BF2S Forums Art

Wreckognize wrote:

Uzique wrote:

the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.

Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms.  Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation.  It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look.  Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets.  Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.

I would be pretty irritated if someone keyed etched a masterpiece into my truck's paint job without permission. Wouldn't care if it was the Mona f*n Lisa. Lack of permission is one of the things I think holds graffiti back from wider recognition.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms.  Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation.  It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look.  Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets.  Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.

For every 'street Picasso' there are thousands of wanbabes destroying property values and covering cities in shit. Graffiti artists should be given the same prison sentences as thieves.

Lots of places in California have 'free public expression' spaces where graffiti artists can paint with no worry about repurcussions from destroying people's private property. Sure, there will be people who tag everywhere but its a step in the right direction, and at the very least gives some sort of separation between vandals and aspiring artists.

That's perfectly fine. I don't see that as any different from having a public art studio. I just despise the people that walk around with a sharpie in their pocket and feel the need to deface whatever they come in contact with. I once had an argument with a guy that believed that he had the right to tag any piece of public property that he wished, "because, like, everyone owns it, I'm just messing up my own stuff"

Uzique wrote:

it's a huge difference, just one that dilbert doesn't understand. patronage exists completely outside the forces of the market

So when has it existed? Does it exist now? I doubt it does or ever has.

- dilbert i think you're confusing what the medici-type system of 'commission' entailed. it was more to do with values of esteem, honour, aiming for posterity/immortality than being interested in the actual money-exchange. the money in former pre-capitalist times was merely for subsistence, not profit. likewise the artist accepted a commission because it would exalt his artwork and convey a sense of social prestige upon his work. this is much, much different from the 20th/21st century equivalent of a commission which basically boils down to 'here's a design brief/specification, and here's a contract promising you a  lot of money in exchange'. exchange-value.

I think you're not understanding, artists accepted patronage/commission so they'd have a roof over their head and food and water - not as a sop to their egos.

Just as 'patrons' gave out patronage/commission to boost their egos and social standing - not so much that they believed in art.

It may not initially have been about money, it was more about board and lodging - most jobs were back then.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

For every 'street Picasso' there are thousands of wanbabes destroying property values and covering cities in shit. Graffiti artists should be given the same prison sentences as thieves.

Lots of places in California have 'free public expression' spaces where graffiti artists can paint with no worry about repurcussions from destroying people's private property. Sure, there will be people who tag everywhere but its a step in the right direction, and at the very least gives some sort of separation between vandals and aspiring artists.

That's perfectly fine. I don't see that as any different from having a public art studio. I just despise the people that walk around with a sharpie in their pocket and feel the need to deface whatever they come in contact with. I once had an argument with a guy that believed that he had the right to tag any piece of public property that he wished, "because, like, everyone owns it, I'm just messing up my own stuff"

the worst is that most graffiti is just dumb [word redacted] writing their name or gang. its like... fuck off you dumb piece of shit, don't deface property if all you're gonna do is put some ugly fucking made-up name (my favorite was a butchered spelling of "annihilator"). you're not banksy.

I might have seen the movie first

my first arrest was for tagging.  I was 15.  I completely forgot about it until I was applying for my secret clearence and the investigator asked me why i didnt include that in my criminal history for the packet.  the shit you hear about juvenile records being deleted after a certain amount of years is total and complete bullshit.

Uzique wrote:

banksy is a local boy to where i live. his stuff was around in the streets for years before this whole international infamy stuff.

What do you think of the whole Banksy vs. Robbo beef?

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Lots of places in California have 'free public expression' spaces where graffiti artists can paint with no worry about repurcussions from destroying people's private property. Sure, there will be people who tag everywhere but its a step in the right direction, and at the very least gives some sort of separation between vandals and aspiring artists.

That's perfectly fine. I don't see that as any different from having a public art studio. I just despise the people that walk around with a sharpie in their pocket and feel the need to deface whatever they come in contact with. I once had an argument with a guy that believed that he had the right to tag any piece of public property that he wished, "because, like, everyone owns it, I'm just messing up my own stuff"

the worst is that most graffiti is just dumb [word redacted] writing their name or gang. its like... fuck off you dumb piece of shit, don't deface property if all you're gonna do is put some ugly fucking made-up name (my favorite was a butchered spelling of "annihilator"). you're not banksy.

You're confusing graffiti (lowercase 'g') with Graffiti (uppercase 'G').

Banksy is gay

i think bristol is really nice, actually. it has the old town and fancy shopping areas if that's what you're into: generic middle-class zone 101. bristol has a real character and identity. it's the most vibrant city in the united kingdom, as far as i'm concerned. the people are happier and cheerier than in london, where everyone is pissed off and grudging. bristol also is probably the only other city in the uk with a seriously good music scene, and the rest of the arts are really vibrant too. the council is very forward looking so it's a great place for all sorts of arts and entertainment. this last year they let a disused retail/industrial space get totally graffiti'd over by professional artists: a whole street as a canvas. reminds me of brighton a bit.

your train of thought makes no sense what so fucking ever. are you just spouting random places now? bristol and lewisham have no relation in any way.

bristol to lewisham? i mean really? the only thing they have in common is that they're both large and built up. every city has 'urban' areas where that sort of sub/counter-culture thrives. bristol just has a really good one that is really vibrant and feels like a proper community. people congregate around record stores. everyone knows everyone. it has a good atmosphere-- the black/urban population in bristol have been there for longer than most of the whites (think of the slave trade). it's hardly like an angry south london borough full of pissed off gangs that have to live on the doorstep of the richest white wankers in europe. completely different sort of place. i doubt you've ever been.