Graffiti

[Techniquest]

Bah, I had to look three or four times to see what the hell the first one was! Don't like the second one either.

Such a waste of paint...

 

[yorkie]

LilLoaf - I see your point, but I am against it on trains and I am against buildings being painted like that, especially such a tall building - it's an eyesore.

However, I can accept places like under bridges in inner city areas where, let's face it - graffiti is going to happen anyway - then it is a good idea to do organised graffiti where it is approved and done legally in a style that looks reasonable. But I don't like the idea of it going further than that.

 

[LilLoaf]

I suppose there isn't going to be many people who think it should be allowed on trains even if it is controlled. Everyone has their own thoughts on it. I'm glad that some people think it should be allowed just not on trains in a controlled way somewhere just no on a train. Personally i still think it would look good on trains.

Anyway the old island line livery the monster one or whatever it was i carn't remember now was hardly an eyesore. Thats wasn't a standard livery you ay expect on a train, is was like a drawing type thing, nobody really was bothered about that.

Wasn't there also a advertising livery on a pendolino. Something like a graffiti drawling of animals, might be something completly differant. There was superman livery then something else, it was on a Pendolino, that wasn't too bad. Was it?

 

[90019]

Anyway the old island line livery the monster one or whatever it was i carn't remember now was hardly an eyesore.

I believe it was the Dino livery

 

[GWRtom]

I suppose there isn't going to be many people who think it should be allowed on trains even if it is controlled. Everyone has their own thoughts on it. I'm glad that some people think it should be allowed just not on trains in a controlled way somewhere just no on a train. Personally i still think it would look good on trains.

Anyway the old island line livery the monster one or whatever it was i carn't remember now was hardly an eyesore. Thats wasn't a standard livery you ay expect on a train, is was like a drawing type thing, nobody really was bothered about that.

Wasn't there also a advertising livery on a pendolino. Something like a graffiti drawling of animals, might be something completly differant. There was superman livery then something else, it was on a Pendolino, that wasn't too bad. Was it?

how is a dinosaur a monster?

 

[LilLoaf]

GWR TOM - how is a dinosaur a monster?
I could not remember exactly what it was, still looks very effective though, i think that more trains should be painted with these brightly coloured designs on them in more of a graffiti type style to them. Looks good me thinks.

Maybe someone should do a graffiti type drawing of a pop/rock singer on side of a train with tour dates on it aswell. For like say Meatloaf, or Pink. That way its an advertising thing, an art thing, and its showing a good singer so people will want to look at it. If people want to look a pics of singers, in Music mags, then why not on side a train aswell. It would work rather well i think, but thats what i think, any thoughts on that idea anyone.

 

[O L Leigh]

The difference between graffiti and a non-standard livery like the Island Line "Dinosaur" livery has nothing to do with the relative aesthetic merits. It's simply down to a question of ownership. It's the TOC's rolling stock so they can do what they like with it. To a graffiti vandal (I'm sorry, but I can't call them artists), the train belongs to someone else who has not given them permission to repaint.

No matter how impressive or worthy a piece of graffiti is, it has no right being there. That's what you have to remember. Don't be fooled into believing that it has merit because it's been well executed or happens to appeal to your taste, it's criminal damage plain and simple.

O L Leigh

 

[LilLoaf]

O L Leigh - No matter how impressive or worthy a piece of graffiti is, it has no right being there. That's what you have to remember. Don't be fooled into believing that it has merit because it's been well executed or happens to appeal to your taste, it's criminal damage plain and simple.

Thats the trouble with a LOT of people Leigh's isn't alone in thinking this, people arn't able to see the bigger picture. SOMETIMES it can promote a really effective message, i've often looked at graffiti and starting thinking about what it says and its changed how i thought about a certain subject. If it is criminal damage not then its for all the right reasons, do something "bad" for a good reason.

"Bad" is said in a sarcastic sence because in my opinion something bad is only something that hurts someone. How graffiti can hurt someone is beyond me?

I still reckin my idea about promoting music singers in the 6th comment on this page is a good way to use graffiti for a good reason.

 

[O L Leigh]

Thats the trouble with a LOT of people Leigh's isn't alone in thinking this, people arn't able to see the bigger picture. SOMETIMES it can promote a really effective message, i've often looked at graffiti and starting thinking about what it says and its changed how i thought about a certain subject. If it is criminal damage not then its for all the right reasons, do something "bad" for a good reason.

No...!! This is not correct even in the slightest.

There is no value judgement on this topic. There is no "bigger picture". There are no "right reasons" for vandalising a train. It is a criminal act to apply graffiti to property that does not belong to you without the permission of the owner.

I don't even know why we're still discussing this. There are no justifications for criminal damage. If you want to get across a message there are plenty of legitimate methods to do so.

O L Leigh

 

[LilLoaf]

O L Leigh - If you want to get across a message there are plenty of legitimate methods to do so.


Such as ? Other than standing in a street shouting.

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh, for pity's sake...!! What do you want me to do? Hold your hand?

O L Leigh

 

[Pumbaa]

Woah - hang on. Far from being no value judgement, this is very much a value judgement.

We have very well classified the two types of graffiti - graffiti vandalism and graffiti art. Vandalism should be a no brainer; it's vandalism because it's not allowed.

But graffiti art on the other hand... Take for example Frankfurt, Germany. The local authority, fed up of seeing graffiti everywhere, decided that it could be used to their advantage. Now, once a month, the first Sunday I believe, certain walls next to roads and railways are given over to graffiti art. Saves them looking grey and dull.

And it works apparently, and looks nice too. Same sorta thing happened here in Hemel. A major building site had it's protective panelling given over to graffiti art next to a main road.

In moderation, it would probably be okay. But to say "graffiti should never be allowed on the railways" is probably a bit extreme. I would rather see a graffiti wall outside most mainline stations with relatively attractive artwork than a myriad of shapes and incomprehensible street language littering the station walls and buildings, and obviously on the side of trains.

 

[O L Leigh]

Woah - hang on. Far from being no value judgement, this is very much a value judgement.

Wrong, and you've actually illustrated the point I'm making quite nicely.

Take for example Frankfurt, Germany. The local authority, fed up of seeing graffiti everywhere, decided that it could be used to their advantage. Now, once a month, the first Sunday I believe, certain walls next to roads and railways are given over to graffiti art. Saves them looking grey and dull.

And it works apparently, and looks nice too. Same sorta thing happened here in Hemel. A major building site had it's protective panelling given over to graffiti art next to a main road.

I notice that in both the examples you have cited that the authorities granted permission for these works to appear. If that's the case it is fine. As I have said before, this is the only criteria that decides whether or not it is criminal damage. Even if one of the nice works from Hemel was transposed onto a train or other property without permission, it would be a criminal act. There are no other criteria.

**EDIT**

I imagine also that those wishing to take part in this scheme will need to apply to the relevant authority for permission rather than it just being a complete free-for-all.

O L Leigh

 

[LilLoaf]

Thank you Makstaylor - I agree with everything you said in the above comment. Thats what i've been trying to explain. Graffiti used correctly is a very good thing. It worked in those places mentioned so it should do here. There is no reason why it shouldn't. i think people think of graffiti and just see swear words, rude messages, and things like ___ was ere wif da crew, or something like that, people don't see that art behind some of it.

O L Leigh- There no need to be like that, i was only asking for a list of how you can get a message across for free, without standing in a street shouting. Which annoys me ?
Anyone been to grays monument Newcastle on a saterday.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm beginning to get sick of saying this.

You're getting mixed up with something being "good" and something being legal. In spite of the discussions on the relative merit of graffiti and how it can be used in a positive way, this really is very very simple indeed. Graffiti is criminal damage. If the property does not belong to you or you do not have the permission of the relative authorities you are acting completely outside the law no matter how "good" or positive your work is. And that applies to Banksy as to everyone else. But please, don't just take my word for it. Ask the courts.

LilLoaf: You should check Makstaylor's post again. His examples are of legitimate "street art" where permission has been given by the authorities. I'll say again, this is the ONLY criteria.

As for asking for a list well, for Pete's sake, you're an adult. You don't need me to lead you by the hand. People have been demonstrating and campaigning on a wide variety of issues, and with some success, for years without having to resort to illegal means. I'm sure if you thought about it for a while you'd come up with at least a dozen ways.

O L Leigh

 

[LilLoaf]

If you read my posts again you will see that i am AGAINST graffiti AND FOR graffiti art. I'm not going through the two terms again, just read back on previous comments. Me and Makstaylor both agree, the vandalism form is wrong, the graffiti art form is write. Only thing i would add is that there should be more graffiti art evens organised.



