ANTI-GRAPHITI CREWS BECOME VANDALS

[Triple Zero]

Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do explain.

IT WAS A SERIOUS QUESTION

why couldn't someone imitate a stencil of a rat dangling from a parachute?

Sure enough, Banksy did some pranks that are a lot harder perhaps impossible to imitate, but that's not the art we were talking about in this thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The article said that the street crew was supposed to differentiate between tagging and street art. How could they mistake a stencil for a tag?

Tagging really is obnoxious as hell, but I kind of admire the guy who tagged the clock tower downtown a few y ears ago, just for how ballsy that was.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Firstly I am not referring to his pranks, or in fact all of his works.

What I am saying is that copying a stencil is a lot easier than creating a new one, or copying a freehand sprayed piece.

Well, you referred to "Banksy" not "Banksy's stencils", making me think of all the amazing shit he's pulled off without getting found out, so I hope you can see how I could get that impression.

There's this common attitude out there that because someone's art seems simple, that they could do it too. Totally discounting the whole difficulty of coming up with that idea and making it happen. Pisses me off to no end. I may have to break into the rant market to vent on that.

You seem to be talking about copying his stencils so people could fap to it forever.

My bad. I need some coffee...

[Rumckle]

No, I understand, creating even simple designs that work can be really hard.

But yes, I was talking about copying his stencils. Not really so people could fap to them forever, rather so you could put a fuck load of "Banksy" stencils up and get people outraged when they are painted over.

[LMNO]

a Double-Edged jake... I like it.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

No, I understand, creating even simple designs that work can be really hard.

But yes, I was talking about copying his stencils. Not really so people could fap to them forever, rather so you could put a fuck load of "Banksy" stencils up and get people outraged when they are painted over.

If someone managed compound the irony factor like that I would be impressed and amused.

Also, I don't think this is the first time a beloved Banksy piece was painted over and people got pissed.

I hope this sympathy for good street art happens more often, and to less known artists as well.

Sure, it's a judgment call as to whether it's "good" or not, but that's a decision for communities, not city lawmakers that paint all graffiti artists with the same brush.

(SEE WHAT I DID THERE)

[hooplala]

Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy:  http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/

[Triple Zero]

Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy:  http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/

Ah yeah I loved that video

Eh it doesn't seem the video itself is linked in that article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9jyv6WIxUY

There's also a "FULL" version, I haven't seen it, could be a bit boring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I064sA-5xFU

[hooplala]

Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy:  http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/

Ah yeah I loved that video

Eh it doesn't seem the video itself is linked in that article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9jyv6WIxUY

There's also a "FULL" version, I haven't seen it, could be a bit boring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I064sA-5xFU

I genuinely enjoy seeing the various walls around Toronto with covered up graffiti after reading that article and viewing the video... but I am a fan of Mark Rothko, so that shouldn't surprise me.  Just makes me wish I had thought it up myself.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

That was a great video. It's one of my favorite art mindfucks. 

I watched that last year and it had a huge influence on my conception of what constitutes art.

I already had an idea that included a ton of things that most people do not consider art, but something crystallized when I watched that.

Highly recommended.

[Kai]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

[Triple Zero]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

And personally, I find myself quite able to bring up some respect for people that sit around considering whether two caddisflies are the same species or not. Funny how that works.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Um, so art is only worth keeping around as long as people will pay for it?

Nah.

That's a bit too crappy consumerist capitalist small-minded for me.

It's also not "the real question". There are a lot of other questions that are valuable to be asked. Such as whether something is pretty, whether people enjoy it, whether it's an angle in art worthy to pursue or not, whether it has a (desirable?) effect on society or not, and probably much more. But I'm not an art critic.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That was shot in Portland.

[hooplala]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

[Template]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Art isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

There may be "art" about that project, but I don't think suffering should be a byproduct of art.  A direct purpose of a work, maybe, but the dead cat wasn't the work's target audience.

As for the video taping, I don't see a purpose to making a new video of skinning a cat when there are likely plenty online..