Graffiti: Art or Vandalism

[Stu Monty]

Who is Van Gough though?

 

He was a painter...or a fireman...definitely one of the two.

[stringvest]

He was a painter...or a fireman...definitely one of the two.

 

He's a Dutch Cricketer.

 

I'm amazed Monty hasn't bitten yet.

[Crazyhorse7778]

Art Vandelay.

 

I think that should clear it all up.

[stringvest]

Art Vandelay.

 

 

He's a Dutch carpetfitter.

 

Next?

[Elmyn Noos]

Acid, you might want to get hold of a copy of No Logo and have a quick read of some of the stuff there about graffitti and street art; it has some good points about the public domain vanishing to the private and the contrast between the concept of paying to bombard people with advertising (fine) and any form of street art (wrong).

 

Noos is coming across as slightly less informed on the issue than my grandad might be with his "It's all bloody noise to me" stance. If you want to argue that some bland picture of sunflowers is more of an artform than Banksy's graffitti on the Palestinian Aparthied Wall then go right ahead; but you'll be talking more shit than you've ever talked before.

 

Or, alternatively, you can get round people's outdated notions of what constitutes art and what doesn't by just walking into the tate and hanging your own picture up, as Banksy did a while back. That makes it proper art, you see.

 

 

How can I be slightly less informed than anyone else on the subject of something I see every day like everyone else, Monty, you enormous cockend?

 

I knew some middle-aged down with the kids beardy would start trotting out Banksy and gibbering on about social commentary. The truth is that the vast majority of graffiti is not Banksy, is not providing any social commentary, is adding nothing to the cultural fabric of our society and is not fucking art. It is nearly always some twat writing his nickname in big fuck-off letters over someone else's property.

 

Even some of the colourful pics on here are only considered good because they've been done on a wall, not because the picture itself has any depth, meaning or is actually any good at all. That picture of the woman's face with the flaming hair etc - OK, so it must have been difficult to get the face right using spray paint on a wall, but I'd ask why did they bother in the first place? It's a shit picture that means nothing. Would anyone have it on a poster in a frame on their living room wall? I doubt it. It's akin to one of those pictures of a white tiger running through some snowy landscape that Shannon Matthew's mum probably has in her kitchen.

[Acid]

This is golden!

[Stu Monty]

Acid, you might want to get hold of a copy of No Logo and have a quick read of some of the stuff there about graffitti and street art; it has some good points about the public domain vanishing to the private and the contrast between the concept of paying to bombard people with advertising (fine) and any form of street art (wrong).

 

Noos is coming across as slightly less informed on the issue than my grandad might be with his "It's all bloody noise to me" stance. If you want to argue that some bland picture of sunflowers is more of an artform than Banksy's graffitti on the Palestinian Aparthied Wall then go right ahead; but you'll be talking more shit than you've ever talked before.

 

Or, alternatively, you can get round people's outdated notions of what constitutes art and what doesn't by just walking into the tate and hanging your own picture up, as Banksy did a while back. That makes it proper art, you see.

 

 

How can I be slightly less informed than anyone else on the subject of something I see every day like everyone else, Monty, you enormous cockend?

 

I knew some middle-aged down with the kids beardy would start trotting out Banksy and gibbering on about social commentary. The truth is that the vast majority of graffiti is not Banksy, is not providing any social commentary, is adding nothing to the cultural fabric of our society and is not fucking art. It is nearly always some twat writing his nickname in big fuck-off letters over someone else's property.

 

Even some of the colourful pics on here are only considered good because they've been done on a wall, not because the picture itself has any depth, meaning or is actually any good at all. That picture of the woman's face with the flaming hair etc - OK, so it must have been difficult to get the face right using spray paint on a wall, but I'd ask why did they bother in the first place? It's a shit picture that means nothing. Would anyone have it on a poster in a frame on their living room wall? I doubt it. It's akin to one of those pictures of a white tiger running through some snowy landscape that Shannon Matthew's mum probably has in her kitchen.

 

That just makes it shit art. Obviously someone scrawling "Darren Iz Da Best" on a wall isn't art but I'm presuming we're talking about people actually trying to create something for it's own visual merit; and in that sense it's art just as much as any picture. Just because a painting is shite you don't dismiss the fact that it's still art.

[Stu Monty]

What have you done to fuck up the quotes too? You fucking spastic.

[taliesin08]

Art is Art..I mean someone once stuck elephant poo to a canvas and got away with so anything goes really.

[Red Phoenix]

Art is Art..I mean someone once stuck elephant poo to a canvas and got away with so anything goes really.

 

Oh, that's where I start getting annoyed. I can look at graffiti all day and love it, but when you can pick your nose then wipe a bogey on the wall and go "hey! It's modern art!" that's when it starts getting fucking stupid.

[Paul]

Ha, ha, ha!!! Al's posts on here are fucking ace.

[L19red]

its not just banksy its keith haring as well. His grafitti sells for shedloads of money. I know loads of you will disagree, such is the subjective nature of art, but i think this is fantastic.

 

[Karl_b]

Tribute To Graffiti: 50 Beautiful Graffiti Artworks | Inspiration | Smashing Magazine

[King Emlyn]

Vandalism.

[JohnnyH]

Tiny tiny precentage is art. 99.9% is some scumbag writing his name or a really shite statement that he/she thinks is controversial on a wall.

[WaltonRed]

art

[Faustus]

All art is useless.

[Stu Monty]

All art is useless.

 

But then so is our very existance. There is no point or greater purpose to our existance so making things that look and sound good is as decent a way to spent time as any I feel.

[Faustus]

But then so is our very existance. There is no point or greater purpose to our existance so making things that look and sound good is as decent a way to spent time as any I feel.

 

I was quoting Oscar Wilde. I did it for a reaction. And you bit.

[god knows]

The only graffiti that says anything to me is an erect penis with a big pair of hairy bollocks attached, and maybe some spunk ejaculating out of the said penis, and hairs on the said bollocks, all done really quickly on the back wall of some sad sack neighbours gaff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It took me ages to scrub it off.

[Stu Monty]

I was quoting Oscar Wilde. I did it for a reaction. And you bit.

 

What do you want poindexter; a biscuit?

[odris]

 

That is fucking class.

[odris]

Art

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[odris]

 

 

 

 

 

[Travis Bickle]

Art?

 

 

Nonononononononononono.

 

Any "cock" can do this (excuse the pun).