As for not coming up with a list, could it maybe that you carn't think of a way to get a message across without standing in a street and shouting. TV add, Radio Add, all cost a lot of money to do.

 

[87015]

all cost a lot of money to do.

So does clearing the crap off trains or buildings, so I fail to see how it is 'free'. Of course it is free to the clowns that do it, so thats probably all that they care about.

If they want somewhere to do it they should form a co-operative or similar and buy some property of their own to do it on.

 

[O L Leigh]

If you read my posts again you will see that i am AGAINST graffiti AND FOR graffiti art. I'm not going through the two terms again, just read back on previous comments. Me and Makstaylor both agree, the vandalism form is wrong, the graffiti art form is write. Only thing i would add is that there should be more graffiti art evens organised.

I've read and understood your previous comments. But you have singularly failed to deal with the legal side of "street art".

I'm not disagreeing that "street art" can be "good" and positive. What I am trying to get across is that it this is no defence where someone has decided to apply it illegally without permission. Under such circumstances it is classed by the legal system as criminal damage irrespective of the quality of the work or the message it is getting across.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just repeating myself over and over, but it really is that simple. Just getting a group of people together and saying that something is "art" or "vandalism" does not validate it.

As for not coming up with a list, could it maybe that you carn't think of a way to get a message across without standing in a street and shouting. TV add, Radio Add, all cost a lot of money to do.

You mean you've never heard of the internet, e-mail, writing letters to the press, lobbying your MP, lending your support to existing pressure groups...? Need I go on...?

As for graffiti being free, I trust you're not also advocating shoplifting.

O L Leigh

 

[delt1c]

Regardless of how good some graffiti may look to some it is a crime. try leaving the house at 6am then have a 30 min walk to the station on a cold winters morning , only to discover that the train is cancelled due to being subject to a graffiti attack overnight. Dont care how good or bad it is , it is illegal and costs traveelers dearly in cancelled trains and monedy to clean it.

 

[LilLoaf]

I'm not disagreeing that "street art" can be "good" and positive.......

criminal damage irrespective of the quality of the work or the message it is getting across... O L Liegh.

Street art can be positive, getting better... There was a situation a while back and it was highlighted in a TV drama, a girl had been killed in a gang attack. A few days past and then without permission from whoever you have to ask he sprayed a picture of the girl on a wall, and it was used as memorial. Like i say the TV drama was based on what happened in the real life. The graffiti artest never asked permission to do. But the drawing he sprayed looked really realistic. Nobody is the community was bothered and like i said it was used as a memorial. Now surely that is justifyed, might be illegal but like i said one of the last few comments, was for all the rights reasons.

Also didn't mean to sound as if it was free, should have explained it bit better, sorry about that.

Thanks for looking over previous comments before typing another comment, its good to see you've taken time to look.

 

[Pumbaa]

Yes - it is very much a value judgement. The legality does not cancel out the judgement, it acts as one side of it; in this case that "graffiti on trains is vandalising private property against the wishes of the owners, and therefore could be said to be illegal". The other side would be that "the law does not distinguish between between vandalism and art. Neither does the owner of the train. I consider my work to be art, and not vandalism, therefore I will apply my artwork to the train as this would not be illegal".

The obvious conditions here being the definitions and conditions of graffiti vandalism in both law and conditions of ownership, and the condition under which art and vandalism are divided. Essentially, both the above are again value judgements, as definitions are constantly changing and subjective. If they were to be objective, freedom of speech and thought would not be allowed.

To sum up, graffiti art should be allowed on trains under controlled conditions.

 

[LilLoaf]

Regardless of how good some graffiti may look to some it is a crime. try leaving the house at 6am then have a 30 min walk to the station on a cold winters morning , only to discover that the train is cancelled due to being subject to a graffiti attack overnight. Dont care how good or bad it is , it is illegal and costs traveelers dearly in cancelled trains and monedy to clean it.

Never have i turned up to catch a train and found its been cancelled because of graffiti attack. Wish people wouldn't say attack makes it sound soo over the top.

Anyway it should be allowed in a controlled way

 

[delt1c]

Never have i turned up to catch a train and found its been cancelled because of graffiti attack. Wish people wouldn't say attack makes it sound soo over the top.

Anyway it should be allowed in a controlled way

It happens, used to happen quite often on trains stabled at Hertford east. Try going for the same train every morning , take it from me it happens, then I end up being late for work because "an artist" has decided to show of their work.

