Soündless Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 do you think graffiti should be legal? i do because it is an art form and in my opinion it makes things look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Whether art or not, if its not your property you have no right to touch it. Now are you talking about publicly funded properties? Considering that one person's junk is another person's art and vice versa and in this age of trying to be so political correct probably less headaches to just leave things alone. I can see it now, teenager falls off ladder while painting a highway sound barrier, (assuming its legal), sues government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 i should probably define my standards and the way i would be happy with it being legalized: any publicly funded building any government property any signs, bridges, benches any buisiness no houses or apartments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I say no then. How do you regulate what can be painted? Someone will always be offended. Who decides who gets to paint what or is it a free for all, first come first serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Graffiti is vandalism. Perhaps if you make it yourself and display it in the normal way for art on your own property, then you can call it art. Until then, it's disrespect for property and just plain vandalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 I say no then. How do you regulate what can be painted? Someone will always be offended. Who decides who gets to paint what or is it a free for all, first come first serve? i would say it would be a free for all, if you dont like something, paint over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 i would say it would be a free for all, if you dont like something, paint over it Humans are too stupid for a free for all situation ever to work. Tonight on the 6:00pm news - "5 youths shot in a drive by shooting in what police characterized as a gang related revenge killing over repainted graffiti." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 i should probably define my standards and the way i would be happy with it being legalized:any publicly funded building any government property any signs, bridges, benches any buisiness no houses or apartments If I owned a business and someone grafiiti'd on it I'd be really, really irritated. I don't even see how you could believe in such a thing. Tonight on the 6:00pm news - "5 youths shot in a drive by shooting in what police characterized as a gang related revenge killing over repainted graffiti." Headrush is right, a lot of 'tags' are gang related. Graffiti is going to happen, and in some cases it's beautiful. However it's still vandalism and should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 Humans are too stupid for a free for all situation ever to work. Tonight on the 6:00pm news - "5 youths shot in a drive by shooting in what police characterized as a gang related revenge killing over repainted graffiti." those kids are idiots, you have to know what the situation is with gangs before you ever go over anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 that would lead to a situation where there are several coats of paint over everything. Bad for the environment, ugly when it starts falling off. Also, how can it be art if others are painting over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 i dont feel at all guilty when i mess up walmart or subway, i feel no remorse doing it . Also, how can it be art if others are painting over it?performance art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 i dont feel at all guilty when i mess up walmart or subway, i feel no remorse doing itperformance art You should feel guilty over your lack of capitalization. Lets see some pictures of your art. Do you even live in a ghetto area? Since you have a macbook pro I kind of doubt that. Thanks for ruining Illinois, {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Yeah, I have no idea why any public property should have legalized graffiti. What if everyone covered the speed signs across America, so no one could tell how fast they should go? Bad idea. You should feel guilty over your lack of capitalization. Lets see some pictures of your art. Do you even live in a ghetto area? Since you have a macbook pro I kind of doubt that. Thanks for ruining Illinois, {censored}. He should be pissed about people ruining other states. I mean old people already ruined Florida and he's running out of options. No one is ruining California if I have anything to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alloutmacstoday Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 actually numbers, i saw a speed sign graffitied to say 88 mph, instead of 30 !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 And you think that's safe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alloutmacstoday Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 WTF? i meant it wasn't safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well, you started your statement with 'actually,' so that made me think that you thought the opposite. Learn2English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 OK. About the graffiti: How could you think it looks better? I mean seriously? It looks like {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted December 30, 2007 Author Share Posted December 30, 2007 i just think it gives life to the otherwise boring buildings of industrialist america and @ erie33, i'll admit i am from a middle class family who lives in a 3 bedroom house in indiana, im not in the least bit ghetto, but who said that graffiti is ghetto only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Hmm soundless, you google'd graffiti and posted the tenth option, nice work. I've never had a problem with you, so I'm not trying to come across as rude but: that's private property. If you did something like that on the side of a building I owned I'd beat the {censored} out of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eLMafUDd Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Okay, Let's give an example. We have just got a pretty major train line where we live, and it has been open for no more than 5 or 6 days. Already the windows, seats and outside of the trains have been tagged and vandalized. The windows are all scratched up, the back of the seats inscribed with offensive comments. I fail to see how this is a form of 'art' and cannot possibly think that it should be legalized. Another example: The school I go to has frequent people tagging and vandalizing the property, causing them to constantly have to repaint their walls, costing heaps. Also, people are ruining expensive equipment (air conditioners etc.) on the roof which are worth upwards of $10 000. Again, it seems pointless and destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special-K Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 If I owned a business and someone grafiiti'd on it I'd be really, really irritated. I don't even see how you could believe in such a thing. I wouldn't care if people tagged my shop. I'm all for freedom of expression. And that's what it essentially is. Artform or not, debatable. Some of it looks utterly horrible, probably cause they have no idea what they're doing. But when someone knows what they're doing, it's amazing. i dont feel at all guilty when i mess up walmart or subway, i feel no remorse doing itDown with conglomorates. Do you even live in a ghetto area? but who said that graffiti is ghetto only?That seems pretty racist erei. Only minorities tag building? What are you trying to say by that? I take offense to that comment. I agree with Soundless, graffiti isn't just for ghettos. I know a bunch of white people, matter of fact there's a gang of em near me that tag all the time. They come to me to know who tagged what already. (I'm cool with all the gangs here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 i just think it gives life to the otherwise boring buildings of industrialist america and @ erie33, i'll admit i am from a middle class family who lives in a 3 bedroom house in indiana, im not in the least bit ghetto, but who said that graffiti is ghetto only? It's hideous, and looks a mess and makes the area look degraded. Well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I wouldn't care if people tagged my shop. I'm all for freedom of expression. And that's what it essentially is. Artform or not, debatable. Some of it looks utterly horrible, probably cause they have no idea what they're doing. But when someone knows what they're doing, it's amazing. Down with conglomorates. That seems pretty racist erei. Only minorities tag building? What are you trying to say by that? I take offense to that comment. I agree with Soundless, graffiti isn't just for ghettos. I know a bunch of white people, matter of fact there's a gang of em near me that tag all the time. They come to me to know who tagged what already. (I'm cool with all the gangs here). whoever said that it was minorities in the ghetto? Do whites not live in the ghetto also? I think I know who the racist one is now. It is you! when tagging is used primarily as a form of gang war, there is something wrong. And I would say that most of tagging is due to that very reason (though I have nothing concrete to back this up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 That seems pretty racist erei. Only minorities tag building? What are you trying to say by that? I take offense to that comment. I agree with Soundless, graffiti isn't just for ghettos. I know a bunch of white people, matter of fact there's a gang of em near me that tag all the time. They come to me to know who tagged what already. (I'm cool with all the gangs here). That's not racist, that's stereotypical. Both of you. ^ There aren't as many 'hooligans' where I live, unless you go to the outskirts of San Francisco, and maybe the warehouse buildings near the highway. But really, it isn't an artform. Do you think the people who painted the offensive words on the back of the seats wanted to make it look prettier? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts