Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Should There Be Legal Areas For Graffiti?

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
01-02-2007, 15:00   #21
KenH
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Total Posts: 4,395
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 am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the communist party.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 15:08   #22
Green Web
Registered User
Green Web's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 2,825
I think most crimes should be legalised to cut down on the crime figures.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 15:40   #23
7hills
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Total Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 15:49   #24
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
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?
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 15:56   #25
7hills
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Total Posts: 1,076
http://www.yorkshirejunkies.co.uk/ga...geViewsIndex=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?
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 16:05   #26
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7hills View Post
http://www.yorkshirejunkies.co.uk/ga...geViewsIndex=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.
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 16:59   #27
KenH
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Total Posts: 4,395
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 am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the communist party.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 17:35   #28
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 18:13   #29
7hills
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Total Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 19:44   #30
King Rat
Registered User
King Rat's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 19:48   #31
KenH
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Total Posts: 4,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Rat View Post
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.
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.
_______
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the communist party.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 19:54   #32
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 20:02   #33
King Rat
Registered User
King Rat's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenH View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 20:10   #34
King Rat
Registered User
King Rat's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 20:36   #35
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Rat View Post
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.
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 20:40   #36
little_m
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Cuckoo Land
Total Posts: 529
How about the blank canvas that is the interior walls of prison.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 20:58   #37
King Rat
Registered User
King Rat's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 21:00   #38
King Rat
Registered User
King Rat's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Total Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by little_m View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 21:08   #39
tom3t0
Registered User
tom3t0's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Netherlands
Total Posts: 3,425
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.
  Reply With Quote
01-02-2007, 22:10   #40
fr8neck
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Broomhill
Total Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
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!
_______
You never get what you 'deserve': you get what you negotiate.

Last edited by fr8neck; 01-02-2007 at 22:12.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:36.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018