Graffiti watch - Something we could live without

Bonfire – I thought the Mac was the standard Australian Dictionary? Or do you prefer to recognise primacy of the Queen’s English.

Once again bonfire – if the owner of the property says it’s okay to paint there, it’s legal. It’s not your property so you don’t have to like it.

If the property’s owner says it’s not okay to paint somewhere, it’s vandalism. Pretty simple, really.

When goober in Melbourne broke into that train yard, he was doing it as a vandal. When he charges $800 for a graf piece, he’s an artist. Rather like you driving 150kmh at Oran park, versus doing the same on the Tuggeranong Parkway.

That said, I reckon the ACT government should make all storm water drains fair game for “urban artists” (subject to obscenity laws, naturally). I’d say it would cut down on tagging on private property and would pretty the place up a bit. I reckon it’d be cool to see a bit of “chalk artwork” (done in paints) next to a ludicrously colourful graf piece.

Beats grey concrete.

“its in the oed.

kiss my arse, irregardless of your googling.”

I find it incredible how quickly people revert to aggressive juvenile language here.And the word is erroneous, despite your oxford dictionarying.

What is also interesting is that the same arguments used in contravening property rights involved in trespass, an act which bonfire so loves, are similar to that put forward by graffiti artists.

wanker

the chalk thing is ok. i kind of like those.

especially those 3d ones

and yes, they are not permanent stains on private or public property.

lg its in the oxford english dictionary.

its a real word.

irregardless is not a word.
And this graffiti is f*(king disgusting.

how about ‘urban decorator’??

and what say those who oppose graffiti to those works done entirely in chalk – which washes off pretty easily..?

I’d go for “urban painter” over “graffiti artist”. Sounds much more street – “graffiti artist” has too many connotations of dodgy guys in hoodies; or high-top sneakers and other 80’s cheese.

The fact of the matter is that I’ll never be either, cause I don’t have an artistic bone in my body…

But I’m not saying the above would ever be in a right place

Graffiti by it’s very nature is illegal. If it’s done legally it is a ‘painting’. I’m guessing ‘urban painter’ doesn’t sound as fully sik as graffiti artist though.

In the right place some of this ‘art’ looks pretty good.

so much for Thats all I have to say.

Comment by Danman — 28 February, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

But I cant stand around and see my brother called a criminal for acting within the law.

CLosed minded people who think they know it all really annoy me – I don’t mind peoples opinions – but when they have no idea what they are talking about and I try to re-educate them to no avail – it really frustrates me.

anyway this time i mean it… no more from me in this thread.

bonfire – vandal 2.a person who willfully or ignorantly destroys or mars something beautiful or valuable.

Is it willful or ignorant destruction if the person in question is given permission.

Lets not argue about terms – because its obvious that you get stuck on them, but instead argue the legality.

Of course having bolt cutters, spray cans, connex safety vests, and having entered a rail yard without authorization from relevant authorities with the sole intention of painting trains is illegal – i never once disputed that.

What isnt illegal is getting permission from the Department of Urban Services – having several walls in canberra legalised and – keeping within vast censorship guidelines – painting on said walls.

How can this then be foul of the law?

because the artwork is similar to that of the illegal miscreants found inside the rail yard.?

If thats the case – then as soon as the first person crashed their car and was charged for manslaughter then why did not the rest of the population get charged as well – because surely they could use their cars in the same manner to kill.

Additionally – does this now mean that every person who has purchased pressure pack spray paint should be taken to court for vandalism – no matter if their intentions be good or bad – legal or otherwise – because surely they “could” break the law.

Jesus man – wake the F(iretr)uck up – lot of things you do is illegal to – going down drains – tagging up drains – you have even told me you tag up a date different to the one you where there (so you dont get busted) and in (oh my gosh) spray paint too – additionally – going in abandoned buildings is illegal too – I do not suppose you had permission from the CEO of ABS to galavant around their empty office spaces either.

You think one thing is illegal which it is clearly not – while you are yourself indulge in a non legal hobby.

On ehand does not know what the other is doing.

