Graffitti Seminar
Mattison
think should not be missed?
CAT
>think should not be missed?
Bring up the vandalism issue. It is getting out of hand here.
Graffiti on buildings etc.
CAT
Charles Eicher
> I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
> think should not be missed?
Specifically, you should not miss out purchasing liability insurance for
yourself.
I vividly recall a graffiti 'expo' given a few years back at Raleigh
Studios in Hollywood. Graffiti artists were invited to come and bring
their paint, but they were specifically told that they should NOT tag
anywhere around the studio, they'd be given huge canvases inside the
studio if they wanted to paint. Of course, these miscreants couldn't
contain themselves, and tagged all over the outside of the studio, right
out on hollywood boulevard. The organizers got stuck with a big cleanup
bill.
If you talk on this subject, you're going to attract taggers who are
anxious to attend any event that legitimizes their vandalism as 'art'..
And inevitably, you'll find a whole bunch of new graffitti after they
leave.
Let me give another example. Everyone in LA knows about 'Chaka', the most
prolific tagger in LA history. Someone estimated he did something like
250,000 tags all over LA county, he used to steal spray paint by the case
to keep tagging.. The LAPD definitely considered him a public menace, and
spent more than the usual amount of effort to catch him. When finally got
caught, he turned into somewhat of a cause celebre. Someone arranged a
full-tuition scholarship to one of the more prestigious LA art schools.
The judge agreed to dismiss most of the charges, and sentenced him to
probation on the condition that he attend art school, and never tag again.
Of course, he couldn't resist. On his way out of the courtroom, he carved
his tag on the wall of the court building's elevator. He was put back in
jail immediately. Good riddance.
One final story: I used to work at a graphics bureau on Melrose Blvd,
right across from a high-school. We had a lot of trouble cleaning up after
graffitti vandalism. We used to go outside in the back alley to take our
smoke breaks, and we had a lot of gang-wannabees threatening us to stay
out of our own alley, the taggers claimed it was their turf. We used to
paint over the alley nearly every day. But even worse, there was an
abandoned storefront next to us, it was a favorite target for taggers with
diamond-tip scribers. In case you haven't heard of this, it is a common
practice for taggers to carry around diamond-tip glass-cutters, or
'scribers' to carve their initials quickly into glass and steel surfaces.
Well, this particular storefront had so many tags carved into its window,
it was almost like looking through wax paper. One day, we had a client
walking out of our store, carrying his expensive hard drive back to his
car. Suddenly, the city bus came, and the local highschool students rushed
towards it to get onboard. One of them pushed against him, and he fell
backwards against the plate-glass window. The window shattered, it was so
fragile from the thousands of scribings, that it immediately broke into
jagged pieces. The poor fellow was cut to shreds. He came stumbling back
into our shop, covered with blood, and could barely croak out 'Help!'.. We
called an ambulance, and he survived, but barely (he'd got a cut on his
carotid artery, and lost a TON of blood). And of course, he dropped his
$2000 hard drive, which someone stole.
Graffitti is a menace to the public safety. Graffitti makers should be
locked up. Graffitti is NOT art.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
CAT
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>If you talk on this subject, you're going to attract taggers who are
>anxious to attend any event that legitimizes their vandalism as 'art'..
>And inevitably, you'll find a whole bunch of new graffitti after they
>leave.
Taggers should be shot.
Ima Dillo
>
>I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
>think should not be missed?
There is a tremendous amount of stuff on the Web regarding
Graffiti and there is even a FAQ of graffiti related material. Use
Lycos or Yahoo or some other web browser and type in the
word "graffiti." To get started, and view a bunch of really cool
graffiti that IS art, look at http://www.gatech.edu/graf/ and related
links from that site. What's are the distinctions between graffiti as
art form and tagging. Ima Dillo.
Susan Eshelman
>
>> I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
>> think should not be missed?
>
points:
What can the artist do to ensure that a mural installation won't
be destroyed, or misused, when the building is later sold to another
party? In this case, the mural was interior (Benny's Bagles).
How does the artist handle public relations when, upon installation,
a mural is well-loved by all in the city but later, when politics
change, becomes the focus of critical debate.
Susan Eshelman
Art Vision International
http://www.islandnet.com/~aabc
ShivaStar6
>Graffitti is a menace to the public safety. Graffitti makers should be
>locked up. Graffitti is NOT art.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Get out of your ivory tower, man... It's good to know that a job at a
graphics bureau on Melrose Ave not only secures the designer with a broad
income, but also with the divine judgement to decide what is (and is not)
"art"...
I can only assume by your wonderfully narrow post that your viewpoint of
art & artists does not go beyond the distinction of canvases and drawing
rooms in midtown lofts. I would say more, but the grandmotherly tone of
your post precludes and intelligent discussion on the matter. Have a
fabulous life, and don't let those obnoxious ruffians upset your hair too
much...
Cali Ruchala
Ima Dillo
> What can the artist do (clipped)
> How does the artist handle public relations when (clipped)
I think the artist is generally powerless in either case. I think there
have been some state(s) where laws were passed about altering
an artists work, but when is a mural purely a decorative use
of wall space and when is it a protected work of art under the law?
Is it the original intent that rules? Is painting a landscape on the
interior wall of a restaurant the same as painting a historic mural
in the rotunda of a courthouse? Where is the line drawn? It seems
absurd to think that when a building containing a mural faces
demolition that the mural would prevent its destruction. Maybe the
solution is to be certain the mural is constructed so that it can be
removed by the artist independently of what happens to the wall
where it is displayed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Murial and I are old friends.
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan Eshelman
>In article <4eek95$7...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, aa...@islandnet.com says...
>
>have been some state(s) where laws were passed about altering
>an artists work, but when is a mural purely a decorative use
>of wall space and when is it a protected work of art under the law?
>Is it the original intent that rules? Is painting a landscape on the
>interior wall of a restaurant the same as painting a historic mural
>in the rotunda of a courthouse? Where is the line drawn? It seems
>absurd to think that when a building containing a mural faces
>demolition that the mural would prevent its destruction. Maybe the
>solution is to be certain the mural is constructed so that it can be
>removed by the artist independently of what happens to the wall
>where it is displayed.
One of the murals I referred to was an interior installation. In this
case, it was painted on a 50' canvas, and could be removed from the wall.
The new owners of the building might simply roll and store the canvas,
never to be seen again.
Muralists might consider a contractual clause with the commissioning
buyer that allows a buy-out option of the piece if the building changes
hands.
Charles Eicher
(ShivaStar6) wrote:
> Get out of your ivory tower, man... It's good to know that a job at a
> graphics bureau on Melrose Ave not only secures the designer with a broad
> income, but also with the divine judgement to decide what is (and is not)
> "art"...
Hey, I never made much money, and what money I did earn I spent on paint
and canvas, and rent for my studio.
However, I will illustrate my point with a further story.
Frequently I chased away painters, and brought out the can of that
wonderfully awful color of 'chapparal brown' and started painting over
these graffittis right in front of the eyes of the creators. And I often
chased away painters just as they were beginning to paint. The most
frequent objection I heard was "You're stifling my free speech, this is
ART!" If I ever heard someone offer their opinion that graffitti was art,
I would ask them how it was art. The usual explanation was "Because I'm an
artist".. I would redirect the question to the specifics of the artwork
in question.. I asked them to explain which artists they drew from for
inspiration, and what specific ways their painting connected with the
broader issues of painting, or if they even knew any of the broader issues
of painting at all. I offered to leave their graffiti intact, even protect
it, if they could come up with even a semi-coherent answer to those
questions. Of course, nobody could even name one artist, or come up with
any answers.
> I can only assume by your wonderfully narrow post that your viewpoint of
> art & artists does not go beyond the distinction of canvases and drawing
> rooms in midtown lofts.
Hey, some of my favorite artists started as vandalizing taggers, like
Basquiat or Futura 2000 for example. But vandalism is vandalism. I don't
consider what they did on the sides of a NYC subway to be art, and I don't
think they did either. At least they matured and began to become
knowledgable about the real issues of painting.
> ..I would say more, but the grandmotherly tone of
> your post precludes and intelligent discussion on the matter. Have a
> fabulous life, and don't let those obnoxious ruffians upset your hair too
> much...
