who got the best throwups (who still paints)
PapaEs
hey,
You know what I write, where i write, how I write. evidence of my work has
been in print going back to 1987. Even if you go by the "never seen it, never
heard of you" rule, I'm sure you can find someone to verify me. But you on the
other hand, are unknown, unseen, and unheard of. The fact that you know me,
and I don't know you illustrates my point perfectly. You have to be someone
for me to have heard of you, if I never heard of you, you don't exist. Perhaps
you are undiscovered, but until then you are nothing. Thats a drastic way of
looking at graffiti, but it's valid. You need to be known to validate your
existence as a graffiti writer. Actions are louder than posts.
Now as for that point about the "trains in your area thread". That thread is
worthless, any loser can (and often does) type in all his boy's names, so what.
I'll listen to that guy from BA that I know is rocking all the time for his
opinion. It's the difference between going to a lawyer for advice or "Ally
McBeal". One is real, one is a figment of imagineering.
See how easy it is for me to put your point in a yoke?? Keep swinging for the
fence jetboy, the breeze is nice.
Es
ZOM1KA
I am not trying to seem on his nuts but that is probably the most concrete
thing said on this post..
ZOM KA IWS (someone I am sure you havent heard of)
NCzooyork
>I am not trying to seem on his nuts but that is probably the most concrete
>thing said on this post..
>
> ZOM KA IWS (someone I am sure you havent heard of)
gee...ahh....you could have quoted it so we could have known who or what the
fuck you are talking about.
Zoo12.
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>hey,
>You know what I write, where i write, how I write. evidence of my work has
>been in print going back to 1987. Even if you go by the "never seen it, never
>heard of you" rule, I'm sure you can find someone to verify me. But you on the
thats all fine and dandy, but you know what? It really doesnt help out your
argument though does it?
Graffiti still exists even theres no well known writing lounging around to
approve its existance.
>other hand, are unknown, unseen, and unheard of. The fact that you know me,
>and I don't know you illustrates my point perfectly. You have to be someone
>for me to have heard of you, if I never heard of you, you don't exist. Perhaps
>you are undiscovered, but until then you are nothing. Thats a drastic way of
Well, i think the key thing to note he, is your becoming a bit obsessed that i
dont care that you dont know about me. you need to redirect some of this
fanatical attention to the original points instead of wandering off so much.
You see, im not doing my work for you, and if you dont think it exists, well
it aint no loss.
>looking at graffiti, but it's valid. You need to be known to validate your
its not drastic, its kooky and warped.
>existence as a graffiti writer. Actions are louder than posts.
But i dont needyour seal of approval to exist.
my stuff gets seen, maybe not by big well known people who can
then stamp a n official "big name seal of approval" on it, but that doesnt
matter to me.
in a lot of cases, i like seeing nice and amazing stuff from people ive never
heard of before, its refreshing to see something differant instead of the
stuff by the same old people, diversity is great for breaking up the monotany.
What it boils down to is that you need to prop your arguments up with your
well known name, and your throwing a little hissy fit because mine can stand
on thier own.
>Now as for that point about the "trains in your area thread". That thread is
>worthless, any loser can (and often does) type in all his boy's names, so what.
Well, you know, id say about maybe 1/4 of the time those people are saying
they saw something by thier friends, but the funny aspect, is that they are
seeing the stuff by thier friends, because it was painted, and it is probably
in thier yards, waiting to depart. no harm done. however the other 3/4 of
the stuff isnt by thier friends and is stuff thats rolling on the mainline or
arrived in a yard. its a valid thread and people enjoy it, you can either
ignore it based on your wacky prinicpals, or enjoy it for what it is, people
saying what theyve seen. And you know, ill bet 95% of the trains mentioned in
it, DO exist, even if they dont exist to you, running around with your
blinders on.
> I'll listen to that guy from BA that I know is rocking all the time for his
>opinion. It's the difference between going to a lawyer for advice or "Ally
>McBeal". One is real, one is a figment of imagineering.
No, thats a poor analogy, replace "ally mcbeal" with a younger lawyer whos
only got a couple years under his belt maybe. Hes still got valid ideas, and
possibly hes sharper and more astute than the one whos been around for a
while. seniority does carry some weight, but its not all that matters, if you
just go by that, your going to trip nd fall like you have been this whole
thread. Your still trying to dig your way out of this fantasy land stuff, but
digging down is the wrong way out.
>See how easy it is for me to put your point in a yoke?? Keep swinging for the
>fence jetboy, the breeze is nice.
you see, thats the funny thing, is you havent done anything, you simply
repeated a bunch of points that dont really do you much good and pronounced
yourself to be silly. well, keep up the work.
>
>Es
PapaEs
hey,
>>based on your wacky prinicpals...
>>Graffiti still exists even theres no well known writing lounging around to
approve its existance.
got that straight, lets move on. I have no doubt that what you do is seen,
perhaps even by SEEN, but if I dont see it, and SEEN doesn't tell me about it,
it doesn't exist TO ME. That's the principle that makes up the principal part
of this argument. In the photo album of my mind, there is not a page with your
name on it, whatever nom-de-plume you allegedly push. Dont be mad, sad, or
hurt. You dont exist to me because A) I never seen you B) Seen (or any other
writer I 'sorta' know), never seen you.
>>my stuff gets seen, maybe not by big well known people who can
>then stamp a n official "big name seal of approval" on it, but that doesnt
>matter to me.
>in a lot of cases, i like seeing nice and amazing stuff from people ive >never
>heard of before, its refreshing to see something differant instead of the
>stuff by the same old people, diversity is great for breaking up the
>monotany.
As far as "diversity" and "monatony" I don't know what you mean, since I DONT
KNOW YOU. If I knew you, then I'd say,'oh yeah of course he's tired of that
certain crew, they bit a lot of ideas off of that other crew that influences
such-and-such, and I can see in his style he ain't going that direction'.
Instead, I honestly think you are some college kid who's on the debate team
who started writing when an anthropology major showed him a copy of "Can
Control". Is this fair? st the dork demeanor and get new perspective on you.
Until I see that evidence, or hear testimony, you're phony. I see new stuff by
writers i never heard of before everyday, and of course I think it's fresh
(sometimes they stink), so what. The argument is "I never saw you or heard a
you, you dont exist".
Thats not a poor analogy, because you and Ally Mc Beal both come to me through
a monitor, trying to convince me you are something you are not. If you write
graffiti , god bless, run the risk of arrest, god bless, got a million trains
running, god bless, but since I cant put a face to the name, or a voice to the
name, or an eye to the name, it aint there, no matter where you say it is.
You got all off-point with that trains thread too.
>its a valid thread and people enjoy it, you can either
>ignore it based on your wacky prinicpals, or enjoy it for what it is, >people
>saying what theyve seen.
I dont care what people "enjoy" thats stupid. I care about what's up, thats
all. It could be the most popular thread in the universe, but this discussion
is still about one thing, "Graffiti on the CPU aint up". I didn't see the
piece, I dont know you, it doesn't exist. It is simplicity itself, it's the
very foundation of graffiti itself. "I came off because _____ saw it." I dont
need to prop that up, you need to prove it wrong.
City mouse vs. Country mouse
Es
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>hey,
>>>based on your wacky prinicpals...
>>>Graffiti still exists even theres no well known writing lounging around to
>approve its existance.
>principals are your PALS. Principles are what you need to suceed. Now that we
>got that straight, lets move on. I have no doubt that what you do is seen,
Yes, prinicpals do help your life, when they arent ass backwards, but your
kooky ones will only make things worse for people. Its a good thing that you
appear to be the only one promotingand using them.
>perhaps even by SEEN, but if I dont see it, and SEEN doesn't tell me about it,
>it doesn't exist TO ME. That's the principle that makes up the principal part
well aint that a beauty, i have news for you. If it doesnt exist for you, it
still does for other people, rough life, youll get over it though.
>of this argument. In the photo album of my mind, there is not a page with your
>name on it, whatever nom-de-plume you allegedly push. Dont be mad, sad, or
>hurt. You dont exist to me because A) I never seen you B) Seen (or any other
>writer I 'sorta' know), never seen you.
you forget that i dont care whether i exist to you. you fret and stress more
over this subject than mailman did over the same topic in regards to ThatGuy.
If anyones got themselves a saline bath of thier own making, its you on this
subject.
>>>my stuff gets seen, maybe not by big well known people who can
>>then stamp a n official "big name seal of approval" on it, but that doesnt
>>matter to me.
>>in a lot of cases, i like seeing nice and amazing stuff from people ive >never
>>heard of before, its refreshing to see something differant instead of the
>>stuff by the same old people, diversity is great for breaking up the
>>monotany.
>
>As far as "diversity" and "monatony" I don't know what you mean, since I DONT
>KNOW YOU. If I knew you, then I'd say,'oh yeah of course he's tired of that
>certain crew, they bit a lot of ideas off of that other crew that influences
>such-and-such, and I can see in his style he ain't going that direction'.
You dont have to know me, or what im seeing. I simply said, i like seeing new
faces, its a imple thing to understand, you dont need to over analyze it so
much.
This whole "I DONT KNOW YOU" obsession is draining the life out of your
arguments.
>Instead, I honestly think you are some college kid who's on the debate team
>who started writing when an anthropology major showed him a copy of "Can
college kid? no. debate team? no.
its really a shame that you cant win the argument by simply giving good points
and have to patheticly make weak and useless personal stabs.
>Control". Is this fair? st the dork demeanor and get new perspective on you.
>Until I see that evidence, or hear testimony, you're phony. I see new stuff by
haha, you dont get it. lets repeat after me es, "i dont care, if you dont
think, that i dont exist, or that you dont know what i write".
get over it.
>writers i never heard of before everyday, and of course I think it's fresh
>(sometimes they stink), so what. The argument is "I never saw you or heard a
>you, you dont exist".
No es, i think your problem is that you think if it doesnt exist to you,
it doesnt exist to the rest of the world. Im sorry to break the news, your
opinion isnt that important, and all reality does not revolve around it.
Maybe yuor reality, but not the rest of the world.
>>its a valid thread and people enjoy it, you can either
>>ignore it based on your wacky prinicpals, or enjoy it for what it is, >people
>>saying what theyve seen.
> I dont care what people "enjoy" thats stupid. I care about what's up, thats
once again, if you got out of your own little fantasy land, you would
understand, that people ARE reporting whats up in that thread. a difficult
concept for you to grasp apparently, but nevertheless, its the way it is.
>all. It could be the most popular thread in the universe, but this discussion
>is still about one thing, "Graffiti on the CPU aint up". I didn't see the
>piece, I dont know you, it doesn't exist. It is simplicity itself, it's the
>very foundation of graffiti itself. "I came off because _____ saw it." I dont
>need to prop that up, you need to prove it wrong.
haha, your still running arund thinking that if it doesnt exist in your eyes,
then it doesnt exist at all. your stumbling so hard over that, and its making
everything you say look silly.
ok, since your having trouble, ill break it down into a couple easy steps, now
dont try and understand them all at once, you might trip and slide back to the
start, just take them one at a time.
here we go
1) somebody paints a piece on a train.
2) that train rolls away
3) that train rolls into a differant city, and somebody sees that piece.
4) that piece is certainly something that is up because it has been seen in a
differant location by people that would never normaly see it.
5) the person that spots that train takes a photograph of it.
6) that photograph does not all of the sudden negate that the piece is up, it
is still something up.
7) that photograph is then scanned in and "put on a cpu"
8) once again, putting it on the computer does not negate that the piece
is something up.
9) no other people can see what someone has spotted, and it in fact does
represent something that is up.
10) well horay now youve graduated from fantasy land, hope you like the
real world and that its no ttoo rough on your impaired senses.
>City louse vs. Country mouse
>Es
birch
PapaEs
Hey,
1) somebody paints a piece on a train.
2) that train rolls away
3) that train rolls into a differant city, and somebody sees that piece.
4) that piece is certainly something that is up because it has been seen in a
differant location by people that would never normaly see it.
5) the person that spots that train takes a photograph of it.
6) that photograph does not all of the sudden negate that the piece is up, it
is still something up.
7) that photograph is then scanned in and "put on a cpu"
8) once again, putting it on the computer does not negate that the piece
is something up.
9) no other people can see what someone has spotted, and it in fact does
represent something that is up.
10) well horay now youve graduated from fantasy land, hope you like the
real world and that its no ttoo rough on your impaired senses.
My replies:
1)OK
2)OK
3)Who sees it? Not me,
Nobody I know.
4) I didn't see that piece, nobody I know saw that piece, That piece only
exists on the CPU. For all I know you hooked it up in Photoshop.
5) That person is no one I know, so it doesn't mean anything to me
6)See there was a time when writers never flicked their pieces. They assumed
the trains would run forever, and they didn't bother. Believe me, if you
weren't seen, and people couldn't vouch for you, that graffiti you painted
wasn't up.
7) That photo could be a scale model shot and scanned, so what.
8) The internet isn't recognized as an acceptable vehicle for publishing
research papers because of the ease of fraud and the difficulty of catching it.
To me, it's the same with graff.
9)Other people can see a flick of indeterminate worth.
10) it aint up unless I saw it or somebody I know tells me about it. Thats what
the deal always has been. The first documentary photographs of graff were
taken by non-writers, thats bonafide. This is important to me because it
underlines the importance of seeing graffiti and hearing about graffiti to the
early writers. The essence of graffiti is an oral tradition of one name built
on another. When you first start writing, you see and you hear. Maybe you see
photographs, but you hear about people, what they do , who they are. Thats
real graffiti.
You paint graffiti to be seen, if it is not seen by me, it doesn't exist to me.
Once I see it, or hear about it, it becomes real. Before then, it's like
a check in the mail. You can swear it's real, but I dont have it, I cant
verify it, so it doesn't exist until I see it.
City Louse is coming up again and again
Es
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Hey,
>
>1) somebody paints a piece on a train.
>2) that train rolls away
>3) that train rolls into a differant city, and somebody sees that piece.
>4) that piece is certainly something that is up because it has been seen in a
>differant location by people that would never normaly see it.
>5) the person that spots that train takes a photograph of it.
>6) that photograph does not all of the sudden negate that the piece is up, it
>is still something up.
>7) that photograph is then scanned in and "put on a cpu"
>8) once again, putting it on the computer does not negate that the piece
>is something up.
>9) no other people can see what someone has spotted, and it in fact does
>represent something that is up.
>10) well horay now youve graduated from fantasy land, hope you like the
>real world and that its no ttoo rough on your impaired senses.
>
>
>1)OK
>2)OK
>3)Who sees it? Not me,
>Nobody I know.
Hey compadre, guess what? It doesnt matter if you didnt see it, its still
there.
If a tree falls in the forest, and a well known writer isnt around to approve
its sound making, did it still make a sound? it most certainly did.
If a person paints a train and it hasnt been witnessed by a well known writer,
did it actualy get painted? it most certainly did.
>>4) that piece is certainly something that is up because it has been seen in a
>>differant location by people that would never normaly see it.
>4) I didn't see that piece, nobody I know saw that piece, That piece only
>exists on the CPU. For all I know you hooked it up in Photoshop.
woah, dont get ahead of yourself there, a little anxious are we?
I was only talking about a writer having seen it, we havent made it to the
"cpu" part yet, i think you ran up the steps, tripped and fell back to the
bottom right here.
I warned you about doing that.
>5) That person is no one I know, so it doesn't mean anything to me
i would wager that the majority of the writers enjoing trains dont give a
shit about whether you know of a particular writer or not.
please forward that comment of yours to the fantasy land department for future
reference.
>6)See there was a time when writers never flicked their pieces. They assumed
>the trains would run forever, and they didn't bother. Believe me, if you
>weren't seen, and people couldn't vouch for you, that graffiti you painted
>wasn't up.
you dont quite get it do you/?
The trains in your area thread is those circumstances, it is writers
telling other writers what they have seen ("vouching"). It doesnt matter
if the fantasy land representatives havent heard of or know who the people
saying what they saw are, ibecause the people reporting them just dont
care whter you think they exist or not. in retrospect, i think your the one
with the convoluted funny existential argument here.
>7) That photo could be a scale model shot and scanned, so what.
your just so paranoid that the whole world is out to decieve you. Arent you
so darned cute! I tell you, whoevers faking all these
freights that have been scanned in and put online, is just brimming with all
kinds of style arent they?
>8) The internet isn't recognized as an acceptable vehicle for publishing
>research papers because of the ease of fraud and the difficulty of catching it.
> To me, it's the same with graff.
Exactly, to YOU, but not the rest of the world.
please keep your paranoia to yourself.
>9)Other people can see a flick of indeterminate worth.
irrelevant comment, try again.
>10) it aint up unless I saw it or somebody I know tells me about it. Thats what
>the deal always has been. The first documentary photographs of graff were
You know, your still thinkng that the whole world revolves around you arent
you? Youve really got to work on this, because yet again, its just made your
argument so weak that its dropping all over those shoulders of yours your
using to prop it up with.
It doesnt matter if you dont think its up, its still up if its up.
>taken by non-writers, thats bonafide. This is important to me because it
>underlines the importance of seeing graffiti and hearing about graffiti to the
exactly what is taking place on here, writers are seeing it, and telling other
writers who are hearing about it.
>early writers. The essence of graffiti is an oral tradition of one name built
>on another. When you first start writing, you see and you hear. Maybe you see
>photographs, but you hear about people, what they do , who they are. Thats
>real graffiti.
well, thank you for arguing in my favor, its much better now that your
starting to see the light these days.
>
>You paint graffiti to be seen, if it is not seen by me, it doesn't exist to me.
> Once I see it, or hear about it, it becomes real. Before then, it's like
no no, dont get ahead of yourself, it becomes "real to YOU", it is sad to
see you so confused, it is already real for other people.
Your reality is not everyone elses.
>a check in the mail. You can swear it's real, but I dont have it, I cant
>verify it, so it doesn't exist until I see it.
well if this aint the most darned unrelated and silly comment,
although it does paint yet another picture of what its like to be on the
inside of fantasy land looking out.
>City Louse is coming up again and again
well, youve got to try and come up for air a lot when your drowning in your
own feeble argument.
maybe someone will throw you a life preserver.
>Es
Grafyogi
brake it down es...
MYoungWISC
>brake it down es...
I dunno man, birch had some pretty good points there. Unfortunately for es
birch is no roll over and die bryan...
BadLookSS
>I dunno man, birch had some pretty good points there. Unfortunately for es
>birch is no roll over and die bryan...
Birch really is a masterdebater.
nekro
haha
PapaEs
Hey,
Speaking of irrelevant comments of trees and forests, If you paint a piece and
it doesn't make noise, you didn't do anything. If you write graffiti and I dont
see it, or hear of it, it's not in my reality (fantasy land is at exits 14 -
18 on the jersey turnpike, and fantasy land south is at exit 4). Sorry to get
ahead of your argument there about the photoshopped flic, but I'm usually ahead
of my time anyway. As for "the majority of writers that enjoy trains" have no
concept of my reality, and theirs certainly looks like, as you say, "fantasy
land" to me . I'm happy they dont "care" about my opinion, the feeling is quite
mutual - sort of. On one hand, I like it best when people SEE what I do in the
flesh, it's a steelo I saw in more than a few writers growing up; They didn't
send out flicks, they just traded in a small circle to ensure everybody got
good photos of pieces they've seen. On the other hand, Unlike my immediate
predecessors, I like coming off in the various media, when I'm asked, and it
happens organically, and not from me licking stamps, (I know it's off the
subject, but let me ramble) I'm fully down to participate. But it's not real
to me. Magazines and videos and websites are cool, but none of them reach my
target audience. My target audience is the kings of the sport. If ralph and
Potsie catch it, I dont care, If my friends catch it I'm not suprised, but when
a major player remarks that he caught something I did, I feel like the piece is
a success. A piece is like an open circuit until a writer I know sees it and
reflects on it Once the circuit is closed, the piece is up. I got a lot of
pieces that I like, like they are my ugly kids, but only a few have grown to be
successful. I paint to be seen, have the efforts talked about and flicked by
the people i consider good artists. Thats 'UP' and everything else is short of
that is just that, falling short. Pieces that exist toyou dont exist to me.
Plenty of what is done here may never exist to you. Thats fresh to me, because
to make those pieces real, you have to go see them, or maybe your respected
peer will tell you about them and they'll be validated. If I view a piece on a
website, that piece is out of context, it's not real, it's a complex image
comprised of thousands of pixels, and thus it's more abstact art than a
graffiti piece. i was over a writers house tonight and he pulled out photo
albums of his going back to the early 80's. He didn't have very piece ever
done in those eras, just the ones that held signifigance to him. Pieces he
saw, or was given flicks of, and nothing else. I thought, 'this is his
reality, it's way different than mine, most of what I've done or was real to me
doesn't exist to him', but theres a little common ground we share and thats
enough to build on. I heard about an artist two days ago named strider. he
painted some trains in the mid-80's andhe didn't exist to me until I got the
word. The writer I was talking to tonight said, "yeah, I got one of his
trains". Presto, he exists. He's got a permanent file open now. 3 days ago
he wasn't up, because I wasn't up on him, then a word from a peer, and window
onto another peer's world and he's here. It's funny how the more we do this,
the more you agree with me. But i'll take that as the grip I'm giving you is
taking hold
evn though I'm coming up, I got the gills to oxygenate my grill
Es
PapaEs
Hey,
Bry rolled over because he's an idiot looking for a dollar, I dont doubt pat's
sincerity. Even though he's gender-conflicted and obviously a toy, he's a loyal
supporter of the home team, and I'm feeling it.
Es
Walliwagon
<< I heard about an artist two days ago named strider. he
painted some trains in the mid-80's andhe didn't exist to me until I got the
word. The writer I was talking to tonight said, "yeah, I got one of his
trains". Presto, he exists. He's got a permanent file open now. >>
Birch is right, but I'm feelin' Espo on this one. Actually, you're both right;
arguing the same point from the other side. This whole thread is too
existential. <head explodes>
-walley
'cause it's like that when you're the drummer for opposable nipple
__________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.cascadia-net.com/benski
BRANR1
they dont "care" about my opinion, the feeling is quite sad
i care es i care
jasen.
giving people a shoulder to cry on.
that guy mkiii
Walliwagon wrote:
> << I heard about an artist two days ago named strider. he
> painted some trains in the mid-80's andhe didn't exist to me until I got the
> word. The writer I was talking to tonight said, "yeah, I got one of his
> trains". Presto, he exists. He's got a permanent file open now. >>
>
> Birch is right, but I'm feelin' Espo on this one. Actually, you're both right;
> arguing the same point from the other side. This whole thread is too
> existential. <head explodes>
>
>
this whole thread revolves around the assumption that espo is the center of the
known unviverse and we are to serve him so as to exist.fuck that, i exist.. and I
dont need anyones approval.
PapaEs
Hey,
naw duke, I'm the center of mine, your the center of yours, and only when
worlds collide do I see how others are doing. As long as you have peers to
tell you they saw you up, then you exist, just not to me. All y'all are just
binary code to me until I meet you or a peer of mine tells me you are there.
"I never meant to cause you any problems, I never meant to cause you pain, I
only wanna see you dance in the purple rain"
Es
Jody Hansen
silly old es, cant think of anything better to say than "your must be a toy"
regardless of that fact that you dont know my daily ins and outs. its for
your benefit to simply stick to making silly points, instead of talking about
stuff that your unsure of. it just makes your argumetns look even weaker
anyways, having to prop them up on unrelated stuff.
keep up the work old chap
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Hey,
>Speaking of irrelevant comments of trees and forests, If you paint a piece and
no, actualy it was relevant, it was an analogy. i hope that analogies arent
beyond your mental powers.
>it doesn't make noise, you didn't do anything. If you write graffiti and I dont
actualy, painting does make a noise, if you want to nitpick, paint coming
out of a can made a hissing sound last time i checked.
>see it, or hear of it, it's not in my reality (fantasy land is at exits 14 -
>18 on the jersey turnpike, and fantasy land south is at exit 4). Sorry to get
it may not exist for you, but you seem to think in a way that ive never
encountered in anyone else. well leave that kind of thinking up to you, you
seem pretty good at it.
>ahead of your argument there about the photoshopped flic, but I'm usually ahead
>of my time anyway. As for "the majority of writers that enjoy trains" have no
>concept of my reality, and theirs certainly looks like, as you say, "fantasy
well, no your right, i dont think most writers live in your reality. good to
see we agree.
>land" to me . I'm happy they dont "care" about my opinion, the feeling is quite
well of coarse if your living in a freakish reality and looking out on the
rest of the world , the rest of the world could seem strange in comparison, i
suppose so.
>mutual - sort of. On one hand, I like it best when people SEE what I do in the
of coarse, its always best that way, nothing wrong with people seeing your
stuff.
>flesh, it's a steelo I saw in more than a few writers growing up; They didn't
>send out flicks, they just traded in a small circle to ensure everybody got
>good photos of pieces they've seen. On the other hand, Unlike my immediate
And thats what happens most everywhere.
However, theres also nothing wrong with taking photos and sending them to
people, nor nothing wrong with scanning them and puttin gthem online.
They were still photographed, and still seen.
>predecessors, I like coming off in the various media, when I'm asked, and it
>happens organically, and not from me licking stamps, (I know it's off the
>subject, but let me ramble) I'm fully down to participate. But it's not real
>to me. Magazines and videos and websites are cool, but none of them reach my
yes they certainly are useful.
each has its advantages, magazines are nice becaus eyou can hold them in your
hands, touch and feel them, websites are cool because they are free, and
therefore easy for people to make and share, as well as see.
>target audience. My target audience is the kings of the sport. If ralph and
>Potsie catch it, I dont care, If my friends catch it I'm not suprised, but when
>a major player remarks that he caught something I did, I feel like the piece is
well this is all very interesting, and i suppose we differ in opinion there.
i like people to see it, and thier worth in seeing it isnt detracted if they
arent a well known writer. what appeals to me more is distance, if someone
across the country spotted it, great, ive spread my presence around, my stuff
has traveled to places that personaly i will never go to.
>a success. A piece is like an open circuit until a writer I know sees it and
>reflects on it Once the circuit is closed, the piece is up. I got a lot of
>pieces that I like, like they are my ugly kids, but only a few have grown to be
>successful. I paint to be seen, have the efforts talked about and flicked by
>the people i consider good artists. Thats 'UP' and everything else is short of
>that is just that, falling short. Pieces that exist toyou dont exist to me.
exactly. you may not consider something up, or existing, but that doesnt mean
it doesnt either, just that you dont think so.
>Plenty of what is done here may never exist to you. Thats fresh to me, because
no, its not that they dont exist, its that i havent seen them.
>to make those pieces real, you have to go see them, or maybe your respected
>peer will tell you about them and they'll be validated. If I view a piece on a
im perfectly willing to accept a photo or a scanned image of a piece and say,
ah yes i see this, it exists. yes it can be somewhat out of context, but as i
said earlier, a photo doesnt particularly make any claims about how what
conditions it was painted in usualy, typicaly it just frames the work done.
>website, that piece is out of context, it's not real, it's a complex image
yes, it is out of context, but that doesnt mean it isnt real, just that you
dont know the whole story behind it.
>comprised of thousands of pixels, and thus it's more abstact art than a
>graffiti piece. i was over a writers house tonight and he pulled out photo
no, its not abstract art, its simply a photo, whether its on paper coated in
chemicals and exposed and treated, or on a glass plate coated in checmicals
and bombarded with rays.
i suppose a poster replicating a work of art is abstract art in itself?
no, it isnt, its simply a replication to allow people to view it.
>albums of his going back to the early 80's. He didn't have very piece ever
>done in those eras, just the ones that held signifigance to him. Pieces he
>saw, or was given flicks of, and nothing else. I thought, 'this is his
>reality, it's way different than mine, most of what I've done or was real to me
>doesn't exist to him', but theres a little common ground we share and thats
okay, thats interesting, a cute little story.
>enough to build on. I heard about an artist two days ago named strider. he
>painted some trains in the mid-80's andhe didn't exist to me until I got the
no, not "he didnt exist" instead, youdidnt know about him.
>word. The writer I was talking to tonight said, "yeah, I got one of his
>trains". Presto, he exists. He's got a permanent file open now. 3 days ago
>he wasn't up, because I wasn't up on him, then a word from a peer, and window
>onto another peer's world and he's here. It's funny how the more we do this,
>the more you agree with me. But i'll take that as the grip I'm giving you is
>taking hold
No, its not more me agreeing with you, its simply me pointing out
that you have a funny way of viewing the world, and that it doesnt
represent how the world is to everyone else. i have isolated from you, and
yuo now begin to state yourself that this is simply your view of things, and
that people hold thier own.
>evn though I'm coming up, I got the gills to oxygenate my grill
youve got to suck a lot of water to make those gills work you know.
otherwise they arent too effective.
>
>Es
PapaEs
Hey,
we must be making progress, you didn't say "fantasyland" once on that post.
Now stop playing in the shallow posts, you need to swim in the diving pool post
I hit you with yesterday.
The silence is soothing
es
Jody Hansen
your right, you have been makng excellant progress, you can say "we" if youd
like, since im helping you along. no trouble with taking anything on,
plenty of diving done, just open your eyes, its there.
PapaEs
hey,
I llove posts that are coherent from start to finish, jody presents his/her
argument like a barnacle on a ship, so lets watch as he/she does her thing:
no, actualy it was relevant, it was an analogy. i hope that analogies arent
beyond your mental powers.
actualy, painting does make a noise, if you want to nitpick, paint coming
out of a can made a hissing sound last time i checked.
(The noise I refer to is obviously new to you, and since you may not experience
it soon: it is not from some physical aspect of the pressure in the can, but
the pressure a successful piece puts toys under)
it may not exist for you, but you seem to think in a way that ive never
encountered in anyone else. well leave that kind of thinking up to you, you
seem pretty good at it.
(Hey although you never met a mind like mine, dont assume I'm one of a kind.
Somebody learned me real good.)
well, no your right, i dont think most writers live in your reality. good to
see we agree.
(Definitely not. Crazy shout out to all the writers that moved to the east
coast or passed through to see what we go through. most of my favorites are
here, though. aint that the truth for everybody everywhere? )
well of coarse if your living in a freakish reality and looking out on the
rest of the world , the rest of the world could seem strange in comparison, i
suppose so.
(Me and rick james share an apartment we call the super freakish.)
of coarse, its always best that way, nothing wrong with people seeing your
stuff.
(The best way is the only way for me.)
And thats what happens most everywhere.
However, theres also nothing wrong with taking photos and sending them to
people, nor nothing wrong with scanning them and puttin gthem online.
They were still photographed, and still seen.
(No question, no moral issues are breached by scanning a flic, but it doesn't
make it real to me. Spend your free time how you want, I'm content with
getting some experience of my own. They may be photographed and seen, but If I
didn't do either, than I'm down with neither )
yes they certainly are useful.
each has its advantages, magazines are nice becaus eyou can hold them in your
hands, touch and feel them, websites are cool because they are free, and
therefore easy for people to make and share, as well as see.
( both advantages you raise are of convience. thats the problem with all the
online flicks, the mags and the videos: they make it so any jerk can sit in his
drawers and be up on the 'scene'. Thats why you're flicks don't exist, because
your whole mainframe for viewing graff is plastic and and elitist. Graffiti
is either on the street, or it's sheet.)
well this is all very interesting, and i suppose we differ in opinion there.
i like people to see it, and thier worth in seeing it isnt detracted if they
arent a well known writer. what appeals to me more is distance, if someone
across the country spotted it, great, ive spread my presence around, my stuff
has traveled to places that personaly i will never go to.
(Hey dumbass,if distance holds the most importance, than what better way to
guage it then when somebody sees it?? it needn't be lee 163D, but IT NEEDS TO
BE SEEN TO MAKE YOU HAPPY. Ahhh, excuse me, there's some shit on your pumps.)
exactly. you may not consider something up, or existing, but that doesnt mean
it doesnt either, just that you dont think so.
(It doesn't mean that it does either NO GIVE BACKS nah nah)
im perfectly willing to accept a photo or a scanned image of a piece and say,
ah yes i see this, it exists. yes it can be somewhat out of context, but as i
said earlier, a photo doesnt particularly make any claims about how what
conditions it was painted in usualy, typicaly it just frames the work done.
(What you accept is approximately 1.4 light years from what I accept, that we
can agree on. what bull you wanna accept is your business, and I'll tell you I
keep to a few heads whose opinions I value. )
no, its not abstract art, its simply a photo, whether its on paper coated in
chemicals and exposed and treated, or on a glass plate coated in checmicals
and bombarded with rays.
(Not to nit pick, but I said "More Like" because it's a photo anymore, it's a
photo that was scanned. For all you art school kids, that means the piece is
'3rd generation" and thus it aint no where near the photo. -And "glass plate
coated in checmicals
and bombarded with rays" What process are you referring to? Is this a new way
writers are using to record their work?)
i suppose a poster replicating a work of art is abstract art in itself?
no, it isnt, its simply a replication to allow people to view it.
(the poster is 3rd generation too! The first is the actual art, 2nd is the
photo taken, and 3rd is the finished poster. You like 3rd generation graff
images, cool, but they aint real .)
okay, thats interesting, a cute little story.
(Good point, that's a real sound observation, no salt in that sentence. Har D
har.)
no, not "he didnt exist" instead, youdidnt know about him.
(well i dont exist to him, and I aint mad.)
No, its not more me agreeing with you, its simply me pointing out
that you have a funny way of viewing the world, and that it doesnt
represent how the world is to everyone else. i have isolated from you, and
yuo now begin to state yourself that this is simply your view of things, and
that people hold thier own.
(hey, no one likes a dictator, and I emphasize what is good for me is really
only good for the person that wishes to understand why the visual and the
visceral are so much more important than the virtual. No matter how you slice
it, the CPU is an interface to view the world. It is not THE WORLD.
everything that exists on the computer is life, reduced to numbers, and
reconstructed in a way that looks like, but Isn't life. So the argument,
'Being on the CPU isn't up" is still flossing in a bubble goose,)
youve got to suck a lot of water to make those gills work you know.
otherwise they arent too effective.
(as long as you got water, I got treads.)
Es
NITROUS
> of coarse, its always best that way,
i thought the correct spelling was course. but you always spell it
coarse?
PapaEs
Hey,
yo I see you got spelling issues. Whats the deal? You're diving like a
dyslexic greg Louganis Jet Boy/Jet Girl
Es
PapaEs
Hey,
Lets recap. Graffiti is made to be seen. If it isn't seen it doesnt exist.
Graffiti on the CPU or in mags is for couch surfing geeks that cant get some
fresh experience. You really need to see the piece in person, stand on the
crunchy rocks, crawl through the hole in the fence. Graffiti is not the end
result of a flic. It is the process of getting supplies, maybe an outline,
going to a spot, painting something and getting home safe. It's also about
witnessing the work and testifying to it. Interfacing with the CPU isn't
making it come alive, opening up a mag doesn't make it real, it's seeing it and
hearing about it that make it manifest.
Still #1
Es
jase...@my-dejanews.com
im gonna have to side with es on this one cause when you see stuff in person
you get a whole different feeling then in a mag or a flick..but still seeing
flicks is cool but its not the same.
jasen.
what is Es some kinda guru philospher?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael J. Joyce
the fuck you want to call it, the two of you aren't very far apart.
BrianR88
>actualy, painting does make a noise, if you want to nitpick, paint coming
>out of a can made a hissing sound last time i checked.
especially a fat cap on orchard supply... it sounds like a tie fighter...
AAAHHH!
Walliwagon
>Thats why you're flicks don't exist, because
>your whole mainframe for viewing graff is plastic and and elitist.
*ahem* Sorry. Chalk one up to Papa Ess.
-walley
edgar allen s. poe
Walliwagon
>what is Es some kinda guru philospher?
I'd pay the $200 (including food) to go on his spiritual graffiti retreat.
