Slashdot Mirror
Reverse Graffiti
glawrie writes "UK Graffiti artist 'Moose' thought he had come up with a perfect socially friendly approach to his art - to trade paints for cleaning fluid. An article in the UK's Independent Newspaper describes how he has created graffiti by taking '... any dirty inner-city wall or pavement, place a template over it, and scrub the concrete clean, revealing an image as sharp as any spray paint which fades with time.' Moose was commissioned by a subsidiary of drinks manufacturer Diageo to create some 'clean' graffiti in Leeds to promote their vodka brand Smirnoff to local students. However, this work was subsequently condemned by Gerry Harper, a Leeds councillor, as 'sheer vandalism'. With wonderful irony, the council demanded that the artist 'clean-up' the graffiti that appeared in one of the city's gloomiest underpasses. Maybe all those senseless vandals out there will now think twice in future before scrawling 'Clean Me' on the back of vehicles overdue for a wash... But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys."
Brings new meaning to "Clean up your act!"
His parents must be regretting that wording now.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
They can't show any pictures of it? Anybody have links?
...
In my town (Halifax, Canada) we have a few walls which are owned by local companies which have been 'donated' to local grafitti artists. You can go down there any time and see a lighted wall of absolutely amazing artwork, and it changes almost every day.
I don't see what the big problem is.. just give the artists enough places to paint and the problem will reduce if not disappear. What's the problem with that?
That sounds like a really smart idea. The only problem I can see is that you're limited in choice of color. Many "professional" graffiti artists like to create very colorful works that help "brighten" the area. I still haven't figured out if I *like* professional graffiti, or if it even helps improve the area, but new options for those who do like it are always welcome.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Did he have a mobile phone in his back pocket when he did this? Am I missing the part that relates to nerds?
Why does the article present this as some sort of travesty? It is what it is, and that is unlawful advertising on public space. To get rid of it would require public money to clean the rest of the overpass. It's graffiti, period. Why can't people just leave things alone, is it that hard to resist 'making your mark?'
I mean come on, is this for real? We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy and Smirnoff? Gimme a break, they crossed the line and should be responsible.
It's funny, until you realize he's not doing grafitti, he's doing commercials.
You know, I believe in people taking initiative and helping out the community, and I also believe in taking responsibilities and powers away from government, so I think it would be wonderful if people would take a little bit of time once in a while and clean some random part of public property. It will only make the community a cleaner place to live. Ooooooh well.
But perhaps the state is now going too far
So, when I went to ncsu (ncsu.edu), the had the tunnel of free expression (so you could paint whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted), where people could legally paint "graffiti", and it got painted over once a week/month, whatever. Why not provide a productive outlet for prospective artists?
Fill in for lack of sig.
What do they mean by clean up?
And "Smirnoff has removed the offending work - not because of the legality of the threat but by "its own volition" it said." but how did he remove it?
Go dump more dirt on the place, or clean the rest up?
The solution is, of course, for the City to keep everything clean, then this doesn't work. The (hidden) message to clean up the city is the one that the City really has the problem with because they can't claim that it is clean when a message 'written in clean' is easily readable.
do they expect him to splatter mud on the walls, or would they prefer him to grafitti with paints or ????
Why do some people think that they have the right to deface property they don't own in any way?
Some buildings benefit from a hundred years of "patina", and marring that affects their value.
Not only that, but it reduces the presentability of the neighborhood, reducing property values for everyone.
And it's just selfish, stupid, and ugly.
The dirt that you run your fingers through does cause a lot of small scratches. I know someone who use to do car detail work and that was one of the common problems people had.
I just hope that anyone about to defend this consider how much you hate what you think of as unwanted commercial messages all over the place. Besides pop-up blockers, many /. readers block banner ads and the like as well.
It's not their place to be placing these messages. It's not a matter of betterment of public spaces, that's just a distraction from the fact that these are unwanted commercial messages placed where the advertiser wants them.
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
You'd imagine the corporate world would have enough avenues for subjecting us to a continuous barrage of advertising without the need for graffiti, no matter how cleverly disguised as "cleaning", or illegally flyposting (hello Sony). Ads on TVs, in newspapers, on billboards, in trains, on the windows in trains, the bottom half of the "mind your fingers" warning on the train doors, the entire train, the front of the steps leading from the platform, stickers on the ticket gates, the windows of taxis, one side of my commuter pass, at the bottom of my shop receipts... it never stops. I dunno, my office is the most advert-free environment I see during the day.