And I would say more, but the childish ignorance of your own post
precludes it. Maybe you should try answering my questions, rather than
attacking me personally. Let me repeat them:
"What artists do graffitti painters draw from for inspiration? What
connects graffiti with the broader issues of modern art and painting
generally? What influence is there from modern painting on graffitti
painting, and vice versa?"
--
ShivaStar6
>Frequently I chased away painters, and brought out the can of that
>wonderfully awful color of 'chapparal brown' and started painting >over
>these graffittis right in front of the eyes of the creators. And I often
>chased away painters just as they were beginning to paint.
Pardon me, but i notice a definitely hysterical glee brought on when you
recount this experience. I won't go into the Facist implications of not
only your actions but your attitude when doing so--suffice to say, when a
tagger runs into your studio one day and carves his name all over your
precious canvases, i hope he hacks into USENET and shows as much relish as
you do.
>The most
>frequent objection I heard was "You're stifling my free speech, this >is
>ART!" If I ever heard someone offer their opinion that graffitti was
>art,
>I would ask them how it was art. The usual explanation was >"Because I'm
an
>artist".. I would redirect the question to the specifics of the >artwork
>in question.. I asked them to explain which artists they drew from >for
>inspiration, and what specific ways their painting connected with >the
>broader issues of painting, or if they even knew any of the broader
>issues
>of painting at all. I offered to leave their graffiti intact, even
>protect
>it, if they could come up with even a semi-coherent answer to those
>questions. Of course, nobody could even name one artist, or come up >with
>any answers.
DUH! Of course, most of the taggers on the street have never had the
benefits of mom & daddy stockbroker whittling away their money on their
secondary education--does this mean that what they do isn't art? The idea
that someone who at point-blank range cannot rattle off names by someone
who has obviously shown no understanding or remorse for what they do--the
idea that this person does not, therefore, fit in with your infinitely
narrow definitions of "artist" (obviously brought about in the academy) is
preposterous. Methinks the reason you harbor these prejudices is not
because of some philosophical point, but simple vanity...
>> I can only assume by your wonderfully narrow post that your viewpoint
of
>> art & artists does not go beyond the distinction of canvases and
drawing
>> rooms in midtown lofts.
>Hey, some of my favorite artists started as vandalizing taggers, like
>Basquiat or Futura 2000 for example. But vandalism is vandalism. I >don't
>consider what they did on the sides of a NYC subway to be art, and I
>don't
>think they did either. At least they matured and began to become
>knowledgable about the real issues of painting.
And what are these "real issues" of painting? How to simultaneously bore
an entire room of very miserable, very wealthy people with art gouged into
their brains with the same, tired mediums we have been using for hundreds
of years? You claim that i skirt the issue--here i am, answering every
single one of your tired philosophical imaginings... What are the "real
issues" of painting? (i ask this question the same way you ask yours--as
if life were an essay contest!)
>> ..I would say more, but the grandmotherly tone of
>> your post precludes and intelligent discussion on the matter. Have >>a
>> fabulous life, and don't let those obnoxious ruffians upset your hair
>>too
>> much...
>And I would say more, but the childish ignorance of your own post
>precludes it. Maybe you should try answering my questions, rather >than
>attacking me personally. Let me repeat them:
>"What artists do graffitti painters draw from for inspiration? What
>connects graffiti with the broader issues of modern art and painting
>generally? What influence is there from modern painting on graffitti
>painting, and vice versa?"
1. An artist does not have to draw inspiration from a forebearer to gain
legitimacy for his work. But most of the people i knew who tagged with
the can drew on artists that were not taught to you in your early years,
so you wouldn't know them anyway--people like Upingin, Darque, and Quel...
Sound familiar? Didn't think so...
2. Since when does a work of art have to redirect it's umbilicus back
into the "broader issues of art" to begin with? If you wish to find a
context for a work of art, that is a purely critical perogative... You
base this and all of your opinions on taggers, those obnoxious imbeciles,
based on what was practically an interogation of them! If your definition
of "art" had a little less sacredness to it... Perhaps if you knew the
conditions that most taggers lived under, and compared them to your
white-bread philosophizing, you would not be so quick to throw stones...
