Jump to content


Should There Be Legal Areas For Graffiti?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other 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.

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.