Vandalism
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» G__ replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 2:37pm |
 Coolness: 142080 | no, because i hate the fact that
"you're totally not getting me here.." when he's also not getting it its frustrating argueing to brick walls |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 6:07pm |
 Coolness: 340380 | Originally posted by BOSNIATRON 1-303...
And when you said "nobody cares about your stupid little tags" think again. Graffiti isn't something you want the public to judge you on.. hell some people don't even notice them, graffiti is by us for us kinda thing. It's a community thing that has deep roots in the hiphop culture, and unless you know anything about hiphop and how graffiti started and evolved it's pointless to continue this discussion. Thats like saying we've been breaking other people's things for a long time, as a community, and we're not going to stop even if others don't like it. Because if i stop, 10 others will start. Sorry to say, but if you stop, and others stop, eventually it WILL stop entirely. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 6:12pm |
 Coolness: 122155 | woah- relax.. who cares- it's not liek you're going to change each other's minds |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 6:32pm |
 Coolness: 151175 | I agree... I personally done a shit load of tags all over the city -and I to a certain extent- I find that tagging itself is lame , and just a vehicle for attention, but I still support it for reasons that I feel I shouldn't need to justify (because nobody really cares why).
But, just a response to neoforms comment on how drug-use DOESN'T affect society. I find the point that lakester was making was that many other acts of crime have a greater impact on our lives versus what grafitti does to our day-to-day lives. True, that vandalism takes alot out of the tax payers pockets, due to buffing and anit-grafitti programs, and true that at times tags make our city streets ugly. However, this War on Drugs (in the U.S mind you- but just to give you an Idea), The U.S fed. Gov. spent over $19.179.000.000 on the war on Drugs in 2003. In 2004 ( already) they've spent over $3.453. 529.000 and goes up $2.500 every second. Even though that is in the US, its just to give you an idea, I'm sure that Canada is much much less, but still, dont you want some of that back in your pocket? And do you want to know why they spend so much on Anti-Drug programs? "Because It scares all the tourists, and the ruins businesses which gets more people on the steet doing more crack! Rasing crime!" (Sound Familliar?-- So what do you think about drugs affecting the user and only the user?). Does grafitti do that!? HELL NO! Gafitti is being embraced as a sub-cultreral reality and is being promoted up the ass by corporations and the government itself to educate citizens on the sbjuect, aswell as educating the up-and-comming writters on the responsibility of doing grafitti-- TANDEM for example, with the aid KOPS crew, one of Montreals most prolific grafiiti crews . Perhaps incedendts where you see store windows with "Lison" etched into it, is a bad side to grafitti where mom-and-pop have to pay the price of replacing the windows. Grafitti is something so minor which you(IAN) seem to blowing out of proportion. The only reason I and so many others are getting into your face on the subject, is due to your choice of words and the fashion you convey your argument. If you would perhaps educate your self a little bit more on the subject or even picked up a marker or a can of Krylon, you might have an idea where we come from. Anyways... sorry about the rant If this out of context. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 6:41pm |
| Coolness: 340380 | the way i argue is the right way, i never insulted anyone, i was just using my oppinions and facts as i know them.
and just to get things straight, to ME graffiti is the colorfull/artistic stuff you rarely see in public places.. Tags are the ugly signatures of random people who scribble shit on the walls with markers and spray cans.. tags are what i am against, because there is no art involved, it's just defacement of property with no valid reason for it other than for the mere sake of defacement. which is incredibly stupid. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» G__ replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 6:49pm |
| Coolness: 142080 | don't say you argue the right way...that's just being egotistical, don't use oppinions as fact either. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 7:24pm |
| Coolness: 340380 | uhh..
okay.. would you rather i break out calling you a bitch cause i dissagree? and i never used oppions as fact. when i say something is 'wrong' there is nothing more oppinionated than someone's belief as to what is right and wrong.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ApR1zM replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 8:18pm |
 Coolness: 165515 | paint da city 2 make it less shity ! catch me if you can , you dont understand who's da man |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Bunnytronix replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 8:29pm |
 Coolness: 153225 | So this huge wall is fucking ugly on Maisoneuve.
It's a block long and needs to be painted cause brown brick makes it look like a big turd. But then again... sorry to say this for taggers... most tags look like turds too. there is a way to plan shit... there's alot of jobs that look wicked. but most of them are stuff that's been talked about and planned out. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:27pm |
| Coolness: 151175 | So true.
Tags can look lame, and most of the time do. But for those who don't actually do grafitti, can't understand the hype around bombing. Sure a tag can just be regarded as defacing a wall, but to writters its something else. And you can't diss most of the throw-ups and fillers you see by Sake or whoever, cuz that shits shit just dope on moe levels than one. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:42pm |
 Coolness: 121630 | All real graffiti writers start out tagging, it is ussually ugly at first but is an essential part of the evolution of a writers skills. It is also an expression of the writers personal frustration with the "powers that be" in society and a bid for recognition in a world that often treats young people as insignificant or secound class citizens.