This question i find inadequate, because you have assumed that a work of
art must by definition exist in the context of art. Many of your friends
might find no problems with your assumption, but i do... First and
foremost, it precludes most experiments with new mediums. How can an
artist find a truly new & original path for himself if the old ladies of
the art world like yourself are constantly requiring him to qualify
himself?
3. With your question about "the influence" of tagging on modern art, you
are obviously looking for the validation of this art genre in it's
adoption and thus sanctioning in the "real art" world--tagging on a
canvas, basically... Perhaps if you would close the book on Rembrandt for
a moment and actually *listen* to taggers talk--rather than giving them a
second-rate interogation learned out of a Charles Bronson film--you
wouldn't ask such sophomoric Art School questions. Bad art done under the
influence of Braque or Gris is still bad art, mon frere...
Salut--your questions are obviously so textbook, so outside-looking-in,
that their ain't a whole lot further that this can go... I've done my
best to identify all that you asked, but have major philosophical
differences with your view & definition of "art" as something a.) that
must by necessity have a long line of names behind it to give it validity
(a lot like a job resume!) and b.) must "connect with the broader issues
of art"--however the hell that is supposed to be taken... I work as a
composer, and in my field, i have never once been asked or have answered
"you see, monsieur, it is a connection to the broader issues of art!
Don't you see?" That kind of ideological crap is simply a critic's column
fodder...
Ni-night...
Cali Ruchala
Ima Dillo
>"What artists do graffitti painters draw from for inspiration? What
>connects graffiti with the broader issues of modern art and painting
>generally? What influence is there from modern painting on graffitti
>painting, and vice versa?"
I hardly think that any artist must answer to the questions you ask
in order to be considered an artist. In my own experience, I did not
ask myself, nor did anyone else ask me these types of questions.
I created art, sold it as art, and called myself an artist and no one
ever questioned my credentials--which at the time amounted to
a hobby interest in art. Only later, when I was in an academic
setting pursuing degrees in art were such questions raised.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Painting center lines--sign painting, graffiti, art, or ????
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ima Dillo
(All of your quite eloquent rebuttal clipped)
>Ni-night...
>Cali Ruchala
It comes down to the simple fact that ART will out.
ART speaks for itself. The ARTIST is the creator,
no matter the form the ART takes. Where some
see chicken-scrawl, others see a masterpiece.
Where some see a masterpiece, others see a
boring academic exercise. And where some see
graffiti as vandalism, many see ART. But regardless,
if it's MY wall you are hanging, painting, scratching,
carving your art on, you had better have MY PERMISSION.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Running with a bucket of paint in my claws.
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mark hamilton
> I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
> think should not be missed?
It is understood that in most communities that a mural is acceptable art
whereas graffitti is not and becomes subject to whitewash treatment at
most city councils.
The big question should be addressed - What is graffitti and what is a mural?
I've found most people consider writing slang and obscenities to be
graffitti. Some also consider gang signatures to be graffitti but they
fail to see it's shading and brilliant colour as an art form. How about
cartoon characters? Some would say sure as long as there are no sexual
organs showing.
I was recently hired to paint over some 'graffitti' that was done on some
hoarding at a construction site. Instead of refusing because of my respect
to all artists I accepted the challenge and incorporated the graffitti
into something that the construction company would find pleasing.
A muralist friend of mine told me that there is an unwritten law between
graffitti/mural artists. You never paint over someone elses work unless
you can do better.
I happen to think anything is better than a blank wall. Every little spray
painted stroke becomes a message from the person who srayed it there to
the society in which he or she lives. Whether that message be good or bad
is in the eyes of the beholder. The important thing is that people have
freedom of speech or in this case freedom of art.
--
mark hamilton
"The powerful places are along the edges" Barry Lopez
James Rowell
mar...@axionet.com (mark hamilton) writes:
>
> A muralist friend of mine told me that there is an unwritten law between
> graffitti/mural artists. You never paint over someone elses work unless
> you can do better.
