Vandals target metro subway lines nationwide

[Martijn Meerts]

Ghan, who defines 'art' though? :)

 

Many people like a certain music genre, and consider composers within that genre artists. Others hate said genre, and therefor aren't likely to consider the composers artists. Same can be said for all media types. Heck, you could consider model railroaders artists, but other see model trains as nothing more than toys.

 

 

Art or not, trains, or anything not your property, isn't a canvas to be used, unless you have permissions from the owner.

[disturbman]

My only gripe it the use of the term artist when describing this vandal.  Let me tell you something about artists: they do their best work at home.  Painters, photographers, writers, singers, poets, and musicians alike ... all do their best work at home.  If his own house, fence and car aren't covered by his own best work then he isn't wasn't an artist!

 

Hum... First, the definition of art is the following: "creation meant to communicate or appeal to senses or mind". And as Martijn stated the perception of the value of "art" is completely subjective.

 

Second, your vision of things is a bit restrictive, isn't it? It completely negates the work of street artist and land artists, sculpturers or even street musicians. It's not because the art is performed or visible in the public space that it hadn't necessitate some planing before. Actually a lot of those "vandals" do their "homework" at home (or in class), perfecting their signatures.

 

Third, that's more or less the whole point of street art or public art to be out in the open.

 

And it's not because it doesn't have value in your mind that it doesn't have any. I recall "Graffiti" of Brassaï (a French artist), a work from 1960 in which he transformed regular vandalism, popular graffiti into pieces of art by their mere juxtaposition and exhibition.

 

As for myself I don't care for tags and I have no sympathy for people that tags or graffiti trains without respect for everyone else but admires street art. Some pieces are simply beautiful but, at the same time, I'm sure that someone don't like them and hate the fact they are ruining his property. I live in Berlin and the city is covered with tags, graffiti, collages, mosaics and more. Without it, the city will not be as enjoyable. Paris will also not be the same without those SpaceInvaders or "amour" or works by Nemo popping randomly on the walls of the city. Even Roman cities were covered with graffiti...

 

This discussion is not new and will certainly lead to nothing but If some care, I can show you what I consider as great/good street art.

[The_Ghan]

Ghan, who defines 'art' though? :)

 

Many people like a certain music genre, and consider composers within that genre artists. Others hate said genre, and therefor aren't likely to consider the composers artists. Same can be said for all media types. Heck, you could consider model railroaders artists, but other see model trains as nothing more than toys.

 

Agreed.  Perhaps you misread my post ... I was referring to artists, not art.  At no point did I claim that grafitti isn't a form of art, nor did I express my opinion about grafitti. 

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[The_Ghan]

 

Hum... First, the definition of art is the following: "creation meant to communicate or appeal to senses or mind". And as Martijn stated the perception of the value of "art" is completely subjective.  ... and see my reply to Martijn, above.

 

Second, your vision of things is a bit restrictive, isn't it? It completely negates the work of street artist and land artists, sculpturers or even street musicians. It's not because the art is performed or visible in the public space that it hadn't necessitate some planing before. Actually a lot of those "vandals" do their "homework" at home (or in class), perfecting their signatures.  No.  Being an Architect I tend to socialise more with artists, sculptors and the like probably a  little more frequently than most people.  We could argue all day about the semantics of an artist's personality, philosophical opinions, methodology and the like, which I don't intend to do.  Street musicians and buskers may be talented but may not be artists.  I come from a family of civil / structural engineers.  They all designed their own homes.  They are functional, practical, warm, dry and cozy.  But none of them would be considered artist at all.

 

Third, that's more or less the whole point of street art or public art to be out in the open.  Do you mean to say this vandal was performing in a blackened tunnel with no audience (a performance usually has an audience) in the dead of night?  Please, don't insult my intelligence.  You seem to think I have something against graffiti art.  I don't.  Note, I use the term graffiti art.  What was happening the other night was simply vandalism.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe the deceased was simply a vandal.  I have my own favourite graffiti artist - Banksy.  His work is witty, clever, thoughtful, and often has a double meaning or subtle message attached.  Take a look.  Click on each image to see the next.  I think even Mark and Keitaro would have to agree that this IS art.

 

And it's not because it doesn't have value in your mind that it doesn't have any. I recall "Graffiti" of Brassaï (a French artist), a work from 1960 in which he transformed regular vandalism, popular graffiti into pieces of art by their mere juxtaposition and exhibition.  Brassai was, first and foremost, a fine photographer.  He was well established long before he explored graffiti.  I presume that you have read Conversations with Piccaso and would therefore have to agree that Brassai was educated, with a well developed mind.  He'd have made a fine philosopher.  Again, we could argue for hours.  To me, you may as well be trying to compare Brassai to the man who paints my car tyres black ...

 

As for myself I don't care for tags and I have no sympathy for people that tags or graffiti trains without respect for everyone else but admires street art. Some pieces are simply beautiful but, at the same time, I'm sure that someone don't like them and hate the fact they are ruining his property. I live in Berlin and the city is covered with tags, graffiti, collages, mosaics and more. Without it, the city will not be as enjoyable. Paris will also not be the same without those SpaceInvaders or "amour" or works by Nemo popping randomly on the walls of the city. Even Roman cities were covered with graffiti...

 

This discussion is not new and will certainly lead to nothing but If some care, I can show you what I consider as great/good street art.  But we were talking about a vandal.   

[keitaro]

 

 

Third, that's more or less the whole point of street art or public art to be out in the open.  Do you mean to say this vandal was performing in a blackened tunnel with no audience (a performance usually has an audience) in the dead of night?  Please, don't insult my intelligence.  You seem to think I have something against graffiti art.  I don't.  Note, I use the term graffiti art.  What was happening the other night was simply vandalism.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe the deceased was simply a vandal.  I have my own favourite graffiti artist - Banksy.  His work is witty, clever, thoughtful, and often has a double meaning or subtle message attached.  Take a look.  Click on each image to see the next.  I think even Mark and Keitaro would have to agree that this IS art.

 

 

agreed that is art but what this punk was doing is this shit like this

 

Maybe just Maybe you could call this grafiti art, It's likely still vandalism as probably didn't have permission but atleast effort was put into it. unlike some untalented punk who can only scribble his nickname or initials.

[The_Ghan]

Nah keitaro,

 

You're drawing a long bow there.  Yes, the colours are pretty but ... what's the message?  The ol' art for art's sake mantra?  Well, art's sake is to send or convey a message ... good luck interpreting that!!!

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[keitaro]

you see the rocket i think he was saying to the moon to the moon lol.

 

My point was scribbled text should never be reffered to as art at least thats drawn.

[cteno4]

i do agree with disturbman, the attitude that someone deserves to die or its not a shame they die doing something like this is very sad to me. Keitaro, do you really value life that little or just like to make obnoxious statement on the matter? i hope its the latter. sorry dude but i do see it as a waste, yes he took a wrong turn, made wrong choices, but death, really? Im sure all of us made some stupid choices (especially when we were younger) that might have killed us but we got lucky...

 

I dont condone, but can understand how these guys warp the concept of art to doing what they want where they want and throw in some youthful rebellion, anti establishment, marking their territory etc and it seems to them that they are doing something noble, bold or righteous. to the rest of us its just vandalism and stupidity.

 

what some folks think is graffiti and what is street art is a matter of opinion and unfortunately if its not approved by something that society has give the authority to (ie art council, etc) for public property then its all vandalism. what i might think art you might think not art... i love the aspect of random, creative social statements with art like ghan posted, but its offensive to many and i cant really let myself say its ok because i think its art and creative. should roadsworth be punished differently from a tagger? yes his stuff is fun, but he takes the same risk doing it illegally as a tagger so punishments should be equivalent. keitaro says that tagging is not art, but i doubt he would call many things that the current art establishment might call art, so who is right?

 

others might think its art but object that its done to public property w/o permission -- just hate the idea of someone thumbing at society/the establishment.

 

I agree with westfallen that the law does not always treat this evenly, especially with the rr where its a dangerous situation to boot.

 

if the culprits were to have the shoe put on the other foot and their property used they would have a different opinion on their right to do what they want where they want. if done properly this form of punishment can be most effective in making folks see the ramifications of their actions to others.

 

there was no mention in the article of what they were doing you are just assuming they were tagging. ive seen 'street art' in odd hard to find places and some artists like that it will only be seen in unusual circumstances and not on the big water tower. so its an assumption that he was a punk tagger.

 

one thing that has not come up is i think a lot of the tagging to graffiti to street art does come from a disenfranchisement of youth in modern culture and also the lack of much in the way of true art spirit in our current culture. art has been ripped from most public schools pretty well and art since pop art has really lost most of the true art spirt. much of the art establishment has now pushed art out into a very esoteric void that is too rarified for the public. go to many exhibits and you will see labels that talk over the heads of the public but really dont say anything of importance of value if you know anything about what they are saying! This leaves a big void in our culture and i think some of this creative energy in the human heart ends up coming out in the wrong way with youth and turns them into punks.

 

jeff

[Guest ___]

I'm more astonished by the fact the term "sh!t" has appeared six times in this thread. This is six times more than I can recall seeing in the nearly 4 or 5 years I have been on here.

[The_Ghan]

I guess there's more of us Aussies here now ... but I didn't use that term, did I? ... lemme check!

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan