# Camden Tube station platforms covered in graffiti



## swampy (Dec 26, 2006)

*Camden tube graffiti*

Anyone see this? If you've been through Camden tube it would be pretty hard not to, as pretty much the entire station has been bombed.

Not normally a huge fan .. but it looks pretty cool, some big pieces.

Maybe it's because you don't normally see huge graffiti pieces on the tube that makes this one good?

Wonder how t hey got in there


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 27, 2006)

someone with a camera go and get some pics while it's still there


----------



## salem (Dec 27, 2006)

Saw it today, loads of identikit unimaginative tags, saw one piece which wasn't just a tag, the rest pure talentless vandalism. Gave the whole place a nasty edge. Didn't impress me at all to be honest.

Interested in how they got there and got away with it for so long though?


----------



## sherriff rosco (Dec 27, 2006)

There`s a few fotos over here...http://www.squatjuice.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=68518&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Have to say they don`t look v.good artistically but it`s still feckin cheeky!

.p.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 27, 2006)

Yeah I saw this this evening, was quite surprised to see so much, normally don't get that amount on that station. Some looked alright but there was a lot of shit (ie tagging which is just vandalism imo)...


----------



## salem (Dec 27, 2006)

I saw the two southbound platforms and the tunnel which links them, those photos really are the best of what was there (the bunnies look quite cool but in Brixton though).

The vast majority of it was just plain tagging though.

Cheeky for sure but destructive and intimidating for those who have to use the station on a daily basis.

Would love to know how they did it, would have thought they'd have been seen on CCTV or something. Makes a bit of a mockery of this though.


----------



## JTG (Dec 27, 2006)

looks a bit crap tbh


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 27, 2006)

sherriff rosco said:
			
		

> There`s a few fotos over here...http://www.squatjuice.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=68518&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
> 
> Have to say they don`t look v.good artistically but it`s still feckin cheeky!
> 
> .p.



Says someone called biotec (wasn't there a poster on here with that name?)

"cameras got sprayed over so I doubt there's much footage. Plus it'll be in the hands of BTP now"


----------



## JTG (Dec 27, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Says someone called biotec (wasn't there a poster on here with that name?)
> 
> "cameras got sprayed over so I doubt there's much footage. Plus it'll be in the hands of BTP now"



same one afaik


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 27, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> same one afaik



I see, gives the dissenter a right bollocking on that thread!


----------



## davesgcr (Dec 27, 2006)

Thats original 1905 tilework gone for a burton - call that "art" ! ....still if they cant get the trains due to extra security and no outstabling in vulnerable locations.....

so if the station gets shut for a weekend due to the need to get specialist cleaning gangs in then we know who to blame.


----------



## rekil (Dec 27, 2006)

It looks shit. Really shit.


----------



## Reno (Dec 27, 2006)

Saw it, it looks fucking awful and as a Camden resident I'm of course delighted that the clean up comes out of my council tax, which is urgently need for more important things.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 27, 2006)

fucksake, if you're gonna do a big job like that you should be doing some decent work.  those bunnies looked great but the rest of it is dull dull dull.


----------



## swampy (Dec 27, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> looks a bit crap tbh



I normally wouldn't like each piece in isolation. However in the context of the tube station, which when you are used to seeing it in its normal state seeing the whole place bombed has quite an impact.

Almost like a giant piece of art  

Wouldn't want it to stay like that though as I like the shiny tiles too.


----------



## salem (Dec 27, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Saw it, it looks fucking awful and as a Camden resident I'm of course delighted that the clean up comes out of my council tax, which is urgently need for more important things.



Yup, the cost of clean up will more then likely be huge. Probably enough to support a yoot centre for a year, even if the money is from another pot. Still, gives them an excuse for their behaviour (but they don't give us nuffin to do around here guv )


----------



## Maggot (Dec 27, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Saw it, it looks fucking awful and as a Camden resident I'm of course delighted that the clean up comes out of my council tax, which is urgently need for more important things.


Surely it will be paid for by TfL not Camden Council.


----------



## Reno (Dec 27, 2006)

Maggot said:
			
		

> Surely it will be paid for by TfL not Camden Council.



You're right  

It's still a waste of resources and it's still the public that pays for it in the end.


----------



## JTG (Dec 27, 2006)

All things considered it's the worst type of self indulgent behaviour with little regard for the wider impact of your actions.

Plenty of walls round here have been painted, stencilled and whatnot. It looks nice and some pieces have been up for years. I like that sort of art. If you know that your stuff will be cleaned up using public money - as it will if you paint in a tube station or whereever - then I think you're just being a bit of an anti-social tosser.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 27, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> fucksake, if you're gonna do a big job like that you should be doing some decent work.  those bunnies looked great but the rest of it is dull dull dull.



Yep, a real fucking waste of talent...


----------



## Giles (Dec 27, 2006)

If they catch some of the scum who did this they should hold their fucking eyes open and spray paint into them til they go blind, see how they liked that for a work of art.

We need to remove assholes like this from the equation to save the rest of us paying for their antics.

Giles..


----------



## Fullyplumped (Dec 27, 2006)

Maggot said:
			
		

> Surely it will be paid for by TfL not Camden Council.


It will be paid for by taxpayers.  Still, if it's "edgy", eh?


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 28, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6213559.stm

Some graffiti artists covered the platforms at Camden Town tube station while it was closed on Christmas Day. They got to station via tracks from next one on the line. Would like to see more pics, it looks good.

Well done the whippersnappers


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 28, 2006)

Yeah great, I love the artistic tastes of others to be imposed on me and unnecessary public expense incurred in removing it


----------



## JTG (Dec 28, 2006)

as observed elsewhere on the boards already, selfish idiocy.


----------



## Athos (Dec 28, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Yeah great, I love the artistic tastes of others to be imposed on me and unnecessary public expense incurred in removing it



The "artistic tastes" of others are imposed on you everywhere you look  - billboards etc.  The difference here is that it's motivated by a desire to rebel, and a desire to create art, rather than in the hope of convincing you to part with your cash.  It that really so much worse?  And it doesn't *have* to be cleaned off - so no public expense.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 28, 2006)

I'm sure there's already a thread about this...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 28, 2006)

Ah here we go: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=190087


----------



## Teepee (Dec 28, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> The "artistic tastes" of others are imposed on you everywhere you look  - billboards etc.  The difference here is that it's motivated by a desire to rebel, and a desire to create art, rather than in the hope of convincing you to part with your cash.  It that really so much worse?  And it doesn't *have* to be cleaned off - so no public expense.



I hate graffiti 'artists'. Their 'art' can kindly fuck off from the side of my elderly neighbour's garage. I will however enthusiastically endorse the graffiti 'artists' who vandalise advertisments. I agree, no distinction can be made.


----------



## JTG (Dec 28, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> And it doesn't *have* to be cleaned off - so no public expense.



So it's not necessary to be able to see clearly the station name, direction signs etc? And besides, whether it neds to be or not the perpetrators know that it _will_ be cleaned off so they know it'll cost the public money to have it done.

Fucking idiots, have a go at billboards or blank walls but doing this was selfish and moronic.


----------



## untethered (Dec 28, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> The "artistic tastes" of others are imposed on you everywhere you look  - billboards etc.  The difference here is that it's motivated by a desire to rebel, and a desire to create art, rather than in the hope of convincing you to part with your cash.  It that really so much worse?



I'd say it's more about the desire to rebel than the desire to create art, for most vandals, most of the time. There are plenty of opportunities to create art that don't involve defacing someone else's property.

Is graffiti morally worse than advertising? I'd say it is, because (illegal) graffiti always involves a deliberate moral offence against someone else's property. Some advertising may be immoral, but it would depend on the advert.

Personally, I'm in favour of banning all _public_ (street) advertising. I think it detracts substantially from civic life. But I'm not in favour of banning _all_ advertising. If I choose to read newspapers and magazines that carry advertising, I accept it as the quid pro quo for doing so. There is no quid pro quo when I'm walking down the street that public taxes pay for. Quite the opposite.




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> And it doesn't *have* to be cleaned off - so no public expense.



So if someone vandalises your house, the fact that you don't _have_ to clean it up means that the perpetrator shouldn't be compelled to compensate you?


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 29, 2006)

A missed opportunity IMO

They could have created something so beautiful that it made people question thier dislike of grafitti but it just looks really rubbish IMO

I'd rather see art than advertising on the tube but that's not art.

The really worrying thing is that if a bunch of kids can get into the tube and spray a load of grafitti there then a bunch of terrorists could have got down there and left bombs in the tunnels


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 29, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> The really worrying thing is that if a bunch of kids can get into the tube and spray a load of grafitti there then a bunch of terrorists could have got down there and left bombs in the tunnels


There is no way you can prevent determined terrorists planting bombs virtually anywhere in public places / public utilities.  It is _impossible_ to make all aspects of every place / system secure to that extent.


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2006)

I grabbed some photos on my phone last night:


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> If they catch some of the scum who did this they should hold their fucking eyes open and spray paint into them til they go blind, see how they liked that for a work of art.


Just a _teensy weensy smidgen_ over the top that, don't you think?


----------



## kakuma (Dec 29, 2006)

i think it looks class myself, i bet in a few years london transport pay someone to graff up a tube station.....


----------



## dash (Dec 29, 2006)

Certainly fits into the whole Camden get-your-knob-pierced, pound-a-pizza-slice thing.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Dec 29, 2006)

Teepee said:
			
		

> I hate graffiti 'artists'. Their 'art' can kindly fuck off from the side of my elderly neighbour's garage. I will however enthusiastically endorse the graffiti 'artists' who vandalise advertisments. I agree, no distinction can be made.



Enjoy the crazy french  

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oq5_stopub


----------



## zoltan (Dec 29, 2006)

UNimaginative , uninspired , derivative shit Im afraid. This is camden , not the Bronx circa 1980 Im afraid

the scale of the execution is about the only redeeming factor - be it intense stuipidity and good luck or months of meticulous planning and dummy runs.

its a step above the cunts who scratch their derivative scrawls onto bus windows, but only just.

sorry boys, must try harder and do something thats at least original.


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 29, 2006)

i thought the graffiti looked quite good for these days, i think the days of arty graffiti are pretty much over aren't they? the main reason i liked it is because it will irritate the fuckwits who run LU. hopefully the next time the graffiti will be in/on their houses, the c&nts


----------



## Giles (Dec 29, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just a _teensy weensy smidgen_ over the top that, don't you think?



Actually, no I don't think it's over the top at all. 

Even if they *do* catch any of those who did this, they won't be made to pay for the clean-up, so effectively, everyone else who goes on the tube will have to pay.

They make me sick.

The thing that irritates me most is that they (and quite a few other people) think that this is somehow a cool thing to do.

To me, they are on a par with the kind of people who break into a school at night, and then set it on fire. They revel in wanton, expensive wrecking of shared public property, for the sake of a "laugh". I have no time for them.

Giles..


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Actually, no I don't think it's over the top at all.


So you believe that torturing the culprit until he is permanently blinded is an appropriate punishment for relatively minor property damage, yes?

What about dropping litter? That must be worth a fair bit of torture and a few fingers cut off in your world, no?


----------



## RaverDrew (Dec 29, 2006)

I think it's great.  

May not be the best pieces in the world, but I imagine they just wanted to get something up as quick as, then just get the fuck out of there.


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2006)

untethered said:
			
		

> Is graffiti morally worse than advertising? I'd say it is, because (illegal) graffiti always involves a deliberate moral offence against someone else's property.



That presupposes the moral precedence of property ownership.


----------



## Giles (Dec 29, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So you believe that torturing the culprit until he is permanently blinded is an appropriate punishment for relatively minor property damage, yes?
> 
> What about dropping litter? That must be worth a fair bit of torture and a few fingers cut off in your world, no?



OK, Ok, I was being over the top!

It still fucks me off though. Especially the way that when they do catch people for this type of thing, they rarely make them pay the total cost of fixing the damage.

Giles..


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2006)

(Two similar threads merged)


----------



## T & P (Dec 29, 2006)

If they had limited themselves to the actual 'nice' graffiti on the walls (I really like the one that surrounds the Camden Town sign, the sign itself being untouched) then I'd say that's cool. But of course some fucking twat had to go and start tagging the walls, seats and floor.

Graffiti = has merit, and can be okay depending on where it's done

Tags = worthless, talentless shit- the authors of which should have a paint can rammed up their arse so high it comes up up their mouth.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 29, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> There is no way you can prevent determined terrorists planting bombs virtually anywhere in public places / public utilities.  It is _impossible_ to make all aspects of every place / system secure to that extent.



Well quite and it's not as if violent Jihadi's are taking training lessons from graffiti artists...


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> Graffiti = has merit, and can be okay depending on where it's done
> 
> Tags = worthless, talentless shit- the authors of which should have a paint can rammed up their arse so high it comes up up their mouth.


Since when did you become the arbiter of what is art and what's not?!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 29, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> Graffiti = has merit, and can be okay depending on where it's done
> 
> Tags = worthless, talentless shit- the authors of which should have a paint can rammed up their arse so high it comes up up their mouth.



Pretty much.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 29, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Since when did you become the arbiter of what is art and what's not?!



Since when did they say they were? Aren't people allowed to form their own opinions on what is and isn't permissible?


----------



## jugularvein (Dec 29, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> To me, they are on a par with the kind of people who break into a school at night, and then set it on fire. They revel in wanton, expensive wrecking of shared public property, for the sake of a "laugh". I have no time for them.
> 
> Giles..



i have no time for this nonsense either.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 29, 2006)

Yeah but its all part of the same thing. Shit tags are crap but everyones gotta start somewhere (not that I am condoning it of course)

But it certainly makes a change not seeing those crappy white walls every time you get off the train! 

And maybe Tfl will stop telling us stupid things like "we are cracking down on graffiti this xmas" when they know they cant and they should have been "cracking down on Graffiti" for the rest of last year anyway......


----------



## Giles (Dec 29, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> If they had limited themselves to the actual 'nice' graffiti on the walls (I really like the one that surrounds the Camden Town sign, the sign itself being untouched) then I'd say that's cool. But of course some fucking twat had to go and start tagging the walls, seats and floor.
> 
> Graffiti = has merit, and can be okay depending on where it's done
> 
> Tags = worthless, talentless shit- the authors of which should have a paint can rammed up their arse so high it comes up up their mouth.



I'm not the only one who believes in harsh penalties! Maybe we should give miscreants a choice of punishment???? 

a. being sprayed in the eyes until they go blind

b. having a paint can rammed up their arse so high it comes out of their mouth.

 


Giles..


----------



## ashtray (Dec 29, 2006)

Fantastic!


----------



## maomao (Dec 29, 2006)

Brilliant work. And the photos above show quite clearly that they've left the Station nameboards completely visible. I don;t see why this 'has' to be cleaned off at all. Far more attractive than the greasy white tiles under the paint.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 29, 2006)

maomao said:
			
		

> Brilliant work. *And the photos above show quite clearly that they've left the Station nameboards completely visible*. I don;t see why this 'has' to be cleaned off at all. Far more attractive than the greasy white tiles under the paint.



Hmmm I'm not 100% about that, went through there on Boxing day and the station signs where covered too. Think they have been cleaned...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 29, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> (I really like the one that surrounds the Camden Town sign, the sign itself being untouched)


I think you'll find the sign has been cleaned / replaced - check out the squatjuice pics on page 1 and it is clear they were originally sprayed over.

I quite like the look of proper large scale graffitti ... but sadly there is no way TfL could allow it to be done properly (a station would look very much brighter if done up properly with some planned large scale stuff like this) without getting a rash of tag shit all over it in about ten minutes flat ...   

I contemplated getting some proper graffitti artist to do my garage door when it needed repainting ... but the same problem put me off the idae and so it's still dull, boring black ...


----------



## Andy the Don (Dec 29, 2006)

maomao said:
			
		

> Brilliant work. And the photos above show quite clearly that they've left the Station nameboards completely visible. I don;t see why this 'has' to be cleaned off at all. Far more attractive than the greasy white tiles under the paint.



No think I prefer the original tiles, not some untalented chimps idea of art. Who obviously has such a high opinion of himself that everyone has to see his crap doodles. Think I will find out where he lives & graffiti the LU circle & bar logo over his bedroom wall..

But you have to admire their cheek..


----------



## Athos (Dec 29, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Since when did they say they were? Aren't people allowed to form their own opinions on what is and isn't permissible?



Err... T&P did when he/she asserted that graffiti has 'merit', whereas tags are just 'shit.'  Of course, they're enitled to that opinion, but they can't expect anyone to be convinced by it - after all, there were people that said Turner's works had no merit when they were first produced, and people continue to do so about lots of art.


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Of course, they're enitled to that opinion, but they can't expect anyone to be convinced by it - after all, there were people that said Turner's works had no merit when they were first produced, and people continue to do so about lots of art.


Sure. But Turner was a trained artist with demonstrable skills (whether you liked his work or not), but you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.

(*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it).


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Sure. But Turner was a trained artist with demonstrable skills (whether you liked his work or not), but you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.
> 
> (*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it).



I've no desire to convince you that it's art, but I'd be surprised if you could come up with a definition of 'art' that encompasses all that is widely regarded to be art, which doees not also include tagging.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I've no desire to convince you that it's art, but I'd be surprised if you could come up with a definition of 'art' that encompasses all that is widely regarded to be art, which doees not also include tagging.


Perhaps you could show me some "artistic" examples of a hastily scraped tag on a bus window for reference?

You see, I can appreciate the artistic nature of good graffiti, but I fucking hate it when I get on a bus or a train and I can barely see out of the window because some selfish cunt has crudely scrawled his stupid fucking name all over the place.

But I'm always open to try and learn about (and appreciate) new art forms, so let's see some good examples please.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could show me some "artistic" examples of a hastily scraped tag on a bus window for reference?
> 
> You see, I can appreciate the artistic nature of good graffiti, but I fucking hate it when I get on a bus or a train and I can barely see out of the window because some selfish cunt has crudely scrawled his stupid fucking name all over the place.
> 
> But I'm always open to try and learn about (and appreciate) new art forms, so let's see some good examples please.



Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's art.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's art.


I have never claimed that to be the case, but I have asked for you to show me some good examples so I can at least make an informed judgement.

So have you got any?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I have never claimed that to be the case, but I have asked for you to show me some good examples so I can at least make an informed judgement.
> 
> So have you got any?



I could post up pictures of tags, but I know that you won't think they're any good, because, as you've said, you don't like tagging.

What's your point, though?  I thought that you were trying to assert that tagging has no artistic merit; it seemed to me that your only real reason for doing so is that it's not to your taste.

You seemed to me to be making the distinction between "artistic" graffiti and tagging.  That line of argument rests on one being able to distinguish between what's artistic and what's not, which is why I invited you to offer any definition of art which wouldn't also include tagging.  You didn't.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> You seemed to me to be making the distinction between "artistic" graffiti and tagging.  That line of argument rests on one being able to distinguish between what's artistic and what's not, which is why I invited you to offer any definition of art which wouldn't also include tagging.  You didn't.


You seem to be the one claiming to be the arbiter of what is "art" here, not me.

Just because _you_ like someone scratching their name all over a bus window, that doesn't make it art and your refusal to actually produce some examples for discussion doesn't do much for your argument either.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You seem to be the one claiming to be the arbiter of what is "art" here, not me.
> 
> Just because _you_ like someone scratching their name all over a bus window, that doesn't make it art and your refusal to actually produce some examples for discussion doesn't do much for your argument either.



I'm not making any assertions about the nature of art, or about tagging.  Contrary to what what you claim, I have neither said that I consider tagging to be art, nor that I like it.

I merely pointed out that there's nothing to your dismissive opinion of tagging beyond the fact that it's not to your taste.  Of course, that's you're opinion, and you don't need me to tell you that you are entitled to it.  However, I worry when you try to bolster it with claims that tagging should be dismissed because it's not artistic.  Throughout the history of art, reactionaries in the art establishment has dismissed many great works on exactly that basis.

As I've already invited you to do, why not offer a definition of art which reasonably excludes tagging?

And I don't understand your point about me posting pictures of tags that are artistic?  If you want to see some, google image "tagging."  I know you won't like them, but I could challange you to post something by Goya, and I wouldn't like it, but what would that prove?  that it's not art?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 30, 2006)

You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!



Do you think there's any creative merit to Duchamps 'Fountain,' or the adverts that pollute your visual environment?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Do you think there's any creative merit to Duchamps 'Fountain,' or the adverts that pollute your visual environment?



I asked the question first dude, answer mine and I'll give yours a shot.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!



Yes.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I merely pointed out that there's nothing to your dismissive opinion of tagging beyond the fact that it's not to your taste.


I haven't dismissed it out of hand. 

In fact, I've repeatedly asked for you to show me some examples of what you feel are "artistic" tags scraped on a bus window so I can make a more informed opinion on the matter. 

And you keep on refusing to do so, so I can only go on the crude examples of petty vandalism I've seen thus far.

Look, here's what I said several posts ago: "*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it."

But if you're trying to convince me that the teenage 'big-up' scratchings on bus and train windows represents some sort of new, credible art form with parallels to masters such as Goya, you'll have to come up with something a bit more persuasive than your non-argument thus far.

Just because you like it, it sure don't make it art in the broad meaning of the word, you know.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I haven't dismissed it out of hand.



Well, your comments seem quite dismissive to me.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> In fact, I've repeatedly asked for you to show me some examples of what you feel are "artistic" tags scraped on a bus window so I can make a more informed opinion on the matter.



As I keep trying to explain to you, your opinion of whether they're "artistic" will, in fact, amount to nothing more than whether or not they're to your taste, which, as I've said, they won't be, because you don't like tagging.

The only way that you could give a less subjective assessment of their artistic merit would be if you measured them against an objective standard, such as a definition of art.  However, despite my repeated invitations, you declined to provide one.  I suspect that's because you realise that you couldn't come up with one that would exclude tagging.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> And you keep on refusing to do so, so I can only go on the crude examples of petty vandalism I've seen thus far.



That's rather my point, that you fail to see that something you dismiss as petty vandalism could be art.

If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art?  Why?





			
				editor said:
			
		

> Look, here's what I said several posts ago: "*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it."



All you're actually saying is that none of what you've seen is art, because you didn't like it.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> But if you're trying to convince me that the teenage 'big-up' scratchings on bus and train windows represents some sort of new, credible art form with parallels to masters such as Goya, you'll have to come up with something a bit more persuasive than your non-argument thus far.



What definition of art encompasses Goya, but excludes tagging?





			
				editor said:
			
		

> Just because you like it, it sure don't make it art in the broad meaning of the word, you know.



I didn't suggest that it does.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> What definition of art encompasses Goya, but excludes tagging?


Thing is, you keep drawing parallels with Goya, but don't seem to have _anything_ to back up such a lofty association. Nothing. No argument. No examples. No peer reviews. No insights. Nothing.

You can't even furnish this debate with some "artistic" examples of window scratching so it seems pointless continuing.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 30, 2006)

He has a point though - art is in the eye of the beholder.  Although I do think tagging is shite.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Thing is, you keep drawing parallels with Goya, but don't seem to have _anything_ to back up such a lofty association.
> 
> You can't even furnish this debate with some "artistic" examples of window scratching so it seems pointless continuing.



I've told you where you can find examples of "artistic" tags - google images.

That's not to say that I necessarily like the ones that are shown there, but they're as "artistic" as any Goya painting, in so far as they are equally eligible to be defined as art (an objective fact), if not necessarily art which you (or I) consider to be of equal merit (a subjective opinion).

Which was my point all along.  You don't like tagging because you think it looks shit - fair enough.  But trying to give that opinion some weight by dressing it up as an objective argument that tagging is not "artistic" is fraught with difficulties.  Not least of all your seeming inability to define that thing which you're so sure taggining is not i.e. art.  I've asked you a few times, but you won't, so I agree, there's little point in continuing this.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Not least of all your seeming inability to define that thing which you're so sure taggining is not i.e. art.


You're _definitely_  suffering from an inability to comprehend my words.

Here they are for the third time:



> *that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it.


Seeing as you refuse _point blank_ to point me in the direction of a single example of an 'artistic' bus window scratching, I'll be fucked if I'm going to waste my time trawling through google images looking for one.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> He has a point though - art is in the eye of the beholder.


Sure. But if he's going to keep on bringing up parallels with trained, well-respected masters like Goya, it's not unreasonable to ask for a few examples and some kind of reasoned argument why the bus window scrawls should be considered as having some sort of 'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You're _definitely_  suffering from an inability to comprehend my words.
> 
> Here they are for the third time:
> 
> Seeing as you refuse _point blank_ to point me in the direction of a single example of an 'artistic' bus window scratching, I'll be fucked if I'm going to waste my time trawling through google images looking for one.



I'm not failing to comprehemnd your words; you're failing to reply to my points.  I'm asking you to define art (in response to your suggestions that tagging isn't artistic).  You can't or won't, so I guess the debate stops there.

You fail to grasp that the reason I don't post a picture of any particular tag is because we're not talking about the relative artistic merit of any individual piece, but rather about your suggestion that tagging _per se_ isn't art.  I would post a picture, and you'd say you don't like it - that would take us no further forward in establishing whether tagging is artistic.  A definition of art would, but you keep dodging the issue, and pretending that it's my failure to post a picture of a tag that means there's no room for debate.  To debunk that, here's some:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?s...2005-01,HPEA:en&q=graffiti+tagging+bus+window


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Sure. But if he's going to keep on bringing up parallels with trained, well-respected masters like Goya, it's not unreasonable to ask for a few examples and some kind of reasoned argument why the bus window scrawls should be considered as having some sort of 'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase.



As I made the point with Turner, not all artists that are now "well-respected masters" were always thought of in those terms.

And what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm not failing to comprehemnd your words; you're failing to reply to my points.  I'm asking you to define art (in response to your suggestions that tagging isn't artistic).


Why the fuck should I try and 'define art' just for your benefit?

You're the one repeatedly drawing parallels between crude adolescent window scratchings and the work of recognised masters like Goya, so how about you back up this claimed association with a reasoned argument?

Like I said, I'm open to find out more and be convinced, but so far you just keep on avoiding any kind of meaningful debate.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> As I made the point with Turner, not all artists that are now "well-respected masters" were always thought of in those terms.


That's a really piss weak argument, you know.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why the fuck should I try and 'define art' just for your benefit?
> 
> You're the one repeatedly drawing parallels between crude adolescent window scratchings and the work of recognised masters like Goya, so how about you back up this claimed association with a reasoned argument?



A definition of art wouldn't be for my benefit, but for yours - your argument depends upon it; after all, it was you who tried to add some clout to your subjective opinion about the quality of tagging, by attempting to give it objective weight, through an assertion that tagging isn't art.

Why don't you just come clean and say that art is in the eye of the beholder, and, as such tagging may be art, but that you think it's shit?  Why cling to the argument that it's not art, when you can't even define what art is?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> That's a really piss weak argument, you know.



If you say so.

oh, and by the way... what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> The only way that you could give a less subjective assessment of their artistic merit would be if you measured them against an objective standard, such as a definition of art.


Whether it is "art" or not is beside the point.  Whether it is _criminal_ or not is the question which should be asked.  People are entitled to decide how their property is treated.  No-one else has any right to interfere with the owners decision.  Publicly (or pseudo-publicly) owned property is no different.
The graffitti may or may not be considered "art".  But what it most definitely is is criminal.  We are not talking here about the graffitti being objected to _per se_ because we don't like it, we are talking about it being objected to because it has ridden roughshod over the rights of the onwers of the property. 



> If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art?  Why?


No.  It would be vandalism.  Vandalism that many people would consider "nice" ... but vandalism nonetheless.  (Unless, of course, it was Leonardo's own bus, or he had the bus owners persmission ...)


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> oh, and by the way... what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?


Sorry, I'm not here to answer A level art questions for you.

But perhaps you could invite some of these "artists" over to your place so that they could scratch your house/car windows with their Goya-esque misunderstood "art"? Would you like that? If not, why not?

Do you like having the view from a bus window obscured by these adolescent scratchings, by the way? 
Do you feel the bus is the better for this 'art'? (if the bus hasn't already been taken out of service to get the windows repaired of course - all at an extra cost to you, the passenger, who has to suffer for their 'art'!).


----------



## zoltan (Dec 30, 2006)

"If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art? Why?"

Different subject - gouging into safety glass on public transport has issues for everyone who uses it, not least the risk aspect whith the glass itself be weakened by the act.Its up there with chucking lifebelts into lakes when you are pissed - its not a political act or a bit of al fresco Guerilla art or Baader Meinhof " Art happening " style  - its irresponsible juvenile  twatishness that has an negative impact on everyone who comes into contact with it.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Whether it is "art" or not is beside the point.



Whether or not it's art is not beside the point; the point I was trying to make is that it's dodgy to object to tagging on the basis that it's not art, that's all.

I have no problem at all with people objecting to it because it looks shit, or because it dangerously weakens safety glass, or because it obscures the view from bus windows.  People seem to be disparaging it because it's not art, though, and that argument doesn't stack up.






			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Whether it is _criminal_ or not is the question which should be asked.  People are entitled to decide how their property is treated.  No-one else has any right to interfere with the owners decision.  Publicly (or pseudo-publicly) owned property is no different.
> The graffitti may or may not be considered "art".  But what it most definitely is is criminal.  We are not talking here about the graffitti being objected to _per se_ because we don't like it, we are talking about it being objected to because it has ridden roughshod over the rights of the onwers of the property.



As I've already said, that depends on your views on property.






			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> No.  It would be vandalism.  Vandalism that many people would consider "nice" ... but vandalism nonetheless.  (Unless, of course, it was Leonardo's own bus, or he had the bus owners persmission ...)



And do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm not here to answer A level art questions for you.



Maybe it's that you can't answer without destroying your own argument.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> But perhaps you could invite some of these "artists" over to your place so that they could scratch your house/car windows with their Goya-esque misunderstood "art"? Would you like that? If not, why not?
> 
> Do you like having the view from a bus window obscured by these adolescent scratchings, by the way?
> Do you feel the bus is the better for this 'art'? (if the bus hasn't already been taken out of service to get the windows repaired of course - all at an extra cost to you, the passenger, who has to suffer for their 'art'!).



I wouldn't want them to come to my house, or to scratch my windows, because I wouldn't like to look at that.  And I don't think bus windows are better for their art.

However that's my subjective opinion of their art, and doesn't mean that what they do is not art.  It's nothing more than an expression of my taste, but, unlike you, I don't try to invest my opinion with some objective truth by making pronouncements on what is and what is not art - it's not my place to do so.

Nor is it yours, and, as you've demonstrated, you're unable to support your assertion that it's not art, as a result of your failure to even suggest what art may be.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Nor is it yours, and, as you've demonstrated, you're unable to support your assertion that it's not art, as a result of your failure to even suggest what art may be.



I think you'll find that defining 'what is art' is something that people have struggled with for centuries. So you're being a bit disingenuous.

Isn't the intention behind the artwork important? Are you saying that the intention behind some of Duchamp's stuff is the same as this?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that defining 'what is art' is something that people have struggled with for centuries. So you're being a bit disingenuous.
> 
> Isn't the intention behind the artwork important? Are you saying that the intention behind some of Duchamp's stuff is the same as this?



No, I'm saying that it's not the Editor's place to decide that tagging isn't art, especially as he's unable to say what art is.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the intention behind some of Duchamp's stuff is the same as this?



I think that they share an intention to piss the establishment off (no pun intended).


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that it's not the Editor's place to decide that tagging isn't art, especially as he's unable to say what art is.



But what about the intention question - don't you think that's important if you're going to get into defining what's art? (seeing as he isn't here to respond to the last four posts you made)

Or are you just disagreeing with him but haven't got any ideas of your own?


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I think that they share an intention to piss the establishment off (no pun intended).



There's a massive difference putting something in a gallery and asking the establishment to judge whether it's art or not and damaging property.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> But what about the intention question - don't you think that's important if you're going to get into defining what's art? (seeing as he isn't here to respond to the last four posts you made)
> 
> Or are you just disagreeing with him but haven't got any ideas of your own?



See my last post.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> There's a massive difference putting something in a gallery and asking the establishment to judge whether it's art or not and damaging property.



If you say so.


----------



## T & P (Dec 30, 2006)

You should ask yourself the question Athos of whether taggers are trying to create a work of art or embellish or enhance an enviornment in any way with their tags.

The answer is no. Taggers are simply stupid egomaniac twats keen on marking as wide a territory with their signatures as possible. It has fuck all to do with art.

Nor that it'd be much better if they saw their actions as art, because it is still utter and complete shit and of as much artistic merit as a pisshead who takes a leak in a tube carriage. But the bottom line remains: it isn't art. It's fucking dickheads signing their name all over the place to show off to his mates and other like-minded fuckwits.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> And do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?


No.  They are entirely unrelated.

Criminal damage may or may not be intended or perceived to be "art".

"Art" may or may not amount to an offence of criminal damage.

You appear to suffer from the same simplistic mode of thinking as many U75 posters - if it isn't A it _must_ be B.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 30, 2006)

It's not the best graffiti I've ever seen but the station definitely looks better than it did before! Hope they get round to doing Elephant & Castle next, that station's a dump.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> No.  They are entirely unrelated.
> 
> Criminal damage may or may not be intended or perceived to be "art".
> 
> ...



That is a 180 degree u-turn from what you posted before!

I asked whether the Mona Lisa would be art if it was painted on a bus window, and you claimed that it wouldn't - you said that it would be vandalism, giving the impression that the two were mutually exclusive.

It was you with the simplistic mode of thinking, which seemed to create that false dichotomy.

So what are you saying?  Would it be art, or not?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> You should ask yourself the question Athos of whether taggers are trying to create a work of art or embellish or enhance an enviornment in any way with their tags.
> 
> The answer is no. Taggers are simply stupid egomaniac twats keen on marking as wide a territory with their signatures as possible. It has fuck all to do with art.
> 
> Nor that it'd be much better if they saw their actions as art, because it is still utter and complete shit and of as much artistic merit as a pisshead who takes a leak in a tube carriage. But the bottom line remains: it isn't art. It's fucking dickheads signing their name all over the place to show off to his mates and other like-minded fuckwits.



People create art for a wide range of reasons; not simply to embellish or enhance the environment.

I agree that, if you don't like looking at it, it matters not whether or not it's art.

That wasn't my point though - I was simply saying that the argument that it's not art doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Some would say that the Brit-art clique do little more than produce crap to show off to their mates and other like-minded fuckwits.  Would you say that what they do isn't art?  If not, doesn't the distinction that you draw between them and taggers say more about your reactionary and elitist view of art than it does about art itself?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> That is a 180 degree u-turn from what you posted before!
> 
> I asked whether the Mona Lisa would be art if it was painted on a bus window, and you claimed that it wouldn't - you said that it would be vandalism, giving the impression that the two were mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...


No it isn't.

And no, I didn't.  

You seem to suffer from the aptitude for selective quoting which afflicts many posters as well ...  

If you read the _context_ of my saying:



> It would be vandalism



You would see that I had already stated that:



> The graffitti may or may not be considered "art".



And:



> We are not talking here about the graffitti being objected to _per se_ because we don't like it, we are talking about it being objected to because it has ridden roughshod over the rights of the onwers of the property.



And that I went on to say:



> Vandalism that many people would consider "nice" ... but vandalism nonetheless.



So please don't seek to twist the meaning of my posts.  I don't like selective quoters.  Whether or not they think their selective quoting is "art".


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> So please don't seek to twist the meaning of my posts.  I don't like selective quoters.  Whether or not they think their selective quoting is "art".



I didn't twist your posts, nor have I selectively quoted you.

You seem to have a selective memory - I asked you "If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art? Why?"

You replied "No. It would be vandalism."

What are you saying?  Would it be art, or wouldn't it?  It's a simple question, but unless you answer it, I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say.


----------



## T & P (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> People create art for a wide range of reasons; not simply to embellish or enhance the environment.
> 
> I agree that, if you don't like looking at it, it matters not whether or not it's art.
> 
> ...


But there is more to be taken into account isn't it? I happen to believe much of what now makes the finals for the Turner Prize is rubbish. However most if not all of those chaps have shown through their portfolio to have certain skills. Furthermore, and that's a big point for me, their work tends to be restricted to one area- namely the gallery or museum where it is exhibited at. I am not forced to see it plastered over every brick wall or bus seat and window.

I am prepared to accept that some people might indeed view tagging as a form of art while I don't. A separate issue however is whether tagging should be condoned or allowed because it might be a form of art. I certainly don't think that's the case, any more than I would think a man who claims his taking a shit on a tube station platform and smearing the walls with it being an expression of art should be allowed to do so.

The immense majority of people, including many who do like graffiti, appear to agree that tagging is a hideous eyesore of not artistic merit that aesthetically ruins the area is created on. On that basis it should be removed, not condoned or encouraged. I'm sorry if some taggers genuinely disagree with that view but I don't think folk are being unreasonable for protesting at tags covering walls, park benches or bus windows.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> But there is more to be taken into account isn't it? I happen to believe much of what now makes the finals for the Turner Prize is rubbish. However most if not all of those chaps have shown through their portfolio to have certain skills. Furthermore, and that's a big point for me, their work tends to be restricted to one area- namely the gallery or museum where it is exhibited at. I am not forced to see it plastered over every brick wall or bus seat and window.
> 
> I am prepared to accept that some people might indeed view tagging as a form of art while I don't. A separate issue however is whether tagging should be condoned or allowed because it might be a form of art. I certainly don't think that's the case, any more than I would think a man who claims his taking a shit on a tube station platform and smearing the walls with it being an expression of art should be allowed to do so.
> 
> The immense majority of people, including many who do like graffiti, appear to agree that tagging is a hideous eyesore of not artistic merit that aesthetically ruins the area is created on. On that basis it should be removed, not condoned or encouraged. I'm sorry if some taggers genuinely disagree with that view but I don't think folk are being unreasonable for protesting at tags covering walls, park benches or bus windows.



Once again, you're focussing on the question of whether tagging looks good.  That's not the point.  I'm not saying that it does, or defending it.  I'm merely saying that it can't be dismissed on the basis that it's not art.

That's in part because I disagree with your conception of art, which limits it to that which is in gallerys, and which is produced by artists who can demonstrate a portfolio of skills.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say.


IT'S IRRELEVANT. IT _MAY_ be *OR* may _*NOT.*_ It's *ALWAYS* criminal _DAMAGE_ THOUGH.

Clear now?


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> IT'S IRRELEVANT.IT_MAY_be*OR*may_*NOT.*_it's*ALWAYS*criminal_DAMAGE_THOUGH.
> 
> Clear now?



I'm clear - are you?  First you said it wasn't art, then you said that it could be, now you say it's irrelevant.  

I disagree that it's irrelavant, anyway.  The discussion has moved onto the question of whether tagging can be dismmissed on the grounds that it's not art.  Wheter or not it is criminal damage is not under debate - nobody could argue taht it's anything else, could they?

Do you consider that tagging is art?

Do you consider that, as well as being an act of criminal damage/vandalism,  the Mona Lisa would be art if it were painted on a bus window?


----------



## T & P (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Once again, you're focussing on the question of whether tagging looks good.  That's not the point.  I'm not saying that it does, or defending it.  I'm merely saying that it can't be dismissed on the basis that it's not art.
> 
> That's in part because I disagree with your conception of art, which limits it to that which is in gallerys, and which is produced by artists who can demonstrate a portfolio of skills.


 How can you say that when you don't know what I like or don't like?

I actually consider some graffiti to be a form of art. But I certainly _know_ that some kid scribbling his name hundreds of times on bus windows, train carriages or brick walls is no art and does not even pretend to be art.


----------



## Athos (Dec 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> How can you say that when you don't know what I like or don't like?
> 
> I actually consider some graffiti to be a form of art. But I certainly _know_ that some kid scribbling his name hundreds of times on bus windows, train carriages or brick walls is no art and does not even pretend to be art.



To _know_ that tagging is not art, you must _know_ what art is, so please enlighten me.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Do you consider that, as well as being an act of criminal damage/vandalism,  the Mona Lisa would be art if it were painted on a bus window?


I couldn't give a fuck, to be honest.

Some random fucking definition is meaningless.  The whole "Is it Art, though?" debate is a waste of oxygen, usually pursued by pretentious tossers with nothing meaningful to do with their time.

And as you keep insisting on knowiong whether I believe tagging is "art" or not whilst simultaneous demanding that other posters tell you how "art" is defined suggests that you really do need to get out more.


----------



## T & P (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> To _know_ that tagging is not art, you must _know_ what art is, so please enlighten me.


 Art is an abstract concept. There are no absolute rights and wrongs. Hence the debate about 'what is art' that has raged for centuries without any conclusion.

Some things are almost universally agreed as art. Some of them are debatable. And some of them are simply not.

A man pissing against a lamppost on the street after a night out isn't art. I can guarantee you that. 

And a kid defacing a bus window or spraying his name on railway bridges isn't art either. I can guarantee you that as well.

Let me ask you a question: is there _anything_ that a person can do that can categorically be said not be art as far as you are concerned? Suppossing you lived in a block that had a lift, and you caught a man taking a shit inside the lift, if he told you it was art, would you agree with him? Seems to me that you would have to agree. At the end of the day, who are we to judge what is art?


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Nor is it yours, and, as you've demonstrated, you're unable to support your assertion that it's not art, as a result of your failure to even suggest what art may be.


Explain to me why crude window scratchings on bus windows are art and comparable to Goya's work, please.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> To _know_ that tagging is not art, you must _know_ what art is, so please enlighten me.


To _know_ that tagging is art, you must _know_ what art is, so please enlighten me


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> A man pissing against a lamppost on the street after a night out isn't art. I can guarantee you that.



If it was done with the intention of being art, by someone who was generally recognised as being an artist, then it would be art.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 30, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> ... by someone who was generally recognised as being an artist, ...


Would it count if they were generally recognised as a _piss_ artist?  If so, I've done art ...


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 30, 2006)

Didn't they just spend a fortune recently tarting Camden Town station up?

Cunts! (the graffti 'artistes', not Tfl)

No wonder London looks such a fucking dump when this sort of thing goes on and it is beyond me how anyone can defend this.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 30, 2006)

Anyone seen Oxford Circus station recently? A complete fucking tip without having been graffited.  In fact, graffiti would probably improve it.  One of the richest cities in the world and our tube stations look like bomb sites.  A disgrace really.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 30, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Anyone seen Oxford Circus station recently? A complete fucking tip without having been graffited.  In fact, graffiti would probably improve it.  One of the richest cities in the world and our tube stations look like bomb sites.  A disgrace really.



To be fair they are in the middle of doing it up, hence it looking like a bomb site.  They have done the Bakerloo line bits and it looks


----------



## Dead Cat Bounce (Dec 30, 2006)

Just saw this the other day, who ever was behind this had the talent of dried dog shit.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 30, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> To be fair they are in the middle of doing it up, hence it looking like a bomb site.  They have done the Bakerloo line bits and it looks



They've been in the middle of doing it up for at least 5 years then.


----------



## breathbona (Dec 30, 2006)

spit!!


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 30, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> They've been in the middle of doing it up for at least 5 years then.



*cough*

Brixton Station

*cough*

Tfl aren't the fastest workers in the west!


----------



## portman (Dec 30, 2006)

Art is in part defined as a means of self expression. Thinking about it, that's a very grey area and what forms of self expression do or do not count as art can be a very subjective judgement. One person's self expression (e.g. Jackson Pollock) can be seen by someone else as self indulgent crap.

What does help in the definition is the context the 'art' appears in. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a gallery to be classed as art. But there has to be some demonstrable evidence of thinking and talent IMHO. Also, while some art is transgressive and does push the boundaries, there are still boundaries where transgressive self expression goes beyond what a civilised society should be expected to tolerate.

While I would see this kind of graffiti style mural as a legitimate form of art...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/334917466/in/set-72157594442821921/

...this kind of mindless tagging isn't...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/334913008/in/set-72157594442821921/

...although the original piece buried under the tags has a certain something...

However, scratching windows and mindless tagging is not art, it is vandalism and criminal damage - end of!


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 30, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Art is in part defined as a means of self expression. Thinking about it, that's a very grey area and what forms of self expression do or do not count as art can be a very subjective judgement. One person's self expression (e.g. Jackson Pollock) can be seen by someone else as self indulgent crap.
> 
> What does help in the definition is the context the 'art' appears in. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a gallery to be classed as art. But there has to be some demonstrable evidence of thinking and talent IMHO. Also, while some art is transgressive and does push the boundaries, there are still boundaries where transgressive self expression goes beyond what a civilised society should be expected to tolerate.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but making a recently refurbished tube station (at a cost of a couple of million) look like something from the Bronx circa 1980 isn't art.  It just looks crap.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> ...although the original piece buried under the tags has a certain something...
> 
> However, scratching windows and mindless tagging is not art, it is vandalism and criminal damage - end of!



To me, that demonstrates that while you may think that, the taggers don't. We have a fantastic mural round the corner from where I live and it's never been tagged. 







It shows respect IMO


----------



## portman (Dec 30, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Sorry, but making a recently refurbished tube station (at a cost of a couple of million) look like something from the Bronx circa 1980 isn't art.  It just looks crap.



Errmm..that's the point I was trying to make but I was probably being too long winded! Sorry for any confusion...


----------



## baffled (Dec 31, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> To me, that demonstrates that while you may think that, the taggers don't. We have a fantastic mural round the corner from where I live and it's never been tagged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats just up the road from me mums


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I couldn't give a fuck, to be honest.
> 
> Some random fucking definition is meaningless.  The whole "Is it Art, though?" debate is a waste of oxygen, usually pursued by pretentious tossers with nothing meaningful to do with their time.
> 
> And as you keep insisting on knowiong whether I believe tagging is "art" or not whilst simultaneous demanding that other posters tell you how "art" is defined suggests that you really do need to get out more.



Whether or not it's art is not meaningless - it's central to my point.  Which was that you can't dismiss it on the grounds that it's not art.  Albeit it you can dismiss it on plenty of other grounds e.g. it looks shit or it's vandalism.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Explain to me why crude window scratchings on bus windows are art and comparable to Goya's work, please.



I don't need to, because I wasn't the one making the assertion.  You, on the other hand, were sure that it wasn't art.  You can't say why, though, because you can't tell us what art is.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> To _know_ that tagging is art, you must _know_ what art is, so please enlighten me



I didn't say that it is art.  You said that it isn't, but can't say why, beacause you don't seem to know what art is.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> Art is an abstract concept. There are no absolute rights and wrongs. Hence the debate about 'what is art' that has raged for centuries without any conclusion.
> 
> Some things are almost universally agreed as art. Some of them are debatable. And some of them are simply not.
> 
> ...



What's art depends partly on the context, and partly on the intent; so I guess that there's nothing that can be said could never constitute art - even a man shitting in a lift.  Doesn't mean I'd like it though.

How can you _gaurantee_ that tagging is not art?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> What does help in the definition is the context the 'art' appears in. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a gallery to be classed as art. But there has to be some demonstrable evidence of thinking and talent IMHO. Also, while some art is transgressive and does push the boundaries, there are still boundaries where transgressive self expression goes beyond what a civilised society should be expected to tolerate.



The first part of that definition (regarding the demonstration of thinking and talent) is merely an expression of your taste - it's a subjective matter relating to your assessment of the quality of an artwork, rather than an objective definition of the nature of art.

The second point (regarding what should be tolerated) draws a false distinction between what should be criminal and what is art - there is no logical reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2006)

At all the po-faced tossers on this thread, since when did this become tory75?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Which was that you can't dismiss it on the grounds that it's not art.


I.  NEVER.  FUCKING.  HAVE.

Now, welcome to "ignore".


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I.  NEVER.  FUCKING.  HAVE.
> 
> Now, welcome to "ignore".



Err...  you did, actually.

It went like this: the Editor dismissed tagging largely on the grounds that it's not art; I challanged that; you supported his assertion that it wasn't art, which you seemed to do on the grounds that it was criminal damage - as if the two are mutually exclusive. 

In fact, you went so far as to say that the Mona Lisa would not be art if it were pained on a bus window (albeit you did later try to say the opposite). 

Ooooh, I'm on ignore am I - is that the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you..." when you've lost an argument.  I used to do that.. when I was 4.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> It went like this: the Editor dismissed tagging largely on the grounds that it's not art; I challanged that; you supported his assertion that it wasn't art,


Any chance of you actually _reporting what I said_ instead of trying to misrepresent me?

Thanks!



			
				editor said:
			
		

> But Turner was a trained artist with demonstrable skills (whether you liked his work or not), but you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.
> 
> *(*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it).*


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I didn't say that it is art.  You said that it isn't, but can't say why, beacause you don't seem to know what art is.


Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what art is please, and then explain your oft-repeated claims about the supposed parallels between Goya's work and adolescent window taggers?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Any chance of you actually _reporting what I said_ instead of trying to misrepresent me?
> 
> Thanks!






			
				editor said:
			
		

> ... you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.



I though that you were saying, here ^^^, that tagging is not art.  Perhaps I misunderstood you.  To clarify, maybe you could say whether or not you do consider tagging to be art?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what art is please, and then explain your oft-repeated claims about the supposed parallels between Goya's work and adolescent window taggers?



I asked you first, and repeated that request many times. Furthermore, it was you who made the assertion that it wasn't art (rather than me making the assertion that it was), so how about you come up with a definition, first, then maybe I'll have a crack at it.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I though that you were saying, here ^^^, that tagging is not art.  Perhaps I misunderstood you.  To clarify, maybe you could say whether or not you do consider tagging to be art?


I've never seen any tagged windows that represent anything other than annoying, adolescent vandalism to my eyes, but I remain open to be convinced.

To that end, I've asked you repeatedly to produce some 'artistic' examples of window tagging but you have constantly refused to do so.

I suspect that's because you can't find any.

Now, about these supposed parallels between bus window tagging and Goya's work. Could you substantiate those claims with something meaningful, please?


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I asked you first, and repeated that request many times. Furthermore, it was you who made the assertion that it wasn't art (rather than me making the assertion that it was), so how about you come up with a definition, first, then maybe I'll have a crack at it.


I do wish you'd learn to read what I've written instead of constantly repeating these cheap misrepresentations. 

For the third time:



			
				editor said:
			
		

> ...that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it.


Could you show me some examples of window scapings that you feel are 'art' please?


----------



## JTG (Dec 31, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> At all the po-faced tossers on this thread, since when did this become tory75?



yes because concern for public property and use of public funds makes you a Tory doesn't it?


----------



## Xanadu (Dec 31, 2006)

baffled said:
			
		

> trashpony said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trashy, your little'un is already posting???!!!  Fucking hell!


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I do wish you'd learn to read what I've written instead of constantly repeating these cheap misrepresentations.
> 
> For the third time:
> Could you show me some examples of window scapings that you feel are 'art' please?




I'll cut you a deal - if you provide a straight answer to a pretty simple question, I'll post some pictures of artistic tagging, and I'll explain the parallels between Goya and tagging.  Can't say fairer than that, eh?

Anyway, my question is:

*Is tagging art?*

A simple yes or no, followed by a more detailed explanation of your reasoning would by great.  Either way, please don't just re-post this:




			
				editor said:
			
		

> ...that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it.



It doesn't answer the question.  What I wan't to know is not whether there may be some scratchings somewhere that you'd like, but whether tagging _per se_ is an artform.  Like portraiture, photography or sculpture, for instance.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> Anyway, my question is:
> 
> *Is tagging art?*
> 
> A simple yes or no, followed by a more detailed explanation of your reasoning would by great.


Based on the bus window scratchings I've seen thus far (for that's what we've been talking about and not other types of tagging), no. 

All I've seen is adolescent vandalism, but as I've repeatedly told you, my mind remains open on the matter.

Now, will you *finally *post up some artistic examples of bus window tagging and explain its parallels with Goya's work?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> yes because concern for public property and use of public funds makes you a Tory doesn't it?


No, but getting wound up over something as insignificant as this definitely does.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Based on the bus window scratchings I've seen thus far (for that's what we've been talking about and not other types of tagging), no.
> 
> All I've seen is adolescent vandalism, but as I've repeatedly told you, my mind remains open on the matter.
> 
> Now, will you *finally *post up some artistic examples of bus window tagging and explain its parallels with Goya's work?



You haven't really answered my question, yet; so are you actually saying '"no, it's not art" or "I'm undecided"?

When you answer, I'll do what you ask.


----------



## JTG (Dec 31, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> No, but getting wound up over something as insignificant as this definitely does.



that doesn't even make sense


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> that doesn't even make sense


Maybe you should try harder then. 

Just in case you can't get it: Getting wound up over something as insignificant as some graff in a tube station makes you a po-faced idiot.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> You haven't really answered my question, yet; so are you actually saying '"no, it's not art" or "I'm undecided"?
> 
> When you answer, I'll do what you ask.


FFS. Can't you read? How much longer are you going to keep on wriggling?

I've clearly said that all the examples of window scratchings I've seen thus far have been nothing more than mindless vandalism, but  I remain open to seeing some examples that possess artistic validity (if any exist). Therefore I don't know enough to make any definitive statement on whether there is art to be found in bus window scratching, although I have my doubts. That's why I'm asking you to show me some artistic examples.

Now, will you finally, finally,* finally* post up some artistic examples of bus window tagging for discussion and explain its supposed parallels with Goya's work?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> FFS. Can't you read? How much longer are you going to keep on wriggling?
> 
> I've clearly said that all the examples of window scratchings I've seen thus far have been nothing more than mindless vandalism, but  I remain open to seeing some examples that possess artistic validity.
> 
> Now, will you finally, finally,* finally* post up some artistic examples of bus window tagging for discussion and explain its parallels with Goya's work?



So are you saying that tagging can be art?


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> So are you saying that tagging can be art?


*bangs head against wall.

Show up or shut up please because you're getting really boring now.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> *bangs head against wall.
> 
> Show up or shut up please because you're getting really boring now.



It needn't be boring, if you'd just answer the question, but you keep squirming, instead.

The fact is that you have painted yourself into a corner, by suggesting that tagging isn't art.

That assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, which is why you have consistently refused to offer any definition of art, or to provide a straight answer to a simple question of whether tagging can be art - a yes or no.

Your suggestion that it's not art is elitist and reactionary.

Why not just concede that tagging is art, but that you just don't like what you've seen.

If you want to continue to assert that what you've seen isn't art, you might want to explain why.  To do so, you'd have to say what art is.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> *bangs head against wall*


*Sticks a little white label next to the dent "_Untitled_2006, Forehead on masonry"*


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> The fact is that you have painted yourself into a corner, by suggesting that tagging isn't art.


Be sure to point me in the direction of a post where I state such a thing, because I'm getting fed up with your deceitful representations.

I have made my opinion crystal clear on the matter of _window_ tagging (for that is the subject under discussion)  and I'm getting bored repeating it.

All the examples I've seen so far have been nothing but vandalism. 

Your continuing failure to produce a single example of  any "artistic" window scratching coupled with your never-ending refusal to substantiate these supposed parallels with Goya's work just proves you haven't the slightest clue what you're on about.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 31, 2006)

It's fallacious to say that you can say something isn't art if you haven't defined what art is in the first place. Otherwise everything is art - my tea mug, the pile of crap next to my computer etc.

As people have said about fifty times on this thread.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> It's fallacious to say that you can say something isn't art if you haven't defined what art is in the first place.


Exactly. How can I be expected to give a definitive statement if window tagging is or isn't art if he refuses to show any "artistic" examples or explain the supposed parallels of crude window scratching on bus windows with the work of the great masters of art?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 31, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Maybe you should try harder then.
> 
> Just in case you can't get it: Getting wound up over something as insignificant as some graff in a tube station makes you a po-faced idiot.



Not really, as it will probably cost a lot of money to remove and we will (indirectly) have to pay for it.

It will probably come to a few thousand. Who are you to say that people should relax about this rather unproductive use of public funds?

Whether or not you like it and think it should remain you should know that just isn't going to happen. You know and those who did it know that it *will* be removed, at public expense. This fact in itself makes it an anti-social act. This could have been lessened by doing a blank wall somewhere.

I also don't think you can really say this is insignificant. Regardless of your opinions on its artistic merits it is certainly quite an impressive piece of work / vandalism (delete according to preference) in scale and execution!


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Exactly. How can I be expected to give a definitive statement if window tagging is or isn't art if he refuses to show any "artistic" examples or explain the supposed parallels of crude window scratching on bus windows with the work of the great masters of art?



You've missed the point (again).  If I post up pictures, you'll only be able to comment on those pictures - that's not what we're discussing, though, is it.  We're talking about whether tagging is art.  It's a matter of definition and principle, not a matter of specific examples of what you or I think is or is not artistic tagging.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> It's fallacious to say that you can say something isn't art if you haven't defined what art is in the first place. Otherwise everything is art - my tea mug, the pile of crap next to my computer etc.



Exactly.  The Editor can't say that the ones he's seen are not art, unless he can say what art is.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 31, 2006)

Can you all please move along to double maths and clear the common room?


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Be sure to point me in the direction of a post where I state such a thing, because I'm getting fed up with your deceitful representations.
> 
> I have made my opinion crystal clear on the matter of _window_ tagging (for that is the subject under discussion)  and I'm getting bored repeating it.
> 
> ...



You have said that the tagging you've seen isn't art.  I'm just asking you why you say that.  To answer, you'd need to tell me what art is, wouldn't you?

I'll put it very simply for you:

Why are those tags that you've seen not art?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Not really, as it will probably cost a lot of money to remove and we will (indirectly) have to pay for it.
> 
> It will probably come to a few thousand. Who are you to say that people should relax about this rather unproductive use of public funds?


Because vastly more significant sums are wasted in the tube network PFI as it is, so there is no point in getting worked up about this. A bit of perspective is required. that's all.


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 31, 2006)

exactly mr sleater. 

people bleating about the cost of cleaning up some walls and of fare evasion can fuck right off. the money a few fat cats have  made from running the tube while the people who use it are left to shell out for an expensive yet shit service is the real disgrace.

why is it that i feel a total mug for buying a monthly £100 tube ticket? answer: i'm getting totally conned by some fat c*nt in a suit


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> You have said that the tagging you've seen isn't art.  I'm just asking you why you say that.  To answer, you'd need to tell me what art is, wouldn't you?
> 
> I'll put it very simply for you:
> 
> Why are those tags that you've seen not art?


Because they're vandalism, not art. 

Now answer my fucking questions.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't think money is the issue.

The issue is that some anti-social louts have defaced a brand new station that is used by thousands everyday.

It looks ugly.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Because they're vandalism, not art.
> 
> Now answer my fucking questions.



Ok.  Ok.  I will answer your questions, I promise.

But, before I do, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

1) Are you saying that the reason the tags you've seen are not art is solely because they're vandalism?

2) If so, doesn't it follow that if they weren't vandalism e.g. if they were in a gallery, they's be art?

3) Also, do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?

4) If so, would the Mona Lisa cease to be art if it were painted on a bus window?

Cheers.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

_1) Are you saying that the reason the tags you've seen are not art is solely because they're vandalism?_

No. Never ever said or even suggested that. Please try and read what I've written because your failure to comprehend my words is getting irritating now.

_2) If so, doesn't it follow that if they weren't vandalism e.g. if they were in a gallery, they's be art?_

Irrelevant question.

_3) Also, do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?_

Irrelevant question.

_4) If so, would the Mona Lisa cease to be art if it were painted on a bus window?_

Irrelevant and stupid question.

Answer my questions now please, I'm getting bored asking you only to see you carry on wriggling.


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> I don't think money is the issue.
> 
> The issue is that some anti-social louts have defaced a brand new station that is used by thousands everyday.
> 
> It looks ugly.



yes but there is the issue of a tube system getting the treatment it deserves (i know the tube system is not a person). if someone had graffiti'd all over the royal albert hall it would be different. but somehow to me doing this is pleasing ...maybe because the people who use the tube are treated like idiots, its about time we acted like idiots


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 31, 2006)

maximilian ping said:
			
		

> exactly mr sleater.
> 
> people bleating about the cost of cleaning up some walls and of fare evasion can fuck right off. the money a few fat cats have  made from running the tube while the people who use it are left to shell out for an expensive yet shit service is the real disgrace.
> 
> why is it that i feel a total mug for buying a monthly £100 tube ticket? answer: i'm getting totally conned by some fat c*nt in a suit



I think your understanding of the tube is a little simplistic.

It isn't good and it costs too much but I'm not quite sure how the situation you describe is improved any by adding yet more costs by vandalism and reducing revenues further through fare evasion?


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

maximilian ping said:
			
		

> yes but there is the issue of a tube system getting the treatment it deserves (i know the tube system is not a person). if someone had graffiti'd all over the royal albert hall it would be different. but somehow to me doing this is pleasing ...maybe because the people who use the tube are treated like idiots, its about time we acted like idiots



I am not sure I follow your logic.  The tube system is in a terrible state, so your answer is to make it look worse?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 31, 2006)

maximilian ping said:
			
		

> yes but there is the issue of a tube system getting the treatment it deserves (i know the tube system is not a person). if someone had graffiti'd all over the royal albert hall it would be different. but somehow to me doing this is pleasing ...maybe because the people who use the tube are treated like idiots, its about time we acted like idiots



Yeah why don't we all just shit ourselves and do a dirty protest on the Northern line...plank


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> _1) Are you saying that the reason the tags you've seen are not art is solely because they're vandalism?_
> 
> No. Never ever said or even suggested that. Please try and read what I've written because your failure to comprehend my words is getting irritating now.
> 
> ...



I've told you, I will answer your questions, as soon as you are able to address mine.

I asked you whether the tags you'd seen were art, and, if they were not art, why they were not.  You said that they were not art, and that this is because they were vandalism.  I then asked you whether the sole reason they were not art is because they were vandalism, and you said no (and accused me of misunderstanding/misquoting you).  That leaves us back at my first question, doesn't it?  If they were not art, but the reason they were not art is not solely beacuase they were vandalism, what is/are the other reason(s) that they were not art?

And I consider 2, 3 and 4 to be very relevant questions?  Why won't you answer them?  Is it because you can't without damagng your own argument?  If not, please try.

And so that I can address your questions, please could you set them out clearly, once more?

Thanks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 31, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I think your understanding of the tube is *a little simplistic.*


And then he comes out with this:



			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It isn't good and it costs too much but I'm not quite sure how the situation you describe is improved any by adding yet more costs by vandalism and reducing revenues further through fare evasion?


Do you honestly think that that little bit of vandalism will have any impact at all compared with the profit taking from the pfi companies?. seriously?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Dec 31, 2006)

You don't do logic do you.

It doesn't matter about the actual impact of that particular bit of vandalism.

It is (a) the principle of it and (b) the cumulative effect. If I go take a shit in the street, I don't suppose it would really matter, but if everyone did then life would not be too great - or long for that matter.

You are making the "slippery slope fallacy" - e.g. if I pull a hair out of your head then you will not be bald (presuming you are not already) nor if I pull another or another...therefore no matter how many hairs I pull out your head you will never be bald...

No, the grafitti will not in itself make any difference but that's not to say it doesn't matter.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> I've told you, I will answer your questions, as soon as you are able to address mine.
> .


Seeing as you're now reduced to truly ridiculous, infantile and _utterly irrelevant_ flights of fancy about Leonardo da Vinci painting his masterpiece on a bus, it's clear you lost the argument ages ago.

It would have been better for all concerned if you'd had the honesty to just admit that instead of embarking on this embarrassing wriggle-a-thon.

Come back when you're prepared to argue like an adult.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Seeing as you're now reduced to truly ridiculous, infantile and _utterly irrelevant_ flights of fancy about Leonardo da Vinci painting his masterpiece on a bus, it's clear you lost the argument ages ago.
> 
> It would have been better for all concerned if you'd had the honesty to just admit that instead of embarking on this embarrassing wriggle-a-thon.
> 
> Come back when you're prepared to argue like an adult.



It's not a flight of fancy; it's a hypothetical question - a very useful analytical tool in the study of philosophy.  I'm sorry if it confused you. 

It was ridiculous, yes, but it still might have shed some light on the discussion, were you man enought to continue it.  Instead, you prefer to insult me, and say that it's clear I lost the argument.  I'm not the one who who is throwing his toys out of the pram, and refusing to engage by debating the quite sensible points.  Ironic that you should accuse me of not acting like an adult.  

If I have lost the argument, please just reinforce that by putting it beyond doubt with your intelligent answers to the questions I asked.

Thought not.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> It's not a flight of fancy; it's a hypothetical question - a very useful analytical tool in the study of philosophy.  I'm sorry if it confused you.


Just keep to your word and answer my questions please. 

I've answered all your relevant, on-topic questions and I've politely asked you to respond to mine about ten times now. 

If the questions are just too difficult or uncomfortable for you, just say so.


----------



## Athos (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just keep to your word and answer my questions please.
> 
> I've answered all your relevant, on-topic questions and I've politely asked you to respond to mine about ten times now.
> 
> If the questions are just too difficult or uncomfortable for you, just say so.



So that I can address your questions, please could you set them out clearly, once more?

If you do so, I promise that I will answer them.

In the meantime, please answer mine.  In particular, this one:

I asked you whether the tags you'd seen were art, and, if they were not art, why they were not. You said that they were not art, and that this is because they were vandalism. I then asked you whether the sole reason they were not art is because they were vandalism, and you said no (and accused me of misunderstanding/misquoting you). That leaves us back at my first question, doesn't it? *If they were not art, but the reason they were not art is not solely beacuase they were vandalism, what is/are the other reason(s) that they were not art?*

Thanks.


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 31, 2006)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Yeah why don't we all just shit ourselves and do a dirty protest on the Northern line...plank



not a bad idea, but we should do that on the bakerloo line cos its brown. the northern line we can black out the windows, the circle line can be a piss protest and the jubilee line we can coin ticket inspectors with 10p pieces


----------



## maximilian ping (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> So that I can address your questions, please could you set them out clearly, once more?
> 
> If you do so, I promise that I will answer them.
> 
> ...




scratching your name on glass is like gobbing on it - there is not much thought gone into it and calling it art is really stretching the definition of art - which is all about the representation of thought (i think)


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Athos said:
			
		

> So that I can address your questions, please could you set them out clearly, once more?


*editor gives up repeating himself 



			
				Athos said:
			
		

> If you do so, I promise that I will answer them.


*editor gives up on Athos's broken promises, irrelevant off- topic shifts, endless question-avoiding squirms and ludicrous flights of fantasy about da Vinci setting up his easel on the top deck of a number 57 bus.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

To settle once and for all:

Art:







Twatish vandalism:


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what art is please, and then explain your oft-repeated claims about the supposed parallels between Goya's work and adolescent window taggers?



I think the point is that art can be whatever you want it to be.  Vague I know, but there you go.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> It's fallacious to say that you can say something isn't art if you haven't defined what art is in the first place. Otherwise everything is art - my tea mug, the pile of crap next to my computer etc.
> 
> As people have said about fifty times on this thread.



Anything _can_ be art - as Duchamp showed.  Its the intention that matters.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> To settle once and for all:
> 
> Art:
> 
> ...



No! Don't you see they are both equal! Because the young chap beneath honestly wants to express himself and erm rebel or something. Pure genius I reckon, put his work in the Tate Modern!


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> To settle once and for all:
> 
> Art:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

>



If only those cunts that fucked up Camden Tube had an ounce of that talent...


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think the point is that art can be whatever you want it to be.


Sure. But when the poster is bringing up parallels between crude adolescent window scratching and the work of masters like Goya and Turner, I think something a little more considered and persuasive than, "Coz I likes it" is called for.

If he's after a serous debate about art, of course.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Oh one may be crap art, one may be great art.  However they can both be art.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh one may be crap art, one may be great art.  However they can both be art.


On a personal scale, yes.

But crude scrapings on a bus window are unlikely to have been either created or intended as art and are unlikely to be seen as such by 99.99999% of the people trying to see out of the vandalised window.

But maybe someone somewhere will see it on a par with Goya and Turner's work and good luck to them 
(step forward our  resident question-avoiding, self appointed Arbiter of all that is _Art_, Athos).


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

>



That's not art, that is just stencling (sp?)


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> That's not art, that is just stencling (sp?)



What makes something art?


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> On a personal scale, yes.
> 
> But crude scrapings on a bus window are unlikely to have been either created or intended as art and are unlikely to be seen as such by 99.99999% of the people trying to see out of the vandalised window.
> 
> ...



Agreed, and I don't think the yobs that do it are thinking that they are on par with Turner.

I can put money on the fact that they will be blasting out shitty r'n'b through their mobile phone while they do it too.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What makes something art?



This thread has become like the Twilight Zone...


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What makes something art?



A proper picture.  I am not one of those who considers half a cow or a pile of bricks art.

*wanders off to read the Daily Mail*


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> That's not art, that is just stencling (sp?)



Do you consider Andy Warhol's work to be art?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

A proper picture?  So sculpture isn't art?


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Do you consider Andy Warhol's work to be art?



Is he the chappie with the Campbell's soup tins?  Not my cup of tea tbh.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)




----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> A proper picture?  So sculpture isn't art?



You know what I meant.  All this post ironic modernistic nonsense is just for those with more money than sense.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't think that a piece of work has to be in an art gallery or admired by posh chin-strokers to be art, neither does it have to seen in conventional surroundings or even be 'legally' accomplished.

However, there has to be some sort of artistic intent, expression and execution involved in the process, and I just don't see any of that in some hooded yob quickly scraping his spidery tag on a bus window.

You may as well contend that dropping litter is some sort of artistic statement too, but I dare say some people may see that on a par with Monet's finest works.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> You know what I meant.



No, not really.




			
				PacificOcean said:
			
		

> All this post ironic modernistic nonsense is just for those with more money than sense.



Agreed, a lot of it is crap.  What about Duchamp's Fountain though?  Is that art?  Its certainly not post-modern.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Is he the chappie with the Campbell's soup tins?  Not my cup of tea tbh.



But is it art?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I don't think that a piece of work has to be in an art gallery or admired by posh chin-strokers to be art, neither does it have to seen in conventional surroundings or even be 'legally' accomplished.
> 
> However, there has to be some sort of artistic intent, expression and execution involved in the process, and I just don't see any of that in some hooded yob quickly scraping his spidery tag on a bus window.



Just 'cos _you_ don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> You may as well contend that dropping litter is some sort of artistic statement too, but I dare say some people may see that on a par with Monet's finest works.



If someone dropped litter as a piece of performance art, then it would be art.  it might be crap art, but it would still be art.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Just 'cos _you_ don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.



Like God?


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If someone dropped litter as a piece of performance art, then it would be art.  it might be crap art, but it would still be art.


Then it would be fulfilling my criteria described above ("...there has to be some sort of artistic intent, expression and execution involved in the process...).

But someone throwing a McDonalds wrapper on the ground is just a litter lout, just like some spotty kid quickly scratching his spidery tag on a bus window is nothing but a vandal, not an artist.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Like God?



Eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Then it would be fulfilling my criteria described above ("...there has to be some sort of artistic intent, expression and execution involved in the process...).
> 
> But someone throwing a McDonalds wrapper on the ground is just a litter lout, just like some spotty kid quickly scratching his spidery tag on a bus window is nothing but a vandal, not an artist.



Unless you know the intentions of someone tagging, I don't see how you can say that tbh.  Most of it maybe vandalism (or a desire to make a mark on the world), some of it may be done with the intention of art.  Who knows?  I don't, neither do you.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Unless you know the intentions of someone tagging, I don't see how you can say that tbh.


Oh come on!!!

Do you_ really_ think that the spidery, half-arsed tagging seen on your average bus was put there as some sort of creative expression of the scrawler's 'art'?

_"It wasn't vandalism or me bigging myself up, officer. Perish the thought, sir!

I was in fact expressing myself through the medium of knife and glass by crudely scratching my name all over as many windows as time allowed. That is my art"_

Bwahahaha!


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Unless you know the intentions of someone tagging, I don't see how you can say that tbh.  Most of it maybe vandalism (or a desire to make a mark on the world), some of it may be done with the intention of art.  Who knows?  I don't, neither do you.



I am sorry, but that is bollocks of the highest order.  It's this attitude that now makes these yobs think they are untouchable.

It's vandalism pure and simple and even if it was done in the spirit of art, doing it on property that isn't yours is wrong and makes everyone elses journey that bit less unpleseant and that is just selfish.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?



You said: "Just 'cos you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there."


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh come on!!!
> 
> Do you_ really_ think that the spidery, half-arsed tagging seen on your average bus was put there as some sort of creative expression of the scrawler's 'art'?



I don't know and neither do you - which is my point.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> You said: "Just 'cos you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there."



Yes, I know what I wrote.  What I'm confused about is your response.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't know and neither do you - which is my point.



But if it is or not is a moot point.  The fact is that it makes the bus look horrible and why should people, in the spirit of art or not, make everyone elses journey look like they are in the Bronx circa 1980?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but that is bollocks of the highest order.



Why?




			
				PacificOcean said:
			
		

> It's this attitude that now makes these yobs think they are untouchable.



What on earth are you on about?  FWI, I can't stand tagging and think they should be prosectuted - doesn't mean it can't also be viewed artistically.




			
				PacificOcean said:
			
		

> It's vandalism pure and simple and even if it was done in the spirit of art, doing it on property that isn't yours is wrong and makes everyone elses journey that bit less unpleseant and that is just selfish.




You still haven't told me what you think art is.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> But if it is or not is a moot point.  The fact is that it makes the bus look horrible and why should people, in the spirit of art or not, make everyone elses journey look like they are in the Bronx circa 1980?



See above.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See my point above.  If it is art then let them 'tag' in approprtiate places.  Not on the 121.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't know and neither do you - which is my point.


I could take a fairly good stab at it you know, and I strongly suspect that we're really not witnessing a travelling portfolio of etched artistic endeavours on the top deck of the bus.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> See my point above.  If it is art then let them 'tag' in approprtiate places.  Not on the 121.



You still haven't given me a defintion of art.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I could take a fairly good stab at it you know, and I strongly suspect that we're really not witnessing a travelling portfolio of etched artistic endeavours on the top deck of the bus.



But _you don't know that_.


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You still haven't given me a defintion of art.



I don't care if Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on the top deck of the 121 to Enfield.  It's obtrusive, makes the bus look horrible and why should I be subjected to someone elses art - which I don't think tagging is.

I state here and now that I am no expert when it comes to art.  I just don't see how scratching your name on the window of a bus constitues art?  It's just vandlalism.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But _you don't know that_.


Sure. So show me some  evidence - from any source you like - that the scribbly tagging seen on bus windows has pretensions to be anything other than petty vandalism and kids bigging themselves up.

There's more than enough critical books/websites/forums dedicated to graffiti, so surely there's going to be something dedicated to bus window scratching if it is indeed a new creative art form, no?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> I don't care if Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on the top deck of the 121 to Enfield.  It's obtrusive, makes the bus look horrible and why should I be subjected to someone elses art - which I don't think tagging is.



We are subjected to someone else's visual stuff (I hesitate to call advertising art) in the from of ads when walking down the street - not that this justifies tagging of course.

However, you still haven't told me what art _is_.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, I know what I wrote.  What I'm confused about is your response.



My point was your point was nonsensical. Using the example of God (a non existent deity).


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Show me some  evidence - from any source you like - that the scribbly tagging seen on bus windows has pretensions to be anything other than petty vandalism and kids bigging themselves up.
> 
> There's more than enough critical books/websites dedicated to graffiti, so surely there's going to be something dedicated to bus window scratching if it is indeed a new creative art form, no?



Its not up to me to show you evidence.  I'm not arguing that it *is* art, just that it _could_ be.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> My point was your point was nonsensical. Using the example of God (a non existent deity).



Eh?  How is my point that the ed can't know the intention of every tagger, nonsensical.  Explain?


----------



## PacificOcean (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> We are subjected to someone else's visual stuff (I hesitate to call advertising art) in the from of ads when walking down the street - not that this justifies tagging of course.
> 
> However, you still haven't told me what art _is_.



Like I said after I edited my post after you replied.  I am no art expert, but I just cannot see how vandalism can constitue art.  It just looks horrible and spoils the enviroment for everyone else.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?  How is my point that the ed can't know the intention of every tagger, nonsensical.  Explain?



Because just as he can't know their intention you can't prove they had any. It's a pointless line of argument encapsulated in your line: "Just 'cos you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there." 

Circular thinking and doesn't go anywhere (much like this thread hence my picture earlier)...


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Because just as he can't know their intention you can't prove they had any. It's a pointless line of argument encapsulated in your line: "Just 'cos you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there."
> 
> Circular thinking and doesn't go anywhere (much like this thread hence my picture earlier)...



But its the crux of the argument - the ed is claiming that it can't be art - I'm saying it could be because there is no way of knowing the intention of every tagger.  I'm not saying that tagging is art btw - just that it can't be said for definite that it *isn't*.


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?  How is my point that the ed can't know the intention of every tagger, nonsensical.  Explain?


Well you could start by making an informed opinion based on the quality of the (ahem) artwork and looking at the culture (if any) behind it. I believe that would give you clues as to the artisitic intent of the work (if any).

So far, all I've seen is crude, hastily gouged scribbles that would suggest that the 'author' was more interested in scraping their name on as many windows as possible instead of making anything approaching a creative, artistic expression.

But as I've said along, there may well be talented proponents of top deck window-scratching out there, but I've yet to see anything that doesn't look like adolescent vandalism to me.

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some bus window scrapings that show real artistic intent?

*for the record, I was a bit of a bad bwoy when I was a yoot and wasn't beyond the odd bit of tagging* - and art had fuck all to do with it for me.

(*although it wasn't called that then, but it was fundamentally the same thing - spray your name everywhere and get respect off yer peers)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> But its the crux of the argument - the ed is claiming that it can't be art - I'm saying it could be because there is no way of knowing the intention of every tagger.  I'm not saying that tagging is art btw - just that it can't be said for definite that it *isn't*.



It is the crux of the argument; neither can prove your point but your both still going round on it (and I note that little turd Athos has buggered off).


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Well you could start by making an informed opinion based on the quality of the (ahem) artwork and looking at the culture (if any) behind it. I believe that would give you clues as to the artisitic intent of the work (if any).
> 
> So far, all I've seen is crude, hastily gouged scribbles that would suggest that the 'author' was more interested in scraping their name on as many windows as possible instead of making anything approaching a creative, artistic expression.
> 
> ...



You're completely missing my point.  Never mind.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> It is the crux of the argument; neither can prove your point but your both still going round on it (and I note that little turd Athos has buggered off).



Isn't that the whole point of bulletin boards?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Isn't that the whole point of bulletin boards?



No in my opinion it aint.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 31, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> No in my opinion it aint.



Oh well, there you go.

*shrugs*


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh well, there you go.
> 
> *shrugs*



Heh, yeah and we've killed the thread!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I do wish you'd learn to read what I've written instead of constantly repeating these cheap misrepresentations.


I think we'll have to put "misrepresentation" down as their _MO_ ...


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Sure. But when the poster is bringing up parallels between crude adolescent window scratching and the work of masters like Goya and Turner, I think something a little more considered and persuasive than, "Coz I likes it" is called for.
> 
> If he's after a serous debate about art, of course.



I din't say that it was art because I like it - in fact, I said that I didn't particularly like it!  However, you claimed it was not art, but failed to give any reason beyond what basically amounted to the fact that you don't like it.

And I'm all for serious debate - it was you that didn't fancy it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> ... step forward our  resident question-avoiding, self appointed Arbiter of all that is _Art_, Athos.



Then what does that make you?  The self-appointed arbiter of what is _not_ art?!


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> It is the crux of the argument; neither can prove your point but your both still going round on it (and I note that little turd Athos has buggered off).



Ooooh, get you!  Calling names from behind a screen, you're a right little keyboard warrior, ain't ya?

As it happens, I was busy, not that it's any business of yours.

Ask yourself whether you think you'd call me that to my face; then you may realise why you're beneath my contempt.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I think we'll have to put "misrepresentation" down as their _MO_ ...


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So far, all I've seen is crude, hastily gouged scribbles that would suggest that the 'author' was more interested in scraping their name on as many windows as possible instead of making anything approaching a creative, artistic expression.



Cave paintings were often little more than crude scratichings - does your definition of art exclude them?  Mine wouldn't, partly because the people who created them were trying to say something.

But you don't know what taggers might be trying to say, do you?  It could be a message as simple as "fuck you" or "I don't respect your values", but its a message none the less.

If you create an image with a 'message', is that art?


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Then what does that make you?  The self-appointed arbiter of what is _not_ art?!


So, about these supposed parallels between crude window scratchers and Goya. Have you dreamt up a meaningful explanation for this claim, or are you just going to keep on wriggling?

Oh, and have you found any examples of "artistic" window vandalism yet?


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> If you create an image with a 'message', is that art?


If I messily spray my name all over your house and crudely scratch it all over your windows, is that art?

If so, I'd be delighted to come around and give you some free art.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So, about these supposed parallels between crude window scratchers and Goya. Have you dreamt up a meaningful explanation for this claim, or are you just going to keep on wriggling?
> 
> Oh, and have you found any examples of "artistic" window vandalism yet?



The parallel is that they can both be art.  One might be more to my (or your) taste than the other, but that's not really the point.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> If I messily spray my name all over your house and crudely scratch it all over your windows, is that art?
> 
> If so, I'd be delighted to come around and give you some free art.



It could be, I suppose.

Doesn't meant it'd be good art, or that I'd like you to do it.


----------



## T & P (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> And I'm all for serious debate - it was you that didn't fancy it.


 Would that be why you dodged answering his question at least 8 times in a row?

You were doing such a good impression of the Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman interview it could constitute art itself...


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Would that be why you dodged answering his question at least 8 times in a row?
> 
> You were doing such a good impression of the Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman interview it could constitute art itself...


Nice one!


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Doesn't meant it'd be good art, or that I'd like you to do it.


So if I went ahead and did it without your permission anyway would it still be art, or just mindless vandalism?


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Would that be why you dodged answering his question at least 8 times in a row?
> 
> You were doing such a good impression of the Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman interview it could constitute art itself...



