Graffiti again
I've been getting some traffic from a Flickr group - BristolGraffiti - in relation to one of my previous posts. The discussion is avaiable at Flickr, but I thought I'd mirror a few excerpts:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bristolgraffiti/discuss/72157603881419556
[In response to a critique of my critique of a new educational DVD [plus follow-up] and some aspects of Graffiti, or Street Art, or Urban Art or Graff or whatever it's called these days.]
The difficulty with a response [to the Flickr comments] is that we're not necessarily using the same terms of reference. Looking down this list of comments, one can see various different phrases - Graffiti, Street Art, Tagging - that are not universally defined. We can certainly agree that not all vandalism is graffiti, and not all graffiti is vandalism. For an example of the former, here's the statue of King William III in Queens Square:
You use the word 'tagging' in a generic sense, to distinguish it from 'street art' also referred to in a generic sense. If or perhaps more specifically where it is illegal to put paint to wall, does this distinction make any difference in your view?
Aesthetics and Legality are two independent assessments, the first subjective and the latter objective.
How do you reconcile BCC's willingness to protect the Banksy' [sic] pieces around the city whilst at the same time blaming the 'scourge of graffiti' for making old people quake in their beds at night?
This statement is a non sequitur. Some elderly people do get intimidated by crowds of young people, or anti-social behaviour committed by people of all ages, but that's nothing to do with graffiti.
BCC chose not to overpaint the Banksy at the bottom of Park Street - I'm not sure who actually owns the wall, possibly the council have the freehold - due to public acceptance of the work. Most works, and most artists, do not have such public acceptance.
I've never heard anyone refer to the "scourge of graffiti" - what's the source for that statement, as the use of quotation marks implies it is a direct quotation?
Conversely, many people do dislike graffiti, whether you choose to define that as "all painted works on publicly visible surfaces regardless of permission given" or "all painted works on publicly visible surfaces where made without permission" or "painted works made without permission and displaying artistic merit", or another definition of similar character.
A person's reason for disliking such work may vary: a local business in Cotham contacted me to report random tagging made to their overnight shutters because it was the owner's preference that the shutters be of uniform colour; a local housholder contacted me because they had had tags applied to their car, which they did not like.
What other more complex factors might make people feel insecure and frightened, yet 'target' streetart in their mind as the root cause of their fears/concerns/problems?
Lot's of factors - many of them not at all complex - do make people feel insecure and frightened. Yet street art isn't particularly targeted. In Bristol, each council tax payer spends about fifty pence on graffiti removal, versus about £147.00 on general policing.
What's the definition of 'kids' and why do you think they are the 'origin' of the tags/graff/art you see?
I make no attribution of particular pieces of art to particular age groups. See above for definition of "kids" which is consistent with the original topic - the council's DVD aimed at schools.
Do you think that street artists are somehow a static population? That they always live in the areas that their work proliferates? Sure it might start off that way but does it stay the same?
I presume that - like any other hobby - people stop and start creating street art as the mood takes them. But, if we choose to define tagging as a form of street art, it is generally an activity associated with those in the lower demographics; there aren't aren't many pensioners doing "Graff".
At what point was it deemed OK to have Banksy art dotted around the city?
I don't think it ever was centrally planned. Individuals who have had Banksy stencils applied to their property have - over the years - probably taken a range of positions from anger and irritation to the more modern approach of cutting it out and putting it on eBay.
As an aside, If Banksy were to reveal his identity, he may face civil claims from those whose property defaced, but he may also lose his following. It's interesting to me that those taking part in the Street Art scene wish to identify as youth-oriented, anti-authority and counter-cultural. And yet a quick look at this thread demonstrates that many of us here are certainly not kids, and are well into our middle years.
The council's stated goal in releasing the DVD - according to their press release - was to create debate/discussion. I would prefer it if they had said their goal was to tell school-children that they shouldn't paint other peoples' property without permission as it is unambiguously wrong, rather than suggest that there exists a "grey area". In this case the use of the word "debate" is unhelpful.
If you - adults, and consequently voters - wish to debate a motion along the lines of: "We believe that a self-identified street artist should be allowed to use any public surface as their canvas" then go for it. I will happily take the counter position, and not for "party political" reasons but because I disagree with the motion.
Walt - in regard to the debates you have with your kids: If you were to say "It's bedtime" and they refused to go to bed, would you debate them on the motion "There should be a set time at which children should go to bed"? You might perhaps negotiate - "ten more minutes, then" - which is not debate. But at some point, your duty as a parent is to dictate (your word) the rules and expectations of your family. What about if next door's kids keyed your car? Would you debate "Cars look better when unvandalised" with them, or complain to their parents and expect them to cover the cost of repairs.
"if people feel like they aren't being listened to how else can they make them selfs [sic] heard? oh yeah....graffiti..."
Will - if you have something to say, start a blog. Or write letters to the newspaper. Or start a political party. Or stand on a street corner with a megaphone. Or seek permission from a property owner to create art on their wall. Whatever...
But if your response is to apply paint to someone else's property without their permission, then it's impolite. And against the law, which is in many ways the same thing.
I'm feeling confident that an independent reader would regard me as carrying this debate, such as it is. To prove me wrong you must engage - the purpose of debate is to persuade, and while some of the people reading this will dismiss what I'm saying "ad hominem" - because of who I am - others will disagree because they think my argument is wrong. And some will think I'm right.
I'm not involved with the DVD project, nor am I a councillor; my view is that the money used could have been better spent. What's your view?
