Banksy in Dublin?

Cianos

Terry wrote: »

Ilegal is irrelevant, you say/

How about you show up at my house (I'm too lazy to go anywhere) and I beat you to death with your own shoes?
I'll call it 'man beaten to death with own shoes.'

It's illegal and stuff, but I'll put an artistic name on it and then it will be cool.

Ok, that's a bit extreme and will never happen (only because I'm a pussy), but we could try something else.
How about I spray paint my name on your back?
I'll call it 'rebel gets a taste of his own medicine'.

Maybe I'll tag the wall at the front of your suburban semi.
I'll call it 'I was bored and decided to deface the front wall of someone's house'.

Putting an artistic name on vandalism kicks ass.

Edit: I'll make sure it's a nice piece of work and I hope your parents don't mind.

What you seem to be trying to say I said is that calling an illegal act art makes it ok. Maybe I'll explain it a bit clearer. The legal status of any creative process should not effect its merit as a piece of art. Art is something that can be appreciated/criticised on it's own grounds. It's called poetic license. Just because Banksy or any other talented street artists work IS technically "vandalism", does not mean they lose any relevance as pieces of art. If Da Vinci was alive today and in the middle of the night came to your house and painted an amazing mural all over your nice clean walls, yes it would be vandalism, but that does not affect the artistic merit of the piece. And yes of course you'd be within your rights to prosecute the artist. But again, doesn't make the piece any less amazing.

Kold

Also, there is a certain code of practice that you shouldn't spray private property or anywhere of particular architectural beauty. Most would heed these. Some don't.

Smellyirishman

Some graffiti is art. Banksy's stuff can be good, and things like the murals in Philidelphia.

Spraying names on walls is not art. Spraying a happy-face and your name on a wall is not art. This is the majority of the **** you see around Ireland and what most people have a problem with. Talentless bunch of attention-seekers.

Endasaurus

Had a very enjoyable flick through the guy's coffee book Wall and Piece the last day, never heard of him before but it was pretty good!


As to whether its art I couldn't care less hahaha, it just makes for a good read


I pretty much expect there to be a ton of graffitti in a town like Dublin, its what separates us from the Soviets :eek: Sure its unimaginative and crap looking but I can't imagine what the place would look like without it, gives me something to idly glance at when I'm on a Dart and it gives the 14 year olds who think its cool a giddy little thrill when they see their "tag" too.


Would still be better if they stuck to Jet Set Radio at home and left the rest of us in peace though hahahaha

CantGetNoSleep

I was in Bratislava recently and there was graffitti on almost every building, not graffitti that anyone could possibly call art, just names written with a spray can

I remember someone remarking that there must be a shortage of paper there

nannou4

chabsey wrote: »

If you're talking about morons like Grift then:

Colourful - No.
Stimulating - No.
Original - Ha, no.
Great - No.
Art - God no.
Public places - Yes, unfortunately.

Few things lower the tone of an area more comprehensively than the hasty scribblings of some backward child trying to prove themselves to their equally moronic peers.

"I wrote my name on the side of that building, I'm pretty sure that makes me cool".

Top marks you gimp.

Ever taken a dart?

nannou4

And why does everyone use grift as the example?

Gone/go is now probly twice as much around as him theese days ,

maybe because he has more style and different stlyes that your letting him off lightly but wasnt your point that vandalism is vandalism??

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

FX Meister

jackpalance wrote: »

He tagged my mates pub. He's an arsehole. So it's not "private" property. My mate still had to clean it off himself.

Could he not just get one of the lounge boys to do it instead?

Agamemnon

Kold wrote: »

It's quite simple really. Sometimes art will not cater for the lowest common denominators.

LOL, so some tosser defacing public property isn't "the lowest common denominator" and you have to be "cultured" to appreciate it?

Another thing: if public property belongs to the public, how many of them actually want to see it vandalised by some skanger with a spraycan? If people were asked to vote on whether or not public property should be defaced, you'd find that the overwhelming majority would be against it.

lostexpectation

Terry wrote: »

Ilegal is irrelevant, you say/

How about you show up at my house (I'm too lazy to go anywhere) and I beat you to death with your own shoes?
I'll call it 'man beaten to death with own shoes.'
house'.

you'll have to give an actually example of someone doing that. otherwise it didn't happen.

Degsey you completed ignored the point that commercial advertising it put up all over the place without people choices and a lot of it is illegal, on these billboards.

But then people like you are elitest people hatying snobs (constantly written walter mitty posts complaining about scumbag and how much you'd like stamp on their heads etc ) you hate creativity if it doesn't cost or get money, you claim to stick by law and order but ignore when those people writing the law ignore it themselves. You are total hypocrite.

I was watching the prog on BBC2 about the birth of hip hop and one guy pointed out that bringing speakers and turntable to park and having a jam would now be classed as anti-social behavior now while these people were actually using it to distract people from gang violence.


You still havn't said what so great about a blank wall.
I

lostexpectation

Degsy wrote: »

You stopped making sense ages ago.As i've said..i dont mind advertising a)its been paid for and b)its transitory..the same ad wont be there forever.Advertising is acceptable.Some asshole spraypainting on a wall a)hasnt been paid for and b)is likely to be there forever unless teh taxpayer pays to have it removed.Again i ask the question..if its art and not vandalism,why do the practitioners do it at night rather than in broad daylight??

There we go Degsey say illegal advertising is ok once its corporate and money has changed hands.

well we know what that makes you.

panda100

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc122/albino-pond-weed/DSC00236.jpg
So I discovered today,purely by chance whose responsible for defacing/beautifying pearse street bridge with his Madeline mc Cann prints.

I was having a look around Urban outfitters in temple bar and they are selling artwork of street artists and there was a really excellent piece of this girl with a teddy by an artist (or low life scumbag according to Degsy ) called Pi. Anyways underneath the painting it had written about the artist and said he was respnsible for the madeline mc Cann drawings at pearse street station!
Mystery solved! Pi is the Irish Banksy
http://events.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.detail&eventID=381406.08924

panda100

lostexpectation wrote: »

There we go Degsey say illegal advertising is ok once its corporate and money has changed hands.

well we know what that makes you.

Irelands next Taoiseach???

albino-pond-wee

no problem!

If you come out of trinity(near pearse street station)you turn left and head straight,keep going until you can turn left and then just walk along for a minute or two then its on your left,you cant miss it,lol

Terry

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I was in Bratislava recently and there was graffitti on almost every building, not graffitti that anyone could possibly call art, just names written with a spray can

I remember someone remarking that there must be a shortage of paper there

Lies. Damned lies.
There is no way that this oculd have happened in any country other than Ireland. Everywhere else in the world is completely scumbag free and the only vandals in the world are in Ireland.
Ask any AH regular and they will back this up, because they have all been to the tourist spots in a couple of other countries and know everything there is to know about every other country in the world and know that scumbags only exist in Ireland and that is why they are leaving this hole when they turn 16.

lostexpectation wrote: »

you'll have to give an actually example of someone doing that. otherwise it didn't happen.

You butchered my post in the quote, so I have no idea what you are getting at here.
Would you care to explain?

Kold

agamemnon wrote: »

LOL, so some tosser defacing public property isn't "the lowest common denominator" and you have to be "cultured" to appreciate it?

Another thing: if public property belongs to the public, how many of them actually want to see it vandalised by some skanger with a spraycan? If people were asked to vote on whether or not public property should be defaced, you'd find that the overwhelming majority would be against it.

I'd rather have every c*nt with an opinion spraying it everywhere than people not concerned with society's real problems. Vandalism has been around quite some time (before the Vandals even). Only after several revisions has some of it turned out to actually be quite interesting. Then a 20 year or so lull where aesthetic was the limit. Banksy has reinvented something that has been around for a while. It's witty, clever and relevant. As with all art, noone's forcing you to like it but at least try to appreciate it, I haven't been defending the destruction of useful/valuable things for street fame, I'm just saying that by labelling every form of street art (of which, some is legal) as trash you're ousting yourself as quite the ignoramus.

Terry

Kold wrote: »

I'd rather have every c*nt with an opinion spraying it everywhere than people not concerned with society's real problems. Vandalism has been around quite some time (before the Vandals even). Only after several revisions has some of it turned out to actually be quite interesting. Then a 20 year or so lull where aesthetic was the limit. Banksy has reinvented something that has been around for a while. It's witty, clever and relevant. As with all art, noone's forcing you to like it but at least try to appreciate it, I haven't been defending the destruction of useful/valuable things for street fame, I'm just saying that by labelling every form of street art (of which, some is legal) as trash you're ousting yourself as quite the ignoramus.

Similar to what I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to take a dump in your porch.
You might not like it, but it's art.
It's a statement against the lack of sanitary conditions in parts of India.

I will follow this up with a series of dumps along O'Connell street and all the major thoroughfares in Dublin and all major towns in Ireland.

You have to pay to watch while I'm taking the dump though. I'll be behind a canvas made from cow shít. No sneaking a peek.

It's loike ort, loike. You don't have to look at it, but it might offend you if you do see it.