I didn't, though.  I promised to answer his questions, and even asked him (twice) to reiterate them clearly, in order that I could. In fact, I would still answer them now.  He won't answer my questions, though, despite the fact that I asked first, and, I believe, more often.


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I didn't, though.  I promised to answer his questions, and even asked him (twice) to reiterate them clearly, in order that I could. In fact, I would still answer them now.  He won't answer my questions, though, despite the fact that I asked first, and, I believe, more often.


You're a liar. I answered all your relevant questions, but I had no interest or inclination in wasting time entertaining your idiotic, off topic, diversionary fantasies about da Vinci sitting on the top deck of a No56 bus with an easel.

Still, it looks like your obfuscation isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So if I went ahead and did it without your permission anyway would it still be art, or just mindless vandalism?



It could be, yes.  I wouldn't like it though, and it'd still be criminal damage and vandalism (though not necessarily 'mindless' - depending upon your intention, of course).


----------



## Athos (Jan 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You're a liar. I answered all your relevant questions, but I had no interest or inclination in wasting time entertaining your idiotic, off topic, diversionary fantasies about da Vinci sitting on the top deck of a No56 bus with an easel.



Err... so what you're actually saying is that you answered *all the questions you felt like answering*.  Which means that you haven't answered *all* my questions.

In particulary, you didn't answer these:

"2) If so, doesn't it follow that if they weren't vandalism e.g. if they were in a gallery, they's be art?

3) Also, do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?

4) If so, would the Mona Lisa cease to be art if it were painted on a bus window?"

"If they were not art, but the reason they were not art is not solely beacuase they were vandalism, what is/are the other reason(s) that they were not art?"

Would you like to try to answer them, now?


----------



## editor (Jan 1, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Err... so what you're actually saying is that you answered *all the questions you felt like answering*.  Which means that you haven't answered *all* my questions.


I've already answered 2 and 3 elsewhere, and I've no interest in going along with your stupid idiotic fantasies about da Vinci setting up his easel on a corporation bus.

I've asked you simple, straightforward questions directly related to the topic, and I'm under no obligation to answer every irrelevant question you dream up in response.

It's a dishonest tactic and I'm bored with your bullshit and evasion. If your next post doesn't include the answers that I've requested *over ten times now*, you can fuck right off because your endless wriggling has gone beyond a joke, and it's not fooling anyone, either.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 1, 2007)

it doesn't do anything for me... seen better.

i've often entertained the fantasy of smashing up the windows in parliament and doing a poo after.

mebbe some people might find an aesthetic in that...  

depends on intention, as some have proffered here.


----------



## rekil (Jan 2, 2007)

Yeah very Goya.


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I've already answered 2 and 3 elsewhere, and I've no interest in going along with your stupid idiotic fantasies about da Vinci setting up his easel on a corporation bus.
> 
> I've asked you simple, straightforward questions directly related to the topic, and I'm under no obligation to answer every irrelevant question you dream up in response.
> 
> It's a dishonest tactic and I'm bored with your bullshit and evasion. If your next post doesn't include the answers that I've requested *over ten times now*, you can fuck right off because your endless wriggling has gone beyond a joke, and it's not fooling anyone, either.



I honestly don't know which questions remain to be answered.  I have asked you a few times to reiterate them clearly, and said that, if you do so, I'll answer them.  Why don't you post them up?  Surely that'd be better than dishonestly suggesting that I'm not willing to answer them.  As everyone can see, the truth is quite the opposite - I'm asking you to tell me what they are, so that I can.

You on the other hand won't (or, more likely, can't) answer my questions.  I disagree that you've answered points 2 and 3, and you certainly have consistently avoided point 4, and this question (which, of all those I've asked is the most pertinent):

"If they were not art, but the reason they were not art is not solely beacuase they were vandalism, what is/are the other reason(s) that they were not art?"

Pleae don't try to squirm out of doing so by suggesting that they're irrelevant, because they're clearly not; they go right to the heart of my argument i.e. that tagging can't be dismissed soley on the basis that it's not art.

The point about the Mona Lisa being painted on a bus window was not an idiotic fantasy; it was a hypothetical qustion - I asked it because I didn't understand whether you  were saying that tagging was not art because it looks like talentless shit, or because it was on a bus window, and therefore vandalism.

But I think you realise that, and are being deliberately obtuse in order to mock my argument, rather than answer the question.  I suspect that's because, if you did so, it'd expose the weakness of your own argument i.e. if you said that the Mona Lisa wasn't art if it was on a bus, you'd look (even more) foolish; and if you said that it was, it's mean that the reason you think tagging isn't art is essentially simply because you don't like it - which is your perception of the quality of the art, rather than an objective fact that tagging is not art.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know which questions remain to be answered.


You're full of shit. And a liar. They're the same questions that you "promised" to answer several times days ago.

*gives up


----------



## Athos (Jan 2, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You're full of shit. And a liar. They're the same questions that you "promised" to answer several times days ago.
> 
> *gives up



Fair enough.  Probably best that you throw the towel in.  I've no great desire to humiliate you.

Don't let it be said that I didn't ask you many times to tell me you questions, in order that I could answer them , though.  Or that you did anything other than consistently avoid mine.


----------



## rekil (Jan 2, 2007)

Athos, how is this art?


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Probably best that you throw the towel in.  I've no great desire to humiliate you.


You've done a mighty fine job of making a total arse of yourself chum. 

Athos: the liar without an argument, just excuses and laughably clueless bollocks linking adolescent window scratchers with great artists.

_What_ a clown!


----------



## magic.d (Jan 3, 2007)

just to inspire your little discussion

german artist using scrachted windows to make art:

http://www.ottjoerg.de/grafik/graf_1_e.htm


----------



## zoltan (Jan 3, 2007)

* interruption*

oddly enough, the only Graff you will see in Pyongyang is on the Underground cars windows . All in German!

a job of of DDR Berlin U Bahn cars made its way to the DPRK some time ago , complete with dissaffected DDR Yout window etchings and the North Koreans never bothered replaving them ( probabaly couldt afford it )

Every carriage has a picture of the Kims gazing down on its occupants, maybe as a deterrant for any further scrawling 

* back to the thread please *


----------



## T & P (Jan 3, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I've no great desire to humiliate you.


 LOL!


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You've done a mighty fine job of making a total arse of yourself chum.
> 
> Athos: the liar without an argument, just excuses and laughably clueless bollocks linking adolescent window scratchers with great artists.
> 
> _What_ a clown!




A clueless liar, an arse and a clown!     Yet still the greatest insult in your post is the suggestion that I'd be a "chum" of yours.

Pathetic that you resort to name calling, but I guess that has more mileage than your argument, else you'd answer the questions...

I repeat:

"If they were not art, but the reason they were not art is not solely beacuase they were vandalism, what is/are the other reason(s) that they were not art?"

By the way, I'm still happy to answer yours, if you'd care to repeat them.  You won't though, 'cos you only keep raising them as a smokescreen to hide the deficiency of your own argument.

The two questons you had i.e. the parallel between Goya and tagging, and the requirement that I post some "artistic" tagging, I've answered, anyway.

And there's no need to try to misrepresent my views to try to discredit me: you know that I'm not saying that tagging and Goya necessarily reflect an equal talent, but merely that you can't merely write the latter of as not being art, unless you can give a reason - *which you have consistently failed to do*.


----------



## Athos (Jan 3, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> LOL!



Very good.


----------



## rekil (Jan 4, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> Athos, how is this art?


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

>



One argument is that it is art because it has Form and Content.

'Form' means: 1) the visual elements of art, 2) the principles of design, and 3) the actual, physical materials that the artist has used.

'Content' is idea-based and means: 1) what the artist meant to portray, 2) what the artist actually did portray, and 3) how we react, as individuals, to both the intended and actual messages.

Additionally, 'content' includes ways in which a work was influenced - by, amongst other things, religion, or politics, or society in general.

Why do you think that tagging is not art?

How would you define art?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 4, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> One argument is that it is art because it has Form and Content.
> 
> 'Form' means: 1) the visual elements of art, 2) the principles of design, and 3) the actual, physical materials that the artist has used.
> 
> ...



Oh fuck off you tedious tedious cunt


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Oh fuck off you tedious tedious cunt


----------



## rekil (Jan 5, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> One argument is that it is art because it has Form and Content.
> 
> 'Form' means: 1) the visual elements of art, 2) the principles of design, and 3) the actual, physical materials that the artist has used.
> 
> ...


Viz did a strip years ago about pretentious wank like this. The final frame had our yoot 'artist' unveil his 'Man utd fuckin shit' sculpture.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 5, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Oh fuck off you tedious tedious cunt


Now *that* IS art!

It has everything!  The "Form" is there in the visual elements of the words selected; the principles of design in how they are juxtaposed and arranged on the screen and the original choice of words on a Bulletin Board as the physical manifestation.   

'And I think the "Content" is clear, too.  We readily see what the artist meant to portray and it is indisputable that the finished product actually did portray that meaning.  We, as other individual posters, react to both the intended and actual messages in our own way.  The "content" has influences which shine through all too clearly, not least the fact that Athos really _is_ a tedious, tedious cunt!

I am Brian Sewell.  Goodnight!


----------



## rekil (Jan 5, 2007)

More art?


----------



## zoltan (Jan 5, 2007)

Message to all Goldsmiths MA students - please fuck off and do some fuckin work rather than lurk on message boards and disseminate the recycled pseudo philisophical shite that your lecturers have fed you.Mummy and Daddy would not be impressed with you wasting their hard earned money on shit like this.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 5, 2007)

Funny how people get het up and abusive over defintions of art.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Funny how people get het up and abusive over defintions of art.


Maybe if you'd spent a long bus journey unable to see anything out of the window because of some "artist" imposing  his work on you - or had your train taken out of service because of some scritchy-scratchy Michelangelo-  you might get a bit uppity too.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 5, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Funny how people get het up and abusive over defintions of art.



No, I just don't like pretentious wank. Zoltan explained my sentiments very well.


PS I don't personally see any need to reach an objective decision on whether or not something is "art"; I just don't believe there exists any right to use public or other people's surfaces as your canvas.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> Viz did a strip years ago about pretentious wank like this. The final frame had our yoot 'artist' unveil his 'Man utd fuckin shit' sculpture.



Yes, yes.. very good.

I guess that you won't answer my questions either.

Why's in not art?  And what is art?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Now *that* IS art!
> 
> It has everything!  The "Form" is there in the visual elements of the words selected; the principles of design in how they are juxtaposed and arranged on the screen and the original choice of words on a Bulletin Board as the physical manifestation.
> 
> ...



Err... yes, I guess it could be art.  Or don't you consider literature to be an art form?  

Or were you trying to be funny?


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> Message to all Goldsmiths MA students - please fuck off and do some fuckin work rather than lurk on message boards and disseminate the recycled pseudo philisophical shite that your lecturers have fed you.Mummy and Daddy would not be impressed with you wasting their hard earned money on shit like this.



Instead of trying to belittle those with whom you disagree, you could try to engage in the substance of the debate.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Funny how people get het up and abusive over defintions of art.



I'll say!


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No, I just don't like pretentious wank. Zoltan explained my sentiments very well.



Well why don't you try to produce a definition of art that's any better, if you find the one one I suggested too pretentious?[/QUOTE]





			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> PS I don't personally see any need to reach an objective decision on whether or not something is "art"; I just don't believe there exists any right to use public or other people's surfaces as your canvas.



I agree that there's no right to use busses as a canvas, but that's not really in dispute, is it - we're talking about whether tagging can be dismissed on the grounds that it's not art.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Maybe if you'd spent a long bus journey unable to see anything out of the window because of some "artist" imposing  his work on you - or had your train taken out of service because of some scritchy-scratchy Michelangelo-  you might get a bit uppity too.



That misses the point, though.  Whether or not people have a right to vandalise other people's property is a different question to whather or not it's art.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 5, 2007)

> This message is hidden because Athos is on your ignore list.


And this is Art too!  I particularly like the impact of the symmetry of the repeated, identical word structure for post after post.  A repetitive, bass beat made into words against which the melody of the other posts plays gently ... 

Oh, yes!  I _know_ what I like alright ...


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> And this is Art too!  I particularly like the impact of the symmetry of the repeated, identical word structure for post after post.  A repetitive, bass beat made into words against which the melody of the other posts plays gently ...
> 
> Oh, yes!  I _know_ what I like alright ...



You claim that I'm on your 'ignore' list, but you still respond to my posts.  

Fingers in ears.  La, la, la... I can't hear you.

Grow up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 5, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Maybe if you'd spent a long bus journey unable to see anything out of the window because of some "artist" imposing  his work on you - or had your train taken out of service because of some scritchy-scratchy Michelangelo-  you might get a bit uppity too.



As far as I can tell, no one is claiming its art - just that its not possible to say it *isn't*.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 6, 2007)

Oh FFS - like we are all ever going to agree.

Any chance we can draw a line under it - metaphorically only of course.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, no one is claiming its art - just that its not possible to say it *isn't*.


I seem to recall someone drawing parallels with Turner and Goya....


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

The stuff done at Camden looked pretty toy. The good stuff done at Xmas was at  Brixton station.
















by S**** & *****

Back in my day we did things properly http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pi5L8YgMmiQ


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Are those your pics? If so, can I use them in the u75 Brixton section, please? (with full credit, natch!)


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

No sorry , they're hotlinked from someones Flickr account, he might be up for it  - 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_buchanan/334480365/


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I seem to recall someone drawing parallels with Turner and Goya....



Again, you're trying to misrepresent my argument, to deflect attention from the weaknesses of your own.

The mention of Turner was merely to point out that, despite the fact that many of his contemporaries didn't like his work, it's still art; similarly, the mention of Goya was in the context of me explaining that, although I don't like his work, I wouldn't say it's not art.  Whereas you were claiming that tagging isn't art, on the strength of what amounted to nothing more than the fact that you don't like it.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Again, you're trying to misrepresent my argument, to deflect attention from the weaknesses of your own.


Gaze into the deep blackness of the pot, Mr Kettle.

You've become deadly boring now and I've no interest in listening to you dream up any more new ways to keep wriggling out of the debate or avoiding my questions (which you'll no doubt "forget", despite being asked over ten times). 

And your attempt to draw meaningful comparisons between the early work of the classically trained artist Goya and a tagging vandal scratching his name on a number 73 bus remain as laughably desperate - and vacuous - as ever.

Don't bother replying.


----------



## T & P (Jan 6, 2007)

How about

- Tagging is talentless and meaningless (other than to leave the mark of author rather like a fox pissing around a garden to mark its territory)

- their authors are not intent on creating art anyway


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Gaze into the deep blackness of the pot, Mr Kettle.



Pointless.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> You've become deadly boring now and I've no interest in listening to you dream up any more new ways to keep wriggling out of the debate or avoiding my questions (which you'll no doubt "forget", despite being asked over ten times).



You asked me two things; I answered them.  In case I hadn't dealt with them fully, I invited you to ask any questions that you had, again.  I did that three or four times, and will do so again, here.

I am more than willing to answer them, but you won't post them up!  How am I supposed to answer them without knowing what they are?  Please post them up, or stop saying that I won't answer them, because I will.

As I've said before though, your suggestions that I won't, and that I'm wriggling, are a smokescreen to hide the fact that your argument holds no water.

As far as I can see, your position is that tagging isn't art.  However, you've offered no reason for that, and you've not attempted to explain how you came to that conclusion (by positing your definition of art).

So I'll ask again:  What is art?  And why is tagging not art?

That's what the whole of this debate comes down to, and until you address it, you don't really have an argument - which is no doubt why you are more interested in attacking me, and misrepresenting my posts.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> And your attempt to draw meaningful comparisons between the early work of the classically trained artist Goya and a tagging vandal scratching his name on a number 73 bus remain as laughably desperate - and vacuous - as ever.



I've explained that (at least twice), already; as you know, I am not saying that they're equally talented.  If you understood that to be my point, then you are mistaken; if you knew that it wasn't what I was trying to say, but try to suggest that it was, then you are disingenuous.  I suspect the latter.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> Don't bother replying.



What?  Because you want the last word?  oh... ok then.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> How about
> 
> - Tagging is talentless and meaningless (other than to leave the mark of author rather like a fox pissing around a garden to mark its territory)
> 
> - their authors are not intent on creating art anyway



Talentless: probably - not a bar to it being art, though.  There's plenty of talenless artists out there!
Meaningless: not necessarily - there may be meaning i.e. a message, even if it's only to say that "I'm more prolific than all you other taggers"!
The authors intent: interesting point - i) you can't know their intent, ii) do you have to intend something to be art for it to be so, or is a mere intention to create _something_ enough?