I don’t know about anyone else here – but I see a problem – talk about 2 faced…..

I think its time I done a VG and challenged you to a duel – mono’a’mono at the PCYC of your choice – strap some gloves on and we will hit it out – because your arrogance and narrow mindedness shit me to tears – they really do – you snivelling immature mental issue sears catalog jacking off little mummies boy.

Re: Last weeks picture in the drain…

IS graffiti still graffiti when it carries a political message?

I agree that graffiti is a blight on the landscape and the taggers should be publically pilloried. But political comment, albeit anonymous, is a legitimate right.

Comment by neanderthalsis — 26 February, 2007 @ 4:04 pm

This graffiti also carries a political message.
Should either piece be there? Of course not. However there seems to be some double standards.

All graffiti – political comment or not, is bad.

its in the oed.

kiss my arse, irregardless of your googling.

Heh, irregardless.

From [link]

Irregardless.
an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.

Lets look at ‘legal graffiti’ shall we – i found an interesting article which i shall use for analysis purposes. the full text is at the herald sun site.

its title: Graffiti vandal goes free
by: Brendan Roberts
dated: February 20, 2007 12:00am

ANOTHER interstate graffiti vandal has escaped jail after breaking into a Melbourne train yard with 15 spray paint cans, a disguise and a video camera.

Derek Allen, 22, who sat silently in the dock during yesterday’s court hearing, was full of bravado on leaving court, declaring himself a hero.

“You should be publicising me as a hero. We’re all heroes,” he said of graffiti vandals. “We want to have our say.”

BF – yes, he’s a ‘hero’… like those blokes who save lives, rescue kittens, win wars, football matches etc.

When asked if he planned to keep vandalising trains, Allen said: “I probably shouldn’t say that.”

BF – cos the answer would be ‘Yes – ive gotten away scott free, so why not have another crack’

Allen, also from Sydney, used bolt cutters to break into the Carrum sidings — a train holding yard in Melbourne’s outer southeast — where he planned to plaster the exteriors of trains with anti-nuclear slogans.

But his scheme was thwarted when two Connex guards spotted him boarding a stationary train carriage about 7am on Saturday.

Allen, who allegedly commands up to $800 for his artworks, was found armed with 15 spray paint cans, a video camera, bolt cutters and clothes intended to disguise his identity.

BF – ahh – he’s an ‘artist’…. i wonder what sort of art he specialises in ?

An accomplice fled and has not been caught.
It is believed Allen planned to film his “art” and show it to fellow graffiti vandals.

Lawyer Lynne Amad, for Allen, told Frankston Magistrates’ Court her client was “quite a well-known artist” who was in Melbourne to paint a council-commissioned street mural.

“He comes to Melbourne about eight or nine times a year and he is about to begin work for a Melbourne council to paint a mural at a St Kilda underpass,” Ms Amad said.

BF – i see now – he’s a ‘graffiti artist’ one of those blokes that isnt a real vandal, but an artist. because ive been told that theres a BIG DIFFERENCE between vandals and graffiti artists.

BF – the court doesnt see it either

But Port Phillip Council spokeswoman Carmel Shute said the mural was completed last June with the help of about 150 artists from a range of community groups.

“We certainly didn’t commission him to do any work for the council,” Ms Shute said.

“He may have been part of the 150 people who helped create the mural at St Kilda Junction, but we certainly don’t know him by name.”

BF – so he likes to style himself as an artiste, when in fact he’s just a criminal. How many of his fellow artists are exactly the same?

It is the second time Allen has been charged with graffiti vandalism in Melbourne.

He pleaded guilty in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in March last year to defacing a tram sign in St Kilda and was placed on a bond.

BF – a repeat offender!

He pleaded guilty yesterday to criminal damage, attempted criminal damage, possessing articles intended for criminal damage, trespass and possessing articles intended for disguise.

BF – at least he admits he’s a CRIMINAL.

Magistrate Christine Stewart-Thornton convicted Allen and fined him $1000 and a further $200 for breaching a bond.

BF – obviously doesnt learn real well. 1200 will put a crimp in his aerosol budget.

