I don't mean for the endless tagging or the Jon woz ere stuff, I mean the big colourful artistic dubslike this (http://home.uchicago.edu/~shelata/American%20Graffiti.jpeg)

So following on from the last graffiti thread with some brilliant examples from the links posted on how some graffiti IMO can really brighten up a dull wall should there be legal areas to spray?

If you think graffiti artists should have somewhere then how could it be implemented? for example: What about lack of wall space in some towns & cities, Health & safety issues, white kids talking black, will it encourage more graffiti etc etc

Graffiti artists generally do not charge for their work. They bear the cost of their labour and the materials. The public benefits when it is appreciated but suffers when it is not, so how do you have artwork which will suit most peoples taste?

Most walls are boring, one color, and are begging for expression if you ask me & graffiti artists can be thought of as personalizing that wall. But isn't their wall /property, it is a public space! Yet, their personalization is forced on the public.

Consequently, the community is usually opposed to graffiti. It is against the law and usually steps are taken to remove or paint over the graffiti. The community pays the cost of these remedies. But once erased, a clean surface could invite new graffiti so whats the answer?

What about graffiti with a message, most graffiti is purely art, but some attempt to convey a message as well & it is interesting that the content is usually political and negative so this would also be an issue?

if people want to express them selfs through taggin then let them do it in there own home on there own walls

if people want to express them selfs through taggin then let them do it in there own home on there own walls

But I reckon most graffiti artists just like most people like to be recognized for their talents which is one of the reasons they probaly do it public places in the first place?

But I reckon most graffiti artists just like most people like to be recognized for their talents which is one of the reasons they probaly do it public places in the first place?

well they can do it on canvous and try an get it in to a galorey

well they can do it on canvous and try an get it in to a galorey

I doubt any art museum would accept any piece of graffiti although this could be a option, but the high/attraction of graffiti for some might be the adrenalin, chase by the police darkness & the simple fact it is illegal? I should of stated this in my original post come to think of it.

I doubt any art museum would accept any piece of graffiti although this could be a option, but the high/attraction of graffiti for some might be the adrenalin, chase by the police darkness & the simple fact it is illegal? I should of stated this in my original post come to think of it.

some little gits where sprayin on the church at the top of my road today. a church of all places is bad enough but the fact it was in the middle of the day and that they didnt seem to care when i shouted "oi fu*k off" realy got to me. if i couldhave been aresed i would have gone after them but i was knackerd

some little gits where sprayin on the church at the top of my road today. a church of all places is bad enough but the fact it was in the middle of the day and that they didnt seem to care when i shouted "oi fu*k off" realy got to me. if i couldhave been aresed i would have gone after them but i was knackerd

Did you call the police?

Did you call the police?

pointless the coppers drove past twice when they where doin it and even stoped to talk to them once

There is a great graffiti area in Mount Pleasant Park. It is at risk now, as the Council are saying it isn't a designated area - though I have to say that when I worked there, both they and the police said it was...
It's in the multi-use court, and some of the content is a bit adult, but the work they do is colourful, often shows great talent, and is, in my opinion, far more attractive than concrete walls.
They were always self-policing, appearing to follow some unwritten laws about covering up each other's work, brought their own materials, and were polite if defensive when approached (obviously they'd had trouble in the past from critics, but as soon as they found out I wasn't after stopping them, they were fine.)
I think there is a place for graffiti in cities, and I think that if you ban it completely and pretend as hard as you can that it doesn;t have to exist, you are creating problems for yourself.
In it's place,and it does have a place, it can be witty, smart, beautiful, and well worth having.

But tagging alone - don't get me started. I hate it.

pointless the coppers drove past twice when they where doin it and even stoped to talk to them once

If the police stopped then why didn't you ask why they didn't arrest the culprits you saw defacing the church?

I will discuss this further in about 45mins if you're still online i want to watch last of match

There is a great graffiti area in Mount Pleasant Park. It is at risk now, as the Council are saying it isn't a designated area - though I have to say that when I worked there, both they and the police said it was...
It's in the multi-use court, and some of the content is a bit adult, but the work they do is colourful, often shows great talent, and is, in my opinion, far more attractive than concrete walls.
They were always self-policing, appearing to follow some unwritten laws about covering up each other's work, brought their own materials, and were polite if defensive when approached (obviously they'd had trouble in the past from critics, but as soon as they found out I wasn't after stopping them, they were fine.)
I think there is a place for graffiti in cities, and I think that if you ban it completely and pretend as hard as you can that it doesn;t have to exist, you are creating problems for yourself.
In it's place,and it does have a place, it can be witty, smart, beautiful, and well worth having.

But tagging alone - don't get me started. I hate it.

Where is Mount Pleasant park?

When you say designated area, do you mean it used to be legal to graffiti there? but isn't anymore am I right to presume?

Endless tagging I presume is just about getting themselves noticed by their signature as a rebellious anti establishment statement or people jumping on the band wagon for nobody's to gain respect in this culture who might not have any artistic talent?

Mount Pleasant Park is just behind London Road, where it splits off onto Abbeydale Road.

I was told as a worker by SCC and the police that it was a designated graffiti area. But that was some years ago, and having spoken to Redrobbo about it, I understand that it no longer is. Which i feel is a tremendous pity.

Where is Mount Pleasant park?

When you say designated area, do you mean it used to be legal to graffiti there? but isn't anymore am I right to presume?

Endless tagging I presume is just about getting themselves noticed by their signature as a rebellious anti establishment statement or people jumping on the band wagon for nobody's to gain respect in this culture who might not have any artistic talent?

Mount Pleasant Park has never been a 'legal' site for graffiti artists. This is a total misconception by graffiti writers, including some from Barnsley and Manchester that I've chatted with when visiting this site. They too were under the illusion that this is a council approved site. It isn't.

As a member of the council's Successful Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Board, I voted to sanction at least one legal site in the city for a trial period. I was in a minority, and the vote to approve a temporary site was lost. Full details of the deliberations of the Working Party on Graffiti are to be found on the SF Great Graffiti Debate thread.

mount pleasant, the ball courts, begining of abbeydale road rhs, its always well painted, writers generally leave each others pieces up as long as poss' generally the better the execution is the longer it stays. the ball court is a fairly small wall though so stuff dissapears pretty quickly, that wall probably has about 15 grands worth of paint on it.
you got it right about tagging^^ plus it develops can control and nerve.

Thing is, it is a part of urban culture and it won't go away just because some people want it to. So use it creatively instead.

Lol, Redrobbo, we will continue to agree to disagree on Mount Pleasant Park. I have absolutely no doubts about what the situation was when I worked in that area, but I understand that things have changed. I still think it's a pity, though.
And I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the legalised sites...I think it's a pity SCC couldn't bring itself to give it a go instead of banging their heads against this (pretty permanent) brick wall.

Thanks for the directions everyone, I think i know were you mean i must go have a look sometime.

Although it was perceived as a legal area to do graffiti was there ever any problems people know about? police arrests, arguments etc or such as the points i made in my original post ?

BTW Does anyone know of any legal sites anywhere at all?

This is some Freaky Stuff I like (http://www.yorkshirejunkies.co.uk/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1404&g2_imageViewsIndex=1)

BTW If anyone has got any links that they think are worth looking at then please post for everyone

Where is this other great graffiti debate thread as well? I can't find it anywhere.

Thanks for the directions everyone, I think i know were you mean i must go have a look sometime.

Although it was perceived as a legal area to do graffiti was there ever any problems people know about? police arrests, arguments etc or such as the points i made in my original post ?

Whilst there is a perception that Mount Pleasent is a legal site, it isn't. It is a council owned playground and ballpark, which has never been sanctioned for graffiti writers. It is not overlooked by any houses, and is thus difficult to police.

There are problems with graffit writers. Firstly, by their very action of painting (or 'writing') on the ballpark walls, they prevent legitimate use of the ballpark for what is was designed and provided for, namely, playing ball!

Secondly, there is creeping graffiti blight in the locality, including the external walls of the ballpark, adjacent buildings and nearby walls.