>
> I happen to think anything is better than a blank wall. Every little spray
> the society in which he or she lives. Whether that message be good or bad
> is in the eyes of the beholder. The important thing is that people have
> freedom of speech or in this case freedom of art.
Interesting and excellent points.
I believe the strongest argument anyone has make to show that what
graffitti artists/taggers do is "wrong" is to suggest that they don't
have the permission of the "owners" of the wall.
I understand where this argument is coming from. I believe the folks
who have put forth these views live in America, the land ruled by those
who "own" it (basic premise of the "founding fathers" and the reason for
the "revolutionary war" against England many years back). Rules are made
up to protect owner's "rights"; this is unquestioned by most Americans.
Taggers and graffitti artists are typically from the lower income sector
of our economy. Typically these people are NOT land or property owners,
nor is it likely that many of them will be. Many of these people (esp.
young) see how society is set up to keep them in their place, and to
keep the rich and powerful in their place. It's not a pretty picture.
I consider *part* of what taggers and graffitti artists do is to help
bring into question the whole notion of ownership of public spaces.
For example, billboards full of advertising clutter up the streets
and public spaces. Did anybody ever go into the ghetto to see if
they wanted billboards there advertising cigarettes? I doubt it.
Taxes and public money, if not profit gained at the hands of these
people, paid for many of the surfaces the taggers and graffitti artist
use. Just because "Mediacom" has powerful corporations behind it, teams
of lawyers and might happen to "own" the land that the billboards
occupy, does that somehow justify them to be able to cram your vision
with trivial products any more than the tagger who is letting the
world know that he/she simply exists?!
One might argue that the tagger could destroy the integrity of some
architectural masterpiece, well, as Mark points out, the unwritten
law is that you don't paint over someone else's work unless you can
do better. Perhaps if there were more respect paid to graffitti artists
and taggers (in recognition of their needs) they in turn would respect
something like an architectural masterpiece.
...anyway, there's much more I'd like to say, but I'm afraid that
I'm going to raise enough hackles as it is...
James.
Charles Eicher
Dillo) wrote:
> In article <ceicher-2801...@ceicher.inav.net>, cei...@inav.net
says...
>
> >"What artists do graffitti painters draw from for inspiration? What
> >connects graffiti with the broader issues of modern art and painting
> >generally? What influence is there from modern painting on graffitti
> >painting, and vice versa?"
>
> I hardly think that any artist must answer to the questions you ask
> in order to be considered an artist. In my own experience, I did not
> ask myself, nor did anyone else ask me these types of questions.
Well, excuse me, but they do if they want to paint huge murals on my wall,
which I thought looked fine in the white color I'd already painted it. You
yourself demanded that people get your permission if they wanted to paint
on your wall, I thought my questions (and the subsequent permission I
would have granted) were a generous concession to anyone who wanted to
call themselves an artist. I didn't demand GOOD answers, just ANY answers.
I never got ANY answers. Perhaps if even ONE graffitti painter had come up
with an answer like that person posted, I would even have encouraged them,
and protected their work. But nobody even tried. Even now, all I get is
the same lame BS like the both of you are now spouting, the immaculate
concept that sprung forth fully developed from a naive, yet worthy of
consideration of art. I don't buy the outsider art premise.
> I created art, sold it as art, and called myself an artist and no one
> ever questioned my credentials--which at the time amounted to
> a hobby interest in art.
Yeah, and people hang their little kindergartner's crayon drawings on
their fridge, but they don't call it art.
> Only later, when I was in an academic
> setting pursuing degrees in art were such questions raised.
Even as an amateur, I'm positive that you were thinking about these
questions, even if you hadn't formally dealt with the questions in that
format. If you weren't, you couldn't have become an artist. The aesthetic
choices you made didn't come from out of thin air.
MaB
line between "vandalism" (under the law) and "art." A different aesthetic
emerged. I remember riding the subways in New York and discovering Keith
Haring for the first time before his work started showing up in
galleries. I remember people buying Levi denim jackets and taking them to
graffitti artists in the Bronx and Brooklyn where they'd spray paint these
"Enter the Dragon" type tigers and designer emblems.
Now I see more and more "tagging," and more city murals defaced with quick
sprays from the can. I suppose some of the motivation behind tagging is
to mark your place, establish territory, leave something behind that says
"I was here." Everyone wants a legacy of some sort. Tagging also has its
own set of rules and codes, i.e. you don't tag over another tag unless
you're ready to throw down and get "smoked."
All in all, I haven't seen much graffitti lately where someone obviously
took time and effort to make an urban splash. Maybe I'm looking in all
the wrong places. They've cleaned up most of the subways.
ShivaStar6
said:-
>>Imadillo said:-
>> I hardly think that any artist must answer to the questions you ask
>> in order to be considered an artist. In my own experience, I did not
>> ask myself, nor did anyone else ask me these types of questions.
> I thought my questions (and the subsequent permission I
>would have granted) were a generous concession to anyone who >wanted to
>call themselves an artist. I didn't demand GOOD answers, just ANY
>answers.
>I never got ANY answers.
Again, it might just maybe have something to do with your tone, Sir...
>Perhaps if even ONE graffitti painter had come up
>with an answer like that person posted, I would even have >encouraged
them,
>and protected their work. But nobody even tried. Even now, all I get >is
>the same lame BS like the both of you are now spouting, the >immaculate
>concept that sprung forth fully developed from a naive, yet worthy >of
>consideration of art. I don't buy the outsider art premise.
Geez, schizo to the nth degree! On one hand, i guess i'm that "person"
that posted the answer that would have made you protect my work--and then
my answer is "BS". Okay... And second of all, i don't believe i ever
insisted that tagging, graffiti art--or any kind of art, for that
matter--was "immaculate"... I do believe the majority of my post
addressed--and attempted to refute--the "sacredness" that YOU tend to tie
to "academic" art. After the passage quoted above, i do believe you
should get on with your REAL life's work, Sir. If you can take what Ima
Dillo and i said and turn it into the statements you allege us to have
made, you truly would shine in the field of propaganda and hyperbole, if i
say so myself...!
>> I created art, sold it as art, and called myself an artist and no one
>> ever questioned my credentials--which at the time amounted to
>> a hobby interest in art.
>Yeah, and people hang their little kindergartner's crayon drawings >on
>their fridge, but they don't call it art.
This is not even funny sarcasm--it's just plain below-the-belt snobbism.
I certainly hope that your flamingly bad taste in a joke wasn't aimed at
Ima Dillo his/herself... If it was, you've automatically discredited
yourself beyond the level of old-lady-of-the-ivory-tower that i held you
to be... You're just a piece of trash...
>> Only later, when I was in an academic
>> setting pursuing degrees in art were such questions raised.
>Even as an amateur, I'm positive that you were thinking about these
>questions, even if you hadn't formally dealt with the questions in >that
>format. If you weren't, you couldn't have become an artist. The
>aesthetic
>choices you made didn't come from out of thin air.
Wow, Mr. Eicher is a psychologist too! Here Ima Dillo says one thing, but
Chuck insists she means another! Really reading between the lines, i'd
say...
Like it or not, most "artists" i have met--using your narrow definition
and omitting those ruffians who scare you--do not find the need to
constantly use their influences as their credentials;-instead, they use
their work. If you don't like the tagging & urban murals that you've
seen... fine. If you're rather mean-spirited interrogation of some folks
tagging in your alleyway didn't give you the answers you so definitely
sought... cool. But i've never been fond of Impressionism myself. And
as much as i don't it, i wouldn't think of condemning everyone who has
ever in their lifetimes painted in that manner as a bunch of hacks who
couldn't paint things as they saw them.
I might recommend, instead of this line of attack that you jump on Mani
Deli's bandwagon & make a few triumphant affirmations on his
self-perpetuating "no Skill no Art" thread... It seems that that's
exactly where your post belongs...
A savage who thinks he can compose,
Cali Ruchala
Charles Eicher
(ShivaStar6) wrote:
> Geez, schizo to the nth degree! On one hand, i guess i'm that "person"
> that posted the answer that would have made you protect my work--and then
> my answer is "BS". Okay...