-walley
hippies are yuppie larvae
Kevydtc
rusto fats sound like a firehose
PapaEs
Hey,
I know where waldo is, now where's jody??
es
PapaEs
Hey,
The IGAC (international Guru acid conference) starts at 10:00 PM next friday.
for the low 4 forty fee, you can hang with the top graff philosophers as we
ingest large amounts of psychedelic drugs. Scheduled events: Nobody 13 and
Papa Es discuss the merits of paper vs. Liquid. JA holding a seminar on the
use of Spacebase in street bombing. Reas and Stes will be conducting sex
therapy on ecstasy, register now, all the good seats are already taken
KEAS MUL
loud... rusto fats are good for bombing where you know you are being
seen doing it and you don't give a fuck... you know.. they aren't good
for stealthy missions.. but none the less i love them... great for
bricks and porous surfaces...
Jody Hansen
should i ask permission before i go on a trip next time papa?
Zach Morris
that guy mkiii wrote:
> Walliwagon wrote:
>
> > << I heard about an artist two days ago named strider. he
> > painted some trains in the mid-80's andhe didn't exist to me until I got the
> > word. The writer I was talking to tonight said, "yeah, I got one of his
> > trains". Presto, he exists. He's got a permanent file open now. >>
> >
> > Birch is right, but I'm feelin' Espo on this one. Actually, you're both right;
> > arguing the same point from the other side. This whole thread is too
> > existential. <head explodes>
> >
> >
>
> this whole thread revolves around the assumption that espo is the center of the
> known unviverse and we are to serve him so as to exist.fuck that, i exist.. and I
> dont need anyones approval.
i watch porn and masturbate, therefore i am.
preppy. you want photographic proof?
thaat guuy
those ugly ass blue fan-tip caligraphy nozzles (with the little metal
pole inside) are THE quietest. But you guys probably dont have them.
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>hey,
>I llove posts that are coherent from start to finish, jody presents his/her
and that wander, distracted away from whats supposed to be replied to?
i know you do.
>argument like a barnacle on a ship, so lets watch as he/she does her thing:
lets do watch, lets watch me cut to the chase and slice up your argument,
its always a little entertainer.
lets also watch as PapaMess fails to add comment characters in so that you
cant tell what he wrote from what i wrote and his whole post turns into a
sludgy flow of confusion.
lets clean it up for him, and everyone else who reads this, once again.
>>no, actualy it was relevant, it was an analogy. i hope that analogies arent
>>beyond your mental powers.
>(heh heh, she said, 'powers' heh heh)
yes, thats right papabeavis, powers.
>>actualy, painting does make a noise, if you want to nitpick, paint coming
>>out of a can made a hissing sound last time i checked.
>
>(The noise I refer to is obviously new to you, and since you may not experience
>it soon: it is not from some physical aspect of the pressure in the can, but
>the pressure a successful piece puts toys under)
well if thats not the weakest cop out of a comeback ive ever seen, then
ill be damned. hahaha. you were wrong, haha.
>>it may not exist for you, but you seem to think in a way that ive never
>>encountered in anyone else. well leave that kind of thinking up to you, you
>>seem pretty good at it.
>
>(Hey although you never met a mind like mine, dont assume I'm one of a kind.
>Somebody learned me real good.)
no, there may be one or two more like you in the world, somewhere.
>>well, no your right, i dont think most writers live in your reality. good to
>>see we agree.
>
>(Definitely not. Crazy shout out to all the writers that moved to the east
>coast or passed through to see what we go through. most of my favorites are
>here, though. aint that the truth for everybody everywhere? )
you really ought to make more sense.
>>And thats what happens most everywhere.
>>However, theres also nothing wrong with taking photos and sending them to
>>people, nor nothing wrong with scanning them and puttin gthem online.
>>They were still photographed, and still seen.
>
>(No question, no moral issues are breached by scanning a flic, but it doesn't
>make it real to me. Spend your free time how you want, I'm content with
no, maybe not you, however the majority of people are willing to accept it as
reasonable proof, no, its not like seeing it with your own eyes, but the next
best thing.
>getting some experience of my own. They may be photographed and seen, but If I
>didn't do either, than I'm down with neither )
well, thats your loss, and you having a website up contradicts everything your
saying.
>>yes they certainly are useful.
>>each has its advantages, magazines are nice becaus eyou can hold them in your
>>hands, touch and feel them, websites are cool because they are free, and
>>therefore easy for people to make and share, as well as see.
>
>( both advantages you raise are of convience. thats the problem with all the
>online flicks, the mags and the videos: they make it so any jerk can sit in his
oh, you sound so bitter about it, you act like its a bad thing that
people in various places can keep an eye on whats going on in other places.
but you know its not, plus you know its only a window in, and not the whole
picture, so dont worry, you still hold a lot more scoop than they do.
>drawers and be up on the 'scene'. Thats why you're flicks don't exist, because
looks like your off your medication again, shame shame.
you know they exist, and maybe it just tortures you so deeply
that people have seen worthwhile stuff that you havent, that
people are aware of good stuff thats going on that you arent.
does it wrench your heart? youll be okay.
>your whole mainframe for viewing graff is plastic and and elitist. Graffiti
> either on the street, or it's sheet.)
and how is it plastic and elitist. your words may look pretty, but theyve got
no substance, they are like inflated balloons trying to look tough.
my "mainframe for viewing graffiti" is actualy the opposite. yours is
elitist, and ill show you why.
first of all, i see graffiti on the street, with my own two eyes.
second, im willing to look at other mediums, and willing to accept
whats real without having to require another -> elite <- stamp
thier approval on it before ill give some unknown any recognition.
you see, your the one sittin gin the lifeguard tower, only hearing
the other lifeguards, its you whos the elitist calling
the common man an elitist. a cute twist of irony.
>>well this is all very interesting, and i suppose we differ in opinion there.
>>i like people to see it, and thier worth in seeing it isnt detracted if they
>>arent a well known writer. what appeals to me more is distance, if someone
>>across the country spotted it, great, ive spread my presence around, my stuff
>>has traveled to places that personaly i will never go to.
>
>(Hey dumbass,if distance holds the most importance, than what better way to
>guage it then when somebody sees it?? it needn't be lee 163D, but IT NEEDS TO
>BE SEEN TO MAKE YOU HAPPY. Ahhh, excuse me, there's some shit on your pumps.)
woah, calm down your mumbo jumbo, it looks like you just got your dinner all
salty. dont want to be spoiling your soup like that on a regular basis.
youve got a great way of blowing things out of proportion. i didnt say it
"was the only thing that made me happy" i said "what appeals to me MORE",
and you know what, im glad you finaly get the point that it doesnt have to be
a well known writer to see it to make it have been seen. your making
progress.
>>exactly. you may not consider something up, or existing, but that doesnt mean
>>it doesnt either, just that you dont think so.
>
>(It doesn't mean that it does either NO GIVE BACKS nah nah)
wow, once again your fine skills of making pathetic arguments shine through,
like i said, if it exists to me, even though it doesnt exist to you, it still
exists to me, and that there is plenty of proof.
>>im perfectly willing to accept a photo or a scanned image of a piece and say,
>>ah yes i see this, it exists. yes it can be somewhat out of context, but as i
>>said earlier, a photo doesnt particularly make any claims about how what
>>conditions it was painted in usualy, typicaly it just frames the work done.
>
>(What you accept is approximately 1.4 light years from what I accept, that we
well, we all know your such an elitist, so of coarse.
>can agree on. what bull you wanna accept is your business, and I'll tell you I
>keep to a few heads whose opinions I value. )
well, again, thats just your elitism and your tunnel vision.
like ive said before, its not my fault you run around with blinders on and a
monkey on your back telling you what to look out for.
>>no, its not abstract art, its simply a photo, whether its on paper coated in
>>chemicals and exposed and treated, or on a glass plate coated in checmicals
>>and bombarded with rays.
>
>(Not to nit pick, but I said "More Like" because it's a photo anymore, it's a
>photo that was scanned. For all you art school kids, that means the piece is
that does not change its content.
like i said, would you call a poster (being a reproduction of a photo) or
a magazine (again a reproduction of a photo) abstract?
no, they arent. plain and simple.
>'3rd generation" and thus it aint no where near the photo. -And "glass plate
it is, its just a reproduction of it, much like a photo is also
a reproduction. For someone who once complained about
wierd existential stuff, you have a lot of unusual existential
opinions.
>coated in checmicals
>and bombarded with rays" What process are you referring to? Is this a new way
>writers are using to record their work?)
no silly, its a Cathode Ray Tube much like the one your staring at right now.
a glass plate coated in phosphours, which are exited by electrons shot
at it from the rear of the tube, thus producing light, and then images.
>>i suppose a poster replicating a work of art is abstract art in itself?
>>no, it isnt, its simply a replication to allow people to view it.
>
>(the poster is 3rd generation too! The first is the actual art, 2nd is the
>photo taken, and 3rd is the finished poster. You like 3rd generation graff
>images, cool, but they aint real .)
whatever generation it is, has very little bearing upon its "existance".
you say they are such and such generation and therefore, not real.
what you fail to do is explain why something "3rd generation" suddenly
makes it unreal, what about 2nd generation?
and what about a digital camera? no we have "the cpu" as the second
generation. my gosh, what are you going to do! darn this world.
lets say it papa es style :
explain your ideas instead of perpetualy flinging them out like babies not
yet ready to be born, ideas incompletely formed.
>>no, not "he didnt exist" instead, youdidnt know about him.
>(well i dont exist to him, and I aint mad.)
dont get confused little es.
>>No, its not more me agreeing with you, its simply me pointing out
>>that you have a funny way of viewing the world, and that it doesnt
>>represent how the world is to everyone else. i have isolated from you, and
>>yuo now begin to state yourself that this is simply your view of things, and
>>that people hold thier own.
>
>(hey, no one likes a dictator, and I emphasize what is good for me is really
>only good for the person that wishes to understand why the visual and the
>visceral are so much more important than the virtual. No matter how you slice
ih, now its only more important instead of "the only thing relevant".
slowly, ever so slowly you are sneaking back to a moderate viewpoint
away from the extremes you chanted over and over.
im glad to see that your making progress as ususal even if you wont admit it.
>it, the CPU is an interface to view the world. It is not THE WORLD.
no, its not the world, its part of it, and a reflection of it.
you know it and i know it.
>everything that exists on the computer is life, reduced to numbers, and
not numbers if you actualy want to be nitty gritty, but ill forgive it.
>reconstructed in a way that looks like, but Isn't life. So the argument,
its a reflection of life, a window on life, etc etc.
just because its online doesnt negate from what it is an image of.
>'Being on the CPU isn't up" is still flossing in a bubble goose,)
oh, you miscontrue again.
having a picture of something someone has painted "up on a CPU"
is still a picture of something they painted, which typicaly
was seen by other people, and thus is something that is/was up.
>>youve got to suck a lot of water to make those gills work you know.
>>otherwise they arent too effective.
>
>(as long as you got water, I got treads.)
sounds like you need more oxygen flowing to your mind.
>Es
birch.
Jody Hansen
Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Thats why you're flicks don't exist, because
>>your whole mainframe for viewing graff is plastic and and elitist.
>
because he contradicted himself, and hes the one
who actualy holds the elitist viewpoint?
wally, open your eyes a little.
>
>
>-walley
>edgar allen s. poe
>
>
>
Jody Hansen
if it isnt seen by someone, it still exists.
if yuo dont see the air you breath, because it doesnt reflect
any light, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. likewise, if you
dont see your home while your away, or if youve never
seen an electric car, that doesnt mean none of those things
exist either. i think the problem
is that youve got a caveman mentality about how your interact with
your senses of perception.
if a train is painted, then it exists, it is real. maybe not for you, but you
not thinking it is real does not negate its reality, especialy for the rest of
the world. if someone takes a photo of something they see, its primarily as a
reminder to themselves of something they saw, as well as a way of sharing what
they saw with other people. putting stuff online is an even better way of
sharing what you saw because it is easier for people to access it.
so, the other problem you grasp in your hands, is that you think that your
perception of the world dictates reality for others. too bad for you.
keep trying es.
[birch..]
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Hey,
>yo I see you got spelling issues. Whats the deal? You're diving like a
>dyslexic greg Louganis Jet Boy/Jet Girl
>
>Es
If you had spelling skills yourself you would have realised the spelling
was correct, once again, your own reality deceives you, must be
a rough way to live, always being tricked by your own senses.
[birch..]
ZooTwelve
>If you had spelling skills yourself you would have realised the spelling
>was correct
isn't it realized?
who cares..
zoo12.
Jody Hansen
BadLookSS
>those ugly ass blue fan-tip caligraphy nozzles (with the little metal
>pole inside) are THE quietest. But you guys probably dont have them
ACE brand paint has them. As well as a couple other store brand paints.
nekro
PapaEs
Hey,
no silly, its a Cathode Ray Tube much like the one your staring at right now.
a glass plate coated in phosphours, which are exited by electrons shot
at it from the rear of the tube, thus producing light, and then images.
_________________________________________________________
Aww, I really stepped in that one, good one. ha ha
If you record graffiti and give it do someone (be it a website or magazine or
your boy), it records the moment you were there. If you film it it will record
the time you are there. These are not replacements for experience, these are
two dimensional memories that belong to someone you that are passed to the next
man.. Graffiti must be seen, or heard to be real. "Lifeguards" isn't a bad
analogy for the people I listen to. They are trained, professional, dedicated,
and most of all, good looking. They know who's swimming and who's drowning,
and most of all, who to save. Graffiti is a verb, not a noun, it must be
experienced through real involvement and not through "a glass plate coated in
phosphours, which are exited by electrons shot at it from the rear of the
tube". Flics without witness aint doo doo to me. Don't worry, I'm sure if
your doing quality work someone (it doesn't have to be a writer, if it's Pamela
lee or one of them other hoes) will tell me of it, or I'll see it and You'll
come alive like Frampton. Until then you aint ampin' and not happenin'.
Tunnel vision and blinders are good analogies as well: There is a little
window of excellence and strict criteria for making it, so keep trying. BTW,
All that stuff on my page may not be real to you. Did you see it or hear about
it? Than you didn't get the piece I painted. You got a 2 dimensional
representation of several sites, and I feel much different pieces than what
they are. You got to see it to believe it. Or hear it to appear.
Es
Another Dive, another pearl of wisdom
PapaEs
Hey,
Experience is not elitest, its available to anyone that avails themselves of
the action is down. I used to be elitest when I had a Honda Elite
safe one.five
grabber green
if you dont know what it is, go find it....
In article <19981013000809...@ng66.aol.com>, badl...@aol.com
(BadLookSS) wrote:
--
alien invasion
sacramento graffiti - http://www.graffiti.org/sac
safe one.five
and move on to start arguing about something else...
PapaEs
hey.
I'm talking about graff, not everything in the known universe. graffiti must be
seen with my own eyes or heard with my own ears to be real. graffiti must be
pumping to be seen or heard. It gets harder for me to see and hear from here,
but I appreciate those that cut through the static. sorry all my friends in the
far flung places, PUSH HARDER, I CAN'T SEE THE HEAD YET.
es
that guy mkiii
jase...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <19981009120119...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
> pap...@aol.com (PapaEs) wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> > Lets recap. Graffiti is made to be seen. If it isn't seen it doesnt
> exist.
> > Graffiti on the CPU or in mags is for couch surfing geeks that cant get some
> > fresh experience. You really need to see the piece in person, stand on the
> > crunchy rocks, crawl through the hole in the fence. Graffiti is not the end
> > result of a flic. It is the process of getting supplies, maybe an outline,
> > going to a spot, painting something and getting home safe. It's also about
> > witnessing the work and testifying to it. Interfacing with the CPU isn't
> > making it come alive, opening up a mag doesn't make it real, it's seeing it
> and
> > hearing about it that make it manifest.
> >
> > Still #1
> > Es
> >
> >
>
> im gonna have to side with es on this one cause when you see stuff in person
> you get a whole different feeling then in a mag or a flick..but still seeing
> flicks is cool but its not the same.
>
that's great for those that can take a stroll around NY anytime they feel.
Jody Hansen
keeping your heads in the clouds and refusing to hear the rest is elitist.
thaat guuy
>
> duplicolor engine enamel has it...two words...
>
> grabber green
>
> if you dont know what it is, go find it....
>
> In article <19981013000809...@ng66.aol.com>, badl...@aol.com
> (BadLookSS) wrote:
>
> > >those ugly ass blue fan-tip caligraphy nozzles (with the little metal
> > >pole inside) are THE quietest. But you guys probably dont have them
> >
> > ACE brand paint has them. As well as a couple other store brand paints.
> >
> > nekro
>
well fuck me rotten.. you guys do have them!
they suck dont they!
Walliwagon
Computers are elitist. Now, elitism gets a bad rap. I'm all for elitism;
elitism's what makes graffiti, punk rock, hip-hop and computer hacking (oops,
that's eleetism) great. Just don't confuse it with baseless snobbery.
Elite means what? A higher class. In this case, it's not something as arbetrary
as inhereted financial standing, for example, my elitism is based on commitment
and skill, indeed, what graffiti should be based on, I think.
Being able to view graffiti through a computer is something you need to have a
certain status to do. You need to have access to a computer, and know how to
use it. These resources are disproportionately available to the more upper
classes. Graffiti, however, is a complete reaction against that; publically,
universally accessible art.
Ironically enough, my homeless ass is performing maintenance on his webpage as
we speak. The computer is a valuable tool that should not be negated just
because of its inaccessablity to some. Now the question is, is this replicated
image as valid as the flesh-and-blood one? Most would agree no, and also agree
that just because one is up on the computer, this does not necessarily reflect
real-life fame.
Thus, Es' argument that the computer is nothing but a bunch of pretty pictures,
means approximatly Jack Shit, and doesn't exist in his mind, until he can find
a valid reason to devote mental disk space to it. Anyone can put up a website
and feature whoever is on it, and unless one has any reason to give credence to
the author (i.e. someone with fame, known for bombing hard, and, most likely,
someone who truly knows what's going on in a scene) one should regard it with a
healthy dose of skeptcism. However, one should bear in mind that any sort of
quantity is *something* up, and, if the photographer is not the artist, usually
indicated some sort of artistic merit, if not street-level ubiquity.
Remember, kids, lurkers don't exist on this newsgroup.
-walley
aol.com has no street cred
Walliwagon
>if yuo dont see the air you breath, because it doesnt reflect
>any light, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
instead of needing to experience it first hand. If your 6-year-old neighbor
said your breath was colored invisible green, you'd likely dismiss it.
>if you
>dont see your home while your away
That's called "object permanance," and that's because your house isn't likely
to get buffed while you're away. ;) Bad analogy.
>or if youve never
>seen an electric car
Because you believe Tee Vee.
>putting stuff online is an even better way of
>sharing what you saw
Of course, but you're not likely to give a tiny page made by no one, with
pictures of a bunch of no one's trains, any brain power until you see it again
somewhere else.
-walley
dest is up
Walliwagon
>isn't it realized?
I was about to mention birch's move to spell the Queen's English.
-walley
penalised for yankeeness
PapaEs
naw, that goes for anywhere. Your experience is as valid as anyones, I just
dont live yours and you dont live mine.
Es
PapaEs
I'm open to suggestion
Es
PapaEs
keeping your heads in the clouds and refusing to hear the rest is elitist.
>>>>> naptime!!
Es
BadLookSS
>they suck dont they!
Yeah, those ones are definitely about as useful as shit in my pants, but I've
messed with some other calligraphy type caps that were'nt too bad, and had some
fun with them.
nekro
jase...@my-dejanews.com
hans...@ucs.orst.edu (Jody Hansen) wrote:
> In article <19981012234328...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
>
> obviously es cares for some reason.
>
how about you quit sweating es.
jasen.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ncyclopdea
>I'm open to suggestion
>
>Es
hey,
stop starting your posts with "hey"
eb
Zach Morris
PapaEs wrote:
> hey,
> I'm open to suggestion
>
> Es
Es, you NEED to attach the relevant piece of the message that you are
replying to. more than half of your posts have been hard to understand
because i dont know who/what your replying to. i know you could give a
fuck about me, but im sure im not the only one. :)
preppy. daddy hurts me
Jody Hansen
Jody Hansen
<jase...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <6vuib6$rj1$1...@news.NERO.NET>,
> hans...@ucs.orst.edu (Jody Hansen) wrote:
>> In article <19981012234328...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
>
>>
>> obviously es cares for some reason.
>>
>
>
>how about you quit sweating es.
>jasen.
will recall, he jumped into an argument that i was in, and it
would be him sweating me.
how about you stop letting his nuts block your vision?
[birch..]
PapaEs
>>you NEED to attach the relevant piece of the message
Word, I must remember to do that
Es
PapaEs
Hey
>>how about you stop letting his nuts block your vision?
Salty salty salty
es
PapaEs
>>>sleep tight, dont let the bedbugs bite.
Ahh, some warm milk will make you less cranky
PapaEs
>>>hey,
stop starting your posts with "hey"
Okily dokily
Es
Ncyclopdea
>put em in ya mouth MMM.. yeah
haha..."howdddddddddddddddddy hooooooooooo"
eb
Jody Hansen
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hey
>
>>>>sleep tight, dont let the bedbugs bite.
>
>Ahh, some warm milk will make you less cranky
ive never much liked the smell of milk, let alone warm milk,
can we go with some nice unsweetened kool-aid instead?
Dawson
Jody Hansen wrote:
> In article <19981013023026...@ng133.aol.com>,
> Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Computers are elitist. Now, elitism gets a bad rap. I'm all for elitism;
>
> no wally, your making a slip here.
> computers are typicaly in the domain of the elite, however thier use
> and/or possesion does not imply elitism.
Shit, I just got thrown off the dole after 12 years (once your 18 they really check
up on you!), and I own a computor.
>
>
thaat guuy
>
> Hey
>
> >>how about you stop letting his nuts block your vision?
>
> Salty salty salty
>
> es
chef's salty chocolate ballss..
thaat guuy
I've used them to outline once.. got pics to prove it.
But the chrome with those tips is perfect for silent yard manouvers..
wide spray with no sound.
jakal
tip: turn the nozzle bit so it sprays in a horizontal line
Jody Hansen
>your boy), it records the moment you were there. If you film it it will record
correct.
>the time you are there. These are not replacements for experience, these are
>two dimensional memories that belong to someone you that are passed to the next
yes, correct as well.
they allow people to share what they have seen.
im glad we agree here.
>man.. Graffiti must be seen, or heard to be real. "Lifeguards" isn't a bad
no, graffiti must be "seen" in order to experience it firsthand (but of
coarse), however, not seeing things does not negate thier existance, it simply
means that you are not a personal witness. seeing a photo of something
brings you closer to that, be it a photo on a computer, in a magazine, or just
on photographic paper. it provides proof of its contents existance, although
certainly no replacement for fisrthand experience.
>analogy for the people I listen to. They are trained, professional, dedicated,
>and most of all, good looking. They know who's swimming and who's drowning,
>and most of all, who to save. Graffiti is a verb, not a noun, it must be
yes, lifeguards is a good analogy. Life guards arent always the best swimmers
around, they are simply the ones who have the job, being a lifeguard doesnt
mean you are good at figuring reasons and ideas about swimming, it just means
that you know how to swim and save peoples lives (supposedly). Furthermore,
for a lifeguard to do thier job and be able to save people, they need to pay
attention to the people below them, whether its a little kid, or an old lady,
they have to be aware of whats going on, because chances are, the people who
yell "help, lifeguard" are going to see someone drowning before the lifeguard
does.
>experienced through real involvement and not through "a glass plate coated in
>phosphours, which are exited by electrons shot at it from the rear of the
>tube". Flics without witness aint doo doo to me. Don't worry, I'm sure if
well, considering that photos tend to be taken by "witnesses" then i think
that solves that problem right up. maybe you need to think of
photographs/reproductions of images as little tiny witnesses, this might help
you.
>your doing quality work someone (it doesn't have to be a writer, if it's Pamela
>lee or one of them other hoes) will tell me of it, or I'll see it and You'll
>come alive like Frampton. Until then you aint ampin' and not happenin'.
maybe you will hear of me someday, maybe not, but that doesnt change the fact
that i have valid opinions for you to contend with.
>Tunnel vision and blinders are good analogies as well: There is a little
>window of excellence and strict criteria for making it, so keep trying. BTW,
and allowing a monkey on your back to dictate what you see means your going to
miss out on a lot of other stuff, instead of simply being open to what you
see.
if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
to believe that this nice piece exists".
basicly, it might be wise for you to stop looking at any images online, in
magazines, or any other means of reproduction, unless your sure that all
the content has been approved by sources you like.
>All that stuff on my page may not be real to you. Did you see it or hear about
>it? Than you didn't get the piece I painted. You got a 2 dimensional
>representation of several sites, and I feel much different pieces than what
>they are. You got to see it to believe it. Or hear it to appear.
actualy, you and i both know that it is real to me, and that i was simply
showing you what would happen if i applied your ideas and ways of percieving
the world to me, or for that matter, the average person looking at graffiti
content online.
>Es
>Another Dive, another pearl of wisdom
i dont think hairballs qualify as pearls of wisdom,
keep coughing them up anyways though.
[birch..]
oh, looks like you didnt respond to my reply on
the digital image/3rd generation media/abstract argument.
whats your reply to it now?
Jody Hansen
Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Computers are elitist. Now, elitism gets a bad rap. I'm all for elitism;
no wally, your making a slip here.
computers are typicaly in the domain of the elite, however thier use
and/or possesion does not imply elitism.
>elitism's what makes graffiti, punk rock, hip-hop and computer hacking (oops,
>that's eleetism) great. Just don't confuse it with baseless snobbery.
>Elite means what? A higher class. In this case, it's not something as arbetrary
>as inhereted financial standing, for example, my elitism is based on commitment
well, non of that inhereited financial standing here.
its straight from the ground up.
>and skill, indeed, what graffiti should be based on, I think.
>Being able to view graffiti through a computer is something you need to have a
>certain status to do. You need to have access to a computer, and know how to
not in particular.
it seems that people on the move, without cash have
no trouble at at all accessing computers/web/email.
owning a computer is a little more difficult.
so, on the contrary, computers are responsible for bringing
information on a vast scale to the finger tips of the masses.
>use it. These resources are disproportionately available to the more upper
>classes. Graffiti, however, is a complete reaction against that; publically,
>universally accessible art.
true, graffiti is accessible to everyone.
>Ironically enough, my homeless ass is performing maintenance on his webpage as
indeed, not irony though, for you are hardly an islated incedent.
>we speak. The computer is a valuable tool that should not be negated just
>because of its inaccessablity to some. Now the question is, is this replicated
>image as valid as the flesh-and-blood one? Most would agree no, and also agree
>that just because one is up on the computer, this does not necessarily reflect
>real-life fame.
ovbviously seeing a representation/reproduction/recording of something is not
the same as real life, nor does (i repeat again) it necesarrily imply
anything about the circumstances the content was produced under, instead
it is just that, a snapshot in time. proof of existance, to a large degree,
yes. absolute? no, just like almost everything else in the world.
>Thus, Es' argument that the computer is nothing but a bunch of pretty pictures,
>means approximatly Jack Shit, and doesn't exist in his mind, until he can find
>a valid reason to devote mental disk space to it. Anyone can put up a website
wally, you and i both know, that the reason stuff is online, is because it
does mean more than jack shit. if people werent looking at it, there would be
a lot less up there. if hes got a limited/memory/attention span, i dont think
that properly represents the rest of the population which is
interested/involved in graffiti. peopl elook at stuff on there and
accept that what they see is fair enough evidence of something that did/does
exist.
>and feature whoever is on it, and unless one has any reason to give credence to
>the author (i.e. someone with fame, known for bombing hard, and, most likely,
>someone who truly knows what's going on in a scene) one should regard it with a
>healthy dose of skeptcism. However, one should bear in mind that any sort of
your forgetting that i never claimed that the image meant it was "crazy ups"
or all over the place, simply that what they did was in existance.
your arguing against something that i never stated.
>quantity is *something* up, and, if the photographer is not the artist, usually
>indicated some sort of artistic merit, if not street-level ubiquity.
>Remember, kids, lurkers don't exist on this newsgroup.
>-walley
>aol.com has no street cred
[birch..]
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>hey.
>I'm talking about graff, not everything in the known universe. graffiti must be
>seen with my own eyes or heard with my own ears to be real. graffiti must be
>pumping to be seen or heard. It gets harder for me to see and hear from here,
>but I appreciate those that cut through the static. sorry all my friends in the
>far flung places, PUSH HARDER, I CAN'T SEE THE HEAD YET.
im glad that you realize what you say is only pertinent to you.
>
>
>es
Jody Hansen
Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>if yuo dont see the air you breath, because it doesnt reflect
>>any light, that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
>Why? Because you take believe the words of scientists (well-known writers)
>instead of needing to experience it first hand. If your 6-year-old neighbor
>said your breath was colored invisible green, you'd likely dismiss it.
wally, im not talking about invisible green air. obviously there is some
skeptecism involved, but you are attempting to use an extreme case in order to
argue your point, everythin in moderation. if i see a picture of a top to
bottom on a blimp in the air, ill be skeptical as well.
>
>>if you
>>dont see your home while your away
>That's called "object permanance," and that's because your house isn't likely
>to get buffed while you're away. ;) Bad analogy.
no wally, your fail to understand again, we are simply talking about something
that existed at one time, not whether it still exists. if something is
painted and a photo is taken, the photo does not imply that it is still
running, simply that it was painted at one time. good analogy it was.
>>or if youve never
>>seen an electric car
>Because you believe Tee Vee.
irrelevant comment.
>
>>putting stuff online is an even better way of
>>sharing what you saw
>Of course, but you're not likely to give a tiny page made by no one, with
>pictures of a bunch of no one's trains, any brain power until you see it again
>somewhere else.
actualy i am willing to give it brain power, jsut like you know you would too.
if i see a page from europe with a bunch of trains, i say, neat a bunch of
trains, not "i dont believe any of these existed since ive never seen them
anywhere else". this applies to most anyon elooking at graffiti online from
places other than where they have personaly been, which is to a large degree,
everyone looking at graffiti online sometime or other, usualy most of the
time.
>-walley
[birch..]
BadLookSS
Ahh, how about some Guinness? On tap, of course, cos it's so much better that
way.
nekro
Big Bad Bollocks
PapaEs
>>> graffiti must be "seen" in order to experience it firsthand
Your words, my argument. See The beauty of graffiti is all the shit you have
togo throught to be a part of it. If I sit in my boxers and look at a piece,
I'm not seeing graffiti, I'm seeing a flic of graffiti, and they are completely
different. Duchamp said a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. I tell you that if
you are not seeing graff on a surface it doesn't belong, in the flesh, you are
not looking at graff. You are looking at a distorted version of it.You have to
participate in graff to see graff. magazines and screens are off that map
>>>seeing a photo of something brings you closer to that
close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. In graffiti, it's another
matter entirely.
>>>yes, lifeguards is a good analogy. Life guards arent always the best
swimmers
around, they are simply the ones who have the job, being a lifeguard doesnt
mean you are good at figuring reasons and ideas about swimming, it just means
that you know how to swim and save peoples lives (supposedly).
I got the whistle, and I think you better digest the following idea fully
before you get back in the water: You aren't qualified to tell me anything
because as you say later, "maybe you will hear of me someday" . With comments
like that, it's clear to me that you need inflatable wings and you should stick
to the baby pool. See, I am trained and tanned and well qualified to tell that
you can't swim. Don't be mad, get some more experience and come see me.
Furthermore,
for a lifeguard to do thier job and be able to save people, they need to pay
attention to the people below them, whether its a little kid, or an old lady,
they have to be aware of whats going on, because chances are, the people who
yell "help, lifeguard" are going to see someone drowning before the lifeguard
does
See, most writers are drowning in obscurity, and the lifeguards are yelling out
instructions. The smart ones are listening, the best are doing the
breaststroke, and you know who they are. Doing a lot of graffiti well is like
swimming. Sitting online and peeping flics is drowning.
Flics without witness aint doo doo to me
>>> considering that photos tend to be taken by "witnesses" then i think
that solves that problem right up. maybe you need to think of
photographs/reproductions of images as little tiny witnesses, this might help
you.
Naw, they have to bear witness. They have to turn to their friend and remark
on the remarkable piece they saw. You may take flics of tons of crap, but
maybe one moves you enough to speak on it. Thats a living piece and not some
wasted film.
>>>maybe you will hear of me someday, maybe not, but that doesnt change the
fact
that i have valid opinions for you to contend with.
Naw, you dont have anything to tell me except, "I'm an insecure toy who hasn't
put in the work to be a commentator"
>Tunnel vision and blinders are good analogies as well: There is a little
>window of excellence and strict criteria for making it, so keep trying. BTW,
and allowing a monkey on your back to dictate what you see means your going to
miss out on a lot of other stuff, instead of simply being open to what you
see.
if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
to believe that this nice piece exists".
I say, "what is this shit? ugh. Oh look I heard of this guy, yeah this looks
fresh, I'll keep an eye out for him."
>Tunnel vision and blinders are good analogies as well: There is a little
>window of excellence and strict criteria for making it, so keep trying. BTW,
Inspired original work is on my radar screen, it's real. The rest falls out of
bounds and the files not found.
basicly, it might be wise for you to stop looking at any images online, in
magazines, or any other means of reproduction, unless your sure that all
the content has been approved by sources you like.
Believe me, I have.
actualy, you and i both know that it is real to me, and that i was simply
showing you what would happen if i applied your ideas and ways of percieving
the world to me, or for that matter, the average person looking at graffiti
content online.
Naw, if you haven't seen it it's definitely not real to you. Unless you have
seen the traffic in front of those pieces, heard the sirens and wondered how
many cops passed by while I did it, seen the scale as people walk past it,
seen the way it sits in the neighborhood, or heard someone tell you all or some
of these things, you haven't seen my work. You've seen something else that
kinda looks like it. Applying my ideas to anything else is taking them out of
context, just like a photo does.
Es
oh, looks like you didnt respond to my reply on
the digital image/3rd generation media/abstract argument.
whats your reply to it now?
Uhh/YAWN/If I dont see it or hear it, it aint doo doo.
PapaEs
>>>how about you stop letting his nuts block your vision?
>
>
>Salty salty salty
>
>es
dont cry big guy.
I aint mad at you, you just keep stewing in your own salt, I'll tell you when
your done
KEAS MUL
lead to the conclusion.. your premise is that "seeing graffiti" and
"seeing a flic of graffiti" "are completely different"...
with this i will agree... a flick cannot possibly convey the context
of the piece or the true colors of a piece, etc... just as a picture
of a pipe is not a pipe...
but the conclusion you draw from this premise, "if i ain't seen it or
heard it, it ain't doo doo [real]" does not follow.. i know i'm asking
for a long drawn out series of posts, but if you can explain to me how
the conclusion follows from the premise in a coherent post like the
one i'm replying to.. i'd like to hear...
also it seems like you brought up an exception to your rule and you
didn't qualify it as to how it can happen...
you said:
>if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
>piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
>to believe that this nice piece exists".
but you don't explain how seeing the flick of the piece in a magazine
qualifies as "see[ing] a nice piece" ... how can you possibly be
seeing a nice piece unless you are there first hand to witness it...?
based on your rule, it seems like it would be logical for you to say
"i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse to believe that this
nice piece exists"... so why don't you?
just looking for clarifications of your argument..
ks..
Jody Hansen
ok, ill wait till you tell me im done watching you cry, dont draw it out too
long though.
Walliwagon
Stop ending your posts with "eb."
-walley
we've all got teethmarks
__________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.cascadia-net.com/benski
PapaEs
>>>>how about you stop letting his nuts block your vision?
>>
>>
>>Salty salty salty
>>
>>es
>
> dont cry big guy.
>
>I aint mad at you, you just keep stewing in your own salt, I'll tell you when
>your done
ok, ill wait till you tell me im done watching you cry, dont draw it out too
long though
I think your done, let me get a fork and make sure.
es
Rawb 98
PapaEs
word.. this was a well stated argument, but the premises don't seem to
lead to the conclusion.. your premise is that "seeing graffiti" and
"seeing a flic of graffiti" "are completely different"...
with this i will agree... a flick cannot possibly convey the context
of the piece or the true colors of a piece, etc... just as a picture
of a pipe is not a pipe...
but the conclusion you draw from this premise, "if i ain't seen it or
heard it, it ain't doo doo [real]" does not follow.. i know i'm asking
for a long drawn out series of posts, but if you can explain to me how
the conclusion follows from the premise in a coherent post like the
one i'm replying to.. i'd like to hear...
also it seems like you brought up an exception to your rule and you
didn't qualify it as to how it can happen...
you said:
>if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
>piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
>to believe that this nice piece exists".
but you don't explain how seeing the flick of the piece in a magazine
qualifies as "see[ing] a nice piece" ... how can you possibly be
seeing a nice piece unless you are there first hand to witness it...?
based on your rule, it seems like it would be logical for you to say
"i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse to believe that this
nice piece exists"... so why don't you?
It gets confusing, but jody made the comment, ""self, thats a nice
>piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
>to believe that this nice piece exists". When I look at mags, the pieces I
acknowlege are the ones I hear of. I flip past the rest like they're not
there. You know it's funny, even though it's a great big scene, there are very
few writers that are good and really bomb that I haven't heard of. Thats the
fate of the not seen, not heard: they don't exist. I'm not doubting the
physical aspects of pigment on a surface, but for a graffiti piece to be "up"
it has to be seen or talked about by me or my peers I am sure that the piece
that isn't seen or heard of isn't a successful piece, and as such doesn't exist
to me. So the argument still stands, if it's on the CPU it aint up.
Es
Jody Hansen
your not going to try and remove your eyes with that fork in order to stop
your crying are you? i really would suggest you find an alternative.
Walliwagon
>and/or possesion does not imply elitism.
No, it doesn't imply you're an elitist if you use one, but as you said, they
are the domain of the elite. So, if you put up a webpage, who are you
broadcasting to?
>it seems that people on the move, without cash have
>no trouble at at all accessing computers/web/email.
Of course not... The increasing ubiquity, however, is not geared toward a
growing lower-class, transient, wired population. The increasing prevalence of
public computers and web-based e-mail accounts is a response to the acquisition
of new technology by the financially elite, and they tend to travel often for
business reasons. This has been appropriated by a temporarily financially
disadvantaged, nomadic, young, middle-class population.
>so, on the contrary, computers are responsible for bringing
>information on a vast scale to the finger tips of the masses.
I'd argue that they've just become a new medium for the elite to control the
information.
>you are hardly an islated incedent.
I've thought about this. I slept in a doorway last night. I have no money. Yet
I sit here typing this to you. Proof, of course, then, that computers have
become truely accessible to the lower class, right?
Well, not really. I know how to use the computers because I went to a school
that had adequate resources, because my parents had the money to live in a nice
neighborhood close to a good school. I had outlets to nurture my interest in
computers, even though I didn't have a computer at home, because I lived in an
area with a lot of computer-literate people and computer-inspired events. Other
kids, from other, poorer neighborhoods might not have connections to multimedia
producers and electronic forums. I can never REALLY start from ground zero
again, regardless of my financial standing. I'm sure there are a relatively
large group of middle-class kids living modestly and still enjoying the
benefits of digital communication. There's a web-connected computer available
at the homeless service center, but you need an ID to use it (which doesn't
rule out low-income families, but probably most homeless people), and I'm not
sure what kind of training, if any, they offer. So I don't know how much
success they've had in doing what with the computer.
>absolute? no, just like almost everything else in the world.
Of course not. And you seem to be misinterpreting Es' admittedly brash
reaffirmation of that.
>you and i both know, that the reason stuff is online, is because it
>does mean more than jack shit.
As I stated, ftp space is sacrificed on basis of some sort of merit.
>peopl elook at stuff on there and
>accept that what they see is fair enough evidence of something that did/does
>exist
Yeah, but it's like "Tag Oner" is just another name on the computer until it's
validated by additional corrobration.
>i never claimed that the image meant it was "crazy ups"
Of course not. When Es says it doen't exist, I think he's speaking
metaphorically, and I won't fight THAT battle for him. I will state, however,
while I go looking for pieces from far off places with far-out styles when I go
on the web, I don't necessarily lend those pictures and credibility. However,
if I'm on IRC, and my friend says "Tag Oner is hella known in Scandanavia,"
I'll believe 'cause we've talked on the phone, and he's real to me. If my
friend says, "Tagg Two rocks London," that's real, 'cause my girlfriend met
this kid from London. I don't need some "big name," just someone I know knows
what's up (no pun intended). Why should Es believe a bunch of ASCII that tells
him, "Don't dis, this kid is UP" when he's never heard anything about him?
Remember, reality is subjective, and you're all talking waffles in mine.
-walley
corrupt"mod is the exception to the rule and, btw, he rocks
Jody Hansen
KEAS MUL <m...@madeulook.com> wrote:
>
>also it seems like you brought up an exception to your rule and you
>didn't qualify it as to how it can happen...
>you said:
>>if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
>>piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
>>to believe that this nice piece exists".
>but you don't explain how seeing the flick of the piece in a magazine
>qualifies as "see[ing] a nice piece" ... how can you possibly be
>seeing a nice piece unless you are there first hand to witness it...?
he didnt state that, he failed to properly quote it.
it was a statment made by me.
hey,
es, you need to learn to do this :
>>>oldest text
>>older text
>old text
new young text
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>hey,
>>>> graffiti must be "seen" in order to experience it firsthand
>
>Your words, my argument. See The beauty of graffiti is all the shit you have
no, not my words, either yours or walleys. start keeping y our posts
untangled, its going to be a detriment to your arguments otherwise.
>togo throught to be a part of it. If I sit in my boxers and look at a piece,
>I'm not seeing graffiti, I'm seeing a flic of graffiti, and they are completely
yes, correct you are seeing a picture of graffiti, whether it be a photo or on
a computer.
further more, if someones bombing hard, and has lots of stuff on the street,
then you wont have to go through anything to see it. thats often the point,
to place stuff in peoples eyes, where they cant avoid seeing it, blatant
display. if you see a throwup staring at you as you leave your house and look
across the street and theres a throwup, what have you done? what have you gone
through? nothing.
>different. Duchamp said a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. I tell you that if
no, a picture is not its contents, it is a reproduction/representation of
them. it is proof towards thier existance at one time or another.
>you are not seeing graff on a surface it doesn't belong, in the flesh, you are
>not looking at graff. You are looking at a distorted version of it.You have to
no, you are not see a distorted version of it, that is your unusual reality
perspective kicking in.
you see, its nothing more than a picture. yes, it lacks some of the context,
but its not warped, its not abstract art. Dont try and stick funny labels on
things without defining exactly how it gets those labels, those arguments of
yours hold no weight.
>participate in graff to see graff. magazines and screens are off that map
you dont have to participate, we both know that, as i stated above,
if people are really "pumping" as you say, then you dont have to do jack shit
except have a a pair of eyes open as you move along to see graff.
if you see it in magazines or screens, then its simply pictures off it, minus
some context, that doesnt detract from its existance, simply it means you dont
know the entire story behind it.
>>>>seeing a photo of something brings you closer to that
>
>close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. In graffiti, it's another
>matter entirely.
instead of simply saying things, back up your statements, otherwise, they dont
mean anything. your above statement means zero, until you explain it or back
it up.
>>>>yes, lifeguards is a good analogy. Life guards arent always the best
>>swimmers
>>around, they are simply the ones who have the job, being a lifeguard doesnt
>>mean you are good at figuring reasons and ideas about swimming, it just means
>>that you know how to swim and save peoples lives (supposedly).
>
>I got the whistle, and I think you better digest the following idea fully
>before you get back in the water: You aren't qualified to tell me anything
>because as you say later, "maybe you will hear of me someday" . With comments
wow, your the greatest at taking stuff out of context arent you?
what i said was along the lines of "maybe youll hear of me someday, maybe not,
but it doesnt change the validity of my arguments."
stuff your misquoting back in your head and try and reprocess it big guy.
>like that, it's clear to me that you need inflatable wings and you should stick
wow, what a way to win an argument.
pitiful and boring.
>to the baby pool. See, I am trained and tanned and well qualified to tell that
>you can't swim. Don't be mad, get some more experience and come see me.
seeing as you say you dont know who i am, then you are unqualified to make any
judgements on me. furthermore, your only qualified to make weak arguments,
like the above.
>>Furthermore,
>>for a lifeguard to do thier job and be able to save people, they need to pay
>>attention to the people below them, whether its a little kid, or an old lady,
>>they have to be aware of whats going on, because chances are, the people who
>>yell "help, lifeguard" are going to see someone drowning before the lifeguard
>>does
>
>See, most writers are drowning in obscurity, and the lifeguards are yelling out
>instructions. The smart ones are listening, the best are doing the
>breaststroke, and you know who they are. Doing a lot of graffiti well is like
>swimming. Sitting online and peeping flics is drowning.
no, a lifeguards job is only to save lives, and as i stated, it is best
accomplished by listening to those below them, not just thier peers.
you make it sound like its a unidirectional thing, its the converse, thier job
isnt to sit in the clouds and shout directions, thier job is to go out and
make thier best attempt to personaly help every case instead of telling the
ones that are drowning that its a shame. in fact, the ones that are drowning
ar the ones who will recieve the most attention from a lifeguard.
no, you want warp a profession in your argument either, sorry.
>>>Flics without witness aint doo doo to me
>> considering that photos tend to be taken by "witnesses" then i think
>>that solves that problem right up. maybe you need to think of
>>photographs/reproductions of images as little tiny witnesses, this might help
>>you.
>
>Naw, they have to bear witness. They have to turn to their friend and remark
no, the fact that the photo wa taken, means someone was witness, if you want
to state to the contrary, you must state WHY it is the contrary instead of
just saying "it is".
if you cant suport your arguments, dont make them.
>on the remarkable piece they saw. You may take flics of tons of crap, but
or i may only take photos of burners, you just dont know do you?
so best for you not to speak on stuff you dont know about, as usual.
>maybe one moves you enough to speak on it. Thats a living piece and not some
>wasted film.
but i thought i didnt exist,so how is it a living piece if someone who doesnt
exists speaks on it. isnt that contradictory? i thought neither me nor the
piece was real? yo dont need me punching wholes in your arguments, youve
already done it so many times yourself. your the best at sinking your own
ship big guy.
>>maybe you will hear of me someday, maybe not, but that doesnt change the
>>fact
>>that i have valid opinions for you to contend with.
>
>Naw, you dont have anything to tell me except, "I'm an insecure toy who hasn't
>put in the work to be a commentator"
ohh..arent you jsut the poor baby, making weak arguments, and then all you
can come up with is "mommy, i cant stand up for my ideas to save my self so
ima call my opponent toy, waaahh waaaah"
unfortunatly, it is those who resort to petty name calling such as you do, who
tend to be the insecure ones. my ideas can stand on thier own, what about
yours?
nameless and faceless, im a contender, your merely a weak idea defender.
>>>Tunnel vision and blinders are good analogies as well: There is a little
>>>window of excellence and strict criteria for making it, so keep trying.
>>and allowing a monkey on your back to dictate what you see means your going to
>>miss out on a lot of other stuff, instead of simply being open to what you
>>see.
>>if i see a nice piece in a magazine, i say to myself, "self, thats a nice
>>piece there", i dont say "i havent ever heard of that writer, so i refuse
>>to believe that this nice piece exists".
>
>I say, "what is this shit? ugh. Oh look I heard of this guy, yeah this looks
>fresh, I'll keep an eye out for him."
ahh, so your idea is that unless youve heard of someone, thier stuff is ugly
shit?
haha, thats pretty weak es.
why weak? because whether you know of someone or not, it does not constitute
whether they are capable of good work, thats why.
>Inspired original work is on my radar screen, it's real. The rest falls out of
>bounds and the files not found.
and as usual, its your loss.
>>basicly, it might be wise for you to stop looking at any images online, in
>>magazines, or any other means of reproduction, unless your sure that all
>>the content has been approved by sources you like.
>
>Believe me, I have.
are you sure you havent slipped even one unapproved image in there?
ill bet you have, ill bet youve been galavanting all around the internet
checking things out actualy. and good for you, you dont need to pretend you
havent, we wont tattle tale on you.
>>actualy, you and i both know that it is real to me, and that i was simply
>>showing you what would happen if i applied your ideas and ways of percieving
>>the world to me, or for that matter, the average person looking at graffiti
>>content online.
>
>Naw, if you haven't seen it it's definitely not real to you. Unless you have
nope, its real to me, you cant dictate my reality, as much as you would like
to.
>seen the traffic in front of those pieces, heard the sirens and wondered how
>many cops passed by while I did it, seen the scale as people walk past it,
>seen the way it sits in the neighborhood, or heard someone tell you all or some
>of these things, you haven't seen my work. You've seen something else that
>kinda looks like it. Applying my ideas to anything else is taking them out of
>context, just like a photo does.
thats right old chap, your getting it, good boy. i have seen it out of
context, but its not that i havent seen your work, its htat i havent seen
the whole picture, just a window on it. and since anyone who looks at
your stuff online or i nmagazines is going to see it out of context, i urge
you to remove your website based on your own prinicples, because, unless you
want people viewing your stuff out of context, its going to keep happening
while its up there. dont shine with hypocrisy please.
>Es
>>oh, looks like you didnt respond to my reply on
>>the digital image/3rd generation media/abstract argument.
>>whats your reply to it now?
>
>Uhh/YAWN/If I dont see it or hear it, it aint doo doo.
oh..poor guy, looks like your floundering, flip flopping.
back treading even.
haha.
[birch..]
Walliwagon
I agree with you on most points, Es, but I will contest that toys can have
valid opinions, too.
-walley
not that *you're* toy, birch
Jody Hansen
PapaEs <pap...@aol.com> wrote:
>hey,
>
>acknowlege are the ones I hear of. I flip past the rest like they're not
>there. You know it's funny, even though it's a great big scene, there are very
>few writers that are good and really bomb that I haven't heard of. Thats the
>fate of the not seen, not heard: they don't exist. I'm not doubting the
>physical aspects of pigment on a surface, but for a graffiti piece to be "up"
oh, so it is real now, it simply isnt up.
i thought it plain. flat out didnt exist?
your floundering on a subject reduces your credibility you know.
>it has to be seen or talked about by me or my peers I am sure that the piece
>that isn't seen or heard of isn't a successful piece, and as such doesn't exist
so, if its physicaly thre, then how does it not exist?
i think youve doubled back on yourself here.
now your stating that it simply doesnt exist as a successful piece, however
it is real.
>to me. So the argument still stands, if it's on the CPU it aint up.
>Es
however you have contradicted yourself, and now you admit that it does
physicaly exist, which is what i had been arguing the whole time. remember, i
said "the picture does not imply anything about the circumstances it was
painted under nor its surroundings/etc, simply that it existed/exists(is
real)". which in turn, since it was seen by someone, is then deemed as
"something up", not "something up all over" or "something up in a crazy spot",
simply "something up".
[birch..]
KEAS MUL
>Es
i think it'd be a bit more fair to say:
if it's on the CPU, but not seen by you or heard of by you, then it
ain't up to you...
yes?
ks
KEAS MUL
i think it should be added also that broadcasting through the web is
becoming more and more the sole domain of the elite (i.e. wealthy)...
more and more browsers are becoming only receivers (i.e. web tv) and
it is large corporations with large bank accounts who can pay for the
high tech web designs that are starting to dominate... it is hard for
the less wealthy to pay for webspace, create multimedia webpages, and
attain a large number of hits... thus the internet seems to be moving
from an interactive forum to a sender receiver situation similar to
television or radio where the wealthy broadcast information and the
poor (if they can even attain access to the internet at all) receive
the information..
as karl marx (oh no.. my whole point is discounted now as radical.. i
said the evil words) says "the ruling ideas of each age have ever been
the ideas of its ruling class"
ks
Walliwagon
>that existed at one time, not whether it still exists.
stopped looking at, it's something you've *never* seen. The house-buffing joke
was separate; I should have put that on a new line.
>if i see a page from europe with a bunch of trains, i say, neat a bunch of
>trains
Me too. "It's nice to see what the other side of the world is up to." So then I
look at these trains, and my belief that Euros all paint lopsided bubble
letters is confirmed. ;) OK, but let's say I see something with style or a
particular writer shows up a lot. Then I ask someone from the area I was
looking, "Is this kid up a lot?" I'm diverging from Es here, especially since I
tend to place more emphasis on quality, not fame, although, even the nicest
piece gets lost in my mind if it's not someone who A) I've heard of outside of
web pages and mags or B) some crazy innovative style.
I'm done trying to get you agree with Es, 'cause now I disagree with either of
you. heh Or maybe I agree with both of you.
-walley
the big wheel
Jody Hansen
Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
>>thier use
>>and/or possesion does not imply elitism.
>
>No, it doesn't imply you're an elitist if you use one, but as you said, they
>are the domain of the elite. So, if you put up a webpage, who are you
>broadcasting to?
but you said they were elitist.
im glad we can agree though that they are simply typicaly in the dom,ain of
the elite as opposed to imply elitism.
broadcasting to? the masses. not the lowest of the masses, but the internet
is on an accelerated shift from academia to the masses.
and thats the target audience too.
>>it seems that people on the move, without cash have
>>no trouble at at all accessing computers/web/email.
>Of course not... The increasing ubiquity, however, is not geared toward a
>growing lower-class, transient, wired population. The increasing prevalence of
>public computers and web-based e-mail accounts is a response to the acquisition
>of new technology by the financially elite, and they tend to travel often for
>business reasons. This has been appropriated by a temporarily financially
>disadvantaged, nomadic, young, middle-class population.
regardless of how it falls into peoples hands though, that doesnt change who
the majority of the user mbase is, and these days, it is very heavily the
middle class, often including the lower middle class, and poor.
of the people i know, those with access to the internet are evenly spread
across all economic boundaries.
>>so, on the contrary, computers are responsible for bringing
>>information on a vast scale to the finger tips of the masses.
>I'd argue that they've just become a new medium for the elite to control the
>information.
i woul dhave to say, that at least in the mean time, things are a fair amount
out of control. software piracy, porn, you name it, its all over the place.
it may change in the future when people crack down on it, but for the mean
time, its a mess.
>>you are hardly an islated incedent.
>I've thought about this. I slept in a doorway last night. I have no money. Yet
>I sit here typing this to you. Proof, of course, then, that computers have
>become truely accessible to the lower class, right?
>Well, not really. I know how to use the computers because I went to a school
>that had adequate resources, because my parents had the money to live in a nice
>neighborhood close to a good school. I had outlets to nurture my interest in
>computers, even though I didn't have a computer at home, because I lived in an
>area with a lot of computer-literate people and computer-inspired events. Other
>kids, from other, poorer neighborhoods might not have connections to multimedia
>producers and electronic forums. I can never REALLY start from ground zero
>again, regardless of my financial standing. I'm sure there are a relatively
>large group of middle-class kids living modestly and still enjoying the
>benefits of digital communication. There's a web-connected computer available
well, asside from the lower of the low class, most kids go to school, in that
school, chances are sverely in favor that it has some type of computer, even
computers that are 10+ years old will work very reasonably. i will admit that
the poorest of the poor will have limited acces, but dont you think that as
far as the middle and upper lower class, that they all have rather good access
to computers. it doesnt necesarrily require a mentor, or some hook up.
and, as you say, once you have the know how, then its pie.
>at the homeless service center, but you need an ID to use it (which doesn't
>rule out low-income families, but probably most homeless people), and I'm not
>sure what kind of training, if any, they offer. So I don't know how much
>success they've had in doing what with the computer.
hmm, that seems like a kind of odd way to give computer access to homeless
people, requiring an ID. a little exclusive isnt it?
>>absolute? no, just like almost everything else in the world.
>Of course not. And you seem to be misinterpreting Es' admittedly brash
>reaffirmation of that.
not really, he said it straight up, and i took it at face value, unless he
wants me to take it any other way, thats how ill swallow it.
>>you and i both know, that the reason stuff is online, is because it
>>does mean more than jack shit.
>As I stated, ftp space is sacrificed on basis of some sort of merit.
not really...there is tons of free ftp space to be had.
to get 10 megs, requires you to set up a hotmail account (free) and
then to use that hotmail address to get your free space, you can do it
repeatedly with differant hotmail accounts, aggregting at least a hundred megs
of ftp/web space, based on zero merit. and this is typical.
>>peopl elook at stuff on there and
>>accept that what they see is fair enough evidence of something that did/does
>>exist
>Yeah, but it's like "Tag Oner" is just another name on the computer until it's
>validated by additional corrobration.
yes, they dont make any assumptions about the persons ups, but they dont
question the reality of what they see, if they see a peice, they take it at
face value, a piece. they dont question its reality/existance, nor do they
assume things about its circumstances or context.
>>i never claimed that the image meant it was "crazy ups"
>Of course not. When Es says it doen't exist, I think he's speaking
>metaphorically, and I won't fight THAT battle for him. I will state, however,
no, until he recently flipflopped, he was saying that it was absolute, it
didnt exist.
>while I go looking for pieces from far off places with far-out styles when I go
>on the web, I don't necessarily lend those pictures and credibility. However,
>if I'm on IRC, and my friend says "Tag Oner is hella known in Scandanavia,"
>I'll believe 'cause we've talked on the phone, and he's real to me. If my
>friend says, "Tagg Two rocks London," that's real, 'cause my girlfriend met
>this kid from London. I don't need some "big name," just someone I know knows
>what's up (no pun intended). Why should Es believe a bunch of ASCII that tells
>him, "Don't dis, this kid is UP" when he's never heard anything about him?
>Remember, reality is subjective, and you're all talking waffles in mine.
remember wally, ive never made claims about ups, or the context of the piece,
simply that it exists, and is real. and if you looked at everything in the
severe doubt that es pronounces, then you probably wouldnt be looking at all.
you do lend them credibility as far as existance goes, simply not any
credibility as far as ups or circumstances, which ive never contested that.
>-walley
[birch..]
Jody Hansen
KEAS MUL <m...@madeulook.com> wrote:
>as karl marx (oh no.. my whole point is discounted now as radical.. i
>said the evil words) says "the ruling ideas of each age have ever been
>the ideas of its ruling class"
>
>ks
or, if they arent the ruling ideas, they seem to have a habit of being
forced onto the populous anyways.
Jody Hansen
Walliwagon <walli...@aol.com> wrote:
>>if i see a page from europe with a bunch of trains, i say, neat a bunch of
>>trains
>Me too. "It's nice to see what the other side of the world is up to." So then I
>look at these trains, and my belief that Euros all paint lopsided bubble
>letters is confirmed. ;) OK, but let's say I see something with style or a
>particular writer shows up a lot. Then I ask someone from the area I was
>looking, "Is this kid up a lot?" I'm diverging from Es here, especially since I
>tend to place more emphasis on quality, not fame, although, even the nicest
>piece gets lost in my mind if it's not someone who A) I've heard of outside of
>web pages and mags or B) some crazy innovative style.
well, yes i will agree that i look at a page of stuff, and i see a bunch of
writers, and after i leave that page unless something makes a huge impression
on me, they gut stuffed into the back of my memory, not accessible on demand,
but only on accident or recollection. but see this is the differance, we see
something and accept it as real, but neither of us are trying to make
assumptions about the conditions it was painted in, because thats something
thats difficult to draw form a photo.
>I'm done trying to get you agree with Es, 'cause now I disagree with either of
>you. heh Or maybe I agree with both of you.
well jump in the boat, now its a three way tangle, all the better to have it
examined from yet another perspective.
>-walley
[birch..]
KEAS MUL
ruling class has to CONVINCE (or maybe forced into believing? forced
into going along with? i don't know.. i think forced is a bit
deterministic) the masses that:
a) the ideas are not coming from the ruling class
b) the ideas don't benefit solely the ruling class.. i.e. they
are beneficial to all
history tells us that the economic system dictates the social
organization which dictates the political organization which is
responsible for creating and selling an ideology to the masses that
justifies the status quo.. i suggest Marx's German Ideology (in
Tucker's Marx-Engels Reader) for a great historical analysis of this..
ks
krazy socialist?