Creative
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Graffiti is Art. It should be encouraged.

My local council discourages graffiti.

Here is one they missed.[image deleted]
deadgerbil · 22-25
I'll take a hard pass on some random people spraying whatever bs crosses their mind on my stuff
Mellowgirl · 31-35, F
@deadgerbil I agree... There's a trail walk across and old railway and it's covered in graffiti art. Some done really well but in all honesty it's so out of place there..
I think it's ugly.
Scribbles · 36-40, F
My city has some very beautiful works of graffiti art. Encouraging artistic talent is good. But perhaps done legally if possible?

My city also has some malicious vandalism and tagging and graffiti that is not art...but instead for the purposes to protest, or distress the property owner, or mark a place in some way.

For a short time as a kid, I made the poor choice of some small coin sized graffiti using sharpies. Nothing offensive. I fully thought I might die any day and desperately wanted to leave a mark somewhere in the world, because I didn't think anyone would care at the time.

It still was vandalism, though it could be easily washed off with magic eraser or a rag with goo gone. Eventually I had the moral forethought that I was being selfish and needlessly desperate to be heard and channeling it the wrong way and not thinking of others and stopped. I also was a fan of political protests through graffiti at one point and eagerly studied that.

Finding ways to help voices to be heard, and people to be seen, and have opportunities and grow communities into better versions of themselves is important.

However I do think art on other people's property is as best practice to be done with the property owner's permission.
There are some places where it is. The owner of the property meets with local artists and they come to an agreement. A lot of very moving and beautiful tableaus have resulted from that type of collaboration.

But anonymous, random "tagging" is an entirely different scenario. If it’s being removed, it was done without the consent of the property owner, which makes it [b]vandalism[/b].

If you support the concept of personal property, you’re free to encourage graffiti on anything you [b]own[/b]. Many people would more than willing to provide you with all the "art" you can stand.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@SW-User They shouldn’t allow that, either. It’s another example of people not respecting private property.
DrWatson · 70-79, M
@SW-User So if dog walkers do one thing that they shouldn't, that justifies other people doing another thing that they shouldn't?
SW-User
It the drab sixties, railway bridges and disused factories were full of bright colours.

Second to the equally drab twenty first century.
SW-User
Yes, this is amongst the drab concrete along the Sussex sea front. It all needed livening up!
LifeIsGoood · 26-30, F
That's a Banksy from 2009...

https://banksy.newtfire.org/html/gallery_pages/graffiti/tesco_sandcastle.html

Don't lie.
SW-User
@LifeIsGoood Yes, it is neglected, and hides along St Leonard’s Seafront.

The one in Margate was of course taken away by the local council. But that was an instillation. Councils would not understand what an instillation was though.
This message was deleted by its author.
SW-User
@LifeIsGoood So Banksy is acceptable Street art, but others in East Sussex are not then.

If I have time this week I will go to Bexhill and take a photo of one of the councils own instillations.
Castenmas · M
If it’s on my property they’ll be paying damages.
Longpatrol · 31-35, M
Is that a Banksy?
Yes. And we can always repaint!

 
Post Comment