If the police stopped then why didn't you ask why they didn't arrest the culprits you saw defacing the church?

I will discuss this further in about 45mins if you're still online i want to watch last of match

because i asumed the coppers were doin somthin but then they just jumped stright in their car and were off. didnt even take there name. they didnt speddof either like they were on a call. fish and chips probably gettin cold

I think we should set up areas for all kinds of criminals. Perhaps the original poster will volunteer his house as the first legal burglary area?

I think most crimes should be legalised to cut down on the crime figures.

I think we should set up areas for all kinds of criminals. Perhaps the original poster will volunteer his house as the first legal burglary area?

your a funny guy arnt you Ken.

I remember making the comment somewhere else about teh Council shouldn't be expected to pay for people's hobbies - I believe that it was with regard to off-roading.

Graffiti and tagging is something I regard as, on the whole, unpleasant to look at, although there are exceptions. However - it's an albeit illegal hoby for some so my comments elsewhere apply.

If you want a legal graffiti wall, why not get a group of people together, find soem land, get some planning permission, build some walls, and off you go. Seriously?

I assume the problem is money - you might (or might now, who knows) find it difficult to raise the money needed, so why assume that soem mysterious 'them' is willing to cough up?

http://www.yorkshirejunkies.co.uk/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=7085&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

what are peoples views on this? Its in an abandoned factory of some kind, so its not vandalising any of your property and out of view! in my eyes art like this should be on view for all to see, although this one looks good in its surroundings. Can anyone say this is an eyesore?

http://www.yorkshirejunkies.co.uk/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=7085&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

what are peoples views on this? Its in an abandoned factory of some kind, so its not vandalising any of your property and out of view! in my eyes art like this should be on view for all to see, although this one looks good in its surroundings. Can anyone say this is an eyesore?

That was going to be a follow up suggestion - contact the folks who own such places, do the work, capture it on video / digital images....

I can imagine the insurers of such companies having heart attacks at the risks of folks running around their sites, but I reckon there has to be some scope in seeing if safer sites can be used in this way.

There is no legal graffiti. If someone paints a mural with the permision of the owner then this is a mural. If someone paints a mural on someone elses property without permision then this is at best vandalism and probably criminal damage.

There is no legal graffiti. If someone paints a mural with the permision of the owner then this is a mural. If someone paints a mural on someone elses property without permision then this is at best vandalism and probably criminal damage.

Yes, KenH, we have dictionaries.

I think we're using graffiti as a term that everyone understands here, rather than a term in it's precise definition.

There is no legal graffiti. If someone paints a mural with the permision of the owner then this is a mural. If someone paints a mural on someone elses property without permision then this is at best vandalism and probably criminal damage.

i like to call it street art.

I think we should set up areas for all kinds of criminals. Perhaps the original poster will volunteer his house as the first legal burglary area?

There is an enormous difference between graffiti art & burglary, you are lucky & should be thankful there is people like me to point that out to you. :P

There is an enormous difference between graffiti art & burglary, you are lucky & should be thankful there is people like me to point that out to you. :P

There is very little difference when you are on the recieving end. There is certainly no difference between the scum who pain a wall without permission and theose that smash up a bus stop or put the windows through at a school. The terrible thing about this thread is that is is giving vandals the idea that they have some worth and so they will simply move onto the next level in their criminal career, unless they get killed by a train first. There is no more justification for these criminals talking about vandalism on this thread than there is having a thread where child molesters discuss their crimes.

There is very little difference when you are on the recieving end. There is certainly no difference between the scum who pain a wall without permission and theose that smash up a bus stop or put the windows through at a school. The terrible thing about this thread is that is is giving vandals the idea that they have some worth and so they will simply move onto the next level in their criminal career, unless they get killed by a train first. There is no more justification for these criminals talking about vandalism on this thread than there is having a thread where child molesters discuss their crimes.

KenH, I think there's a world of difference between daubs of paint on a wall and child molesting.

It's an insulting comment to make - the discussion here is should there be legal areas for Graffiti, not some sort of comparitive morality where you attempt to make graffiti as a big a crime as child abuse.

What's next? Parking tickets are equivalent to murder?

