5 ms·

Remove 'graffiti' from 'vandalized' 'street art' I guess the street art scene is being attacked just like so many other sub cultures that get ruined by the hal

Remove 'graffiti' from 'vandalized' 'street art' I guess the street art scene is being attacked just like so many other sub cultures that get ruined by the half wits trying to be part of something cool. There is an argrument that when the shitty mainstream ruins things it makes the sub cultures adapt and create new things. ie counterfeits drive the change in fashion I guess the game will become fucking the hydrogel just like Gibson verse - http://grafarc.org/news/2007/01/william-gibson-on-graffiti/ http://grafarc.org/news/2007/01/william-gibson-on-graffiti/

throwaway894345 6y ago
I don't mind the aesthetic of street art (I'm not a particularly pretentious person when it comes to art of any kind), but I do mind vandalism i.e. changing the aesthetic of property you don't own without permission (whether the property is public or private). I'm sure someone will chime in with some treatise against private property and that's narrowly all well and good if you manage to democratically change the law of the land to abolish the right to private property to achieve your graffiti ends, but I don't see anything good or honorable or noble about circumventing the democratic process (although in fairness it's hardly more honorable to apply the democratic process to the restriction of others' rights).
- rileymat2 6y ago
  > vandalism i.e. changing the aesthetic of property you don't own without permission (whether the property is public or private). I don’t think this is a proper definition, because most definitions include “damage” but yours includes an aesthetic improvement as well.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    As the name suggests, cosmetic damage is a kind of damage. If I key your car, it's still damage and thus vandalism irrespective of whether I (or anyone else) finds the result to be an improvement. This seems to be pretty well-within the "proper definition" of vandalism (notably, graffiti is one of the canonical examples of vandalism).
    - rileymat2 6y ago
      If my wife mows your lawn while you are away without asking, vandalism does not sound like the right word. If she runs over your tulips, it does.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        It's not quite the right word because she genuinely, plausibly believed I (the property owner) would consent to having my lawn mowed. So if you want to split hairs, we might say that vandalism requires disregard for the consent of the property owner. Note that we can't reasonably assume that someone who spraypaints my garage door or windows or etc is similarly acting in good faith because it's commonly understood that spray paint is difficult to remove and that it's not widely appreciated (I hope we can agree that 'street art aficionados' are fewer and farther between than people who want their lawns mowed--if we can't then I don't see much point in continuing the thread).
- aaron695 6y ago
  That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights. This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights. I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else. > This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy) I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?
    - aaron695 6y ago
      It's illegal graffiti art over illegal street art. I don't understand property rights application here. To me it's Instagramers getting photos of who they are told by the media is cool with zero respect of the scene. Banksy used to distroy other artists work. Check out Robbo vs Banksy perhaps - https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        My point is that the way to settle the "illegal graffiti art over illegal street art" ethical argument is to defer to the owner of the property--he alone can legitimize one, both, or neither artist. Legitimacy doesn't depend on some strange need to assess which "scene" is more authentic or otherwise meritorious. And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I don't mind the aesthetic of street art (I'm not a particularly pretentious person when it comes to art of any kind), but I do mind vandalism i.e. changing the aesthetic of property you don't own without permission (whether the property is public or private). I'm sure someone will chime in with some treatise against private property and that's narrowly all well and good if you manage to democratically change the law of the land to abolish the right to private property to achieve your graffiti ends, but I don't see anything good or honorable or noble about circumventing the democratic process (although in fairness it's hardly more honorable to apply the democratic process to the restriction of others' rights).

rileymat2 6y ago
> vandalism i.e. changing the aesthetic of property you don't own without permission (whether the property is public or private). I don’t think this is a proper definition, because most definitions include “damage” but yours includes an aesthetic improvement as well.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  As the name suggests, cosmetic damage is a kind of damage. If I key your car, it's still damage and thus vandalism irrespective of whether I (or anyone else) finds the result to be an improvement. This seems to be pretty well-within the "proper definition" of vandalism (notably, graffiti is one of the canonical examples of vandalism).
  - rileymat2 6y ago
    If my wife mows your lawn while you are away without asking, vandalism does not sound like the right word. If she runs over your tulips, it does.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      It's not quite the right word because she genuinely, plausibly believed I (the property owner) would consent to having my lawn mowed. So if you want to split hairs, we might say that vandalism requires disregard for the consent of the property owner. Note that we can't reasonably assume that someone who spraypaints my garage door or windows or etc is similarly acting in good faith because it's commonly understood that spray paint is difficult to remove and that it's not widely appreciated (I hope we can agree that 'street art aficionados' are fewer and farther between than people who want their lawns mowed--if we can't then I don't see much point in continuing the thread).
aaron695 6y ago
That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights. This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights. I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else. > This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy) I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?
  - aaron695 6y ago
    It's illegal graffiti art over illegal street art. I don't understand property rights application here. To me it's Instagramers getting photos of who they are told by the media is cool with zero respect of the scene. Banksy used to distroy other artists work. Check out Robbo vs Banksy perhaps - https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      My point is that the way to settle the "illegal graffiti art over illegal street art" ethical argument is to defer to the owner of the property--he alone can legitimize one, both, or neither artist. Legitimacy doesn't depend on some strange need to assess which "scene" is more authentic or otherwise meritorious. And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.