Dyr

Kold wrote: »

you're ousting yourself as quite the ignoramus.

the ironing, oh the ironing

Agamemnon

Kold wrote: »

I'd rather have every c*nt with an opinion spraying it everywhere than people not concerned with society's real problems.

Graffiti sprayed in support of a political cause is counter-productive. People look at the graffiti and think "skanger" and, by association, the cause becomes thought of as a skanger's cause.

Terry wrote: »

Similar to what I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to take a dump in your porch.
You might not like it, but it's art.
It's a statement against the lack of sanitary conditions in parts of India.

I will follow this up with a series of dumps along O'Connell street and all the major thoroughfares in Dublin and all major towns in Ireland.

You have to pay to watch while I'm taking the dump though. I'll be behind a canvas made from cow shít. No sneaking a peek.

It's loike ort, loike. You don't have to look at it, but it might offend you if you do see it.

Go for it, you'll make a tidy sum from it. A chancer called Piero Manzoni did well from a similar scheme.

Mr.Nice Guy

Terry wrote: »

Similar to what I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to take a dump in your porch.
You might not like it, but it's art.
It's a statement against the lack of sanitary conditions in parts of India.

Someone's taking a leaf out of Randy Orton's book.

Terry

agamemnon wrote: »

Graffiti sprayed in support of a political cause is counter-productive. People look at the graffiti and think "skanger" and, by association, the cause becomes thought of as a skanger's cause.


Go for it, you'll make a tidy sum from it. A chancer called Piero Manzoni did well from a similar scheme.

Well, mine is slightly original.
It won't be in a can, but will be on the street (and Kold's porch).

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Someone's taking a leaf out of Randy Orton's book.

Orton did that?
That's news to me.
Another reason not to like him.

Mr.Nice Guy

Terry wrote: »

Orton did that?
That's news to me.
Another reason not to like him.

Well the rumour was he did it in a diva's bag as a prank. :eek:

With regards to graffiti, generally I think the only place it belongs is on the walls and doors of public toilets. Not that I've ever done it myself...

Terry

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well the rumour was he did it in a diva's bag as a prank. :eek:

With regards to graffiti, generally I think the only place it belongs is on the walls and doors of public toilets. Not that I've ever done it myself...

Oh yeah. I remember that story now.
something that happened when they were travelling outside America or something.

A friend of mine tried to do that one night.

We were all laughing too much and he couldn't do it.

Kold

Art is subject to the same laws as everyone else so I'd really have to press charges. It's not nearly as intelligent as I tend to like my art. Noone's debating whether some grafitti is illegal. I'm just saying some of it is pretty and has more right in my eyes to be there than the Lucozade adverts I pass every day.

Agamemnon, if you look down on a cause because of the class of people endorsing it then you must be a complete tool. I should hope that this isn't the case.

Oh, and for the most I don't really see many skangers making street art. Look, I'm getting some awfully retarded responses to this, you can keep sniping away but all I'm trying to say is look at the f*cking picture rather than dismissing something out of hand. Chances are the majority of you don't visit Ireland's host of galleries and even if you did, wouldn't know your arses from your elbow. This isn't pretentiousness but the way some of you talk about art, it seems like you have no respect for it whatsoever. We're talking about street art, not the scrawlings on the back of the bus. It's the difference between books and used betting slips.

Terry

Kold wrote: »

Art is subject to the same laws as everyone else so I'd really have to press charges. It's not nearly as intelligent as I tend to like my art. Noone's debating whether some grafitti is illegal. I'm just saying some of it is pretty and has more right in my eyes to be there than the Lucozade adverts I pass every day.

So you're gonna press charges on me for making some modern art?
Does that not make you one of the ignorami?

My dumps, while not pretty to the eye, will make a statement, and isn't that what art is all about?

From what I know, it's not just pretty pictures. It has a lot to do with making people think.

My pieces will make people think about the lack of proper sanitation in India and I feel that is far more helpful that a picture hastily painted on a wall.

Kold

Your ****, localised on my doorstep doesn't really hold much worth to me and I've a trained eye. If you really believe in it, I won't stop you but you can clean it up better than when you got there. I'm glad to see you're attempting to play with a little creativity but you'll really have to try harder. It's like music, some of it's awesome, most of it can f*ck off.

If Banksy pieced my wall I'd be pretty chuffed. If some kid scrawled their name on my wall I'd press charges. I've reiterated myself enough in this, your sarcasm wasn't funny to begin with and now is just getting annoying.