I don't like graffiti at all - I find it disagreeable and in the vast majority of cases incredibly ugly. I also regard it as a gateway offence but to put it in the same bracket as these truly serious crimes is quite a bizarre statement to make.

There is very little difference when you are on the recieving end. There is certainly no difference between the scum who pain a wall without permission and theose that smash up a bus stop or put the windows through at a school. The terrible thing about this thread is that is is giving vandals the idea that they have some worth and so they will simply move onto the next level in their criminal career, unless they get killed by a train first. There is no more justification for these criminals talking about vandalism on this thread than there is having a thread where child molesters discuss their crimes.

Calm down, am i to presume listening to rap music & looking at this art work from the links is not therapeutic for you?
Who is a criminal on this thread or implied that they have broken the law?
I started this thread as a way to find a compromise/solution to the problem to suit all & you also seem to be confusing child molesters with graffiti art now instead.

I remember making the comment somewhere else about teh Council shouldn't be expected to pay for people's hobbies - I believe that it was with regard to off-roading.

Graffiti and tagging is something I regard as, on the whole, unpleasant to look at, although there are exceptions. However - it's an albeit illegal hoby for some so my comments elsewhere apply.

If you want a legal graffiti wall, why not get a group of people together, find soem land, get some planning permission, build some walls, and off you go. Seriously?

I assume the problem is money - you might (or might now, who knows) find it difficult to raise the money needed, so why assume that soem mysterious 'them' is willing to cough up?

Most councils all over the country already have appropriate bland walls which would benefit from artwork so thier is no need to build any more walls. I have already said graffiti artists do not charge for their work or labour so the cost is minimal other than paperwork probaly to approve various sites.

Most councils all over the country already have appropriate bland walls which would benefit from artwork so thier is no need to build any more walls. I have already said graffiti artists do not charge for their work or labour so the cost is minimal other than paperwork probaly to approve various sites.


But they're OWNED and whether they would benefit is a value judgement that you, when you're not the owner, don't have the right to make.

Graffiti is unusual amongst art in that it is by it's nature public, but with the public having little to do with whether they want it or not.

Whether they charge or not is irrelevant - you don't own the 'canvasses' and you don't own the 'mind space' that you take by putting your artwork in pubic.

Your rights as artists are balanced by the rights of other people not to be subjected to your art; you cannot have one without the other.

How about the blank canvas that is the interior walls of prison.

But they're OWNED and whether they would benefit is a value judgement that you, when you're not the owner, don't have the right to make.

Graffiti is unusual amongst art in that it is by it's nature public, but with the public having little to do with whether they want it or not.

Whether they charge or not is irrelevant - you don't own the 'canvasses' and you don't own the 'mind space' that you take by putting your artwork in pubic.

Your rights as artists are balanced by the rights of other people not to be subjected to your art; you cannot have one without the other.

I'm sure you or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong but their is legal specified places to fly post now & you don't see as many on bus stops, post boxes, shop windows etc so maybe this may work for people who want to display their graffiti artwork?

As for whether they charge or not been irrelevant if someone could dramatically improve a bland concrete wall for free then surely this has to be a positive move to improve look of an area? as I cannot imagine a private company wishing to do so for free?

PS I am not an graffiti artist but do appreciate some of the artwork they do & realize their artistic talents.

How about the blank canvas that is the interior walls of prison.

I think this is a good idea but just implementing this with security time & cost's etc maybe a problem.

graffiti and burgalry are different things entirely, burgalars break into your house and take things, graffiti artists stay outside it and give you free paint.

But they're OWNED and whether they would benefit is a value judgement that you, when you're not the owner, don't have the right to make.

Graffiti is unusual amongst art in that it is by it's nature public, but with the public having little to do with whether they want it or not.

Whether they charge or not is irrelevant - you don't own the 'canvasses' and you don't own the 'mind space' that you take by putting your artwork in pubic.

Your rights as artists are balanced by the rights of other people not to be subjected to your art; you cannot have one without the other.