I was having a look around to see if there were any photos of this and found instead references to them doing this back in Oct 2003.
e ting-examples.shtml#oct2003
http://www.bizhelp24.com/marketing/guerrilla-mark
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
From the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003:
Help with identifying 'tags': Tags are the distinctive signatures used by people who cause graffiti. The government has set up 'Operation Scrub-it', a partnership between the British Transport Police, Crimestoppers and transport providers. It aims to create a national database to record graffiti tags that would help prosecute frequent graffiti offenders. The reporting of graffiti is encouraged and there will be rewards for information leading to successful convictions. The public have been invited to help the authorities in identifying these tags and thus in fighting the graffiti problem.
Better add Smirnoff to the list.
IBM painted those logos all over the place.
But perhaps the state is now going too far - surely it is only a matter of time before rainfall is similarly targetted by the good guys.
Sorry, but I agree that "clean graffiti" is still graffiti. No, this is not like the rain. If you don't believe me, then consider this situation: I make some "clean graffiti" in the shape of a swastika or making racial slurs. Are you offended, or are you happy that I'm cleaning a few selected parts of a gaffiti-covered wall? Personally, I would be offended if someone did this. So how do you these type of messages if you don't acknowledge that "clean graffiti" really is an unauthorized message (graffiti).
Maybe all those senseless vandals out there will now think twice in future before scrawling 'Clean Me' on the back of vehicles overdue for a wash...
I did that to the hood of my dad's old '63 Pontiac, which hadn't been washed in ages. Being a clever grrl, I used a rag dipped in Turtle Wax, so as not to be destructive.
Unfortunately, I didn't realize that the Turtle Wax would actually remove the dull surface of the paint, leaving the car forevermore to bear a (slightly bright) sign, quite legible from above, that read, "Wash me!"
My dad didn't kill me, obviously, nor did he take the hint. I guess I knew it was a forlorn hope, when he epoxied a chunk of plywood to replace the rusted-out floor in the front passenger seat.
He sure got his money's worth out of that car, though.
Lemon curry?
The dirt is abrasive, and can leave scratches. The skin oil collects the dirt, and it acts like sandpaper.
Almost anything (besides water and chamois, et cetera) can leave a scratch on the car's finish. That's why it's best to keep any area you're cleaning completely wet and saturated - water, soapy water especially, keeps the dirt moving and suspended so it can't scratch.
0x0D 0x0A
Oddly, authorities never cleaned it up. It's like it's become an unofficial but implicitly sanctioned public forum.
When I was a student at Sydney University in the early 80's I belonged to a caving club (SUSS) that used to abseil down the face of the Unis Library during Student Orientation Week. This building was about 9 stories high and clad with copper - very nicely tarnished to an elegant hue. One day, when I was just getting out of my abseling gear at the bottom a guy from 'BUGAUP' (Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions, very active in the 80's in Australia, they used to write 'BUGGA UP' over walls) approached me with an interesting idea. This guy asked if I could abseil down and use Brasso to graffiti the copper cladding! Geez man, I did want to get a degree. Still it was tempting :-)
Fun=Linux, caving and anything technical.
For years kids used soapy water to wash the crud off the walls of the Sunset (Hwy 26) tunnels and express their feelings. One caveat: I haven't gone thorugh the tunnels in question for some time now, so I don't know if it hasn't gotten more destructive or not.
One of the single biggest problems this country has is the letter of the law is far more important than the intent. It's one of the reasons we are so over regulated. Most lawyers make their livings by distorting the law to benefit their clients. "We all know what the law means but it says this." Criminals get off and corporations get away with acts that should be and in truth are criminal. It's all spin. Their intent was to deface the property to advertise their product. This is obviously illegal. Is it nessacary to create a new law everytime a new method of breaking the law becomes availible?
But perhaps the state is now going too far
I'm sorry, but did I miss a meeting? Is this now an obligatory inclusion in all articles? Must all articles now declare the state is going too far, our rights are trounced, or privacy is at dire risk?!?