 

[GB]

Yes - it is very much a value judgement. The legality does not cancel out the judgement, it acts as one side of it; in this case that "graffiti on trains is vandalising private property against the wishes of the owners, and therefore could be said to be illegal". The other side would be that "the law does not distinguish between between vandalism and art. Neither does the owner of the train. I consider my work to be art, and not vandalism, therefore I will apply my artwork to the train as this would not be illegal".

The obvious conditions here being the definitions and conditions of graffiti vandalism in both law and conditions of ownership, and the condition under which art and vandalism are divided. Essentially, both the above are again value judgements, as definitions are constantly changing and subjective. If they were to be objective, freedom of speech and thought would not be allowed.

To sum up, graffiti art should be allowed on trains under controlled conditions.

Uh...yes it does and anyone that thinks otherwise is quite wrong. Its the same law the prevents me coming round to where you live and adding my "graffiti art" to a viehicle that you own without your permission. It maybe "art" to some people, but it is vandalism first and foremost.

 

[LilLoaf]

It happens, used to happen quite often on trains stabled at Hertford east. Try going for the same train every morning , take it from me it happens, then I end up being late for work because "an artist" has decided to show of their work.

I'll take your word for it, i have no desire to go to Hertford East to be hounest.

 

[Pumbaa]

It maybe "art" to some people, but it is vandalism first and foremost.

Yes - and that is why it's a value judgement! As the law doesn't explicitly say what is what, the individual interprets it as they will. You consider it vandalism, he considers art, the law considers it graffiti. As you each value it differently, therefore it is a value judgement.

 

[Coxster]

I personally think OL Leigh should spray his message across the front of LilLoaf's house. If LilLoaf thinks vandals should be able to spray their message on other people's property, then why shouldn't OL Leigh spray his message on LilLoaf's property?

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes - and that is why it's a value judgement! As the law doesn't explicitly say what is what, the individual interprets it as they will. You consider it vandalism, he considers art, the law considers it graffiti. As you each value it differently, therefore it is a value judgement.

So, to come back to my point, how is that supposed to be interpreted by the law?

The law does NOT make a distinction between art and criminal damage, and I'm getting sick to the back teeth of saying it. If property has been defaced or damaged, that is a criminal act. We can sit around here and debate this until the cows come home and might well arrive at a compromise that suits us all, but it doesn't make one jot of difference to the situation out there in the real world.

I also hugely dislike you idea of changing definitions and conditions of ownership. Why should I, as a property owner, put up with my property being damaged or defaced without any recompense just because someone says it's "art"? This is madness!!

The simple answer is not reclassification and nor is it a woolly appreciation of the dubious skill of a so-called "artist". It's a proper respect for other people and for their property.

**EDIT**

Anyone who is in any doubt as to the strength of feeling about this might want to look at the poll results so far.

O L Leigh

 

[LilLoaf]

There was a situation a while back and it was highlighted in a TV drama, a girl had been killed in a gang attack. A few days past and then without permission from whoever you have to ask he sprayed a picture of the girl on a wall, and it was used as memorial. Like i say the TV drama was based on what happened in the real life. The graffiti artest never asked permission to do. But the drawing he sprayed looked really realistic. Nobody is the community was bothered and like i said it was used as a memorial. Now surely that is justifyed, might be illegal but like i said one of the last few comments, was for all the rights reasons. FROM MY PREVIOUS COMMENT

I have posted the same thing again as i feel it may have been overlooked before.

Sometimes it can be fine to spray a message as long as its a nice one, without going through proper channels, like in the situation i just mentioned. However it should not be on someones house, shop, car, etc. Just on a wall somewhere or subway so people see it as they walk past.

 

[O L Leigh]

Sometimes it can be fine to spray a message as long as its a nice one, without going through proper channels, like in the situation i just mentioned. However it should not be on someones house, shop, car, etc. Just on a wall somewhere or subway so people see it as they walk past.

*Bangs head on desk*

LilLoaf: You have been reading this thread, haven't you...? Have you not taken any notice of what I and others have been telling you about how the law would view this behaviour?

Just to clarify; this isn't fine. The circumstance you described was still an example of criminal damage but the authorities allowed it to remain following representations from the community who wanted to keep it. This is unusual and just because it has been allowed to happen once does not set a precedent. No authority is obliged to agree with the community, even under the circumstances you've described.

O L Leigh