Graffiti in Harolds cross

irishguy

I have noticed of late loads of Graffiti, spray painting on walls etc all around Harolds cross/Canal/Rathmines seems to be the same people. Its really anoying and destroys the area and there doesnt seem to be much we can do about it

Any ideas?

cosmic

If you're that concerned you could arrange some sort of community clean up. Spend your weekends scrubbing the walls and all that. I'm not sure if you'd have many joining you though!

chin_grin

http://www.letscolour.ie/

ErinGoBrath

Did you see some fool sprayed 'No to the queens visit' in large red letters on the underside of the Luas bridge across from the Hilton.

Really embarrassing.

Nolanger

ErinGoBrath wrote: »

Really embarrassing.

Yep, imagine omitting that apostrophe?

Gavin "shels"

ErinGoBrath wrote: »

Did you see some fool sprayed 'No to the queens visit' in large red letters on the underside of the Luas bridge across from the Hilton.

Really embarrassing.

There was a few down at Fatima Luas stop but they keep being cleaned off.

briano.de.rhino

theres a lot of people think public walls are fair game.(private property is a no-no.)
if it was legal, the graffiti wouldnt look as bad as it is. People would spend more time at their art without looking over their shoulder, and would do it in daylight, which is a must for any artist.
My only gripe is the broken window effect that graffiti possibly has.(you know, the theory that if u dont fix broken windows, then the populace dont bother taking care of their community and crime rises)

Its not going away and never will go away.
its like the war on drugs. our country needs to engage the segment of society who wishes to spraypaint publicly and come to an agreement.

I think.

JuliusCaesar

briano.de.rhino wrote: »

if it was legal, the graffiti wouldnt look as bad as it is. People would spend more time at their art without looking over their shoulder, and would do it in daylight, which is a must for any artist.....our country needs to engage the segment of society who wishes to spraypaint publicly and come to an agreement.

Sometimes hoardings around building sites are given over to schools or artists to paint something interesting/beautiful on, but the 'taggers' come along and paint their horrible 'I was here' graffiti. It's just the usual underclass of those who least deserve notice, demanding that their signature is everywhere.

As for the artists who do great and witty graffiti, I've no objections to them at all. There was a great one of Lenihan and Cowan as Blues Brothers on the canal near Rathmines for ages.

briano.de.rhino

Yeah I get you, but Id rather see tags everywhere than ads.( I find advertising highly offensive and invasive. I dont know why a poor kid with a spraycan has less rights than a rich guy who wants to put up pictures of semiclad women to advertise lynx deoderant or something.....oh wait, its money isnt it.)
I find tagging ok actually. I like that the person is expressing themselves, albeit not aestheically very well.
Tagging is part of a culture...its not right you criminalise that.(Id rather see another cultural phenomena, childhood indoctrination in cults,aka communion and baptism, criminalised.that'd make more sense.)
if the dialogue opened and an agreement reached where ground rules of where to tag and not tag.public walls-ok, private property-not ok.I dunno, maybe thats a pipe dream.

irishguy

briano.de.rhino wrote: »

Yeah I get you, but Id rather see tags everywhere than ads.( I find advertising highly offensive and invasive. I dont know why a poor kid with a spraycan has less rights than a rich guy who wants to put up pictures of semiclad women to advertise lynx deoderant or something.....oh wait, its money isnt it.)
I find tagging ok actually. I like that the person is expressing themselves, albeit not aestheically very well.
Tagging is part of a culture...its not right you criminalise that.(Id rather see another cultural phenomena, childhood indoctrination in cults,aka communion and baptism, criminalised.that'd make more sense.)
if the dialogue opened and an agreement reached where ground rules of where to tag and not tag.public walls-ok, private property-not ok.I dunno, maybe thats a pipe dream.

culture my hole!!! If an "artist" wants to consult the community and get planning permission for an "installation" in a suitable location then fine, but when its some idiot plastering his name over your wall then I have a problem
and if I see them do it ill kick them up and down the street and "tag" them!!!

Sorry for the rant, but I cant see how people can condone this crap.

briano.de.rhino

and right you'd be.....imagine....and on your wall!
what im condoning is merely a public dialogue to perhaps get a change in the law to give over public space to artists.(from whatever background, poor or rich)
If you are an artist the galleries have you by the balls.first of all you cant get to show ur work and when u finally get patronised by one, they dont pay you well or at all sometimes and you live in squalor.that is 90 percent of artists.
Graffiti is something special. I wont explain except to say: Just try it sometime. Pick a public wall in a rundown area, try and make it prettier. You will understand.
to make the city yours is a great feeling.creating art on local walls engages yourself with your community.sounds poncy I know but try it.

Degsy

People who write on other people's property are arseholes.."tag" this and "Art" that...do it on your own fccuking property then..not that they own anything..bunch of bedsit-dwelling scumbags.

briano.de.rhino

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaggghh
youre not listening. I totally agree with you.

Degsy

You see there's no difference between somebody who writes "wayne luvs mandy4 evir" and some dickhead spraying what he considers to be an artistic "tag" all over a wall.

Both of them are looking for attention,both of them are trying to validate their own existence and both of them are defacing somebody else's property because they think their own opinion is worthy of a public airing..sad fools.

bobbysands81

ErinGoBrath wrote: »

Did you see some fool sprayed 'No to the queens visit' in large red letters on the underside of the Luas bridge across from the Hilton.

Really embarrassing.

Not as embarrassing as folk welcoming a sexist, sectarian, inbred and anti-democratic monarchy that's costing us millions of € we just don't have.

discus

briano.de.rhino wrote: »

and right you'd be.....imagine....and on your wall!
what im condoning is merely a public dialogue to perhaps get a change in the law to give over public space to artists.(from whatever background, poor or rich)
If you are an artist the galleries have you by the balls.first of all you cant get to show ur work and when u finally get patronised by one, they dont pay you well or at all sometimes and you live in squalor.that is 90 percent of artists.
Graffiti is something special. I wont explain except to say: Just try it sometime. Pick a public wall in a rundown area, try and make it prettier. You will understand.
to make the city yours is a great feeling.creating art on local walls engages yourself with your community.sounds poncy I know but try it.

Tagging - and graffiti in general - is such a selfish practise. You've said that people should "take a wall in a rundown area, and make it pretty". Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and although you claim it helps you engage with the community, I would wager that you wouldn't do it in your own community... I'd go as far to say that if you were to consult the locals, the majority would be against it.

Here's another thing. Graffiti is synonomous with rundown areas. You don't get much or any in the richer areas of Dublin... Why do you think that any tagging is removed in these areas as soon as it's up, yet it can remain for a while up in Coolock. Why do you insist on tagging their community as "run down"? I'm sure the locals who live there would rather not have every passer by see yet another piece, proudly proclaiming that "SOME DICKHEAD GRAFFITI 'artist' CONSIDERED THIS PLACE RUNDOWN"

briano.de.rhino

settle down now.
of course they are looking for attention.
So do 'established artists'. just differently.so do you, so do i.get over it.
you're also geting very mixed up, I suggest reading the previous posts slowly-
the idea I was trying to get across is about legal, public wall as opposed to private walls.....

ok thats it....I am unfollowing this ****e.theres nothing as sad as internet bickering.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Any of it any good?

discus

Nothing worse that walking my route to the bus stop only to have senseless black scribble, after senseless scribble on top of a wall over 100 years old, with it's original colour ruined forever. Nothing worse than another "piece" on a public wall in the phoenix park, done by an... ahem, artist... to the appreciation of a tiny minority, and the disdain of the rest.

And yes, they do it for attention. But most other artists don't force art upon us.

Degsy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Any of it any good?

No..how can it be?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Degsy wrote: »

No..how can it be?

You know what I mean (for the record, I'm not talking about the quick marker scrawls that show up everywhere... if that's what you're talking about, fair enough)

bodice ripper

Degsy wrote: »

No..how can it be?

stick you head into the tivoli car park if you get the chance

ErinGoBrath

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Not as embarrassing as folk welcoming a sexist, sectarian, inbred and anti-democratic monarchy that's costing us millions of € we just don't have.

That your opinion, not mine.

Japer

discus wrote: »

Nothing worse that walking my route to the bus stop only to have senseless black scribble, after senseless scribble on top of a wall over 100 years old, with it's original colour ruined forever. Nothing worse than another "piece" on a public wall in the phoenix park, done by an... ahem, artist... to the appreciation of a tiny minority, and the disdain of the rest.

And yes, they do it for attention. But most other artists don't force art upon us.

+1. Graffiti is vandalism of other peoples property, and an eyesore.

eamonhonda

discus wrote: »

Nothing worse that walking my route to the bus stop only to have senseless black scribble, after senseless scribble on top of a wall over 100 years old, with it's original colour ruined forever. Nothing worse than another "piece" on a public wall in the phoenix park, done by an... ahem, artist... to the appreciation of a tiny minority, and the disdain of the rest.

And yes, they do it for attention. But most other artists don't force art upon us.

i dont disagree with your point about some of the senseless scribbles on old walls, however other artists dont force art upon us but we are forced everyday to look at advertisements from big companies everywhere we look.

wild_cat

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Sometimes hoardings around building sites are given over to schools.

Personally I think that some of those "murals" created by school children look worse than a badly done throw up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eamonhonda wrote: »

i dont disagree with your point about some of the senseless scribbles on old walls, however other artists dont force art upon us but we are forced everyday to look at advertisements from big companies everywhere we look.

I believe the correct term is Brandalism.:D

Degsy

wild_cat wrote: »

Personally I think that some of those "murals" created by school children look worse than a badly done throw up.

Yes well they are children....and they're permitted to do it.

Maybe the "throw up" people should concentrate on defacing thier parents property with thier art and leave the public areas alone?

Graffiti "artists" are the scum of the earth.

wild_cat

Degsy wrote: »

Yes well they are children....and they're permitted to do it.

Maybe the "throw up" people should concentrate on defacing thier parents property with thier art and leave the public areas alone?

Graffiti "artists" are the scum of the earth.

I didn't condone it. I think its all ugly but I find those murals are even worse.

later12

Degsy wrote: »

Graffiti "artists" are the scum of the earth.

There is a lot of competition for that title, and it is awarded pretty liberally on these boards. Would you say that a graffiti artist who captures the world's attention with human rights issues such as those works he painted on the Israeli wall is 'scum of the earth' as well?




Or some works by men like Maser in Dublin which raises social issues

malo

" difference between graffiti and art is permission "