It's not a value judgement: it's an aesthetic judgement- anyone can make one. If only the 'owners' of space had the right to make judgements it would reduce expression to that of corporate entities and the rich, why should we presume that their aesthetic values are 'best' or even acceptable if we don't get to see the alternatives?

The public have every right to decide if they want it or not: if you don't like it paint it over or strip it off.

As for the 'mind space': I don't recall signing away the public spaces of my country to "****" or "McDonalds" or "N-Power" or anyone else so that they might profit by it's uglification.

The entirety of the government owned/built structures has been paid for by the taxes of the public; some portion of that public appreciate the chance to see the works in their proper setting; I don't think it's so outrageous that these views are given some consideration and space for expression.:)

edit: the auto-thing has stripped out 'ef-see-you-kay': nuff sed!

Following on from the last post why not have some consultation with the local community to decide if they think graffiti art would be appropriate for all the bland boring concrete unimaginative walls which blight our cities & towns ?

Also what is wrong with people wanting to express themselves or show their imagination by graffiti art for others to see & appreciate?

It's not a value judgement: it's an aesthetic judgement- anyone can make one. If only the 'owners' of space had the right to make judgements it would reduce expression to that of corporate entities and the rich, why should we presume that their aesthetic values are 'best' or even acceptable if we don't get to see the alternatives?

The public have every right to decide if they want it or not: if you don't like it paint it over or strip it off.

As for the 'mind space': I don't recall signing away the public spaces of my country to "****" or "McDonalds" or "N-Power" or anyone else so that they might profit by it's uglification.

The entirety of the government owned/built structures has been paid for by the taxes of the public; some portion of that public appreciate the chance to see the works in their proper setting; I don't think it's so outrageous that these views are given some consideration and space for expression.:)

edit: the auto-thing has stripped out 'ef-see-you-kay': nuff sed!

I would agree about aesthetics - but the argument is exactly the same. You still don't have the right to force your views of art on others. And neither do advertisers - I'm as against advertising hoardings as I am against graffiti, actually. It all screws up the environment.

Government built structures have indeed been paid for by the public, but the point remains - you have no God-given right to impose your idea of art on others. Even if some portion of the public like it, there is still some portion that doesn't. When you deal with things that impact on everyone, you have to get at least soem sort of concensus.

Also what is wrong with people wanting to express themselves or show their imagination by graffiti art for others to see & appreciate?

Again, nothing if it's done where all the people viewing it have agreed to view it.

When it's done against the will of the local community, it's arrogance by the artists who consider that they have more rights than others.

Again, nothing if it's done where all the people viewing it have agreed to view it.

When it's done against the will of the local community, it's arrogance by the artists who consider that they have more rights than others.

Thats why I suggested local consultation for approval.

I would agree about aesthetics - but the argument is exactly the same. You still don't have the right to force your views of art on others. And neither do advertisers - I'm as against advertising hoardings as I am against graffiti, actually. It all screws up the environment.

Government built structures have indeed been paid for by the public, but the point remains - you have no God-given right to impose your idea of art on others. Even if some portion of the public like it, there is still some portion that doesn't. When you deal with things that impact on everyone, you have to get at least soem sort of concensus.

It's not altogether about 'art' though, is it? Is a blank concrete or steel wall/fence 'art'; or aesthetic expression in any meaningful sense?

When structures are designed and built the usual factor is cost, not decoration. As these exist in the public domain I see no reason why the public shouldn't decorate them as they please.

If you don't care for what is put on them: blank it out or put something better, and we'll go on this way until there is something there that we all like.:)

It's not altogether about 'art' though, is it? Is a blank concrete or steel wall/fence 'art'; or aesthetic expression in any meaningful sense?

When structures are designed and built the usual factor is cost, not decoration. As these exist in the public domain I see no reason why the public shouldn't decorate them as they please.

If you don't care for what is put on them: blank it out or put something better, and we'll go on this way until there is something there that we all like.:)

I totally agree but the trouble is there will probaly never be something we all like no matter what it is but I think something which the majority like by means of consultation would be a good idea.:)

Joep: I think this would be more than a fair solution considering there are all kinds of buildings, advertisements road diversions etc forced upon us every day without any warning or approval by the people who are inconvenienced or who have disapproval.

Surely something is better than nothing on all the drab concrete walls 7 buildings in our cities & townns?

IJoep: I think this would be more than a fair solution considering there are all kinds of buildings, advertisements road diversions etc forced upon us every day without any warning or approval by the people who are inconvenienced or who have disapproval.
?

Complete rubbish. Advertisments are on private property (even if it is owned by the council) and go through a planning process. If you want to paint a mural then you can do the same. If you want to simply paint anythere you like then this is criminal damage.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that graffiti is a crime and this forum shouldn't be used to encourage or justify criminal behaviour.

Complete rubbish. Advertisments are on private property (even if it is owned by the council) and go through a planning process. If you want to paint a mural then you can do the same. If you want to simply paint anythere you like then this is criminal damage.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that graffiti is a crime and this forum shouldn't be used to encourage or justify criminal behaviour.

I never said people should be able to paint graffiti art anywhere they want, nor did I say no planning application process shouldn't happen. I actually suggested consultation if you read my previous posts, not all billboards are on private property in fact on the contrary most are council owned which means their not private property if their council owned.

You also should realise that the UK has free speech where people can voice their opinion as long as it's not to cause hatred or stir up trouble, forums are for discussing all issues & topics & not everyone agrees with the current laws which are implemented which is why we have a democracy.

My thoughts:

1) It is absolutely absurd to compare graffiti of any form to crimes like child-molesting or burglary. The child-molesting comparison in particular is actually offensive.

2) I don't like basic 'tagging', for the simple reason that it's self-obsessed. However, I think kids who do this kind of thing need guiding towards better forms of the art rather than shopping to the cops.

3) I get told I'm inferior every day by advertising billboards out in public places. I have no choice whether or not to see these monstrosities, so I'm not going to ask permission to scrawl replies on them.

4) Legalised graffiti areas are a great idea, but will not replace graffiti on billboards, or other well-placed political or social graffiti.

5) Graffiti artists - those who are serious about graffiti - tend to be extremely conscious about where they put their work or slogans. If some idiot tags a car or a house window or something, they'll get a clip round the ear from their peers.

When I glanced at this thread title I thought it said
"Should there be legal areas for giraffes" :confused:

well they can do it on canvous and try an get it in to a galoreywe do do canvasses and the galleries wont touch us with a barge pole.

My thoughts:

1) It is absolutely absurd to compare graffiti of any form to crimes like child-molesting or burglary. The child-molesting comparison in particular is actually offensive.

2) I don't like basic 'tagging', for the simple reason that it's self-obsessed. However, I think kids who do this kind of thing need guiding towards better forms of the art rather than shopping to the cops.

3) I get told I'm inferior every day by advertising billboards out in public places. I have no choice whether or not to see these monstrosities, so I'm not going to ask permission to scrawl replies on them.

4) Legalised graffiti areas are a great idea, but will not replace graffiti on billboards, or other well-placed political or social graffiti.

5) Graffiti artists - those who are serious about graffiti - tend to be extremely conscious about where they put their work or slogans. If some idiot tags a car or a house window or something, they'll get a clip round the ear from their peers.well said gypsy hack.

Whilst there is a perception that Mount Pleasent is a legal site, it isn't. It is a council owned playground and ballpark, which has never been sanctioned for graffiti writers. It is not overlooked by any houses, and is thus difficult to police.

There are problems with graffit writers. Firstly, by their very action of painting (or 'writing') on the ballpark walls, they prevent legitimate use of the ballpark for what is was designed and provided for, namely, playing ball!

Secondly, there is creeping graffiti blight in the locality, including the external walls of the ballpark, adjacent buildings and nearby walls.


We are seen from the house's when painting, ive never had problems there, we let the lads play football and have a good joke around with the people that live there. Alot of people (strangers) comment on are work and enjoy it, where giving out art for free at are own expense, the writers and people you meet are amazing, how an earth can you have a mardy over a wall painted and painted again but yet never painted over by the council itself, if the council dont paint over are work where not costing them anything. Not to even mention the Jam we hold every single year POLICE PATROLED!