Yep, your answer was pure BS, but I probably would have accepted it under
the circumstances I gave. I didn't say it had to be a GOOD answer, nor my
preferred answer. I'm open to new ideas, too bad these people didn't have
ANY ideas other than 'I like to fuck up walls'...
> ..And second of all, i don't believe i ever
> insisted that tagging, graffiti art--or any kind of art, for that
> matter--was "immaculate"... I do believe the majority of my post
> addressed--and attempted to refute--the "sacredness" that YOU tend to tie
> to "academic" art.
Yes you did. You said that people came up with their graphics completely
un-influenced by other artists. Apparently you didn't get the pun on
'immaculate conceptION'..
> Like it or not, most "artists" i have met--using your narrow definition
> and omitting those ruffians who scare you--do not find the need to
> constantly use their influences as their credentials;-instead, they use
> their work.
Yes, I know. I've seen many graffiti makers who take their photo albums
everywhere they go, boring everyone with their pictures, trying to impress
people with the inaccessible places they've tagged, or the biggest
pictures they've thrown up. There was even one guy who hung out on the
street corner where I worked, he'd stand there for hours trying to get the
local highschoolers interested in his picture album. How pathetic, that
he'd need to impress little kids to get his validation.
On another note, James Rowell wrote:
> I consider *part* of what taggers and graffitti artists do is to help
> bring into question the whole notion of ownership of public spaces.
Yep, its a war out there. Unfortunately, going into a wealthy neighborhood
and fucking up some walls with graffiti doesn't even the score for those
who live in blighted neighborhoods. All it does is vent frustration, and
get some stupid 'revenge' for these imagined evils. Too bad these people
don't use that energy to do something positive in their immediate
neighborhoods.
> For example, billboards full of advertising clutter up the streets
> and public spaces. Did anybody ever go into the ghetto to see if
> they wanted billboards there advertising cigarettes? I doubt it.
In fact, there have been several recent cases of public opposition to
advertising campaigns for cigarettes and liquor brands targeted at
minorities, ending up with the forced removal of billboards in these
lower-income neighborhoods.
ShivaStar6
>>>1. An artist does not have to draw inspiration from a forebearer >>>to
gain
>>>legitimacy for his work. But most of the people i knew who >>>tagged
with
>>>the can drew on artists that were not taught to you in your early
>>>years,
>>>so you wouldn't know them anyway--people like Upingin, Darque, >>>and
Quel...
>>> Sound familiar? Didn't think so...
Chuck Eicher said that i insisted taggers drew with no influences, that it
was some sort of "immaculate conception"...
So i said:-
>> ..And second of all, i don't believe i ever
>> insisted that tagging, graffiti art--or any kind of art, for that
>> matter--was "immaculate"... I do believe the majority of my post
>> addressed--and attempted to refute--the "sacredness" that YOU tend to
tie
>> to "academic" art.
And Chuck said:-
>Yes you did. You said that people came up with their graphics >completely
>un-influenced by other artists. Apparently you didn't get the pun on
>'immaculate conceptION'..
Okay Chuck, what part of this didn't you understand? I simply said that
an artist didn't need to catalog his influences to gain legitimacy... You
are obviously so hell-bent on your own righteousness on this issue that
you'd go to any length to justify it... Move on!
Mani Deli is calling you, Chuck...
Cali Ruchala
dyk...@bvu.edu
referred to it as, "Fools names like fools faces, always appear in public
places". Admittedly simplistic in it condemnation of such activities, but
this was 45 years ago.
Dennis L. Dykema
Monkey
: I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
: think should not be missed?
You might want to check with the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco.
They did a show in 1978 called Aesthetics of Graffiti, the catalogue of
which includes an essay called Handwriting on the Wall which looks at
graffiti as acts of ownership and magick, which goes all the way back to
Alta Mira cave and tracks the split in art between sacred and bog-house,
and is generally outrageous and comprehensive. Not that the essay is
necessarily "TRUTH" but could be quite useful for your seminar.
Monkey
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it."
George Bernard Shaw
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ima Dillo
>You might want to check with the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco.
>They did a show in 1978 called Aesthetics of Graffiti, the catalogue of
>which includes an essay called Handwriting on the Wall which looks at
>graffiti as acts of ownership and magick, which goes all the way back to
>Alta Mira cave and tracks the split in art between sacred and bog-house,
>and is generally outrageous and comprehensive.
