Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Banksy in Dublin?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I do lots of grafitti, mainly pictures, but messages too sometimes. I'm not very talented at all but I don't let that stop me because I consider it my right. This is a very interesting thread, and I can see both side's pov. But I'm still all for graffiti anywhere. Even those taggers like me with no talent at all who just scrawl across a wall, collectively we're all important. Because where a law that divides people's opinions (such as one stopping the right to paint messages in public space) is in existence, it is the level of the resistance and the reaction to that resistance among the public that shows if it is truly in society's best interests.
The question isn't: is it art? It's: Is it a statement? And it is. It's a sign that many people disagree with the dictate that all walls should be unimaginative monochromes or rented out to a sea of soul-destroying ads, and that enough actively disagree to make it impossible to surpress. You can only justly surpress something if there is enough public outrage for society to wish to devote enough resources to do so, and the fact that the public has no appetite for huge amounts of their tax to go to stopping graffiti shows that the will of the people has spoken. That's where all these comparisons to ****ting on people's doorsteps falls down, if there was a dedicated group of people consistently doing that the public would willingly devote resources to stop it happening. That's how we'd know it was unacceptable. But the relatively unopposed enduring resistance to anti-grafitti laws, even if you disagree with it personally, shows that this law is not clearly in society's best interests, and it angers me when the government try to tell it like it's a given that grafitti artists are anti-social scumbags when there's clear evidence that this is a contentious law.
I'm not stupid enough to think that every tagger is motivated by high minded ideals of freedom of expression in our public spaces, but even the ones who do it purely for egotism or out of boredom contribute to a very important general movement which lays the groundwork for the great works of defiance like Banksy's. The volume of their work keeps the flame of resistance burning constantly and stops the government slowly brainwashing the people into thinking that the public space is not their own. But that is our space, and everyone deserves the chance to put what they want to say there. Of course, this is far too close to activism for any government in a complacent western country to countenance. Why do you think it is that grafitting is always portrayed as synonymous with chavs and hoodies, when this is not the case at all? Because they want to play on our standards of decency and make us think graffiti art is not the actions of a reasonable person. They want to make us think graffiti is a distasteful thing which we must be protected from. They want to taint our every view of graffiti by making us think of lowlives and violence at the same time. But it won't be stopped, and we will keep a high volume of low level resistance in progress so as to nourish the culture of accepting graffiti, even in it's most inarticulate state, so that when people like Banksy come along their work can explode into public consciousness. Say there was no grafitti culture at all in the British Isles, would Banksy have been able to a) conceive his work, b) execute it and c)would the public have accepted it to the overwhelming degree they have? No, I honestly think not. So his triumph is our triumph too, and quite apart from the issues brought up by the subject of Banksy's works, his work is also important as the figurehead of a fight for one of our most important civil liberties.
To arms, brothers and sisters!!!
0 -
-
beautiation wrote: »I do lots of grafitti, mainly pictures, but messages too sometimes. I'm not very talented at all but I don't let that stop me because I consider it my right. This is a very interesting thread, and I can see both side's pov. But I'm still all for graffiti anywhere. Even those taggers like me with no talent at all who just scrawl across a wall, collectively we're all important. Because where a law that divides people's opinions (such as one stopping the right to paint messages in public space) is in existence, it is the level of the resistance and the reaction to that resistance among the public that shows if it is truly in society's best interests.
The question isn't: is it art? It's: Is it a statement? And it is. It's a sign that many people disagree with the dictate that all walls should be unimaginative monochromes or rented out to a sea of soul-destroying ads, and that enough actively disagree to make it impossible to surpress. You can only justly surpress something if there is enough public outrage for society to wish to devote enough resources to do so, and the fact that the public has no appetite for huge amounts of their tax to go to stopping graffiti shows that the will of the people has spoken. That's where all these comparisons to ****ting on people's doorsteps falls down, if there was a dedicated group of people consistently doing that the public would willingly devote resources to stop it happening. That's how we'd know it was unacceptable. But the relatively unopposed enduring resistance to anti-grafitti laws, even if you disagree with it personally, shows that this law is not clearly in society's best interests, and it angers me when the government try to tell it like it's a given that grafitti artists are anti-social scumbags when there's clear evidence that this is a contentious law.
I'm not stupid enough to think that every tagger is motivated by high minded ideals of freedom of expression in our public spaces, but even the ones who do it purely for egotism or out of boredom contribute to a very important general movement which lays the groundwork for the great works of defiance like Banksy's. The volume of their work keeps the flame of resistance burning constantly and stops the government slowly brainwashing the people into thinking that the public space is not their own. But that is our space, and everyone deserves the chance to put what they want to say there. Of course, this is far too close to activism for any government in a complacent western country to countenance. Why do you think it is that grafitting is always portrayed as synonymous with chavs and hoodies, when this is not the case at all? Because they want to play on our standards of decency and make us think graffiti art is not the actions of a reasonable person. They want to make us think graffiti is a distasteful thing which we must be protected from. They want to taint our every view of graffiti by making us think of lowlives and violence at the same time. But it won't be stopped, and we will keep a high volume of low level resistance in progress so as to nourish the culture of accepting graffiti, even in it's most inarticulate state, so that when people like Banksy come along their work can explode into public consciousness. Say there was no grafitti culture at all in the British Isles, would Banksy have been able to a) conceive his work, b) execute it and c)would the public have accepted it to the overwhelming degree they have? No, I honestly think not. So his triumph is our triumph too, and quite apart from the issues brought up by the subject of Banksy's works, his work is also important as the figurehead of a fight for one of our most important civil liberties.
To arms, brothers and sisters!!!
Everything in here is wrong in so many ways. You have no "right" whatsoever to tag or do graffiti in public places. Folk like you annoy me because you have a consistently negative impact upon the scene for the people who go about things the RIGHT way and try and get other people on our side.
You really should stop trying to justify your breaking of the law and just admit that you are breaking it. You don't see yourself as an anti social scumbag but the simple fact is that there are FAR more people who would think that you shouldn't do what you are doing than those who think you should.
You are in the minority. Even the cleverer folk among the taggers and artists can see that now. We need to do it the right way, get agreed upon places that can be worked in so that people can practice there art in a safe envirnoment and maybe someday improve.
As long as people like you do what you are doing it's just going to hold us all back. I know i for one would be happier if you would just stick to painting the back wall of your own house. 0 -
Advertisement
-
beautiation wrote: »I do lots of grafitti, mainly pictures, but messages too sometimes. I'm not very talented at all but I don't let that stop me because I consider it my right. This is a very interesting thread, and I can see both side's pov. But I'm still all for graffiti anywhere. Even those taggers like me with no talent at all who just scrawl across a wall, collectively we're all important. Because where a law that divides people's opinions (such as one stopping the right to paint messages in public space) is in existence, it is the level of the resistance and the reaction to that resistance among the public that shows if it is truly in society's best interests.
The question isn't: is it art? It's: Is it a statement? And it is. It's a sign that many people disagree with the dictate that all walls should be unimaginative monochromes or rented out to a sea of soul-destroying ads, and that enough actively disagree to make it impossible to surpress. You can only justly surpress something if there is enough public outrage for society to wish to devote enough resources to do so, and the fact that the public has no appetite for huge amounts of their tax to go to stopping graffiti shows that the will of the people has spoken. That's where all these comparisons to ****ting on people's doorsteps falls down, if there was a dedicated group of people consistently doing that the public would willingly devote resources to stop it happening. That's how we'd know it was unacceptable. But the relatively unopposed enduring resistance to anti-grafitti laws, even if you disagree with it personally, shows that this law is not clearly in society's best interests, and it angers me when the government try to tell it like it's a given that grafitti artists are anti-social scumbags when there's clear evidence that this is a contentious law.
I'm not stupid enough to think that every tagger is motivated by high minded ideals of freedom of expression in our public spaces, but even the ones who do it purely for egotism or out of boredom contribute to a very important general movement which lays the groundwork for the great works of defiance like Banksy's. The volume of their work keeps the flame of resistance burning constantly and stops the government slowly brainwashing the people into thinking that the public space is not their own. But that is our space, and everyone deserves the chance to put what they want to say there. Of course, this is far too close to activism for any government in a complacent western country to countenance. Why do you think it is that grafitting is always portrayed as synonymous with chavs and hoodies, when this is not the case at all? Because they want to play on our standards of decency and make us think graffiti art is not the actions of a reasonable person. They want to make us think graffiti is a distasteful thing which we must be protected from. They want to taint our every view of graffiti by making us think of lowlives and violence at the same time. But it won't be stopped, and we will keep a high volume of low level resistance in progress so as to nourish the culture of accepting graffiti, even in it's most inarticulate state, so that when people like Banksy come along their work can explode into public consciousness. Say there was no grafitti culture at all in the British Isles, would Banksy have been able to a) conceive his work, b) execute it and c)would the public have accepted it to the overwhelming degree they have? No, I honestly think not. So his triumph is our triumph too, and quite apart from the issues brought up by the subject of Banksy's works, his work is also important as the figurehead of a fight for one of our most important civil liberties.
To arms, brothers and sisters!!!
You've got no "right" in the world to deface anything that doesnt belong to you with your piss-poor graffiting skills.Can i paint a giant penis on your house?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Naked Lepper wrote: »Yeah we do, free world.
People like you annoy me. Bye
Come paint on my wall,the only thing you'll be getting for free is a trip in an ambulance.0 -
-
Naked Lepper wrote: »Yeah we do, free world.
People like you annoy me. Bye
It's not a free world. Far from it. You exist in a society that you demand give you things but you are willing to give nothing back. Not even the respect that you demand from other people.
From someone with the same interests in the art and aspirations as you ( i imagine ) i have to say your childish attitude comes across as both sickening and pathetic and will do nothing but damage a scene that i would LOVE to see grow within Ireland.
You are more of a hindrence than a help to your fellow taggers, walking the lamp light street with hoods up and cans in pockets, placing yourself on some kind of imaginary fringe because "society won't meet your needs". This is because you go about having your needs satisfied in the wrong manner.
It's really that simple. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. If you really cared for the scene and your fellow artists you would do it the right way, but you will go the wrong way because it's actually easier.
Don't get me wrong, when i was 14/15 i was one of those kids in my home town. The difference is that i have grown up and matured and would rather give back to the scene that take away from it.
I doubt you have any real or valid points as to why you would deface the property of someone you don't know, other than placing on them some kind of imaginary stereotype. If you can offer some valid reasons as to why you should be allowed to do this then please post them. I would be very interested to read them.
All i will say is the reason people don't like the scene is because of the way a lot of people within it act....so maybe taking a look at yourself and being honest about it will be a good way to figure out how to fix the perception people have of taggers and street artists in the public eye.;)0 -
-
-
Come paint on my wall,the only thing you'll be getting for free is a trip in an ambulance.
Oh voilence, a lovely way to speak to your fellow human, youll go far in life. (for the record, i have never painted on private property.. well not in a very long time )It's not a free world. Far from it. You exist in a society that you demand give you things but you are willing to give nothing back. Not even the respect that you demand from other people.
it is a free world as far as i can see and there not a whole lot you can do to change it
i give plenty back, i pay a lot of tax every two weeks my friend and also have respect for those who deserve it.0 -
Naked Lepper wrote: »it is a free world as far as i can see and there not a whole lot you can do to change it
i give plenty back, i pay a lot of tax every two weeks my friend and also have respect for those who deserve it.
As i said, you have a limited world view.
And stop the tax paying argument. Far more people pay tax than don't. It's a useless argument brought about by people who are reaching for straws to justify there behaviour.
"I pay tax" - it's like Godwins Law. Actually, we'll call it "the Rule of NL" - "when trying to justify unpopular behaviour the defence will always be that they pay their tax".
Sounds about right.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Naked Lepper wrote: »is that intended to patronize me? youll have to do better than that
Not at all. Most of us operate from a limited world view most of the time. It just seems that you cannot break out of yours and see how your actions might negatively impact
a) other people
b) a scene that you claim to love.
I am very interested in debating this with you as i am hugely interested in the scene itself. It seems that you would rather resort to one lines and smilies rather than give actual reasons as to why you feel what you do is okay.
"it's a free world" is not a clever or thought out response, it's a knee jerk reaction and i think you have a lot more to say than that and i would like to hear it tbh.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I am very interested in debating this with you as i am hugely interested in the scene itself. It seems that you would rather resort to one lines and smilies rather than give actual reasons as to why you feel what you do is okay.
Well I knew my message was going to be controversial - and I anticipated such messages on a forum such as boards.ie
I try not to engage in heated debates with people who instantly make voilent threats or outlandish comments such as "As i said, you have a limited world view"
You dont know me from adam so have no reason to comment on what kind of views I have.
I am a firm believer that cities without grafitti look dull and that if someone wants to leave a message or a piece of art (whether you think its art of not) then thats acceptable in my book. If you want to live your life abiding by every single law of the land then thats your own choice. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement