Graff!

[gy_mark]

i am not talking about "i love so and so" "someone ov someplace" that kind of shit.
i am talking about graffiti art, the stuff that totally looks awesome and is crazy.

[which doctor]

i agree that some of it does look cool but when its on private property thats not so good. And most of it is gang signs and shit like that.

[Klipper]

when i was readig about social centres in europe, and looking at the pictures, i loved seeing all the graffitti! i love seeing the graffitti on the walls by train tracks. i don't really like seeing it sprayed on someone's house when it's not their house, or on a store, or a school, or whatever like that.

so it's yes and no.

[FriedFrog]

Some graffiti art is OK, but thats not all it's about. People often feel threatened when graffiti springs up around their neighborhoods, likening it to gang/yob culture etc.

It should be OK to do it in designated spaces, where it can be displayed, so people can see it and the artist can get recognition without it being a crime.

So, basically: No

But, there should be places where people can do it.

[Che1990]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:18 PM
Some graffiti art is OK, but thats not all it's about. People often feel threatened when graffiti springs up around their neighborhoods, likening it to gang/yob culture etc.

It should be OK to do it in designated spaces, where it can be displayed, so people can see it and the artist can get recognition without it being a crime.

So, basically: No

But, there should be places where people can do it.
I agree. Some graffitti artists are amazing! They should have designated areas to do it. But, will the problem of gang culture graffitti ever be solved. They deliberately do it on private property etc.

[Livetrueordie]

not on prorperty which isnt urs or u dont have permission which is the rules now.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 20 2005, 09:48 AM
i agree that some of it does look cool but when its on private property thats not so good. And most of it is gang signs and shit like that.
hmm a communist who thinks that you shouldnt disrespect and try to destroy private property...

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 21 2005, 03:48 AM
i agree that some of it does look cool but when its on private property thats not so good. And most of it is gang signs and shit like that.
Thou shalt not disrespect private property! :o

Of course it should be legalised. Most surfaces in an urban environment are dull/boring, and there is a difference between graff work and tag work, tags are largely scribble, and usually in one colour, and repeated several times in one area- hence repetitive. Graff work on the other hand is usually larger, more colourful, and more skillful. I've been scouting out graff sites around Auckland, and taking photos, underneath the motorway adjacent to victoria park, and a lot on customs av/st? near gore st is also good- for the JAFA's on the board :)

[KC]

Graffiti SHOULDN'T be legalized as it being illegal is a huge contributing factor to the graffiti. If it was legalized it'd be everywhere and it would lose its power.

[gy_mark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:27 AM
Graffiti SHOULDN'T be legalized as it being illegal is a huge contributing factor to the graffiti. If it was legalized it'd be everywhere and it would lose its power.
no it wouldnt lose its power. People woudnt just take up graff because its legal, its not as easy as that, its not jsut grab a spray can and write your fucking name. it takes time, sometimes even days if you want to spray a big piece. it being legalised would just make this country more exciting, lose all the gray walls and the boring derelict buildings. obviously when people just right their name in sprays or pen should be illegal, unless they are writing their handstyle, totally different things.

[Gust]

I'm not sure...

On one hand, I do think it would "lose its meaning", and we'd see alot of shitty sprays...

On the other everything would look alot better... and the "look" of walls would be another step in abolishing the gap between classes...

Yet as a Graffiti artist myself, I don't think it should be legal for all..... Maybe permits for good artists?

Fuck it. Legalize it, don't criticize it.

[DarkAngel]

Yesish Noish...

I'd go to the police precint, and spray Fuck the Police, on the wall, with a picture deplicting some kind of police burtality...

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Absolutely. I think street art of any sort is way cooler than either what my dad would call "proper" art (Picasso, van Gogh etc etc.) or some eejit leaving a tap on.

[KC]

no it wouldnt lose its power.

Yes, it would.



I'd go to the police precint, and spray Fuck the Police, on the wall, with a picture deplicting some kind of police burtality...

Something like this would lose much of its power, considering the fact that there's going to be a LOT more graffiti on that building once you get there.

[Floyd.]

I think it was ancient Greece or it may of been Egypt I'm not sure I'd have to look it up but maybe both either way Graffiti was first found there as basically shit writing where people would write slander/political things by smearing their shit on the walls into the form of text. Graffiti has been around for ages and stupid shit like tags are its true form good old stuff like people writing 'Mick was ere', 'Carving 'CF *heart* MJ', or even 'BONG ON 1941'.

That's the stuff that documents the inane ordinariness of life and serves as public record in years to come, the graff in jails would be really interesting if compiled in record of it over the past 300 yoears or whatever. To legalise the stuff that just looks pretty is unfair and robs graff on it's true purpose which is to be a nuisance, piss people off, amuse and serve as record of a type of person within a time period.

The best graffiti I've ever seen is still a tag on the side of a government transport related building that said 'do I look fat in this?' as though the building itself were proposing an absurdly brilliant question. The second best was clearly fake but had great humour and said 'Bong on 1941'. We all appreciate them but to make legal and not the 'lower standard' stuff would be an insult so I say go shove your publicly sanctioned mural it's all or nothing. Why not let our walls and building be publics canvas to the ideas and thoughts of it's society, I say whoever has the most paint, passion and time has the most say and it should be legal regardless of what is expressed so long as it isn't organised by a body like the government or anything parties with cash shouldn't be allowed to harness it as a propoganda tool legally that's all.

[Pawn Power]

YEAH, I love putting up stencils.

[Anarcho-Communist]

Graffiti can be art, it can also be destruction to property. If they are asked to do it for someone, or it's on there property then go ahead. I'm against gang taggings on fences though. It ruins the fence/building or whatever.

[plokhoe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:27 AM
Graffiti SHOULDN'T be legalized as it being illegal is a huge contributing factor to the graffiti. If it was legalized it'd be everywhere and it would lose its power.
i agree it would take the soul out of it aswell