I agree that graffiti should not even be mentioned in the same breath as any of those serious crimes, but I think you missed one very important point. When graffiti is decriminalized it is no longer "graffiti". It is just art on a wall - which can be cool but it's not graffiti. There has to be some vandalism and risk involved with graf. Just like those method paintings and the dude with the white dude with the afro on cable, anyone can be taught to make decent looking graffiti. But graffiti art, the styles and culture associated with it, were created by young street kids from NYC. Everything surrounding graf, from stealing paint, to making homemade markers, to bombing trains to getting chased by dts, dodging workbums these were all a part of growing up for many. If graffiti had been legal all along, it would never have developed. Illegal graffiti separates artists from the real writers, who risked it all time and time again to create it. I don't think new writers today understand how much it hurts to see graffiti becoming commercialized. It happened to rap, but that I could live with. But just like rap, graffiti is all about the kids and the neighborhoods who created it. Once popularized it becomes watered down. It loses everything that made it so great. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:47pm |
| Coolness: 340380 | If ever i get into tagging, i'm gonna write hate litterature on the walls. cause hey, it's art. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Sun Feb 1, 2004 @ 11:55pm |
| Coolness: 121630 | it has been done before... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:05am |
| Coolness: 340380 | i'll be sure to be much more in yourface and vicious. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:07am |
| Coolness: 121630 | can't be more vicious than that
the guy spit it out raw, 100% political |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:08am |
| Coolness: 340380 | umm.. politics aren't the epidomy of vulgarity and viciousness.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:12am |
 Coolness: 686305 |  |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:30am |
| Coolness: 686305 | Also:
Yes. Everyone. Now shut the fuck up and agree to dissagree, no matter how much better you think your argument is or how much you think drawing pictures on a metro has the same impact on life as cavemen drawing on caves. Your all a bunch of fucking retards. Chill the fuck out. Arguing over the internet AUTOMATICALY MAKES YOU WRONG. And retarded. And, in this case, gayer than that guy. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:31am |
 Coolness: 69690 | ok.. im really late in this thread... but I'm gonna agree with Ian ("And Circle gets the square!")...
no offence but... youre all idiots sorry, i had to. now that that's out of my system,.... let the debate begin. Article 1) Graffiti as art. Art. That is a very abstract word. Let's review it's meaning shall we?The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines art as: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects . That is all well and good. Now is a tag creative? imaginative? or aesthetic? That's another questionable answer. In my personal opinion, it is not. It is ugly, unattractive, unimaginative, and not creative in any way, shape or form. It even makes its surroundings less appealing. Article 2) "People have been writing their names in weird places since the cavemen." You're an idiot. A) They did not write their names. B) They drew animals and the hunt. More likely than not as a guide for younger men who did not have the experience of the hunt. It was instrumental to the survival of their community. It was not because they wanted to advertise their names to people they don't know, nor was it because they were so interested and deep-rooted followers and lovers of the so-called hip hop culture . Article 3) Graffiti affects society as a whole. Graffiti really does affect society as a whole. Why do you think the (oh so horrible and hated) government cleans up graffiti when it is somewhere it's not supposed to be? Because they like wasting money? Money that could easily be spent on helping the poor you love so much? And are tagging so desperately to help? Hm. Let's think for a moment. Does the "Man" want to waste money on cleaning graffiti? No. Why not? Because he could spend that money on social benefits for the people who will be re-electing him next term. And how does tagging fit into this equation? Like so: Tax Money = Taxes collected from the poor, the middle class and the rich. Correct? Correct. Now here is where it gets tricky. Tax Money is spent on: Social Benefits, Re-election campaign, Social Insurance, Bien-etre Social, Roads, Health, Education, Graffiti removal (very simplistic, but I'm trying to prove a point) Now the money spent on the removal of graffiti could be used in more efficient ways. And don't doubt that it's not a lot of money. It is. You've all said it before: "If I don't do it, there will be 10 people ready to take my place." So for every person who stops, its increases exponentially 10 TIMES! Wow. That's a lot of money! Enough even to start a new welfare program? I wouldn't know. But I hope you can see my point. Article 4) Graffiti as evolution. Evolution. Wow. That's deep. I think he was trying to make some sort of artistic creation with that comment. (Sorry.:b) But I complettely agree with FLEKO on his statement about it getting commercialized and becoming useless. Graffiti did, I assume, evolve from somewhere, something. Something with a meaning, with a purpose. It no longer has that meaning or purpose. It is destruction. And (if any of you have read Graham Greene) destruction may be an artform. But in this scenario, I don't see it that way. Tagging has lost its meaning. It no longer symbolizes the frustration with the powers that be. It symbolizes teen angst and attention-seeking. If you have a problem with the "powers that be," take it up with them. Not with the people who ride the bus every morning. The reasons for this are twofold: A) Tagging is almost entirely incomprehensible and illegible. B) People ignore it. It is everywhere. One more or less won't change the world. (Unfinished) Conclusion Vandalism is bad. It's meaning is lost. It is a mindless self-indulgence. If you want to chagne the world, do something constructive, not DEstructive. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Feb 2, 2004 @ 12:34am |
| Coolness: 686305 | You too.
Gay. |
Vandalism
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