I won't even attempt to argue the rights of property owners, the state's responsiblity to protect property, social mores, etc...
davejenkins.com |
People really shouldn't be doing that anyway because it's very possible to scratch the finish on the car and do actual damage. Sure, it's not as bad as keying it, but it's still uncalled for.
I figured out the soultion to this a long time ago. Just don't wash your car. Ever. Not only can you not see the scratches or small dents, but after awhile it is much too dirty for anyone to want to touch it. Kind of like the soot on the back of a bus. You don't see anwone writing in that do you?
I wonder if Smirnoff is an effective cleaner...
Dunno, send me a couple of assorted bottles of the red, blue and black and I'll road-test them for you and have a comparative review up by, oh, how's next friday sound?
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
I live in an island community of about 70,000 people, accessible only by bridge & tunnel. The tunnels leading to and from the island are very old, and the white tile that lines them quickly grows covered in grime and soot. Every month or so a truck comes through and sprays everything down, but the dirt always collects again, seemingly thicker than before.
The local grafitti artists & taggers, some of whom I'm assuming come in from Oakland (the other end of the tunnel) have taken to using squeegees and water to make their signs. They just clean their tag into the wall of the tunnel and presto! It's there, reflecting in shiny white the headlights of passing cars, twice as noticeable as another spray tag we're all used to filtering out.
It's one of the reasons I love living here.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Art is evocative. The best is provocative. Consider that when making judgements on the works of others
** Keep Music Evil **
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
If it was horribly dirty enough to write a message in once, it will be horribly dirty again. Then you won't be able to read any 'micro scratch' message.
On that subject, we just had a clear shower screen installed. When it fogs up, two letters (6a) can clearly be seen in it. NOTHING will remove it. Soap, alcohol, turps. Nothing.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.
think the USA patriot act is scary, the title of that UK 'ACT' scares the poop out of me.
does that cover
smoking,
dreadlocks
Mohawks
cursing
smelling bad
not kneeling to the police as they pass by
anyone- info about same?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
After all is said and done all you have there is a vodka advertisement in a place where did not use to be a vodka advertisement. And that is just more mind pollution.
It is just another thing that catches your attention, forces you to read it, etc, etc. That is why billboards, for example are considered pollution no matter how clean they are. Its not pollution in the strctest meaning of the word, but it does make the landscape look cheaper and dirtier.
People say "it would just be dirty nevertheless". Well it sucks the city has not cleaned this stuff up, but even if the wall was covered with dirt, it will not be so bad, because it would be unform dirt, that just fades into the background, does not call attention to itself, and thus does not bother people.
And also when you clean some letters into a wall, you are not really doing any cleaning. When someone cleans "wash me" into a dirty car, is the car any cleaner? Not really.
In deciding whether or not you support people "cleaning" their message onto property that does not belong to them, ask yourself the following question::
How would you like it if representatives of Coke, Smirnoff, Pepsi, etc - kept their eyes open for your dirty vehicles, house windows, and actively posted their messages
i.e. "buy our products, or at least clean up your stuff"
all over your property? Would you say that it is your own damn fault for not keeping your stuff cleaner, or would you protest?
Interested in Canadian Stocks?
Should people or companies be allowed to clean public areas of their own volition with no special permissions? Yes or no. If no, then fine, we need to get a permit system that allows you permission to clean public spaces. However I very much doubt anyone would seriously support this position.
If people ARE allowed to go out and clean because they want to, or because someone pays them to (which is how it currently is) then you don't really have a right to tell them how. If I clean up a street but do a half assed job, still leaving trash (but not adding any) that's fine. If I go to clean a wall of grafitti, but get tired halfway through and leave the other half, that's fine. If I clean a park of all litter except cigarette buts to make a point, that's also fine.
He's partically cleaning a wall to make it in to an ad. That's fine. He's adding no additonal paint or anything, just cleaning off part of it to make the remainder look like something, that's fine. If this offends you so much, YOU are welcome to go clean the rest of it. Much as he could partially clean it, you may partially or completely clean it.
If the city and the public want these walls protected then they should have removed the grafitti. Trying to say the grafitti, which is adding paint ot the wall and is illegal, is fine, but REMOVING some of that paint ot make an ad is not is stupid. If he's being paid by the city to completely clean the walls, or doing it as required community service, they have a right to bitch. If he's doing it because he wants to, they have no right.