Terry

Kold wrote: »

Your ****, localised on my doorstep doesn't really hold much worth to me and I've a trained eye. If you really believe in it, I won't stop you but you can clean it up better than when you got there. I'm glad to see you're attempting to play with a little creativity but you'll really have to try harder. It's like music, some of it's awesome, most of it can f*ck off.

If Banksy pieced my wall I'd be pretty chuffed. If some kid scrawled their name on my wall I'd press charges. I've reiterated myself enough in this, your sarcasm wasn't funny to begin with and now is just getting annoying.

So basically what you are saying is that because of the subjective nature of art, you would take offence at me taking a dump in your porch.

You (and your trained eye) would be offended because it is not appealing to you, but a scrawl by a graffiti artist is.

you see, this is the whole arguement going on here.
A lot of people do not want to see Banksy and his ilk scrawling on walls in public places, so they are objecting to it.
You, and your pro graffiti buddies, see it as art, but are unwilling to see the viewpoint of the other side and dub them as ignorant.

What it all boils down to is that most people don't want to see public places defaced, even if it is recognised as art by some people.

Even if you personally don't recognise it, me taking a dump in your porch (and leaving it there to fester and rot) would be recognised as art by some. That doesn't make it ok for me, or banksy and his buddies, to actually do it.

Kold

He's putting positive, thought-provoking and genuinely funny pictures in mostly desolated areas. He's beating the advertisers to the punch really. He hasn't done anything to your doorstep. Society has deemed it OK to plaster the walls with private messages which I personally find disgusting but I deal with it, I just think that there are worse things to be mounting a high horse against than a funny, socially conscious picture under a smoke stained bridge.
The argument that sprung from this thread is old; is grafitti art or vandalism? Well sometimes it's one or the other, sometimes it's both. I just take exception to people saying that there is no artistic merit here. Of course there is.

Terry

Kold wrote: »

He's putting positive, thought-provoking and genuinely funny pictures in mostly desolated areas. He's beating the advertisers to the punch really. He hasn't done anything to your doorstep. Society has deemed it OK to plaster the walls with private messages which I personally find disgusting but I deal with it, I just think that there are worse things to be mounting a high horse against than a funny, socially conscious picture under a smoke stained bridge.
The argument that sprung from this thread is old; is grafitti art or vandalism? Well sometimes it's one or the other, sometimes it's both. I just take exception to people saying that there is no artistic merit here. Of course there is.

Again, subjective.

My art will bring a message to people about desolate areas.
It will show people how those living in poorer parts of India have to deal with excrement in front of them on a daily basis.

Is that not a good thing?

I take exception to you saying that my expressions are not artistic.

Stark

I think much of his art has the positive effect of making something beautiful out of someone else's defacement. Eg:




It is all subjective. You wouldn't like it if someone left a crap on the side of the street, but what if someone planted flowers or a tree? (Aside from the issue of the sap wrecking your car ). The distinction between spray painting something that most people find ugly (such as a skanger tag) and creating something that most people find appealing is important imo.

Kold

Stark wrote: »

I think much of his art has the positive effect of making something beautiful out of someone else's defacement. Eg:




It is all subjective. You wouldn't like it if someone left a crap on the side of the street, but what if someone planted flowers or a tree? (Aside from the issue of the sap wrecking your car ). The distinction between spray painting something that most people find ugly (such as a skanger tag) and creating something that most people find appealing is important imo.

The 2nd one is great, it's like a revised version of the framed "ARSE" with the invigilator next to it. Gold.

Stark

agamemnon wrote: »

Another thing: if public property belongs to the public, how many of them actually want to see it vandalised by some skanger with a spraycan? If people were asked to vote on whether or not public property should be defaced, you'd find that the overwhelming majority would be against it.

What about asking someone to choose between having a skanger deface something with a spray can or having a world renowned artist come and create a work of art? I think you'd find a lot of people would be quite favourable towards the latter.

Cianos

Terry, you're making a fair point in saying that while some people consider an act of vandalism art, it doesn't mean other people should have to put up with it. However, this is NOT being disputed. We get it. We got it a long time ago. In fact, I don't think anyone didn't get it. So you needn't hammer on about it. What I and others have been arguing, is that art exists beyond the scrutiny of legal/illegal. Yes, if you took a sh!t on someones porch, you can of course call it art if you so please. And I'm sure you would piss off as much people as you would if you sprayed their porch. But, the judgement or legitimacy of your piece should not depend on it's legality. Saying that all art should be legal is fairly stupid. Just as stupid as the views that said that Ulysses should be banned, or any other great pieces of art throughout the years. Please move on with the argument ok thanks.

Intothesea

I think property owners are likely and
more than entitled to feel any unlicenced
public art is vandalism in that it is
disrespectful to the right to maintain
visual (civic) harmony. Non-property
owners and arty types are likely to
favour the (subjective) art over the
public order issue. I'd be likely to do
that myself, if the likes of Banksy was
adding what I think is brilliantly-concieved,
situationally harmonious motifs to one of my
own walls. That probably puts me in a very
small minority. What can you do folks, each
side is right, on different bases and in
different ways.

Níl ann ach mo dhá phingin

Traumadoc

I would like to do a "Clockwork Orange" on the person who is putting his motif on the gates of all the houses in our lane, I think it could be very tastefully done

Terry

Traumadoc wrote: »

I would like to do a "Clockwork Orange" on the person who is putting his motif on the gates of all the houses in our lane, I think it could be very tastefully done

Go to a milk bar with him?

Slightly NSFW (violence) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgOirmHQGo4

Now that's art.

djDaithi

why do any of you think you have the right to decide what is, and isn't, art?

talk about full of your own importance .... jeez... :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

"Make Love, not war, Make Art, on walls"....
- Trad.

Dinter

Traumadoc wrote: »

I would like to do a "Clockwork Orange" on the person who is putting his motif on the gates of all the houses in our lane, I think it could be very tastefully done

Leave his body floating in a tank of formaldehyde and you could win the Turner prize.

Stark

djDaithi wrote: »

why do any of you think you have the right to decide what is, and isn't, art?

talk about full of your own importance .... jeez... :rolleyes:

You tell us who decide what's art then?

Degsy

Stark wrote: »

You tell us who decide what's art then?

And when he's at it,provide me with his adress so i can paint some of my own "art" on his house!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

National Art Gallery, Merrion Square, Dublin 2. I'll assume you need directions...?

Stark

Nah just send me the form I need to fill out if I want to say that I find artistic merit in something. Not saying that I should be able to impose my idea of "art" on someone else, but to sugest that someone can't say "I think that's art" without being "self important" goes against the subjective notion of art.

Kold

Stark wrote: »

You tell us who decide what's art then?

My answer to that is 'the artist'.

djDaithi

Stark wrote: »

Nah just send me the form I need to fill out if I want to say that I find artistic merit in something. Not saying that I should be able to impose my idea of "art" on someone else, but to sugest that someone can't say "I think that's art" without being "self important" goes against the subjective notion of art.

big difference between saying 'that's not art' and saying 'I find no artistic merit in it' there Stark. I'd be happy for you to express your opinion about whether you see it as good/bad art so I guess we have no argument there.

robinph

Article about a few different Banksy pieces that appeared around the UK recently on the Beeb.

...and also a handy guide on how to spot one here.

The only one of his I'm certain that I've ever actually seen is Bog Henge, but I think I must have pissed against some of his work before in the loos of a club in Bristol that I used to frequent and have since heard had a few of his pieces in.

Joe Cool

Always partial to a bit of that aerial stuff they used to do in 'Art Attack'.
Now that was art,never knew what it was until the very end. Breathtaking.
Really made you think about endless potential of the human mind.

nannou4

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

National Art Gallery, Merrion Square, Dublin 2. I'll assume you need directions...?

That Art is dead.
Who wants to look at boring pictures of trees..

Modern And Street Art Is Fresh , Daring , Challenging and far more intresting..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nannou4 wrote: »

That Art is dead.
Who wants to look at boring pictures of trees..

Modern And Street Art Is Fresh , Daring , Challenging and far more intresting..

Ah, so anything up to certain point needn't have bothered existing...? You a Chelsea fan by any chance?!

Seriously, though, I've seen classical images pop up in "modern" art repeatedly. Banksy himself hung some of his work up in London's National Gallery on the sly and got away with it.

And then there's the Mona Lisa with Smiley face.... The traditonal eighteeneth century rural landscapes, complete with sections cordoned off by police tape....

the tivoli

A piece of stencil graffiti bearing Banksy's signature logo has appeared on a wall in The Tivoli's car park.

As you come in through the gate turn to the right and follow the wall until just past ESPO's large pigeons piece. Its of a young girl reaching for a heart shaped balloon and an example can be seen on the Banksy website (In the shop section www.banksy.co.uk/shop/index.html ).

Anyone who's into Banksy's work should check it out, and if you've heard he's been in town let us know. As it is signed I'm guessing its either by him or someone taking the piss.
The carpark's full of other great graffiti, with pieces by ESPO, F13 and Jurassic5. Check them all out, Its Free!!!!