Ms Stewart-Thornton said she took into account the fact Allen had served one night locked in the Frankston holding cells.

BF – so have I ! Hope he got breakfast. The horror, the horror….

RAGE (Residents Against Graffiti Everywhere) spokesman Steve Beardon called for mandatory jail for convicted vandals.

“The sooner we hit these vandals with jail terms the better,” Mr Beardon said.

“A slap on the wrist is not enough.
“They get a fine and retain the bragging rights.
“It’s not enough. It’s time to get tougher.”

BF – im with this fella.

“But if i only smash the windows of nazis – thats ok?”
Are you sure they’re nazis? The kind that hate Jews and wear Hugo Boss? Then I say smash away, Bonfire, smash away.

bonfire – allow me to re-iterate what I said above –
theres a world of difference between this and legal graffiti

You probably get around in leapord print spandex – Just because I dont like it does not make it illegal – same goes for legal graffiti my friend.

Perhaps you need to be educated on the difference between vandalism and Legal Graffiti.

Surely this is illegal too – but hay thats irrelavent right…. because its you – not someone you assume to be trouble…..

Don’t “Panic” I finally figured out whats going on here and you will be happy to know I now know what to expect from you as your reputation goes before you.

Thats all I have to say.

Ahem. Yep – this is vandalism. So was the graf in the stormwater drain. Am I more offended by this than the stuff in the drain – yep; but not for the fact it’s vandalism.

I’m on record as defending legal graffiti (so are a number of others). I think the beef we have with your opinion, bonfire, is that you refuse to acknowledge that a piece of graffiti can be legal.

Now if it’s a matter of semantics, I’m happy to use the words “Graffiti-style wall mural” to demarcate the stuff that Danman engages in at the invitation of the wall’s owner from the stuff that people spray on walls illegally.

Is there no way you can acknowledge that graffiti (or a “Graffiti-style wall mural”) can be legal. Or even a good thing (it’s art – you don’t need to like it).

” I think quite a bit, actually. Up to 11 times a day.”

Wow, low libido…

That was a joke Git. Admitedly a fairly crap one, but a joke nonetheless. I think quite a bit, actually. Up to 11 times a day.

so if i go on a crime spree – say running around town with a claw hammer, smashing windows – thats bad.

but if i only smash the windows of nazis – thats ok ?

you can see my confusion.

i thought a criminal act was a criminal act, irregardless of its intended victim.

You don’t think a hell of a lot, do you Apehammer?

‘Except for Nazis’
Yep, that’s pretty much it. That and the fact that it’s really badly done.

Bonfire neck up softhead – theres a world of difference between this and legal graffiti – You can write words – but it dont mean your an acomplished author.

Maybe its tru that wanking makes you go blind – because if you can not see the difference between this and something else…..

It’s because the meeeeaning of graffiti as art outstrips property rights. Except for nazis.

‘Except for Nazis’ is the disclaimer of all relativist tripe, the sort of which apehammer is hammering at us.

well thats interesting, i thought graffiti was a beautiful art form, a right in fact.

now its defiling society.

im vexed.

Scrub it off and get over it…

This is vandalsim at its lowest – I cn not condone this kind of behaviour that just sets out to defile and offend the majority of society

its also the rune of perkinus, my favourite nordic god.

Ahh rednecks…
Tilt your head 45 degrees and it’s the ancient symbol (hindu/tao) for peace. Hmmm, counter-hitler-symbolism-ism.

You don’t see the difference between painting an anti-war mural, with people hugging each other, and a swastika?

no, not me, but the irony apropos recent comments does not escape me.

i dont see any difference though. graffiti is still graffiti.

Now here’s some grafitti I can’t defend. Are there really Nazis in Canberra, or could it be a Hindu trying to reclaim what was once a very beautiful and positive symbol? Nah, Nazi dickhead, no doubt.

bonfire trying to make a point?

Dickheads. From the beautiful public art in the stormwater drain a few days ago, to this idiotic attempt to offend. We’ve got the full spectrum covered.