invalidate them. Using such standards enables one to say James Joyce is a better novelist than Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer, notwithstanding the fact that they are liked by lots more people. I realise you don't agree and neither of us is likely to change our mind so we might as well leave it there. Here's a shot of my living room so you can have a quick hit of Kandinsky...

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I like the Kandinsky, but the more pressing point of interest in that photo is:

Did he score?

😉

In reply to john arran:

I think that's another fine save by Jose Sa but sadly not enough to prevent Coventry smash and grabbing an injury time victory against Wolves. There went any chance of silverware for the season. There'll be much sighing and shaking of heads when I meet up with my Wolverhampton mates at the next climbing pensioners' coffee morning at Wolf Mountain, the local wall. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

I think a great introduction to art analysis, if you can find it anywhere (BBC4 features it occasionally) is the very entertaining, and interesting: The Art Mysteries with Waldemar Januszczak. If you've never seen him, I'd recommend it. 

In reply to tehmarks:

After reading this thread I looked out for graffiti whilst out and about over the weekend. 

Round Leeds most was on site hoardings, maybe 70%, about 20% on the walls and doors of businesses and about 10% on domectic house walls. Only 1 bit was what you would call art, the rest was crappy tags. 

In reply to tehmarks:

I'm mostly in the 'tagging is wretched' camp.

I'm sure anyone who travels on the motorways around the south of England will have a particular dislike for Helch and his/her very dull and very large tag, with which he/she overpainted the 'Give Peas a Chance' graffito on the M25 Chalfont viaduct with 'Give Helch a break'.  Since then, Helch has spread to other motorway bridges. If caught, I think reinstating Give Peas a Chance in nail varnish would be a suitable punishment...

In reply to nniff:

I'm not sure I can get my head around the logic that says that the illegal graffiti "Give Peas a Chance" is alright but the illegal graffiti that says "Give Helch a Chance" is not. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Then there was the sign at an American military base in the Middle East during the Gulf War, "Give War A Chance". Apparently true (also the title of a P.J. O'Rourke book)

In reply to pencilled in:

I'm also a Bristol resident so maybe I'm biased, but I love it. The street art is more concentrated in certain areas (e.g. Stokes Croft and parts of St Pauls), but can pop up anywhere. It's part of Bristol's culture and the city would seem bland and sterile if it was removed.

In reply to tehmarks:

Not sure Banksy's latest work is his best but it is clever.

On the other hand these two cropped up in London. Awesome work.

E

In reply to Enty:

I’m not a fan of either… simply not my thing at all…and if I had to walk past it every day I’d be pissed off with whoever did it.

I genuinely prefer the quality of the blank concrete under the second image.

I do like the latest Banksy though…

In reply to nniff:

Never heard of him/her/etc but did just check out some of Helch's stuff after reading your post and I will say this... Some of it is better then anything I've seen in a gallery. Street art, being borderline illegal and there being no formal tuition it's going to be hit and mainly miss when compared to the other more 'established' artforms but like that freak genetic mutation that gives a species the edge over their competitors, when it's good it transcends the lot and Helch at it's best does exactly this.

In reply to broken spectre:

You should make a point of getting out to more galleries. Helch would make a competent sign writer.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I have that Kadinsky up in my Maths classroom. I make kids measure angles on copies of it as a fairly open endless extension task. No art critique comes into it

In reply to birdie num num:

In fairness to Helch, most signwriters don't have to write their signs with a roller on the end of a massive extension pole in the dark.

In reply to tehmarks:

It's not about illegality. It's about being funny, vs being so narcissistic, you feel the need to splatter your moniker 'Helch' everywhere. I'm prepared to forgive the illegality of painting on a motorway bridge if it makes me smile a bit as I pass. A bit like Cock-Shaped Trees.

IIRC, 'Give Peas A Chance' started as 'Give Pies A Chance', then 'Vote Pies'. Or maybe that is a different graffito.

In reply to tehmarks:

Yes. Just imagine how good he'd be in daylight, with a brush. As long as your shop is called Helch.

In reply to birdie num num:

Bravo...

In reply to captain paranoia:

"Give Peas a Chance" started merely as "Peas" - who was just another Helch, painting their adopted moniker on the side of something prominent.

In reply to birdie num num:

It is.

You don't have that choice with officially sanctioned public art either. 

Are you OK? You're losing your touch.

In reply to tehmarks:

Near us, someone has added 3 letters to a sign for a place named Llong.

SCH Llong! It really cheers me up every time I pass it.

Good work.

In reply to tehmarks:

I like writing, and think it's A Good Thing generally. Even "crappy" graffiti tags display some sort of desire to write with one's hands - and that's telling in an age (and given the age of most taggers) when most written expression is flattened into uniformity by universal typescript.

I particularly like writing when it's the trace of those who don't enjoy the privilege of having their true thoughts read or voices heard. Even when those thoughts seem trivial to us, they may not seem so to history.

I like the obscene verses and dildos scrawled on the ceiling of Lovewit's house in Elizabethan candle-writing, as described by Ben Jonson in his play The Alchemist. I like the crude plaints of prisoners and the meanderings of mental patients found on the walls of cells and old hospitals. I like the scurrilous and unprofessorial exchanges chalked in immaculately conjugated Latin on the walls of the toilets in the Bodleian library, and I even like the protest motto "no peel" nailed into the door of the old treasury at Christ Church, Oxford, though I abhor what it represented.

But I do not like or have any respect for the censoriousness of the English puritans, so keen to obliterate such cultural traditions, and so liable to deem aesthetic value objective, yet judgment subjective according to their whims.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Yes, I remember once, years ago, somebody put a 'Y' on the end of the MOLD sign.

In reply to aln:

Ha yes, well technically I suppose I should concede that graffiti is a kind of art form. Not for me though. Presumably you'd be quite pleased to have an un-commissioned work sprayed on your gable end. Fill your boots.

I'm sorry, but I find the form and lettering on just about all graffiti I see to be a bit dull and cliched and I don't think it enhances the urban environment. Even Banksy, clever though his statements might be, is getting a bit hackneyed. I've never seen much artistic merit in the work itself, it has a value only afforded by the established well heeled collectors market. 
But as I said earlier. I'm not telling you what to think, so don't worry.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Just be grateful you don't live in Long Fallas Crescent. (Somewhere in West Yorkshire I believe).

In reply to nikoid:

There is Canal Street in Manchester's gay village. The sign is regularly altered by people removing the first letter of each word. So much so, its become the affectionate nickname for the area.

In reply to birdie num num:

Which is exactly the point. All established art is valued by its financial worth. Salvator Mundi £450.000,000. Is it worth that? Graffiti arr has its own worth in its own community. 

Don't you worry, you don't. But as I said, you're standards are slipping, you used to be incisive and funny.

In reply to aln:

Rubbish. Honestly! Are you a guru of everything?!...most established art is valued for it's artistic merit. The financial value is artificial. I'm a pretty good artist, and my handwriting is free and artistic. Give me a spray can and I could hold my own with the most flamboyant of taggers out there. The difference with me is, I don't posses such a narcissistic opinion of my own worth that I would shove it in your face whether you want to see it or not.

I'm enjoying the conversation! You appear to be getting quite heated about my personal perception of graffiti, which after all was the question the thread posed. I'm not trying to hypnotise you....make you adopt my view. Breathe into a paper bag is my advice.

You like graffiti, I get it.

In reply to birdie num num:

I get that you don't like Banksy but this comment is just weird. Is there anyone apart from a few rich idiots who thinks a piece of street art is worth anything once it's been removed from it's context and sold? It's absolutely bonkers that people are willing to pay huge sums to "own" a Banksy, and I'm sure Banksy is pissing himself laughing about it. The fact that Banksys are now selling for silly money has no relevance to their value as an artwork, this is entirely down to the impact they have on viewers. They don't interest you, which is fair enough, but they have value to a lot of people. They have as much value as anything hanging in a gallery.

In reply to Hooo:

Personally, I really enjoy Banksy's stuff. Call it graffiti, art or whatever you like. I went to see "Banksy against the Museum" in Bristol and "Dismaland". Thought they were great. Some accepted masterpieces don't do a lot for me - went to see "The girl with the pearl earring" when we were in Holland, I didn't find it particularly special. Does that matter? Not really. Some graffiti I really like, other stuff not at all...

In reply to tehmarks:

Bored out of my head in most of the Louvre but if the TGV has to wait 15 minutes, 1km outside Garde de Lyon I'm in my element 😉

E

In reply to Hooo:

That's not quite true. I have nothing against Banksy, I just don't (personally) see much artistic merit in the artwork itself, aside from the statement it makes. I obviously don't know, but Banksy would probably acknowledge that himself, given that he shredded his own work to cock a snook at the clamour of the collectors market. I thought that was great. I don't regard Banksy as graffiti, more like street art. It's not my taste regardless.

In reply to birdie num num:

On that point you are correct. Boring technical detail that the passer-by on the street couldn't care less about, but graffiti is about letters and words. Being made with spray paint in public does not make something graffiti.

In reply to tehmarks:

I'm "enjoying" the gaslighting of Islington Council in reaction to the Banksy being vandalised with someone else's paint:

This is a really powerful piece, which highlights the vital role that trees play in our communities and in tackling the climate emergency. Culture is a powerful way to tell meaningful stories, and we very much hope that the piece, which is still fantastic, will now be left alone for people to enjoy.

The irony seems to be lost on them that:

1. Banksy's piece only exists because of their eco-vandalism of an inconvenient tree.
2. If absolutely anyone other than Banksy threw green paint at a wall, they would be looking to prosecute rather than protect.

In reply to tehmarks:

Reading about it, I'm not convinced it's eco-vandalism the tree was apparently in a bad way and pollarding it should give it the best chance of recovery as well as making it much less likely that random dead branches will fall on passers by.

In reply to tehmarks:

I think the worship of Banksy is absolutely ridiculous. It's a case of the up-their-own-arse art world treating his work in the same way they treat regular art, where it's all about the provenance, nothing to do with the actual piece. Shite like this dispute over a $8m pickled shark. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/mar/19/damien-hirst-formaldeh...

If I were Banksy I'd create the shittest possible tags, claim responsibility and see how many idiots still rave about them. We really need more people taking the piss out of the art world.

In reply to Hooo:

I'm so enjoying this whole thread.

In reply to birdie num num:

I'm not. It all boils down to... Who do you gun for... The underdog or the 'establishment'. There's aesthetic merit in both camps. You're an 'establishment' kind of guy and when it comes to the visual arts (if you are indeed being genuine), I'm not.

In reply to broken spectre:

Really?!

You should relax a little. 

In reply to broken spectre:

Weirdly I had a totally non-graffiti-related moment like that at work earlier. One would think a conference on fraud prevention would be entirely non-controversial. Surely one can't argue against fraud prevention? And yet it occurred to me - and set alarm bells ringing when it did - that I really couldn't care less about, for example, train ticket refund fraud. I found myself firmly on the side of the fare fraudster given the absurdly poor level of service I experienced in the railway every week, and the absurdly high fares I pay to experience it.

I think that is partly what I enjoy about graffiti. There's been a huge proliferation of pro-Palestine/pro-general-humanity graffiti in London of late. When UKfrontline (London train graffiti 'zine) assumes the moral high ground over both the government and the opposition...well it's a confusing state of affairs, non?

In reply to birdie num num:

I'm glad you're enjoying it too. Obviously I'm just getting cheap kicks by sneering at the pomposity of arty types. It's puerile but I enjoy it.

I see you didn't see fit to quote the bit about Damian Hirst. Can I take that to mean you agree with me on the worthlessness of "art" that consists of pickled animals and similar bolox?

In reply to Hooo:

I'm enjoying the discussion. I don't particularly believe there are any rights or wrongs. It's a subjective thing really.

If you'd like me to comment about Damien Hirst.... well... he was/is prolific, some stuff I like, other stuff I don't. I can choose to go to one of his exhibitions, or not, whatever.
I obviously seem to be at odds with the majority on here about graffiti, I'm unapologetic about that. It's my honest view. 
 

In reply to birdie num num:

You keep saying that to other posters. You should try box breathing, it might help.

In reply to Hooo:

Are you including all of what often gets called contemporary "conceptual art" in your "similar bollox?" I don't think much of Damien Hirst, but there are people who sometimes get included in this in Britain whose work I like to check out when I get the chance, such as Cornelia Parker. Are there contemporary gallery artists you admire?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I had to Google Cornelia Parker, but yes, her work looks like the sort of contemporary installation art that I can actually appreciate. The sort of thing that is an actual experience to be in, as opposed to an object in a box with a pretentious title.

The last gallery exhibition I went to was this: https://www.180studios.com/exhibitions-and-performances/uva. I don't have to know the history or bring anything to it, I can just appreciate the vision, the ideas and the technical skills.

In reply to Hooo:

That does look like an exciting exhibition. We clearly have very different ideas about the value and interest of art history and criticism, which I've found fascinating since school. Each to their own.