Three killed after being hit by a train in London.

[Moonhawk]

Resolutionary said:

Moonhawk said:

To my knowledge - Constable didn't go round adoring train carriages and motorway bridges with examples of his work though.

I heard Banksy is actually Constable. Seriously though, how is this even a comment worth making?

It was in reply to your comment about not taking umbrage with Constable's work.

I don't take umbrage at 'graffiti art'........unless its also associated with the damage of other's property. I'm sure the same is true of most people.

[Resolutionary]

loafer123 said:

Perhaps we can summarise;

Graffiti can be art if done well.

Tagging is not art and is simply vandalism.

This does work in principle, although it must be reiterated that graffiti which can be considered art can come from the very vandals who tag up the place. A venn diagram would be a great way to display such a summary.

Moonhawk said:

It was in reply to your comment about not taking umbrage with Constable's work.

I don't take umbrage at 'graffiti art'........unless its also associated with the damage of other's property. I'm sure the same is true of most people.

I said I don't rate Constable. I know many people do though. Granted, he used a canvas and the number of mediums available to artists has grown immensely since then - arguably graffiti, especially in an urban / public environment is just another demonstration of artists (self proclaimed or critically acclaimed) pushing boundaries. That's certainly the way it started out in the mid-70's.

[wisbech]

Plenty of graffiti in Pompei- so if by the 70’s you mean 70 BC then yeah.

Most of the graffiti in Persepolis is English from the 19th c, some from 20th so we have a long history of this.

[mcdjl]

Resolutionary said:

Moonhawk said:

It was in reply to your comment about not taking umbrage with Constable's work.

I don't take umbrage at 'graffiti art'........unless its also associated with the damage of other's property. I'm sure the same is true of most people.

I said I don't rate Constable. I know many people do though. Granted, he used a canvas and the number of mediums available to artists has grown immensely since then - arguably graffiti, especially in an urban / public environment is just another demonstration of artists (self proclaimed or critically acclaimed) pushing boundaries. That's certainly the way it started out in the mid-70's.

Whether you rate Constable or not he did his 'art' on canvas rather than on property that wasn't his. As a result it isn't inflicted on the innocent public who don't want to see it, or the property owners- unless they happen to pass it in a gallery on their way to something else.

In this case I've used the inverted commas around 'art' to suggest that this is a matter of opinion and open to debate.

[amusingduck]

Resolutionary said:

loafer123 said:

Perhaps we can summarise;

Graffiti can be art if done well.

Tagging is not art and is simply vandalism.

This does work in principle, although it must be reiterated that graffiti which can be considered art can come from the very vandals who tag up the place. A venn diagram would be a great way to display such a summary.

So?

Belting footballs through shop windows doesn't become acceptable because you play for the local team on the weekends.

[Resolutionary]

wisbech said:

Plenty of graffiti in Pompei- so if by the 70’s you mean 70 BC then yeah.

Most of the graffiti in Persepolis is English from the 19th c, some from 20th so we have a long history of this.

Fair point, although propelled spray paint coupled with a likelihood of a hoodie / scumbag / thug involvement in public appears to be the primary issue. History need not become pertinent.

mcdjl said:

Whether you rate Constable or not he did his 'art' on canvas rather than on property that wasn't his. As a result it isn't inflicted on the innocent public who don't want to see it, or the property owners- unless they happen to pass it in a gallery on their way to something else.

In this case I've used the inverted commas around 'art' to suggest that this is a matter of opinion and open to debate.

Another fair point, and it'd be foolish of anyone to deny the fact that graffiti is primarily found in places it shouldn't be. It is certainly all a matter of opinion and debate and while I feel some here might take my points as a personal attack, or think I'm undermining their arguments, I genuinely enjoy discourse like this - it is worthwhile and informative (to me).

[Resolutionary]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

He's a great artist but he does have a habit of tagging where he ought not to.

I get that this is polarising, but if you're lumping spray paint addicted vandals in with nonces and murderers we're back to the binary debate I thought we'd cleared a few pages ago, i.e. a crim's a crim, end of. I sure do hope you live in a glass house (and no, not so someone can vandalise it).