Those detractors of today's graffiti artists can't seem to recognize that
graffiti is as old as mankind--uh, peoplekind to be PC. Anyhow, I remember
a little character named Kilroy from WWII days. "Kilroy was here" and the
little cartoon character that became famous was someone's creation, and
became probably the most widely copied graffiti character in history. It
was almost like a cult that went on for many years.
When I was young, I used to enjoy trips into the desert where I knew
petroglyphs and pictographs could be found. Most of these have been
destroyed by vandals long ago. But it points out that we all are
predisposed to want to make marks for whatever reason. Maybe it's
some latent animal instinct like dogs and other animals who pee on
everything to mark the boundaries of their territory. Ima Dillo.
Ingrid Good
: > I have to give a talk on graffitti and murals. What points do you all
: > think should not be missed?
: Specifically, you should not miss out purchasing liability insurance for
: yourself.
: I vividly recall a graffiti 'expo' given a few years back at Raleigh
: Studios in Hollywood. Graffiti artists were invited to come and bring
: their paint, but they were specifically told that they should NOT tag
: anywhere around the studio, they'd be given huge canvases inside the
: studio if they wanted to paint. Of course, these miscreants couldn't
: contain themselves, and tagged all over the outside of the studio, right
: out on hollywood boulevard. The organizers got stuck with a big cleanup
: bill.
: If you talk on this subject, you're going to attract taggers who are
: anxious to attend any event that legitimizes their vandalism as 'art'..
: And inevitably, you'll find a whole bunch of new graffitti after they
: leave.
: Let me give another example. Everyone in LA knows about 'Chaka', the most
: prolific tagger in LA history. Someone estimated he did something like
: 250,000 tags all over LA county, he used to steal spray paint by the case
: to keep tagging.. The LAPD definitely considered him a public menace, and
: spent more than the usual amount of effort to catch him. When finally got
: caught, he turned into somewhat of a cause celebre. Someone arranged a
: full-tuition scholarship to one of the more prestigious LA art schools.
: The judge agreed to dismiss most of the charges, and sentenced him to
: probation on the condition that he attend art school, and never tag again.
: Of course, he couldn't resist. On his way out of the courtroom, he carved
: his tag on the wall of the court building's elevator. He was put back in
: jail immediately. Good riddance.
: One final story: I used to work at a graphics bureau on Melrose Blvd,
: right across from a high-school. We had a lot of trouble cleaning up after
: graffitti vandalism. We used to go outside in the back alley to take our
: smoke breaks, and we had a lot of gang-wannabees threatening us to stay
: out of our own alley, the taggers claimed it was their turf. We used to
: paint over the alley nearly every day. But even worse, there was an
: abandoned storefront next to us, it was a favorite target for taggers with
: diamond-tip scribers. In case you haven't heard of this, it is a common
: practice for taggers to carry around diamond-tip glass-cutters, or
: 'scribers' to carve their initials quickly into glass and steel surfaces.
: Well, this particular storefront had so many tags carved into its window,
: it was almost like looking through wax paper. One day, we had a client
: walking out of our store, carrying his expensive hard drive back to his
: car. Suddenly, the city bus came, and the local highschool students rushed
: towards it to get onboard. One of them pushed against him, and he fell
: backwards against the plate-glass window. The window shattered, it was so
: fragile from the thousands of scribings, that it immediately broke into
: jagged pieces. The poor fellow was cut to shreds. He came stumbling back
: into our shop, covered with blood, and could barely croak out 'Help!'.. We
: called an ambulance, and he survived, but barely (he'd got a cut on his
: carotid artery, and lost a TON of blood). And of course, he dropped his
: $2000 hard drive, which someone stole.
: Graffitti is a menace to the public safety. Graffitti makers should be
: locked up. Graffitti is NOT art.
: ----------------
: Charles Eicher
: cei...@inav.net
: ----------------
Hey you! Don't blame some guy getting pushed on taggers. Anyway,it
sounds like your condemning all teenagers.
.
Phive
kid.
phiver