----------



## rekil (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Yes, yes.. very good.
> 
> I guess that you won't answer my questions either.
> 
> Why's in not art?  And what is art?


I asked you how spraying paint over tube signs is art and you responded with pretentious obfuscating wank. 

Again, how is the deliberate inconveniencing of the public anything other than puerile vandalism. At least when scum smash phones and chuck litter all over the streets they're not far enough up their own arses to leave a signature to let everyone just which particular cunt is responsible.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> I asked you how spraying paint over tube signs is art and you responded with pretentious obfuscating wank.



You asked, and I answered - by proffering a definition of art.  You said it was pretentious.  I asked you to offer an alternative.  You haven't.

Unless we can get any closer to an understanding of what art is, we can't say what is or is not art.  I have tried to get us to that point; why don't you have a go, instead of criticising my efforts?


----------



## zoltan (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Instead of trying to belittle those with whom you disagree, you could try to engage in the substance of the debate.



have I toucjed a nerve then ? 

Discussions on "art" are like the old worlde theological debates on the physical characteristics of angels or the physical geography of the kingdom of heaven- there is no answer.

What is art is essentially down individual choice- there are 6.5 Billion potential answers and definitions.

Your arguments are facile, as you never say anything tangible - such is the nature of such wasteful discussions on "art"  

now go back to the Amersham in Le Croix Nouveaux, Sud Ouest Londres  with your groovy mates.

thanks


----------



## T & P (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Talentless: probably - not a bar to it being art, though.  There's plenty of talenless artists out there!
> Meaningless: not necessarily - there may be meaning i.e. a message, even if it's only to say that "I'm more prolific than all you other taggers"!
> The authors intent: interesting point - i) you can't know their intent, ii) do you have to intend something to be art for it to be so, or is a mere intention to create _something_ enough?


 You realise that under such rules there isn't a single action mankind has ever done, from picking your nose to taking a shit to stabbing someone to death, that cannot be said not to be art?

Do you believe there is _anything_ at all a human being has ever done that can be safely regarded as not art?


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> have I toucjed a nerve then ?



No.  I just thought that your personal attacks were a waste of time.  That's all.





			
				zoltan69 said:
			
		

> Discussions on "art" are like the old worlde theological debates on the physical characteristics of angels or the physical geography of the kingdom of heaven- there is no answer.
> 
> What is art is essentially down individual choice- there are 6.5 Billion potential answers and definitions.



So you agree with the central thrust of the argument, then!  Which was to suggest that Editor can't boldly assert that tagging is not art. 





			
				zoltan69 said:
			
		

> Your arguments are facile, as you never say anything tangible - such is the nature of such wasteful discussions on "art"



Fair enough.





			
				zoltan69 said:
			
		

> now go back to the Amersham in Le Croix Nouveaux, Sud Ouest Londres  with your groovy mates.



I have no idea what that even means.  (Though I guess it's not a compliment.)





			
				zoltan69 said:
			
		

> thanks



You're welcome.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> You realise that under such rules there isn't a single action mankind has ever done, from picking your nose to taking a shit to stabbing someone to death, that cannot be said not to be art?
> 
> Do you believe there is _anything_ at all a human being has ever done that can be safely regarded as not art?



Well I know that I've done plenty of things that are meaningless (cue sarcastic replies), and plenty of things where there's been no intention to create either art, or even anything at all.  So of course there are things that are not art.  I'm just a bit reluctant to write off what other people do as not being art, as I don't (and can't) know the meaning or intent of what they do.

To say whether tagging is art, we have to have a go at saying what art is.  I have had a stab at it (though I suspect it's far from perfect).  Why don't you have a go?  Make a case that tagging isnt art, from a starting point of saying what art is.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> How about
> 
> - Tagging is talentless and meaningless (other than to leave the mark of author rather like a fox pissing around a garden to mark its territory)
> 
> - their authors are not intent on creating art anyway



I think something can have a style to it but not be art, like I could decorate my room in a style but I wouldn't call it art.
There is style involved with tagging and therefore some form of talant although I would admit that talented taggers are rare these days.  Although most tags you would see are done by youngsters who are still learning a decent style. All letter style graffiti (ie pieces) evolve up from a single tag style. Look at tags from early New York like Phase 2 or Stayhigh 147, to you they probably look like scrawl similar to what you see today but any writer will tell how small details such as arrows & clouds in the tags went on the influence larger scale graffiti pieces.
 I don't think taggers really give a shit if you think its art or not, I certainly didn't think my tags where art when I was doing it. It's there for other graffiti writers to see not to try to impress the public. 
You can't catagorize graffiti as vandalism or art on the basis of certain examples anymore than you can catagorize Urban 75 on the basis of a few posters comments.


----------



## T & P (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Well I know that I've done plenty of things that are meaningless (cue sarcastic replies), and plenty of things where there's been no intention to create either art, or even anything at all.  So of course there are things that are not art.  I'm just a bit reluctant to write off what other people do as not being art, as I don't (and can't) know the meaning or intent of what they do.


 Fair enough about yourself, but how can you know what the intentions of anyone else are?

Bottom line is, if someone comes to you and says 'what I have just done is art' you couldn't say it isn't regardless of what that person might have just done could you?



> To say whether tagging is art, we have to have a go at saying what art is.  I have had a stab at it (though I suspect it's far from perfect).  Why don't you have a go?  Make a case that tagging isnt art, from a starting point of saying what art is.



Well one quick Google search brings these definitions:

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

3. The study of these activities.

4. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

5.High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

Which I pretty much agree with.

So there you have it: tagging isn't art. Case closed. End of.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

Well like I said I personally wouldn't call tags "art" but if you use the above  definition then maybe Im wrong.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
I would say tagging is certainly altering a surface.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Tagging is the conscious arrangement of inks & paints on a surface on the forms of letters. It's gives the surface beauty to other writers.

3. The study of these activities.

Writers certainly study other writers tags to look at their style.

4. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

Writers as a group would consider tags as "human works of beauty".

5.High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

A well styled tag has quality of conception & execution in my eyes and has aesthetic beauty to writers. Of course not all tags have this but this is because the tagger is not very good at his art rather than it not being art. 
I guess the question is does something only become art if the artist is talented and who is qualified to say they have talent?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I seem to recall someone drawing parallels with Turner and Goya....



Dunno, I haven't been following it that carefully tbh.


----------



## T & P (Jan 6, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> Well like I said I personally wouldn't call tags "art" but if you use the above  definition then maybe Im wrong.
> 
> 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
> I would say tagging is certainly altering a surface.


 Well kicking a wall or spitting on the floor also technically is altering that surface. But that ain't art either.



> 2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
> 
> Tagging is the conscious arrangement of inks & paints on a surface on the forms of letters. It's gives the surface beauty to other writers.


 Just my opinion but I really don't think it is. Tagging is writing your name in as many public places as possible for purely egomaniac purposes. It's not different from writing your name in plain letters in a toilet cubicle. It's not different from signing a document. It has nothing to do with beauty.



> 3. The study of these activities.
> 
> Writers certainly study other writers tags to look at their style.


 I wouldn't call that 'studying' to be honest.



> 4. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
> 
> Writers as a group would consider tags as "human works of beauty".


 Do they though? I would agree if we're talking about graffiti. There is nothing beautiful about scribbling a name in black felt pen.



> 5.High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
> 
> A well styled tag has quality of conception & execution in my eyes and has aesthetic beauty to writers. Of course not all tags have this but this is because the tagger is not very good at his art rather than it not being art.
> I guess the question is does something only become art if the artist is talented and who is qualified to say they have talent?


 It's a good question. I still see tagging at the very best as a glorified signature. Whereas the very best examples of fine caligraphy can be considered art, I really don't think taggers' font qualiy. It's just that: a font.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 6, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> Back in my day we did things properly http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pi5L8YgMmiQ



What about "no amote of buff will ever clean my sole"  Ch


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> What about "no amote of buff will ever clean my sole"  Ch



No amount of buff can clense our souls.   The biggest tube piece ever done (top to bottom whole train). Yeah a couple of mates did that Xmas 91. 

You seen Steel Injection?


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

Heres an example of what i would consider a good tag these days.







The Sion tag at the bottom looks really good to me, the style is really interesting & new, I love the way he uses loops in the letters. It's painted crisply with no drips. If i was still tagging I would study his tag and probably subtely incorporate bits of it into my tag ( a practice known as biting someones style). It probably looks like scribble to you but to me and writers it looks kinda nice. Writers do study tags, they're always taking photos of intesting new ones & graffiti forums often have threads full of pictures of just tags.

Anyway like I said I don't really want to start argueing that I think tags are art but I do think there is style involved. Not all tags are talentless & you can't really say tags are vandalism but pieces are art because they are both manifestations of the same thing.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

Thanks for actually engaging in the substance of the discussion, rather than just throwing insults around (as others have preferred to do).  (And I didn't mean that sarcastically, or to patronise, by the way.)

I guess I'd have to agree with the first part of your post; under the definition of art I suggested, anything that the 'artist' claimed was art would be art.  I don't see why that's such a problem, though.  Do you?

I'm not sure that I either agree with the definition of art that you quoted, though; or even that tagging necessarily falls outside of it.

The definition you quoted places a great emphasis on beauty, which is an entirely subjective thing.  It renders the definition meaningless as an objective statement; what it is actually saying is that art is anything that is thought pleasing to the eye.

That would mean that if a tag was pleasing to at least one person - which presumably, it must be, if only the yoot who scrawled it - it's art.

The upshot of that is that your definition actually results in the same thing as mine - anything claimed to be art would be art.

The thing is that both of those definitions support my case, which was that you can't say that tagging is not art.

And there's an important point there - I was not saying that _I_ could necessarily say that _it is art_, but rather that _others_ couldn't say that it _isn't_.


----------



## T & P (Jan 6, 2007)

As I've said before I see a problem with that reasoning though: unless the author specifically tells you his action(s) weren't meant as an expression of art, every conscious action of any nature whatsoever ever done by a human being cannot be ruled out as not being art.

Could we actually rule out a man jumping on a bus, a child scratching his head or a woman lighting a cigarette on her tea break as not being art if their authors told as it was art? They might indeed see their actions as beautifully executed.

If we are not prepared to accept the above (and in my opinion we shouldn't because I believe the immense majority of actions taken by the average person in their lifetime are not art even if the author claims or believes so) then we're still none the wiser as to what is or isn't art.

I certainly wouldn't claim to know anything much about art. But if you are prepared to accept that I *know for certain* a bloke scratching his head doesn't constitute art, even though such certainty cannot be put to words satisfactorily, then you can see my point when I state that tagging ain't art either.

Frankly we could be discussing this for the rest of our lives and I don't think any of us would be much the wiser at the end. It's all a bit of a mind-fuck.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> So you agree with the central thrust of the argument, then!  Which was to suggest that Editor can't boldly assert that tagging is not art.


I'm getting really fed up with your lies, you deceitful cunt*.

I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.


*This may look like an insult from someone who has grown weary of your deceitful lies, wriggling and bullshit, but don't worry; it's actually a personal expression of my art.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm getting really fed up with your lies, you deceitful cunt*.
> 
> I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.
> 
> ...



How much would you like for this post, ed? It'd look wonderful on the wall of my exclusive riverside apartment.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> How much would you like for this post, ed? It'd look wonderful on the wall of my exclusive riverside apartment.


I'll come around and scratch it on your house windows if you like. 

No need to invite me either! Heck, I'll even throw in your car windows too.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> ... unless the author specifically tells you his action(s) weren't meant as an expression of art, every conscious action of any nature whatsoever ever done by a human being cannot be ruled out as not being art.



I really don't see why that's a problem, though.





			
				T & P said:
			
		

> Could we actually rule out a man jumping on a bus, a child scratching his head or a woman lighting a cigarette on her tea break as not being art if their authors told as it was art? They might indeed see their actions as beautifully executed.



People have videoed themselves *sleeping*, and the art establishment have lapped it up, so I don't know that, for instance, smoking could not be art.





			
				T & P said:
			
		

> If we are not prepared to accept the above (and in my opinion we shouldn't because I believe the immense majority of actions taken by the average person in their lifetime are not art even if the author claims or believes so) then we're still none the wiser as to what is or isn't art.



Ah, but you're assuming that the person doing those things would claim that they're art; however, I'm sure that 99.99999% of the time, they wouldn't - which would mean that the vast majority of everyday actions would not constitute art.

And I'm not sure whether we will be any the wiser about art, however much we discuss it.  Maybe we should accept that we can't define it.  If so, we can't say for sure that tagging isn't art, can we?  _My point all along._ 





			
				T & P said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't claim to know anything much about art. But if you are prepared to accept that I *know for certain* a bloke scratching his head doesn't constitute art, even though such certainty cannot be put to words satisfactorily, then you can see my point when I state that tagging ain't art either.



Yes, if you say that a man scratching his head can't be art, then there's no great leap to say that tagging can't either.  However, I don't accept that a man scratching his head can't be art.  I don't think an installation in which a man scratches his head in response to a confusing image he's viewing, for example, is any less worthy of being called art than half of the Turner prize nominations!  That's not to say it wouldn't be shit (in my opinion), though.





			
				T & P said:
			
		

> Frankly we could be discussing this for the rest of our lives and I don't think any of us would be much the wiser at the end. It's all a bit of a mind-fuck.



Agreed.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll come around and scratch it on your house windows if you like.
> 
> No need to invite me either! Heck, I'll even throw in your car windows too.



That would be wonderful. I've been considering moving to somewhere more vibrant for a while but that would save me the bother.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm getting really fed up with your lies, you deceitful cunt*.
> 
> I have never, ever, ever made such a claim.
> 
> ...



That's a bit unnecessary.

I'm obviously just a bit confused about what you are saying.  That's probably because you refuse to answer most questions, and don't give a straight answer to those that you do purport to address.

I honestly thought that the thrust of your argument is that tagging is not an art form.

Perhaps because of this exchange:

_Athos: *Is tagging art?*

Editor: Based on the bus window scratchings I've seen thus far (for that's what we've been talking about and not other types of tagging), *no*. _


So, to clarify - In your opinion, is tagging an art form (albeit that you haven't seen any that you like)?

*A simple yes or no will suffice*, and will prevent further misunderstandings.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> *In your opinion, is tagging an art form (albeit that you haven't seen any that you like)?*



What's an "art form"? If it's something in which all instances are art, then that makes no sense. Conversely, if something not being an art form precludes an instance of it being art, that makes no sense either.

The question seems to be whether tags are art, not whether tagging is an art form. The obvious answer to that is that it would depend on the tag.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> What's an "art form"? If it's something in which all instances are art, then that makes no sense. Conversely, if something not being an art form precludes an instance of it being art, that makes no sense either.
> 
> The question seems to be whether tags are art, not whether tagging is an art form. The obvious answer to that is that it would depend on the tag.



I don't see the problem.  If you accept that, for instance, oil paintings are art, albeit that some are shit, why can't the same be said of tagging?


----------



## Cid (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll come around and scratch it on your house windows if you like.
> 
> No need to invite me either! Heck, I'll even throw in your car windows too.



You've latched onto window scratching as a representative of tagging and, imo, this is simply a fallacy. That kind of tagging is simply vandalism, you can hardly even call it tagging - it's just scratching marks on a window.

On the first page someone linked to SJ and Biotec's post (who I live with incidentally, yes it's the same guy - disjunkt DJ), and in that you can see tagging that is clearly of a very high quality and certianly takes talent to pull off... I've copied the image below:






The stuff in Camden was, for the most part, pretty poor but it was obviously rushed - they will only have had a few hours to do it in. I appreciate the sentiment - a big 'fuck you' to the establishment, which has been an ongoing theme in the progression of art through the centuries. In fact I think graffiti has provoked some of the more significant moves in artwork over the past few decades, it is a form that is appreciable to the dispossesed, poor, politically dissatisfied etc - something that the contemporary art that we often see in the Turner prize etc completely fails to engage with. Camden is perhaps not the best example - it's a lot of angst channeled onto an obvious institution to take it out on, but stuff like the area around the back of Brighton train station, the shop fronts on Holloway road (a rare example of shop owners and graffiti artists working in concert) and Banksy (who, along with his peers, has had a profound influence on recent graphic design) is clearly worthy of merit.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 6, 2007)

Cid you not say 


> Banksy graffiti artists


 are you ?

----
Graffiti had just move on to scratchiti eary 92 ish it all the same about Fame and getting up. 
I don't think it ment to be artfull it's just a fuck you! I'm here & you don't like it. 
Good

I would perfer Now to be able to see out of the window then read some skinny tag.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 6, 2007)

Not generally  a fan but this and the last example are really good (although I'd prefer not to have it on the front of my flat without being asked).

"Dutch" graffiti or scratching is mostly just kids' names though, a more destructive version of "Tracy lvs Wayne 4 Eva" in pen on the bus stop. It bears much the same relation to tagging as the latter.

I am shit at painting and if I had a crack at a bit of a landscape in oils I think any of you calling it "art" would be a little generous. Problems of subjectivity and taste notwithstanding, there has to be some notion of a quality threshold.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem.  If you accept that, for instance, oil paintings are art, albeit that some are shit, why can't the same be said of tagging?



Because the purpose of oil paintings is generally to produce art whereas the purpose of tagging is generally to provide bragging rights for the tagger.

There are probably a few websites that could be considered to be art, but that doesn't make web design an art form.


----------



## Cid (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Because the purpose of oil paintings is generally to produce art whereas the purpose of tagging is generally to provide bragging rights for the tagger.
> 
> There are probably a few websites that could be considered to be art, but that doesn't make web design an art form.



The purpose of a portrait isn't to provide bragging rights to the sitter? You say that the 'purpose' of oil painting is to produce art, that's a pretty strong statement and I think many artists would disagree... The purpose of an oil painting may be to capture the way light falls on a hillside or it may be to shock the artistic establishment. Generally people will not create art for art's sake - art is more a product of observation, a representative response to one's environment.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Because the purpose of oil paintings is generally to produce art whereas the purpose of tagging is generally to provide bragging rights for the tagger.
> 
> There are probably a few websites that could be considered to be art, but that doesn't make web design an art form.



Surely the purpose of most oil painting (and other forms of art) is to please the eye (or, in he case of music, the ear), and/or convey a message.  That's the same with tagging, isn't it?  Some of it looks good, but most merely conveys the message "fuck you" or "I don't respect your property" or "look at me, I'm more prolific that all you other yoots."  Stupid messages, maybe, but still messages.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> You've latched onto window scratching as a representative of tagging and, imo, this is simply a fallacy. That kind of tagging is simply vandalism, you can hardly even call it tagging - it's just scratching marks on a window.


I haven't actually. I've specifically only been talking about window scratching throughout this thread.

Athos has, however, been working hard to misrepresent those opinions and it looks like he's succeeded in convincing you.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I haven't actually. I've specifically only been talking about window scratching throughout this thread.
> 
> Athos has, however, been working hard to misrepresent those opinions and it looks like he's succeeded in convincing you.



Yeah, but is tagging an art form?


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Generally people will not create art for art's sake - art is more a product of observation, a representative response to one's environment.



Is that what taggers generally do?

(Worth noting at this point that my objection to tagging is in terms of criminal damage/breaking the law rather than its artistic merits or otherwise, but anyway...)


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Surely the purpose of most oil painting (and other forms of art) is to please the eye (or, in he case of music, the ear), and/or convey a message.  That's the same with tagging, isn't it?  Some of it looks good, but most merely conveys the message "fuck you" or "I don't respect your property" or "look at me, I'm more prolific that all you other yoots."  Stupid messages, maybe, but still messages.



Some messages are artistic, some aren't.

This post is a message. It's not art.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Yeah, but is tagging an art form?



In its usual context, it's a crime form.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm obviously just a bit confused about what you are saying.  That's probably because you refuse to answer most questions, and don't give a straight answer to those that you do purport to address.


Priceless stuff coming from the blazing hypocrite who refused to give a straight answer to the same questions - _despite being asked at least ten times!_ And then you claimed to have forgotten what the questions were after promising to answer them!!!

But your dishonest tactic of constantly changing the subject and moving the goalposts whenever you're confronted with a sticky topic has been well and truly rumbled now. As has your irritating lies.

I'm talking about window scratchers and not de Vinci on the top deck of a bus, Goya with a hoodie, taggers, graffiti artists or anyone else.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Some messages are artistic, some aren't.
> 
> This post is a message. It's not art.



I guess you're best placed to say whether or not it's art, as you wrote it; I reckon intention plays a big part in the question of whether or not something's art, too.  D'you think it could have been art if you'd intended it to be?


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Priceless stuff coming from the blazing hypocrite who refused to give a straight answer to the same questions - _despite being asked at least ten times!_ And then you claimed to have forgotten what the questions were after promising to answer them!!!
> 
> But your dishonest tactic of constantly changing the subject and moving the goalposts whenever you're confronted with a sticky topic has been well and truly rumbled now. As has your irritating lies.
> 
> I'm talking about window scracthers and not Goya on the top deck of a bus, taggers, graffiti artists or anyone else.



Yeah, but is tagging an art form?

And, as I have said, I believe I've answered your questions, but, if I am mistaken, all you need to do is post them, and I will.

You won't though, 'cos that's be focussing on the issue, rather than attacking me to conceal the weakness of your argument.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Yeah, but is tagging an art form?


Not on bus windows, as far as I've seen.

And seeing as you refused point blank (at least 10 times now) to provide a single,  solitary example of a scratched bus window that you'd describe as a work of art, my opinion hasn't changed.

But before you try and misrepresent me again with more of your lies, I refer you to my original comment. The one that you seem unable to comprehend: 



			
				editor said:
			
		

> that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it.


----------



## Cid (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Is that what taggers generally do?
> 
> (Worth noting at this point that my objection to tagging is in terms of criminal damage/breaking the law rather than its artistic merits or otherwise, but anyway...)



Clearly, yes - a response to environment, a mark of disrespect and rebellion. Comparable in some ways to how tribes used markings and images to denote their area, make their mark. I agree that most tagging is just shit, done to look cool, I wouldn't call most of the scrawls on trains art, there's little thought to them - they're just acts of spite. But I'm fully prepared to accept that there will always be massive contradictions in what I call art simply because art is so hard to define. Are tribal markings art or are they simply signifiers? We're getting into structuralism/post-structuralism here, which is horrible territory.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I guess you're best placed to say whether or not it's art, as you wrote it; I reckon intention plays a big part in the question of whether or not something's art, too.  D'you think it could have been art if you'd intended it to be?



That would depend on whether you take a subjective or objective view of the matter. If I take an objective view and declare it as not-art, I can't stop someone taking a subjective view and declaring it as art.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Not on bus windows, as far as I've seen.
> 
> And seeing as you refused point blank (at least 10 times now) to provide a single,  solitary example of a scratched bus window that you'd describe as a work of art, my opinion hasn't changed.
> 
> But before you try and misrepresent me again with more of your lies, I refer you to my original comment. The one that you seem unable to comprehend:



You are really missing the point.  Which is perhaps why you still haven't answered the question.

The question is not whether you've seen a tag that you think is artistic; it's whether tagging is an art form.  I haven't seen a Goya I like, but I know it's art.  And that's not merey because I haven't seen all his paintings, and therefore have to concede that there may be one somewhere that is; it's based on a more general view about what art is.

You need to look beyond the specific tags you've seen to address the wider issue.  You can only answer the question with a conception of what art is - that's why I invited you to proffer a definition of art, and then explain how tagging (if only that limited to tags that are scratched on windows, if you like) fall outside it.

Will you have a go?


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> That would depend on whether you take a subjective or objective view of the matter. If I take an objective view and declare it as not-art, I can't stop someone taking a subjective view and declaring it as art.



I'm not sure I quite follow the point you're making.


----------



## Cid (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> That would depend on whether you take a subjective or objective view of the matter. If I take an objective view and declare it as not-art, I can't stop someone taking a subjective view and declaring it as art.



You can't take an objective view of art though can you?


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> You are really missing the point.  Which is perhaps why you still haven't answered the question.
> 
> The question is not whether you've seen a tag that you think is artistic; it's whether tagging is an art form.


That's because I've no interest in talking about tagging in general right now. Please read back through the thread.

I want to talk about _window tagging_ because *that's* what you've been insisting is an art form, with parallels to the work of Goya.

I have - quite reasonably - been asking you to further this discussion by providing some examples of bus window scratchings that you consider to be works of art. Until you do so I will remain of the opinion that it is not an art form, just crude vandalism. But my mind remains open on this.

I've also asked you to explain the parallels with the classically trained artist Goya, but it seems that particular point only goes as far as, "well some people didn't like it at the time too" - which is crass to the say the least.

You've refused every request so I'm not really mindful of broadening the debate just to give you a way out of the hole you've dug for yourself.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I have - quite reasonably - been asking you to further this discussion by providing some examples of bus window scratchings that you consider to be works of art.



I did so, in post #80.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> I've also asked you to explain the parallels with the classically trained artist Goya, but it seems that particular point only goes as far as, "well some people didn't like it at the time too" - which is crass to the say the least.



I did so in post  #247





			
				editor said:
			
		

> You've refused every request so I'm not really mindful of broadening the debate just to give you a way out of the hole you've dug for yourself.



No I haven't.


Anyway, is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form?  If not, by reference to a definition of what (in your opinion) is art, please explain why.


----------



## untethered (Jan 6, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> You can't take an objective view of art though can you?



Of course you could. It'd be arbitrary, but you could still do it.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I did so, in post #80.


So you believe this piece of mindless vandalism to be a work of art with parallels to Goya's paintings, yes?







Thanks. Now I know I'm talking to an idiot.


----------



## Cid (Jan 6, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Of course you could. It'd be arbitrary, but you could still do it.



Whether you can form a truly objective opinion on _anything_ is debatable, but art is particularly dodgy as simply by looking at it you will already have your own, very subjective opinions on it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So you believe this piece of mindless vandalism to be a work of art with parallels to Goya's work, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you're misrepresenting my views (again).  

I consider it to be an example of tagging.  And, since I believe that tagging can be an art form, I believe it could be classified as art.

I don't like it, though, and I would not say that it shows even 1% of the skill of Goya, but, unlike you, I'm not so arrogant that I define art according to little more than my own taste.

And before you accuse me of misrepresenting your view of how art's defined, prove me wrong by proffering a definition - I must have asked it 20 times now!

And what about an answer to my previous question:

_Is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form? If not, by reference to a definition of what (in your opinion) is art, please explain why._

It seems that your main line of attack was the lie that I hadn't answered your questions.  When I showed that to be false, you reverted to calling me names.

It was similar to some of your previous arguments, like when you asked me if a tag on my house could be art, and kept pursuing it until I said that it could.  Then you abandoned that tack.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> It was similar to some of your previous arguments, like when you asked me if a tag on my house could be art, and kept pursuing it until I said that it could.  Then you abandoned that tack.


Give us your address and I'll pop around and give you some free art.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Give us your address and I'll pop around and give you some free art.



I'd make your face look like a Picasso!


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'd make your face look like a Picasso!


So you'd respond to my free art with violence?

Sounds like you need to understand that my crude window-trashing, house value wrecking scratchings should be held in the same high esteem as Goya's work

Least that's what you've told me.


----------



## Oxpecker (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'd make your face look like a Picasso!



Editor aleady looks like a priceless work of art  

And if he needs someone to hold his ladder while he paints your gaff, I'm his man.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So you'd respond to my free art with violence?


I think the fuckwit would probably describe it as performance art, though ...


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 6, 2007)

I came upon this on IMBD "The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal the other day which raised a smile.  



> Graffiti removal: the act of removing tags and graffiti by painting over them. Subconscious art: a product of artistic merit that was created without conscious artistic intentions. It is no coincidence that funding for "anti-graffiti" campaigns often outweighs funding for the arts. Graffiti removal has subverted the common obstacles blocking creative expression and become one of the more intriguing and important art movements of our time. Emerging from the human psyche and showing characteristics of abstract expressionism, minimalism and Russian constructivism, graffiti removal has secured its place in the history of modern art while being created by artists who are unconscious of their artistic achievements.



  I love it, I'm buying loads of different coloured emulsions next week and a big paint brush.

Theres even a YouTube clip - http://youtube.com/watch?v=tICQZ4UoK4c

How many people on this thread are actually "writers" BTW?


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I think the fuckwit would probably describe it as performance art, though ...



Despite claiming to have me on 'ignore', I still captivate you, don't I?  Oh, I forgot, you won't answer that, 'cos you won't see my message.


----------



## Athos (Jan 6, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So you'd respond to my free art with violence?
> 
> Sounds like you need to understand that my crude window-trashing, house value wrecking scratchings should be held in the same high esteem as Goya's work
> 
> Least that's what you've told me.



Er... four things:

First, the Picasso comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek, as I'm sure you realise.

Secondly, whether or not it's art, I wouldn't want tagging on my house.  I have never said that I would - in fact, I've made it quite clear that I don't actually like the look of it.

Thirdly, I have already said that I don't hold tagging in the same high esteem as Goya; I think I said that the example of window scratching that was posted didn't display 1% of his talent.  But then you know that, and are trying to misrepresent my view, to lampoon it, to hide the deficiencies of your own case.

Fourthly, is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form? If not, by reference to a definition of what (in your opinion) is art, please explain why.

Happy squirming!


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Fourthly, is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form?


For the hundredth time: Not from what I've seen thus far and certainly not from the laughable example you claimed was 'art.' 

Oh, and I've no interest in playing the _art school wanker_ and troubling myself to produce an all-encompassing definition of 'what is art' for your benefit, thanks.  

After all, if you think that kind of vandalism has parallels with Goya, it's clear you know fuck all about the subject, and I've no inclination to educate you.

But if you're that bothered with 'defining' art, I suggest you do some reading, or perhaps enrol in a part-time art course.


----------



## Athos (Jan 7, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, and I've no interest in playing the _art school wanker_ and troubling myself to produce an all-encompassing definition of 'what is art' for your benefit, thanks.



Fair enough; I guess there's not much more to be said, is there?

Just for the record, though, the reaon that the debate can't continue is your refusal to answer my question.  Given that you were so keen to criticise me for failing to answer yours (even though I had!), that seems rather hypocritical.

The definition wouldn't have been for my advantage, though, but to support your piss-poor argument.  Without offering a definition of what art is, it's hard to see how you can make pronouncements about what's not art!

You might be right that tags scratched on windows are not art, but unless you can back it up with come reasoning, it holds as much water as a claim that the moon's made of cheese.  





			
				editor said:
			
		

> After all, if you think that kind of vandalism has parallels with Goya...



Pathetic.  Another attempt to misrepresent me; we've been through this many times.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> ...it's clear you know fuck all about the subject, and I've no inclination to educate you.



Yeah, it's clear.   

How can you educate me about art?  You can't even offer an idea of what it is!  





			
				editor said:
			
		

> But if you're that bothered with 'defining' art, I suggest you do some reading, or perhaps enrol in a part-time art course.



At least I had a go at defining it, and furthering the debate, unlike you who made a statement, wouldn't back it up, then threw lies and insults around as a smokescreen.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> At least I had a go at defining it, and furthering the debate, unlike you who made a statement, wouldn't back it up, then threw lies and insults around as a smokescreen.


How strange. You're describing yourself here, because that's _exactly_ what you've done throughout this debate. That's why I was forced to ask you the same question _ten times in a row _while you kept "promising" to reply.

Still, the evidence is here on this thread for all to see and your weird denial isn't going to fool anyone. Apart from yourself, I guess.

Oh well.


----------



## rekil (Jan 7, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> The stuff in Camden was, for the most part, pretty poor but it was obviously rushed - they will only have had a few hours to do it in. I appreciate the sentiment - a big 'fuck you' to the establishment, which has been an ongoing theme in the progression of art through the centuries.


Yeah good point, Camden station is always jammed with establishment figures isn't it.


----------



## scruff (Jan 7, 2007)




----------



## Cid (Jan 7, 2007)

copliker said:
			
		

> Yeah good point, Camden station is always jammed with establishment figures isn't it.



It's the kind of place it will be noticed by the establishment (as is Brixton), it's also the kind of place where 80% of the people going through will actually appreciate it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 7, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> How strange. You're describing yourself here, because that's _exactly_ what you've done throughout this debate. That's why I was forced to ask you the same question _ten times in a row _while you kept "promising" to reply.



Stop lying!

I answered your questions, and invited you to point out any that you think I haven't (at least five times).

*You cannot point to one unanswered question.*

*You, on the other hand, won't (or, more likely, can't) answer mine.*

In particular, this one:

_Is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form? If not, by reference to a definition of what (in your opinion) is art, please explain why._





			
				editor said:
			
		

> Still, the evidence is here on this thread for all to see...



Absolutely.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 7, 2007)

> Is tagging in the form of scratching on bus windows an art form



maybe a poll is needed


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2007)

I've given up on the delusional, lying twat.


----------



## Athos (Jan 7, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I've given up on the delusional, lying twat.



Perhaps giving up is the best thing you can do.  You can't win the argument, because you can't answer the question.

I didn't lie, though, you did.


----------