As I said, they, or the public, can clean it ALL up and eliminate the problem. That's what a town I used to live in does. To keep grafitti to a mininimum they clean it up FAST after it happens, like within a day. This deters many vandals, since they know their work will be gone in 24 hours, and they risk being arrested if caught.
There are two kinds of graffiti. I'll call the first one 'artcrime' since I'm not sure what other people call it. The second is tagging.
Artcrime is where someone makes an effort to do something that is interesting or beautiful, or at least puts some love into the work. It may or may not be a tag. If it isn't a tag, then the artist would be fine with using a designated wall like this.
Taggers, on the other hand, just like to put their name on shit for whatever reason - territory marking or some sort of rush that comes from vandalizing things. These folks are not going to bother with a designated wall because using one of those entirely defeats the purpose of the graffiti for them.
So I guess it's not a big problem if the only folks that bother you are the artists. Me, I'm the other way around - I normally don't mind graffiti that's had some love put into it because there was love put into it, whereas tagging is the equivalent of making it known you were somewhere by ejaculating all over the place.
Don't you know that the solvent comes with all sorts of tints these days? Citron, and various berry flavor Vodka is available. There's even pepper vodka. It might be more subtle than the average commercial "art" but the obliteration message will still come through.
I still haven't figured out if I *like* professional graffiti, or if it even helps improve the area ...
Could it be more despicable? Nothing says "slum" like billboards and graffiti. Don't be fooled, it's always degrading and insulting when people stick their message in your face. The difference between a "legitimate" billboard and someone marking their pissing grounds is mostly the means available. In this case, the advertiser is being cheap and hoping to gain some kind of hoodlum credibility. I don't want to live or work around people with that kind of attitude.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
from the article
But Leeds City Council insists his work is illegal because any advertiser needs a permit. The Crown Prosecution Service says he may have been in breach of last year's Anti-Social Behaviour Act.
In short, he isn't being targeted for 'defacement' but for using a public space for commercial ends.
Similarly, if I go downtown and try to sell things on the street, even if I cause no disturbance whatsoever, I can still be held accountable for performing a commercial act in a space that I'm not allowed to do so.
It's a shitty kind of law that needlessly restricts freedom. I'd love to have more street vendors selling without the high overhead that the local shops do, provided that they're not too obnoxious. But the local gov was following the law, however stupid that law was. Maybe he could get a liscense to advertise?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I've been graffing (its an industry term) for the last 5 years. I never leave my name, so its not really a tag. However I feel that using a designated wall is useless. The point of Graffing to me, at least, is to subject (as infringe on others) the unwary to art. Putting a 3 foot Venus DeMilo on a wall in a grubby factory is a much more fufilling act than putting that same stencil on a wall thats designated for art. Two distinct demographics really.
sig? its spelled syg.
I think Giuliani skit on SNL was the best solution. It was a Public Service Announcement claiming that rather than painting over graffiti tags, they would simply stencil "sucks" after the taggers name. For repeat offenders, they would use a professional artist and match the style.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Perhaps you should ask for more interesting places "designated" for art?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Taggers, on the other hand, just like to put their name on shit for whatever reason - territory marking or some sort of rush that comes from vandalizing things.
The description you're looking for is "pissing on fireplugs." That's all it is. Taggers are bladder-challenged dogs with spray cans.
And the most provocative art of all is created when a set of keys is your brush and a car door is the canvas.
Condemning graffiti isn't making an artistic judgment; it's standing up against the malicious defacement of public and private property.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
People that seek out art are not my audience, I want to shove art into the faces of those who would not or does not have the time to look at art. Putting my ideas into canvas and hanging them on walls just doesnt do what graffing does. It doesnt show anyone something they arnt expecting.
sig? its spelled syg.
Perhaps you should ask for more interesting places "designated" for art?
Wouldn't that be like asking all the flashers to do their thing down at a nude beach? Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Giving the kids somewhere to put up, thereby lessening the amount of shitty tagging around the area
By providing workshops for the local youth to learn about and become a part of the four elements, (Graffiti, DJ'ing, Breakdancing, MC'ing), which then breeds respect for the culture and an affinity for your local area and crews.
It's been a pretty big success with the locals and the youth, every workshop we run is booked out almost straight away, and with local government helping with financial aid, we can offer these workshops for free.
