Grafitti on private properties

you are unfortunately viewed as a vandal when doing it on public property. Even though your style has artistic merit from what you've said.
 
Speech is (money wise) free. Cleaning or repainting a building is not.
Is claning or repainting essential or even desired in 100 percent of cases?

Then I fear you may have to explain your... um... communist (?) political views on the public nature of buildings to the police.
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 ;)

Do you graffiti buildings in plain and public sight?

Some are dozens of miles from the nearest human habitation...

*n
 
Is claning or repainting essential or even desired in 100 percent of cases?

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:
Some are dozens of miles from the nearest human habitation...

*n

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.
 
Maybe not in 100%, no, but the vast majority of graffiti does nothing to enhance a building's appearance, so removal will be desired.
In your eyes...Which is the point I've been trying to make ;)

OK then, would you graffiti things in plain sight?
Perhaps I already have.

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.

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
 
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? ;)
 
I've got no problem with artistic graffiti in the right area, it's the mindless badly sprayed tag on someone's wall that winds me up.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom