Dubstepforum.com

lol really?

£250,000... surely the paint adds to the value.

gwa wrote:lol really?

Ive actually seen that being commented a few place tbh.

hugh wrote:a lot of graffiti is shit. most tags are utter shit and just make the area look dirty, unkept and downtrodden which never does anything positive for the area itself.

I have seen more and more of these council sponsored graffiti type things though - there was a new apartment block being built for students not far from mine and they put big wooden boards up around it and let loads of local graf guys do all sorts of cool shit on the outside. It looked really good, and hid most of the building work.
But I do find a lot of it to be pure self indulgence, I know it's not a popular opinion round these parts but why the fuck would you choose to do it on someone's property rather than, I dunno, a piece of paper? Is it just a measure of forcing it into the public eye?

Part of the culture is doing it in places people can see. Using urban landscape as an art gallery type thing.

"Toys" (the graffiti equivalent of the dubs forum) are supposed to stick to their black books till they are good enough.

There are some rules to it, particularly NEVER do a building where someone lives and avoid private businesses/places where people will need to get it cleaned. Though its also part of the culture to steal the paint (only from big chain stores strangely)

....and a lot of it is really good:



http://www.mr-totem.com/index.php?/projects/3d-science/

this was my comment that has -12 rating

What an absolute joke, any kind of free expression is being sent a message with these verdicts, first tweeting jokes in poor taste is jail time and now graffiti is worth 3 1/2 years in prison. Maybe the judges and all their friends on their level and plateau should be looked at with more scrutiny by the people & not people spraying art...there is absolutely no way to qualify 250k of damage...that number is made up & it's nonsense...who is to say a blank wall or dull train looks worse because it's had graffiti sprayed on it? Are you people serious...it doesn't go far enough? really? he drew on some stuff & did no direct harm to anyone...the government spends your taxes on whatever it wants to and doesn't automatically allocate money to clean up graffiti, seize his assets too? I'll tell you what advocate the government all you want but they won't extend any extra courtesy to you when their authoritarian stance goes totally OTT just because you cheered when they stifled free expression.

i used to write. still do sometimes. but one thing i've always said in defense of the stuff i did is that all day long when you're outside in the streets, you're bombarded with all kinds of obnoxious and invasive advertising. all day, almost wherever you look, there is a company with an ad trying to sell you something. and while obviously it doesnt always work and is often laughable and lame, they still invaded your brain and your mind, even if only for that moment that you thought "fuck pepsi." so i see graffiti as not only a fuck you to society but also as sort of reclaiming walls and public space. (obviously not everyone will agree i'm just saying that's one part of it for me)


and the other part is, i was here. fuck you. not really much to that part

that's a very good point ^

As long as advertising is thrust in my face I have no problem with people doing something purely for artistic merit...

The only difference is money when it comes down to it as big companies can pay for the space

Lye Form wrote: "Toys" (the graffiti equivalent of the dubs forum) are supposed to stick to their black books till they are good enough.

Ah safe, loads of quality feeti around Aston in Birmz, see quite a few with "Fuck Toys" written on it somewhere, thought it was referring to a dude!

Reminds me of

garethom wrote:

Lye Form wrote: "Toys" (the graffiti equivalent of the dubs forum) are supposed to stick to their black books till they are good enough.

Ah safe, loads of quality feeti around Aston in Birmz, see quite a few with "Fuck Toys" written on it somewhere, thought it was referring to a dude!

Nah they are just signs for sex shops, they actually are advertising "fuck-toys"

If I wore my favorite shirt on the street and some guy walked up to me and spraypainted over it, I'd demand him to pay the bill. No amount of 'no dude, this is art, if you don't want it, pay yourself to get it removed' would really change that.

Next Ninja to complain about their neighbours bumping music too loud at night and keeping them up gets a referral to this thread too. 'It's art'

Pistonsbeneath wrote:that's a very good point ^

Not particularly, no. The advertiser asked for permission to get his stuff on the wall and traded money for the permission. The tagger thinks he's god and is entitled to get his stuff anywhere he wants and settle others with the bill to get it removed.

Art's all in the eye of the beholder. Some pieces of advertising art can be prettier than some lame tag, but we'd be pretty stupid to legislate based on taste.

Genevieve wrote:If I wore my favorite shirt on the street and some guy walked up to me and spraypainted over it, I'd demand him to pay the bill. No amount of 'no dude, this is art, if you don't want it, pay yourself to get it removed' would really change that.

It would also be a dick move to do some big mural on your front door...

But what about when somethings publicly owned?

....it should be illegal, but sending someone to jail for 3+ years for it is a bit much.

when i wrote i did it for fun, not for exposure.

used to hit up abandoned buildings/warehouses (most way out of sight, and where there was practically noone having to foot a bill for repainting etc).

Lye Form wrote:

Genevieve wrote:If I wore my favorite shirt on the street and some guy walked up to me and spraypainted over it, I'd demand him to pay the bill. No amount of 'no dude, this is art, if you don't want it, pay yourself to get it removed' would really change that.

It would also be a dick move to do some big mural on your front door...

But what about when somethings publicly owned?

....it should be illegal, but sending someone to jail for 3+ years for it is a bit much.

That's a bit of a pickle yeah, on public buildings. In fact I kind of support it because he was robbed off money for it so he would reclaim it. But then you KNOW that it will get removed eventually AND that you're putting the bill on the taxpayer. It just seems selfish. Dunno if I support that much of a jail sentence. I would've supported community service where he'd remove all his work himself.

From an aesthetic point of view, I prefer graffiti and tags over a clean white wall. Makes it feel like the place is alive you know. But I'm looking at who eventually gets to pay for the 'damages'.

Genevieve wrote:

Lye Form wrote:

Genevieve wrote:If I wore my favorite shirt on the street and some guy walked up to me and spraypainted over it, I'd demand him to pay the bill. No amount of 'no dude, this is art, if you don't want it, pay yourself to get it removed' would really change that.

It would also be a dick move to do some big mural on your front door...

But what about when somethings publicly owned?

....it should be illegal, but sending someone to jail for 3+ years for it is a bit much.

That's a bit of a pickle yeah, on public buildings. In fact I kind of support it because the public's robbed off money for them so he's reclaiming it. But then you KNOW that you that it will get removed eventually AND that you're putting the bill on the taxpayer. It just seems selfish. Dunno if I support that much of a jail sentence. I would've supported community service where he'd remove all his work himself.

From an aesthetic point of view, I prefered graffiti and tags over a clean white wall. Makes it feel like the place is alive you know. But I'm looking at who eventually gets to pay for the 'damages'.

nail on the head. makes more sense to give him community service for a year or so, and have him repay a decent sized fine as opposed to just chucking him in jail.

seems like they're willing to lose more money on putting him in prison just to show what happens if you fuck with that shit.

Is pisses me off that these people are often made to look like the good guys, its vandalism.

Something that was pointed out to me yesterday, a year of this sentence was for perverting the course of justice. Still a joke to be locked up for 2.5 years for this though.

I can see genevieve's point, while I think some of it looks cool in some places, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone did it on my house or car or something. I'd want him to clean it off though, not locked up for 3 years.

garethom wrote:Something that was pointed out to me yesterday, a year of this sentence was for perverting the course of justice. Still a joke to be locked up for 2.5 years for this though.

I can see genevieve's point, while I think some of it looks cool in some places, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone did it on my house or car or something. I'd want him to clean it off though, not locked up for 3 years.

being a pervert in the course of justice is BS. Its punishing people for trying to get away with their crime...

He should have called them all racist for noticing it was a black guy in the videos.

The Facebook thing is shocking on the surface but completely out of context. Stuart Hall was sentenced according to the law at the time he committed the crime - if someone committed his crimes today they'd get a lot more than any graffer.

I like a lot of Graf and have known a fair few writers in my time, but it's clearly illegal... everyone knows you run the risk of getting pinched; that's as much of the attraction for a lot of people as any "art".

magma wrote:The Facebook thing is shocking on the surface but completely out of context. Stuart Hall was sentenced according to the law at the time he committed the crime - if someone committed his crimes today they'd get a lot more than any graffer.

I like a lot of Graf and have known a fair few writers in my time, but it's clearly illegal... everyone knows you run the risk of getting pinched; that's as much of the attraction for a lot of people as any "art".

True, personally for me there are just a lot of people I would rather see in jail than this man, I know I don't get to decide that but actually believe everyone in this thread and all of occupy feel that way also...