[Mr2Mike]

Resolutionary said:

saaby93 said:

y stuff is my stuff, your stuff is your stuff
Do what you like with your stuff, leave my stuff alone
simples

It's not 'your stuff'. It's 'our' stuff. Or are you actually a train line financier?

[

It's not "our" stuff, it's property belonging to the railway (in this instance). Claiming it belongs to everyone is trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[Resolutionary]

Mr2Mike said:

Resolutionary said:

saaby93 said:

y stuff is my stuff, your stuff is your stuff
Do what you like with your stuff, leave my stuff alone
simples

It's not 'your stuff'. It's 'our' stuff. Or are you actually a train line financier?

[

It's not "our" stuff, it's property belonging to the railway (in this instance). Claiming it belongs to everyone is trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Of course it belongs to the railway - but it's used by the public. Hence the 'our'. Would you care to confirm that Mr2Mike is wrong in his incorrect determiner, or continue burdening me with the obvious?

[popeyewhite]

Resolutionary said:

Of course it belongs to the railway - but it's used by the public. Hence the 'our'.

It's not 'our' in any sense of the word. The longer you try to justify illegal spray painting - whether you or anybody else considers it art or not - the longer you ignore the fact these individuals committed trespass in order to vandalise someone else's property. Graffiti is a scourge and is only done to draw attention to the perpetrator. A dog does this by pissing against a wall. Whilst it's very sad three lads have lost their lives in the pursuit of teenage infamy and identity, it's no different from having a daft haircut, tattoo, or growing a beard thinking people will look up to you because you're an individual.

[P5BNij]

Resolutionary said:

Of course it belongs to the railway - but it's used by the public. Hence the 'our'. Would you care to confirm that Mr2Mike is wrong in his incorrect determiner, or continue burdening me with the obvious?

It is not 'ours'. Even if it were, do you think it's right to daub mostly unreadable scrawl on it, yes or no?

[saaby93]

popeyewhite said:

Graffiti is a scourge and is only done to draw attention to the perpetrator. A dog does this by pissing against a wall. Whilst it's very sad three lads have lost their lives in the pursuit of teenage infamy and identity, it's no different from having a daft haircut, tattoo, or growing a beard thinking people will look up to you because you're an individual.

Oh - is that what it's about
Attention seeking
Well that bit worked

[Resolutionary]

popeyewhite said:

Resolutionary said:

Of course it belongs to the railway - but it's used by the public. Hence the 'our'.

It's not 'our' in any sense of the word. The longer you try to justify illegal spray painting - whether you or anybody else considers it art or not - the longer you ignore the fact these individuals committed trespass in order to vandalise someone else's property. Graffiti is a scourge and is only done to draw attention to the perpetrator. A dog does this by pissing against a wall. Whilst it's very sad three lads have lost their lives in the pursuit of teenage infamy and identity, it's no different from having a daft haircut, tattoo, or growing a beard thinking people will look up to you because you're an individual.

I don't need to justify anything - it already exists. My god this experience is so cyclical at times it hurts. No one, myself included, ignores / ignored the fact the perps trespass and vandalise - that is literally the very nature of graffiti on train lines. By it's very nature it acts as a promotional tool for those who commit the crime (see, I called it a crime, not-so-shock-horror). Why do the opposition continue to peddle such inane and obvious tripe?

It's nice to know you also have strong feelings about the appearance of strangers too. To use the current parlance, 'I bet you're fun at parties'.

[popeyewhite]

saaby93 said:

popeyewhite said:

Graffiti is a scourge and is only done to draw attention to the perpetrator. A dog does this by pissing against a wall. Whilst it's very sad three lads have lost their lives in the pursuit of teenage infamy and identity, it's no different from having a daft haircut, tattoo, or growing a beard thinking people will look up to you because you're an individual.

Oh - is that what it's about
Attention seeking
Well that bit worked

Effectively - yes it's attention seeking. And in the midst of all this there's a train driver who will have the death of these three idiots on his/her mind for the rest of his/her days. A life sentence, quite possibly a life ruined.

[popeyewhite]

Resolutionary said:

It's nice to know you also have strong feelings about the appearance of strangers too.

I've not mentioned any personal feelings, you have the wrong poster.

Resolutionary said:

To use the current parlance, 'I bet you're fun at parties'.

Yes, I've been told I am.

Not the kind of parties you'd go to I expect. But then you never know.

[untakenname]

Resolutionary said:

Got a photo?

Thought of this thread today whilst passing on the train dozens of people's homes which have been vandalised.
Took a couple of pics from the window, in the last one there was a white transit which was tagged but sadly by the time I took the pic it was just out of frame.






I live backing into railway tracks in outer London and it's not nice hearing people creeping about at night as you don't know if they are on the rob or tagging, used to live in Zone 2 and could hear people clambering on the roof to get to the adjacent buildings which used to upset my misses when she was home alone.

[Resolutionary]

popeyewhite said:

Resolutionary said:

It's nice to know you also have strong feelings about the appearance of strangers too.

I've not mentioned any personal feelings, you have the wrong poster.

Resolutionary said:

To use the current parlance, 'I bet you're fun at parties'.

Yes, I've been told I am.

Not the kind of parties you'd go to I expect. But then you never know.

You said of tattoos, beards etc: "..thinking people will look up to you because you're an individual." That's an emotive statement.

You may unknowingly have attended a party or two where graffiti writers were present. That must keep some here awake at night.

FWIW I don't think we disagree all that much:

Graffiti: illegal, generally untidy, often poorly done
Three dead lads: waste of life, pretty tragic
Train driver: potentially scarred forever, innocent in all of this
Clean-up crew / emergency services: ditto the train operator

Someone earlier mentioned the use of legal spaces - Leake Street in London could be classed as such. Sadly they're few and far between, often very busy, and doesn't prevent the foolhardy from trespassing and vandalising property because they want to be seen as widely as possible.

[Resolutionary]

untakenname said:

Resolutionary said:

Got a photo?

Thought of this thread today whilst passing on the train dozens of people's homes which have been vandalised.
Took a couple of pics from the window, in the last one there was a white transit which was tagged but sadly by the time I took the pic it was just out of frame.






I live backing into railway tracks in outer London and it's not nice hearing people creeping about at night as you don't know if they are on the rob or tagging, used to live in Zone 2 and could hear people clambering on the roof to get to the adjacent buildings which used to upset my misses when she was home alone.

You may not particularly care, but what you have photographed are known as 'dubs' - larger than a tag, usually more characterised / 3D lettering, but often in chrome / white / black for simplicity sake. They are effectively a tier up from tagging; still not universally accepted as 'art', but an evolution of the tag whereby some additional effort / skill is required.

A step up from this would be using colour, then characters (think about the face at Vauxhall station if you can recall), and more intricate overall work.

These photographs demonstrate the 'lowest common denominators' if you will, the basic get paint, go out, get up attitude of a slice of the graffiti demographic. Not necessarily pretty to look at, not meaningful in any way to the majority of passers by..

I totally appreciate that the sneaky nature of such citizens must have a knock on effect for those living around their activities / hot spots. I used to live near a busy junction in East London where we could see people climbing down bridges and such stuff in the late eve, and one of my neighbours would often wish them to befall harm for their stupidity.

Many of these hot spots including those you've photographed will have been embroiled in a decades-long battle for transient residency; whether it be a tag, a dub or a more prominent piece. There are hundreds if not thousands of graffiti crews across London, all vying for their chance to hit a spot that others will see. There is something objectively poetic about that, even though I know a lot of this will be lost on here.

[Resolutionary]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Apologies but I didn't say this trio had specifically done anything of artistic merit - just that there are a great many taggers who also produce murals that we'd (almost) all appreciate. These lads are from what I glean just run of the mill scrawlers.

[fido]

Resolutionary said:

Apologies but I didn't say this trio had specifically done anything of artistic merit - just that there are a great many taggers who also produce murals that we'd (almost) all appreciate. These lads are from what I glean just run of the mill scrawlers.

Let's face it if they had produced any artistic output of merit above and beyond their coursework assignments at the Ring Road Polytechnic of Art then they wouldn't be scrabbling about on a railway line in the early hours. This is about peer pressure and fitting in with the other kid-ults. So sad really.