Grafitti on private properties
- Thread starter caff
- Start date
Penski, where is your art in Nottm? I'm intrigued and want to take a peak
Look east
Look at bridges, look at large, square, concrete buildings.
Think 'old display technologies'.
*n
Is claning or repainting essential or even desired in 100 percent of cases?
Maybe I have been making this all up... I did allude to it before. As I said then, it would be foolish to make myself open to prosecution
Some are dozens of miles from the nearest human habitation...
*n
Maybe not in 100%, no, but the vast majority of graffiti does nothing to enhance a building's appearance, so removal will be desired.
penski said:Maybe I have been making this all up... I did allude to it before. As I said then, it would be foolish to make myself open to prosecution
Hey, I'm not about to call it in
penski said:
OK then, would you graffiti things in plain sight?
I still find your notion of public property a curious one... as though you could go along to your council building and collect the bricks your taxes paid for or something.
In your eyes...Which is the point I've been trying to make
Perhaps I already have.
Not quite, no.
I simply see anything in the 'public realm' as being 'fair game' and the act of decoration itself as the continuation of a tradition that spans millenia.
*n
Me too sometimes it looks great but tagging is simply horrible. I always wonder why those people don't "tag" their parents house? Or perhaps they do?
Surely people who are expressing themselves visually are members of the public so this property is fair game as its part theirs
Or are taggers/graffitti artists different and in some special section of society?
Only if they paid for the cleanup costs themselves rather than it coming out of the council tax budget.
I've got nothing against graffiti when it is applied with permission from the owner, be it public or otherwise. I do however object at having my money being used to pay for the removal of it. Commissioning someone to perform 'art' is one thing, doing it off ones own back at the cost of the innocent is quite another.
After reading this thread before I concur with a lot of what Penski says, however 'fair game' is relative to the viewer, and therefore some properties/places are only graffitied as an act of vandalism, whether explained by a political statment or as simply a place to boast one's skills. I have been iinvolved in graffiti in the last few years, but stopped due to a lack of money to buy paint for large colourful pieces. I simply amuse myself by spending a couple of hours here and there doing a piece on a canvas or sheet of paper. Personally I'm not into large coverage as some of the artists I know are and so I don't tag many places without reason. A larger piece in a suitable spot is what I prefer. But I suppose the thought patterns of artists varies considerably and what one person says is their reason for writing can be totally against another's.