Found a shot of Richard's Lemmings Graffiti!

[nomix]

There is no difference if it's illegal.

Well, both driving to fast and shooting a cop in the head is illegal. You would still say there's a difference, a big difference.

you sure are a grumpy old man for a 23 year old :lol:

I'm 19 and a GOM.

Errr, why? If you mean coz guns are illegal here, stabbing people isn't exactly welcome either...

No, because when people are killed with a weapon in the US, they use guns, and when people are killed with a weapon in the UK, they are stabbed. Generally, exceptions do exist, but that's the norm.

Further, I wouldn't say it's welcome to shoot a tagger through the head in any US state.

 

[Blythy]

I like some graffiti, not some idiot's initials, but interesting stuff like the ones posted above that can brighten up a dull day. There's one in a town near me, that's been around forever. Nobody's got rid of it.
http://img404.imageshack.**/img404/8199/timexm9.jpg

where's the flux capacitor?

 

[TC]

Well, both driving to fast and shooting a cop in the head is illegal. You would still say there's a difference, a big difference.

For the third time, I'm talking about the difference between graffiti and tagging.

It's like shooting a cop in the head, compared to shooting him 12 times in the chest.

 

[Blind_Io]

No, because when people are killed with a weapon in the US, they use guns, and when people are killed with a weapon in the UK, they are stabbed. Generally, exceptions do exist, but that's the norm.

Further, I wouldn't say it's welcome to shoot a tagger through the head in any US state.

Umm, Bullshit much? Gimmie a break, I don't even know how to respond to a comment that asinine.

Oh, and in some states vandalism is considered trespassing and the property owner is allowed to defend his property with force - including firearms. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it happens frequently. No law-abiding citizen wants to shoot someone - especially since shooting a tagger would result in charges, having to hire a lawyer and defend one's self. But the threat of an angry store owner showing up with a 12 gauge pump is enough to discourage vandalism in some areas.

it takes about the same amount of time to fix and doesn't cause any permanent damage, it's only a temporary cosmetic change in something.

[YOUTUBE]yB1vLTuqNBw[/YOUTUBE]

actually it does matter, because taggers don't get any respect in graffiti circles.

Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! Unless they are using water soluble Crayola rattle cans the paint has to be taken off with either abrasives or solvents, both of which can damage the surface underneath. While the graffiti may be removed, the cleaning process frequently destroys painted surfaces (like trains), or permanently scores acrylic or plastics (like train windows). Even concrete can be harmed. Many concrete surfaces are sealed to protect the structure from the elements and the cleaning process damages that protective coating - which can cost thousands to repair. The damage is also cumulative, resulting in permanent discoloration of walls and structures. Saying that "taggers" don't get any respect in "graffiti circles" is the same as saying child molesters have to be housed separately from murders in prison. Because one criminal group doesn't respect another does not make either ok.

This blows my mind. How can any of you people be defending these vandals as "artists" I don't care if their defacement is "artistic" or not. That elevator door bit isn't funny, I see a crude drawing that will take hours to clean off and probably permanently damage the finish on the doors.

I think it's artistic to draw pictures of trees on cars - how would you like it if I took a sharpie to your hood and doors? I can defend it as being artistic but at the end of the day it's not my car to deface.

Think about it before you defend these people. This is someone else's property, something they have worked long and hard to get for themselves and some punk with a rattle can decides that it would make an ideal canvas for his "artistic expression." Horseshit. Shit by any other name still stinks. If you want to express yourself then sell your work, offer your talent painting murals in parks - they do pay artists for that.

I don't know how many ways I can say it. My destroying your property in the name of "art" is legally and morally wrong. Period. End of Line.

 

[wooflepoof]

Umm, Bullshit much? Gimmie a break, I don't even know how to respond to a comment that asinine.

Oh, and in some states vandalism is considered trespassing and the property owner is allowed to defend his property with force - including firearms. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it happens frequently. No law-abiding citizen wants to shoot someone - especially since shooting a tagger would result in charges, having to hire a lawyer and defend one's self. But the threat of an angry store owner showing up with a 12 gauge pump is enough to discourage vandalism in some areas.

This blows my mind. How can any of you people be defending these vandals as "artists" I don't care if their defacement is "artistic" or not. That elevator door bit isn't funny, I see a crude drawing that will take hours to clean off and probably permanently damage the finish on the doors.

I think it's artistic to draw pictures of trees on cars - how would you like it if I took a sharpie to your hood and doors? I can defend it as being artistic but at the end of the day it's not my car to deface.

Think about it before you defend these people. This is someone else's property, something they have worked long and hard to get for themselves and some punk with a rattle can decides that it would make an ideal canvas for his "artistic expression." Horseshit. Shit by any other name still stinks. If you want to express yourself then sell your work, offer your talent painting murals in parks - they do pay artists for that.

I don't know how many ways I can say it. My destroying your property in the name of "art" is legally and morally wrong. Period. End of Line.

top notch blind

 

[Donington]

No, because when people are killed with a weapon in the US, they use guns, and when people are killed with a weapon in the UK, they are stabbed. Generally, exceptions do exist, but that's the norm.

Ummm...no. Gun crime is big here. It's a huge problem, especially in places like Brixton and Nottingham.

More people carry guns than ever here. Except maybe for the second world war.

As for the flux capacitor? It's a tardis, so it's got Time Lord motor, suspension and shocks, and it was a model made before flux capacitors, so it'll run good on regular gas!

 

[zenkidori]

I feel like we've been here before...

Yea, paint costs money why should i have to buy paint just in case some idiot decides to draw an unwanted picture on my house or place of business? You seem to think graffiti is like a wash off tatoo on your arm. its temporary in that you can paint over it but depending on the size, it could take alot of time out of your day and to remove it costs ALOT of money on paint removers which might damage your building.

Maybe you missed this:

Now I'm not defending tagging, and there is indeed a big difference, but now that I'm basically a janitor at an amphiteatre I can tell you it's not destruction AT ALL. Graffiti of all kinds made with all kinds of materials can be removed in SECONDS without any damage to the structure at all. If you see a piece that has been in a place for a long time, the owner just doesn't care enough to remove it. getting rid of graffiti is most often done with a spray can ironically. I removed some just last night in fact. All you do is spray on some chemical, wait about 5 seconds and wipe it off, it's that easy. the chemical sprays aren't expensive either, about a buck or so more than run of the mill paint. A huge wall sized mural will take a bit more, but you'll still spend less time and money removing it than the artist did putting it there.

Oh, and in some states vandalism is considered trespassing and the property owner is allowed to defend his property with force - including firearms.

wow, that's not right at all. You damn near made my retard-o-meter explode. The only way you can expel someone with force from any property in ANY STATE is if your life or someone in your family is in immediate danger, vandalism doesn't count. You shoot someone for marking up your mailbox and you're going to jail for a long, long time smart guy.

That elevator door bit isn't funny, I see a crude drawing that will take hours to clean off and probably permanently damage the finish on the doors.

and again:

Now I'm not defending tagging, and there is indeed a big difference, but now that I'm basically a janitor at an amphiteatre I can tell you it's not destruction AT ALL. Graffiti of all kinds made with all kinds of materials can be removed in SECONDS without any damage to the structure at all. If you see a piece that has been in a place for a long time, the owner just doesn't care enough to remove it. getting rid of graffiti is most often done with a spray can ironically. I removed some just last night in fact. All you do is spray on some chemical, wait about 5 seconds and wipe it off, it's that easy. the chemical sprays aren't expensive either, about a buck or so more than run of the mill paint. A huge wall sized mural will take a bit more, but you'll still spend less time and money removing it than the artist did putting it there.

I don't know how many ways I can say it. My destroying your property in the name of "art" is legally and morally wrong. Period. End of Line.

and again:

Most of the graffiti I see is on public structures, things like overpasses, noise walls, etc. so it's the public's property. Some cities have even designated these areas to be OK for graffiti.

...its all just a little bit of history repeating

OH NOES!!!!!!

 

[wooflepoof]

What you're trying to do is justify and condone something thats illegal and wrong. I don't care how easy it comes off , PEOPLE DON'T WANT KIDS COMING ON THEIR PROPERTY TO DRAW ON IT. I don't even care if they take it off after their done. Do it on your own goddamn house then.

I removed some just last night in fact. All you do is spray on some chemical, wait about 5 seconds and wipe it off, it's that easy. the chemical sprays aren't expensive either, about a buck or so more than run of the mill paint.

I shouldn't have to fucking buy it in the first place.

 

[Blind_Io]

I didn't miss what you said. Defacement of public property is no better than defacement of private property. The state has to hire people to paint over graffiti and maintain public structures - and these structures are owned collectively by the population. No one person has the right to use them as their "canvas." What they see as artistic expression costs communities millions of dollars a year to clean up - and that money could be better spent on other projects and improvements.

You don't need to quote yourself at me, and you certainly don't need to do it twice. Right now you are just repeating something you said without ever addressing anything I said. I'm still waiting for you to explain how graffiti is any different than me taking a dump on your kitchen counter or drawing on your car with a marker.

You never mentioned what surface you used that chemical on; concrete? Steel? Glass? It makes a difference. Would you use it on your own car? Does it work on all surfaces without damaging paint or protective sealants? Will it etch plastics like acrylic windows? *shifty eyes* <whisper>Is it magic?</whisper>

I don't have a problem with designated areas for graffiti - hell, I support it! It gives artists a place to express themselves without damaging property.

You never addressed the point I have tried to make twice over. If I thought something was artistic, like drawing on your car - even if you could go buy magic fairy dust that would remove whatever I did, would it still be ok? I have used up your money buying the fairy dust, I have used up your time un-doing what I did. In psychology we have a word for that - it means someone who disregards the rights of others for his own gain or pleasure: Antisocial.

Just because you draw a distinction between "graffiti" and "tagging" does not mean the rest of us do. As near as I can tell the distinction is only aesthetic - if you find the vandalism pleasing to the eye then it's ok. If it's not then you call it "tagging." It's still vandalism. It still takes time and money to un-do and contrary to what you claim - it does cause damage.

Will your magic fairy dust remove the vandalism from that truck without harming the factory paint? The paint in the rattle-cans is made of the same basic stuff as the paint on the truck, how does the solvent know which it which? It doesn't! It will destroy the protective paint on the truck. The vandal has permanently defaced the vehicle or cost the business thousands of dollars to repair the damage. Don't pull the insurance card on me, that just spreads the cost out over more people - causing rates to go up for everyone in the area across all insurance companies. Congratulations, the vandal just victimized thousands of people with one senseless act.

I await your reply.

 

[zenkidori]

What you're trying to do is justify and condone something thats illegal and wrong. I don't care how easy it comes off , PEOPLE DON'T WANT KIDS COMING ON THEIR PROPERTY TO DRAW ON IT. I don't even care if they take it off after their done. Do it on your own goddamn house then.

check here and let me know when you find artists writing on people's houses:

artcrimes.org

What they see as artistic expression costs communities millions of dollars a year to clean up - and that money could be better spent on other projects and improvements.

Indeed, and that's why many cities have opted to allow graffiti to stay up on such structures instead of wasting time and money taking it off for no reason. Someone else is always going to come back and paint over it, even if it isn't blank. I've had people paint over my stuff, it's just what happens.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how graffiti is any different than me taking a dump on your kitchen counter or drawing on your car with a marker.

if you honestly can't see the difference then I suppose your ignorance can't be helped.

funny enough, many times on this forum people warn against the dangers of lumping many people into the same category, and yet here we are.

You never mentioned what surface you used that chemical on; concrete? Steel? Glass? It makes a difference. Would you use it on your own car? Does it work on all surfaces without damaging paint or protective sealants? Will it etch plastics like acrylic windows? *shifty eyes* <whisper>Is it magic?</whisper>

The only time I've had a problem with it is on rock, sandstone to be precise. There are two varieties, the industrial kind, which works faster but isn't safe for unsealed paint or soft plastics(it is if you wipe as you spray) and the consumer kind which takes a bit longer, but I've never seen it damage anything, paint, metal, plastic, glass, etc. but now that you've mentioned it, I'll take a can home tomorrow and try it on one of my cars

You never addressed the point I have tried to make twice over. If I thought something was artistic, like drawing on your car - even if you could go buy magic fairy dust that would remove whatever I did, would it still be ok? I have used up your money buying the fairy dust, I have used up your time un-doing what I did. In psychology we have a word for that - it means someone who disregards the rights of others for his own gain or pleasure: Antisocial.

Just because you draw a distinction between "graffiti" and "tagging" does not mean the rest of us do. As near as I can tell the distinction is only aesthetic - if you find the vandalism pleasing to the eye then it's ok. If it's not then you call it "tagging." It's still vandalism. It still takes time and money to un-do and contrary to what you claim - it does cause damage.

and that's your ignorance on the subject. taggers will write on anything, graffiti artists won't. you openly admit to not knowing or at least not seeing a difference, but yet you're confident enough to lump everyone who doesn't paint on canvas into one category.

Will your magic fairy dust remove the vandalism from that truck without harming the factory paint? The paint in the rattle-cans is made of the same basic stuff as the paint on the truck, how does the solvent know which it which? It doesn't! It will destroy the protective paint on the truck. The vandal has permanently defaced the vehicle or cost the business thousands of dollars to repair the damage. Don't pull the insurance card on me, that just spreads the cost out over more people - causing rates to go up for everyone in the area across all insurance companies. Congratulations, the vandal just victimized thousands of people with one senseless act.

I've actually removed graffiti from a trailer such as that several times, and no, there was no damage left from the solvent at all. thanks for playing.

 

[wooflepoof]

check here and let me know when you find artists writing on people's houses:

artcrimes.org

Well if these people have their own businesses to paint all over then they can be my guest, but don't do it on mine, i don't care if its my house, dumpster, back wall of my office building, or wherever

 

[TC]

Indeed, and that's why many cities have opted to allow graffiti to stay up on such structures instead of wasting time and money taking it off for no reason.

And property values plummet.

No one wants to live in a shit hole.

 

[Blind_Io]

Well, I'm very glad to hear that there are products to take the vandalism off. Could you please post the name of the product you use and the results of using it on your car? I'm sure that at some point a member's car will be vandalized and it would be good to know what to use.

Don't just point and call me ignorant. I really want to know how you reconcile the differences between graffiti and any of the things I mentioned. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't see any difference between one form of defacement and another - so enlighten us.

As for communities not cleaning up graffiti - persistence by criminals and vandals can quickly deplete the coffers. The communities might not have the money to handle all the graffiti because they have to use that money for other projects. In the mean time the neighborhoods look like crap as people's businesses and public structures are covered in layer after layer of paint. Just because the community can't afford the millions of dollars to clean it up doesn't make it ok, in fact it flies in face of everything you've been saying. Apparently graffiti is costly to clean up, or it would be coming down faster than it went up. Causing millions in damages and then pointing to the slow clean-up time is not an endorsement for the activity, it just shows how costly and time consuming it can be to un-do the vandalism.

So what is the "code of ethics" for a graffiti "artist" and what sets him apart from a "tagger?" Where do "graffiti artists" draw the line of what is "ok" to deface and what isn't? Public structures are fine? So the government has to dip into tax revenue to restore public works? That doesn't harm anyone, right? The millions spent on graffiti removal couldn't be better spent building parks or community centers, we have to use it to combat senseless vandalism. So right, no victims there.

What about vehicles belonging to companies, like the one I posted? Are those OK? So now the company has to budget money to repair it's vehicles, loosing productivity and money. If it's a small business having the delivery truck out of operation even for a few hours can result in thousands of lost revenue. So no victims there either.

One occurrence is bad enough, but you even say that if the vandalism is removed the vandal will simply put it back. I would think that aside from the obvious legal codes prohibiting graffiti, the property owner or owners taking down the vandalism would be a clear sign to the person that it's not ok to put it there. Yet, apparently that is lost on the perpetrator, who simply defaces the restored property over and over again. Where are the ethics in that?

Contrary to what you are saying, I'm not "lump[ing] everyone who doesn't paint on canvas into one category." I'm lumping everyone who defaces public or private property without permission of the owner(s) into one category. I have no problem at all with people who paint in sanctioned areas, or people who get permission (or are even *gasp* commissioned) to decorate the wall of a business, home, park, or public space. I encourage and endorse it, as I have said before. It's when those rattle cans are applied to surfaces without permission that I have a problem. It is then that "art" becomes crime and it is then that someone becomes a victim of vandalism. Just because it's not on someone's house doesn't mean it's not on someone's property. Businesses rely on maintaining a professional image; an impossible task when vandals deface the property.

Getting back to one of the first questions I asked: If I were to "improve" the aesthetic of your car for you, without your permission I bet dollars to pesos you'd be in here bitching about it. I bet that you would call your insurance company and file a claim, and I bet that you would end up paying your deductible to take the car to a shop where the work was guaranteed for life and to not harm your paint, rubber, trim or chrome.

Look, if it's urban beautification you want, I'm all for it. How hard is it to ask for permission? Contact the property owner and bring some samples of your work - let the owner have some input about what goes on the property - content, colors - that kind of thing. Let the artist take his time, during the day when others are around and can watch the mural unfold. I would love to sit for a while and watch an artist work. When it's all done, the artist can proudly sign his name to his work and let others know that what he can do for their boring walls. Who knows, he may even make a living at something that used to be done under overpasses at 2 AM.

I'm not being sarcastic, I really think this would be a good thing. I can see a business owner doing a big event on the weekends and hiring two artists to a "paint-off" - each given two days to create the best mural they can and drawing people in to see them work and vote on the winner. Everyone wins, the artists get exposure, they get validated as artists, the owner gets some great work on his property that will draw attention, the people get entertained and hopefully everyone makes a little money out of the deal. I would show up for that!

 

[otispunkmeyer]

I actually like it.
It probably helps that the inside of half our overpasses are actually set aside and legally cleared for graffiti, and some business have donated walls. It's awesome, because it means we really have no other graffiti to worry about anymore, and also it's pretty amazing what art people can come up with when they don't have to run away whenever the cops drive by.
I guess it also helps that California has so many Mexicans, the strong mural tradition helps.

i like graffitti when its done right, but not when its just rubbish like that shown in the pic. anyone can do that.

it takes a proper artist to pull of some of the amazinf graffing you see around

 

[thedguy]

I actually like it.
It probably helps that the inside of half our overpasses are actually set aside and legally cleared for graffiti, and some business have donated walls. It's awesome, because it means we really have no other graffiti to worry about anymore, and also it's pretty amazing what art people can come up with when they don't have to run away whenever the cops drive by.
I guess it also helps that California has so many Mexicans, the strong mural tradition helps.

There used to be a shop in either corona or San Bernardino that had a big problem with tagging* on one of their walls so they asked a few of the guys to paint something they'd respect on the wall, ever since no one would mess with it. Well except 1 person, who was pretty badly beaten for it, several times by rival gangs.

Personally I've grown to like some graffiti, especially if it's in places like freeway overpasses or in the Santa Ana river bed. Doing it on the side of buildings and houses is or at least can be unsightly.

* Tagging is not the same as Graffiti, tagging is (usually) just some dip shit using something like a magic marker (or a can of spray paint) to write his "name" or his "crews" name quickly on something, Graffiti is a lot more time consuming and usually art.

 

[the Interceptor]

The point I am trying to make that it actually makes no difference if we are talking about tags or graffiti. Spraying any of those on foreign property is illegal - period! Of course, I'd consider a nice graffiti on my car more beautiful than a nasty tag, but it still doesn't belong there for god's sake! And even if it comes off easily (I looked up some products, the cheapest can comes for 15 Euros (about 20$), how on earth is it on me to go and buy that, spray it on and wipe the graffiti away? Does the fact that it might have been a nice one justify that?

The same with public property, such as trains. Here also, I have seen graffitis I considered beautiful. But with the money I pay for the ticket, I pay for cleanng the damn things. And it's not like stopping to clean them is an option, is it? The train company sells the sides of their trains to companies for advertising. How would these companies keep giving the train company money, if they say:"yeah, people can't see your ads under the graffiti, but it's sooooooo much work to remove them, so we stopped doing that.".

Even if there are worse crimes than making graffitis or tagging, they remain crimes, and so it's not alright, even if "they come off easily".

 

[GraemeH]

There are a couple of shops nearby that had some scrawlings by local kids (that probably referred to themselves as "gangs") always going up on their walls. Then they got some graffiti artists to do a full size image over the whole wall. In that case it was like a beutification. I see it like a bridge nearby where the council had a mosaic "made" along the length of the wall underneath.

You can argue 'till you're blue in the face that painting anything on a public wall is illegal, that's obvious, but it's a moot argument. Morals don't follow laws, laws try to follow morals. Better to ask on an individual basis whether it was immoral or not to do something. I don't think beautifying a public wall with some of the cool art we've seen in this thread is immoral, so bugger the law in those cases. Driving 71mph on a motorway is illegal. Should you be shot in the face for doing it?

 

[nomix]

Umm, Bullshit much? Gimmie a break, I don't even know how to respond to a comment that asinine.

Oh, and in some states vandalism is considered trespassing and the property owner is allowed to defend his property with force - including firearms. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it happens frequently. No law-abiding citizen wants to shoot someone - especially since shooting a tagger would result in charges, having to hire a lawyer and defend one's self. But the threat of an angry store owner showing up with a 12 gauge pump is enough to discourage vandalism in some areas.

THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT YOU PILLOCK!

Ummm...no. Gun crime is big here. It's a huge problem, especially in places like Brixton and Nottingham.

More people carry guns than ever here. Except maybe for the second world war.

That's beside the point. Britain has always been the stabbing country in the world, sadly. Gun crime increases everywhere, but it's still more common for the average brit, og Norwegian for that matter to stab the fellow he's really angry at than to shoot him.

Edit: I stand corrected, thank you AnGuRuSO.

 

[AnGuRuSO]

THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT YOU PILLOCH!

Pillock*

 

[biddy]

where's the flux capacitor?

You punk you jsut made water shute out of my noes!!


hahaha


anyways can i nip in and ask the question that has been over looked in this thread again...


Did richard do this? or when did he mention it ( episode wise i meen i know it was in the news )

thanks