And who knows, a grafitti artist may even become a productive and creative member of society, instead of a drone who got busted for tagging once too often.
We recently had an auction of artwork painted in the workshops over the last year and raised quite a lot of money, of which half we are using to plan more workshops, and the remainder we donated to a local charity dealing with drug affected teenagers. I think thats a pretty sweet contribution by a bunch of degenerate vandals :) I did like your joke, though. I'm currently employed full time in IT for the government, and it's an odd feeling to leave a managers meeting, go home, throw on your black hoodie and hit the streets for a couple of hours. If only my boss had any idea what I got up to...
P.S. If anyone has any qustions regarding the programs I'm more than happy to provide you with any info you like, just email me at the above or reply here.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
See also this campaign to highlight smog and pollution effects, where messages were made by cleaning dirty (not graffitied, just plain old dirty) walls around London.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russel
You know, spammers use arguments a lot like that. Reaching out to unwilling audiences and all. Even committing crimes in order to do so.
Good company there.
Congrats.
But if a MINORITY, URBAN kid does the same thing, everyone says "OOOH! Look at the art he made." These lower standards for minority and poor folk are a form of RACISM. Everyone should be held to the same standard.
I agree .... frankly I don't see much difference between kids tagging and dogs marking their territory .... on the other hand an artfull reworking of a billboard or a wonderfully subversive slogan where one least expects it is often a wonder to behold ....
Can I have your home address, so that I can "shove" my ideas onto your private property?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Nice sounding words, but unless you have permision by the owners, all you are doing is damaging the property of others. Using property you did not pay for. It's not art at all, it's just vandalism. It's roughly of the same morals as writing a computer virus.
It's possible to achieve shock and suprise in art through legitimate means. but what your doing is no different if I went to your home while you were gone and peeled out in your yard, t.p.ed your trees and broke your windows. I could claim it was performance art, but somehow I don't think you'd be any happier or less willing to press charges if I were caught.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
but calm logic was a more efficient way of getting rid of that power-mad bitch than explaning my motives and the validity of my art to her (though I did try, but she wasn't smart enough to understand any of it), then a string of equally dense bureaucrats. I was pretty disapointed to be forced to censor my art though.
:-)
:
*rolls eyes* art students, god bless 'em
It goes like this
One person's "Art" is another person's "Crap".
You may have been making an artistic statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment.
The guard was also making a statement about garbage and the way people treat their environment.
Seeing as the guard was employed by the school to keep *their* walls the way *they* like them (to whatever asthetic standard they desire), your art and its associated statement (which, by the way, I have difficulty extrapolating from a bit of cigarette paper stuck on a wall above a bin), had no place there.
Had you truly been a sensitive artist, you would have understood this. It's not about The Man trying to Crush your Expression and Artistic Freedom, it's about their stuff and the way they want their stuff. Leave them be.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Actually, I rate top-quality graffiti as better art than you'll often find in galleries.
Take Banksy (check the website at http://www.banksy.co.uk/ ) - total vandalistic anti-socialism but at the same time valid social commentary, truely genius artistic vision and inspired execution.
~Cederic is a fan.
You're absolutely right that there are two types of graffiti. I live in Barcelona, Spain, a city that is know for it's graffiti.
Here the two types of graffiti are distinctly marked. I love the stuff that you're calling "artcrime" - some of the artists here are superb. And they are nearly always respectful - here it is very common to build temporary walls around building sites, and it is often these that the better artists use to create some create thier work.
Then there are the taggers. These anti-social little bastards spray on everything, usually just scrawling their tags and often just spraying to vandalise. There are lots of beautiful old buildings, fountains and statues here and there is a big effort at the moment to clean the city up. It makes me really mad when an old building has been carefully (and expensively) restored and some little antisocial w*nkers have sprayed their tags all over it.
One good thing - the cleanup teams here carry digital cameras and take photos of all the tags, so when they do finally catch the tossers they have enough evidence for a very serious penalty.
It doesnt show anyone something they arnt expecting.
The people you're speaking of aren't going to see it as art anyways. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You simply can't show art to someone who doesn't want to see it. You can show them paint stains that took you hours to carefully render, and they'll treat it with about as much consideration as a mess left by a dog on the sidewalk.
Anyone who _does_ appreciate such art would have appreciated it in a far less invasive forum as well.
Don't delude yourself into thinking you're some kind of feeling man's vingilante. You're just an artist who turned to vandalism because they don't know who their audience is.
Cheers.
Take Banksy
"Banksy" poored tins of coloured paint all over statues outside a lovely building near where I live here in Barcelona. The council have had to spend tens of thousands of tax payers (my!) euros to clean it up.
Inspired execution? Genius artistic vision? Give me a break. The guy is an antisocial wanker.
It was actually thought to have been a publicity stunt by sometime dance artists The KLF - the same guys that set fire to 1 million UKP on a Scottish island, because they could afford to.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
If someone were to deface your website, would you leave it up, even if you didn't like the 'art' of the defacement?
They did that here in the UK in my town. The next step was to get all the schools to give the police photocopies of every single schoolbook that has got any sort of doodles on it. Lo and behold, almost every kid under 18 who had done grafitti had tagged all their schoolbooks and the police were able to tie most tags down to kids by name, and either give them warnings or punishments. The best bit was most actually stopped and grafitti dropped by at least 70%
Warhammer forums
Pink and green text is an option if you supply the pickled beetroot and asparagus spears.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Damnit he's even got a photograph of it on his web site:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/vandalism.html
Note that the photo only shows a small part of this act of vandalism - the whole of the front of a building was vandalised.
The building was recently cleaned, and the council has put iron railings in front of it to prevent further acts of vandalism like this. Well done Banksy! You're so clever!
Wanker.
they can come to my house instead, if they'd like. well, half of them can.
the pretty ones or the young ones? or the ones that look like Orlando Bloom in LotR?
If you think any or all of those groups make up even close to half of people who use nude beaches you are in for a nasty surprise.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
The objection of the City Council is that drinks companies and others are paying a so called 'artist' to put advertisments when the companies know that they are not allowed to do this.
Readers outside the UK may not be aware that these companies have recently been tackled for their practice of flyposting their adverts on every flat surface they can find and this is their latest attempt to get around restrictions on where advertising can be put.
Therefore the real issue is not whether preventing someone being paid to put advertising slogans on walls is a restriction on 'artistic freedom'. The real issue is should big corporations be able to plaster their slogans on your wall in defiance of local ordinances?
Does it disturb anyone else that Smirnoff is doing this to reach the "teenage market"?
09
The guy who inspired the first graffiti writers was Taki 183, back in 69 or 70. He was just a tagger. The first writers were taggers.
It took people like Phase 2 and Dondi to move it to what was indisputably art, and the creation of [master]pieces. But almost all the early wrtiers were taggers as well; I don't know how true that is today.
Check out the "Style Wars" DVD for the full background, if you want to understand how and why it started. It will also clue you a little bit in on why BBoying (which some people call "Breakdancing") is so important to hip hop culture, and why most artists claiming to do hip hop today are really just rapping.
Rant over.
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
Something similar was done at Georgia Tech to the statue of Heisman.
Some studious student took bronze polish to the old statue, giving the man a nice shiny bikini.
Technically, they didn't damage the stature, just polished it selectively.
Eventually, Tech put some brown stuff over the bikini lines, but you can still see the outline of his previous selection if you look real close.
I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but a good friend of mine was annoyed at some unsightly graffiti near his home so called the council to ask about having it removed. Not top priority for the council, so he offered to remove it himself. He was told if he removed the graffiti himself he would be prosecuted for criminal damage to council property!
The Fundamentalist Christian Fanatics being referred to are the 'Christian Reconstructivists', look them up on Google. These are 'Old Testament' loving folks that would bring 'Biblical Law' to a scary Taliban in the US level.
...the Bill of Rights? ...the Declaration of Independence? Oh that's right, neither is mentioned, just some stuff about a creator, which could be any religion that believes in a higher power.
These Christian Reconstructionists do preach a Christian 'Take-over' of the world. They believe that they are at war with everyone that isn't with them. They believe that until they can build the Kingdom of God on Earth that there will be no second coming. They believe this, they preach this and they will do everything they can to obtain this.
As for this country being based on Bliblical Christianity, where is the Christian Bible and where is Jesus mentioned in the Constitution?
Even being unable to locate all of that, what about the part stating that a religious test is NEVER to be applied for someone seeking or winning a public office? If this nation was truly a 'Christian based' or 'Bible based' society, then anyone and everyone seeking or holding public office would have to pass a religious test of some sort.
The 'Old Testament' does advocate that, in just about every portion referring to a war being waged. Have you ever read the 'Old Testament'? You should, it is a very scary book. It is filled with some of those most racist and scary nationalistic beliefs that you can possibly imagine. It has been used as justification for acts the world has seen far to many times.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"? Well, isn't that easier if your neighbor is exactly like you? Can't that be read as your neighbor must be just like you, since you love yourself enough to let Jesus into your heart, your neighbor better love themselves just as much, or else! That isn't 'Old Testament' and that isn't so much of a problem.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
They didn't have to clean it up at all
s m/ vandalism.jpg
No? Here's a picture of part of the vandalism, from Banksy's own web site:
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/images/vandali
They didn't have to clear it up, you say? You think it looks good, do you? Something the people of the city of Barcelona should be proud of?
I fail to see how they can justify spending that kind of money on it.
Did you see it? It was the whole of the facade of a listed building - not just all the statues and stonework but the woodwork of the door as well.
Give me a couple of hundred euros for a job well done and everyone's happy.
You have no idea, do you? If you think it is a job that could be done by one person in a couple of days then you're a fool.
for the most part, i like banksy's work.
I am not criticising his "art" - a lot of it is very clever and powerful. However, what I do really object to is the way he feels to need to do it on property and locations he doesn't own. A lot of it would be just as clever and powerful if it was in the form of posters, or if he used water-based paints that could be washed off, or if he got the permission of the building owners before doing it.
But he is deliberately destructive. He was said himself that he has experimented with using acid to etch stuff into limestone buildings so that they could never be removed. That kind of behaviour is extremely irresponsible in my view, and from that perspective, he is a complete wanker.
Er... has it ever occurred to you that the guard, he, and all the sheep, are the human race, of which you are just another individual? If almost everyone disagrees with you, isn't it slightly more plausible that you might be mistaken, rather than the rest of the world? A lesson that the Whitehouse is painfully slowly in learning too.
"It's the thought that counts", is an idiotic platitude to make children feel better about when they fuck up. It's not your intentions that count, it's your actions, because they're the only things that exist outside your head. Unless you consider yourself to be the only worthwhile person in existance. So sticking your litter on the wall wasn't an artistic statement, no matter how you chose to see it. It was sticking your litter on the wall, so someone else would have had to tidy up after you.
As ugly, and often offensive as billboards are, the simple fact is that someone paid for their message. If your favorite charity or local business spend a few thousand on a billboard and it got defaced, it would be a blow because the entity lost money. Just because the billboard happens to be for Viagra (or some other massively corporate thing), doesn't really change things. It's sorta like saying it's okay to shoplift from WalMart because it's not hurting anyone.
The only time I agree with defacing signs is those hidious illegal signs which spring up on telephone polls and at intersections lately. ("Need Money Quick? Call 555-1212", "LA Weight Loss, Call 555-1212", and my favorite "Want signs like these? Call 555-1212") These signs aren't legal, and I think are fair game for whatever...
I remember writing all kinds of great stuff on concrete with a cheap pressure washer when I was a kid. It didn't fade for weeks either, and that was just water out of a hose.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Operation TIPS alive and well in Virginia
No, actually, you do not have property rights to the dirt on your car. As proven by the incredibly obvious fact that you can't sue someone for hitting it with a hose,
Don't get hung up on the question of who owns the dirt particles. The fact is that you do not have the right to alter the appearance of my car, either by removing or by adding dirt, paint, or anything else. In most cases, there are no damages. But if you scrawl a racist message on my car and I suffer ill consequences, you may be liable. If you get my car wet in situations where I have a reasonable expectation that it won't get wet, you may be liable.
or sue God when it rains.
I don't have a reasonable expectation that it doesn't rain. I do have a reasonable expectation that you don't do anything to change the appearance of my car.
You do not own the dirt laying on your car, any more than you own leaves that have blown into your yard or CO2 exhaled from your lungs.
I certainly do own the leaves that have accumulated in my yard, as well as the dust and dirt that replenishes the soil, as well as the plants that grow by capturing the CO2 in the air.
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
-Inignot