• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Graffiti

vurtomatic

vurtomatic

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
2,927
Location
New York
Saw Bomb It the documentary last night (also one on Annie Leibovitz--Life Through A Lens, great great photographer but not much of a thread there, would love to recommend it to all fans of photography and pop culture), about graffiti around the world. Interesting but.

While I don't deny some of it is art, a lot of it just looks like some punk scrawling their I WAS HERE on walls. Even the fancy typographic treatment. That's not art. That's just a fancy way of writing something. I've seen great design with type, and beautiful type, but graffiti ain't that.

So some of these people think they're part of some underground movement, some pseudo military force on covert missions to take back their cities. Because they're not happy with skyscrapers or the bland architecture around them.

And some of them pontificate and elevate graffiti to a whole new out of this world level, what planet are these people on?

Perhaps the most interesting issue raised was the matter of public space, who owns it, and who has the 'right' to do what they do.

But after the documentary, I'm left with an impression a bunch of angsty folks, the taggers, the community activitsts ... don't these people have anything better to care about?

So what do you guys think, graffiti?

I think only a small subset of it is what I would consider to be art. I just can't stand the way everyone in the docu tried to turn graffiti (on the whole) into something more than what it is.
 
I'm fine with it so long as it isn't done on public property or someone's private property (against their will).
 
vurtomatic said:
While I don't deny some of it is art, a lot of it just looks like some punk scrawling their I WAS HERE on walls. Even the fancy typographic treatment. That's not art. That's just a fancy way of writing something.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is art. Whether it is "good" art or not is a different matter, as with its legality.

There's already a massive graffiti thread in Aus Social somewhere. I can't be bothered looking it up.
 
vurtomatic said:
While I don't deny some of it is art, a lot of it just looks like some punk scrawling their I WAS HERE on walls. Even the fancy typographic treatment. That's not art. That's just a fancy way of writing something. I've seen great design with type, and beautiful type, but graffiti ain't that.
Click to expand...
Lettering is indeed an art, a very hard one at that.
And too clarify, tagging IS an "I WAS HERE" thing. Dogs piss wherever they can, writers get up wherever they can. That's just what they do. Sometimes hours at a time aren't available to spend on large piece at a time. You don't like it? tough shit. I don't like seeing advertisements paid for by multi-billion dollar industries shoved down my throat everywhere i turn my head, but i deal with it just fine.(ignoring it)

As with any subculture, you're going to find a largely varying degree of personality types. Some writers are people you wouldn't expect to participate in the act of graffiti at all. Some form crews and take it so seriously i would go so far as to call them a gang. You can't form an opinion about the art as a whole based on a few individuals.
Most if not all writers have respect for private property, they won't write on a persons house and shit like that.


I think anyone who has participated in the act of graffiti will agree there is something very seductive about the subculture. The danger, the idea that you may one day become kown, locally if not nationally or even world wide. The elusiveness of it all kind of draws you in and you want more.


related viewing:http://www.youtube.com/user/handselecta
 
To me, some of graffiti can be considered art, and some just aren't.

Let's say I'm a tagger who scrawls my tag with a marker pen. That's art?
 
if you've got some skill with that pen, than yes.


take a look at that link i posted. you can't deny the way those guys make their letters is an art.

it goes like this....
tag:your basic....uh...tag. normal letters in the writers own script.
throwup:usually those bubbly looking letters, a fill and an outline. utilized for quickness.
piece/burner: those beautiful words with all kinds of coloring, outline, extensions, bits, etc etc.


http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=339245
 
I think I can only conclude that there's good graffity and shit graffity just as I think there's good art and shit art, so I'm biased and projecting my own taste onto what I see. Just like I think a lot of modern art is self-wanking crap that has more to do with networking, a good PR agent, and a good piece of rationale.

Re. the comparison with advertising billboards ... those are designated spaces (regardless of whether you think they deserve to be there), as opposed to graffiti that is done on any public surface, comments?

So if taggers find advertising so offensive, why not target billboards and cover them up? Why public surfaces?

Eg.

_1864929.56.jpg


Murakami liked it enough to have the billboard shipped back to his Japanese studio.

And re. the issue of 'taking back' the city or marking your presence ... what gives the tagger ownership of the public space? It's not like a property open to ownership, personal ownership. Eg. a tagger tagging a wall; but you don't see a white collar dude walking by, and slapping a sign saying he owns it.

Graffiti only seems valid in its illegality (there was a segment of the documentary on graffiti on canvas in art galleries), but what if all taggers were to live within a section of the city where they're free to continually tag and paint walls, but only within that area? In that context, I suspect people might have a lesser interest or passion for it because graffiti seems based on the act of rebellion.

It just seems like a zero-sum game. Taggers tagging, these self-righteous community activists painting over the walls, tracking down the taggers ... nobody wins, nobody loses, but a whole world of frustration, angst, and property damage.
 
nice art (with permission) = nice.

anything else = shit.


personally, if i ever catch anyone tagging my property, i'll be breaking a couple of bones. (self defence of course ;))
 
I don't mind graffiti, and some of it I quite like. I would rather see graffiti, even if its just someone's tag, than advertising trying to shove its bullshit suggestions of desirability into my brain, or monotonous grey buildings.

I do think its an urban art form, even though that sounds a bit wanky. There's a lot about graffiti and its subculture that's interesting to me. The different reasons people do it, society's response, how people are more accepting of something that they find visually appealing like a colourful piece.

Its also weird/interesting to me the way some people get so angry about it. What does it really mean? Does it boil down to other dogs pissing somewhere that you considered your territory or perhaps communal territory?
 
everything is considered art these days is it not? i have a lot more respect for "graffiti" that has something to say other than "i was ere" regardless of how much talent goes into "i was ere". otherwise fuck em, they're just egomaniacal wankers who try to justify their wankiness
 
Vurt, for a thousand years philosophers have attempted to articulate art, and give it meaning or a definition, with no success, and all of sudden you can ?

Outstanding!
 
Last edited:
vurtomatic, I recommend to you the Australian documentary 'RASH', I'll think you might like it.

http://www.rashfilm.com/

"RASH is a contemporary story of
modern urban Australia and the artists
who are making it a living host for
illegal artwork called ‘street art’.

This feature length documentary
explores the cultural value of
unsanctioned public art, and graffiti’s
contribution to public dialogue. "

Trailer
 
lol, I think its funny that the one of the most famous graffiti writers in the USA doesn't have a whole lot of artistic talent. He's this guy in Washington DC named "Cool Disco Dan" who has been writing his name all over the city for 20+ years.

street3.jpg


Most everyone around here knows the name. I bet Bill Clinton, George H, and George W Bush even know the Disco Man's tag! And for the most part, people admire him and the work he put out there. But look at his tag! It's just plain ole block letters. So that just goes to show you that its not all about the "art" of graffiti that attracts people to graffiti
 
^true, it's not ALL about art. Definitely not.

Graffiti only seems valid in its illegality (there was a segment of the documentary on graffiti on canvas in art galleries), but what if all taggers were to live within a section of the city where they're free to continually tag and paint walls, but only within that area? In that context, I suspect people might have a lesser interest or passion for it because graffiti seems based on the act of rebellion.
Click to expand...
There are usually certain areas hidden within plain view that taggers popluate more so than other random areas.

Public, more visible property is used because it is ensured that somebody will see your tag. A sign with a large area of negative space is the perfect canvas.
There are some crews/individuals out there who have gone legal, for the most part, and they make a shitload of money off of what they do.

Eg. a tagger tagging a wall; but you don't see a white collar dude walking by, and slapping a sign saying he owns it.
Click to expand...
I agree there is a bit of fantasy driven elements behind it all. Going out and "bombing" the city doesn't make much of a difference in the world. But people have different ways of dealing with the harsh realities of life. There is definitely a rebelious attitude about it all. Shit most people start and stop before they're out of their teens. Everyone has their own reasons for writing and meaning they put into it all, some people might not give it any thought at all.


Look at the similarities between graffiti, comic book lettering, corporate logos...etc. It's a way to gain recognition among your peers, 'street fame' so to speak. In a world where everything is branded, claimed, and run by a certain social collective, why can't we 'fight back' with our own, organic homegrown brand? As i said before, some people are quite successful because they've spent so much of their lives getting up and people have seen their work and liked it.

The funny thing about these community activist people who go around covering graffiti up, and claiming they're doing it for the community, is that they're exactly like the people who write on walls. Their mark just happens to be a solid, boring fill. Hell some of these guys advertise their 'graff coverup' business on walls they've painted over. Classical atheists vs. theist debate.


also, i just have to add. i personally think alot of people get caught up in this shit because of the rush. i can't explain the rush i get when i put my name up in a place where there are a bunch of people around me, and not even letting them notice it. It's fucking addicting. and then you start wanting a little bit more, you push your covert abilities to the limit. mmmmm
 
Last edited:
IWillHostIt said:
vurtomatic, I recommend to you the Australian documentary 'RASH', I'll think you might like it.

http://www.rashfilm.com/

"RASH is a contemporary story of
modern urban Australia and the artists
who are making it a living host for
illegal artwork called ‘street art’.

This feature length documentary
explores the cultural value of
unsanctioned public art, and graffiti’s
contribution to public dialogue. "

Trailer
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll try to get hold of this. I'm also catching Words From The City over the weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top