The Big Sheffield Graffiti Thread

[miniminch 10]

Believe it or not, but some people/businesses don't like advertising OF ANY KIND on their property and they shouldn't have to put up with it. It isn't a "knee jerk reaction" to want to keep one's property how one likes it, so of course it will cost money to be cleaned up. The "advertisers" wouldn't do their vandalism (because when all said and done, that's what it is) if they had an ounce of consideration or respect for other people and their property.

 

Let's all be coporate slaves and puppets:gag:

[t020 11]

Originally posted by miniminch

Believe it or not, but some people/businesses don't like advertising OF ANY KIND on their property and they shouldn't have to put up with it. It isn't a "knee jerk reaction" to want to keep one's property how one likes it, so of course it will cost money to be cleaned up. The "advertisers" wouldn't do their vandalism (because when all said and done, that's what it is) if they had an ounce of consideration or respect for other people and their property.

 

Let's all be coporate slaves and puppets:gag:

 

How many corporate advertisers go up to business property or people's property and splash up their adverts? None. Your analogy is well and truly flawed.

[redrobbo 10]

Originally posted by redrobbo

Thanks THCAyle for at least beginning a rational post from the graffiti artist's viewpoint. When you return, please would you address this issue raised by t020 -

 

"Like so many others on this thread, my main problem is with the lack of respect and consideration shown by the "artists" and also their dismissive arrogance in assuming we all want to see it".

 

This adequately sums up my views. So, in the spirit of engagement, (and I think you'll have noticed the distance I have travelled since we last debated this issue), I am very keen to hear your views about "dismissive arrogance in assuming we all want to see it".

 

THCAyle - you've been posting on this thread since I posted this earlier message to you. Would you now address this issue. I have quoted t020, am feel sure that t020 as well as myself (and others) are keen to hear your reply to this particular point. I will PM you to draw your attention it.

Thanks.

 

Red

[miniminch 10]

Originally posted by t020

How many corporate advertisers go up to business property or people's property and splash up their adverts? None. Your analogy is well and truly flawed.

Oh I get it freedom of expression as long as you have the money or corporate backing. May I point out to you that the major corporations who bombard use with their lying imagery have not asked any of us if we want to be hit with these images as we travel up any given highway or road. The reason why they don’t ask is because they know that the answer would be a resounding NO. Immoral, evil gigantic lying mouths whose difference between them and the graffiti artists is they have money; the artists don’t., They pay off people in power: the artist don’t , and the graffiti artists are not trying to sell us anything by lying and manipulating the media. My argument therefore is one of aesthetics since it can not be an argument of morals. Your argument is one of legislature since the advertisers have sanction from the government whom they have bought off and cynically cow tow too. Not a strong argument then

 

So I say I would rather have graffiti art on my walls any day than a sign for MacDonald’s. It speaks more of our human condition and our need to communicate and interact with one another. Unlike the major corporations, who, in the name of individualistic capitalism seek to divide and isolate the viewer. The corporate act of seeing all as individual consumers rather than a society attacks the very fabric of that society. That’s why advertising is evil and that’s why it should be stop.

 

Your fear of people communicating with one another with simple words and paint is beyond me. I think it is at best beautiful and at the very least paint on a wall.

 

And just because you keep repeating yourself over and over T020 doesn’t mean it’s true.

[sheffieldism 10]

its looking that way, hes not had much to say since. Would be good to hear tho, cos ive seen WSK for many years now and would like to know more. Theres alot of s**t graffiti in sheffield but there are some hidden gems dotted around, and In my mind graffiti done well is art.

[t020 11]

Originally posted by miniminch

Oh I get it freedom of expression as long as you have the money or corporate backing. May I point out to you that the major corporations who bombard use with their lying imagery have not asked any of us if we want to be hit with these images as we travel up any given highway or road. The reason why they don’t ask is because they know that the answer would be a resounding NO. Immoral, evil gigantic lying mouths whose difference between them and the graffiti artists is they have money; the artists don’t., They pay off people in power: the artist don’t , and the graffiti artists are not trying to sell us anything by lying and manipulating the media. My argument therefore is one of aesthetics since it can not be an argument of morals. Your argument is one of legislature since the advertisers have sanction from the government whom they have bought off and cynically cow tow too. Not a strong argument then

 

So I say I would rather have graffiti art on my walls any day than a sign for MacDonald’s. It speaks more of our human condition and our need to communicate and interact with one another. Unlike the major corporations, who, in the name of individualistic capitalism seek to divide and isolate the viewer. The corporate act of seeing all as individual consumers rather than a society attacks the very fabric of that society. That’s why advertising is evil and that’s why it should be stop.

 

Your fear of people communicating with one another with simple words and paint is beyond me. I think it is at best beautiful and at the very least paint on a wall.

 

And just because you keep repeating yourself over and over T020 doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

 

You're STILL missing the point. You say you would rather have graffiti art on your wall than a sign for McDonald's? Well, that's your choice - personally I'd rather have NOTHING. I want my wall to be my wall. The difference between the majority of graffiti "artists" and corporations like McDonalds is that the former think it's ok to vandalise the property of people and businesses, the latter stick to designated places. It should be the right of every person and business to have their property left alone, not to have to put up with vandals painting on it because they feel like it or because they assume other people will like it.

 

As I said before to someone else though, if you're so tolerant and accepting of graffiti on your property, maybe you should volunteer it for use by the "artists"? The more people doing this, the less people who don't want their property ruined by graffiti will be affected.

[Strix 11]

Originally posted by miniminch

Oh I get it freedom of expression as long as you have the money or corporate backing. May I point out to you that the major corporations who bombard use with their lying imagery have not asked any of us if we want to be hit with these images as we travel up any given highway or road. ....

 

Except when I asked Maiden to change an advert near my house they willingly obliged within 24hrs - spraypaint don't come off that easy

[Ann* 10]

Originally posted by t020

You're STILL missing the point. You say you would rather have graffiti art on your wall than a sign for McDonald's? Well, that's your choice - personally I'd rather have NOTHING. I want my wall to be my wall. The difference between the majority of graffiti "artists" and corporations like McDonalds is that the former think it's ok to vandalise the property of people and businesses, the latter stick to designated places. It should be the right of every person and business to have their property left alone, not to have to put up with vandals painting on it because they feel like it or because they assume other people will like it.

 

As I said before to someone else though, if you're so tolerant and accepting of graffiti on your property, maybe you should volunteer it for use by the "artists"? The more people doing this, the less people who don't want their property ruined by graffiti will be affected.

 

....and, in most cases planning permission is needed for most advertising, and corporations pay for the right to advertise.

 

May I say again, because nobody seems to really addressed the point, not only is graffiti and tagging, without permission, vandalism, it is criminal damage, and therefore ILLEGAL!

[redrobbo 10]

Originally posted by t020

You're STILL missing the point. It should be the right of every person and business to have their property left alone, not to have to put up with vandals painting on it because they feel like it or because they assume other people will like it.

 

 

Thank you t020 for putting this so succinctly. This is exactly the point that I would like TCHAyle, self-styled graffiti artist, to address. I have sent him a PM asking him to contribute an answer. I hope he will respond.

[t020 11]

Originally posted by redrobbo

Thank you t020 for putting this so succinctly. This is exactly the point that I would like TCHAyle, self-styled graffiti artist, to address. I have sent him a PM asking him to contribute an answer. I hope he will respond.

 

Thanks. I too look forward to his answer.

[Saifa 10]

Originally posted by miniminch

Oh I get it freedom of expression as long as you have the money or corporate backing. May I point out to you that the major corporations who bombard use with their lying imagery have not asked any of us if we want to be hit with these images as we travel up any given highway or road. The reason why they don’t ask is because they know that the answer would be a resounding NO. Immoral, evil gigantic lying mouths whose difference between them and the graffiti artists is they have money; the artists don’t., They pay off people in power: the artist don’t , and the graffiti artists are not trying to sell us anything by lying and manipulating the media. My argument therefore is one of aesthetics since it can not be an argument of morals. Your argument is one of legislature since the advertisers have sanction from the government whom they have bought off and cynically cow tow too. Not a strong argument then

 

So I say I would rather have graffiti art on my walls any day than a sign for MacDonald’s. It speaks more of our human condition and our need to communicate and interact with one another. Unlike the major corporations, who, in the name of individualistic capitalism seek to divide and isolate the viewer. The corporate act of seeing all as individual consumers rather than a society attacks the very fabric of that society. That’s why advertising is evil and that’s why it should be stop.

 

Your fear of people communicating with one another with simple words and paint is beyond me. I think it is at best beautiful and at the very least paint on a wall.

 

And just because you keep repeating yourself over and over T020 doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

Mate I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

 

Its OK to get in folks faces if you're paying for the privilege seems to be the message here don't it?

 

Graffitti - advertising. Can someone explain the difference apart from one pays and one don't?

[JoeP 11]

I don't particularly like advertising either; I recently pointed out to my 20 month old neice a McDonald's sign and regaled her for several minutes with 'Golden Arches Bad'....

 

However, at last look advertisers didn't turn up in the middle of the night and slap an ad on your wall-end, garden wall, street sign or garage door.

 

If you object to advertising there's still the opportunity to complain to the originators of the advertising, report it to the advertising standards authority, complain to teh planning authority and so on. As far as I know the local graffiti artists are not covered by any means of reply.

 

As for freedom of speech and expression arguments - surely the owners of the walls and surfaces graffitied, often the local authority, householders or small shop keepers - are entitled to the freedom to NOT have graffiti there?

 

Joe