Camden Tube station platforms covered in graffiti

[editor]

Of course, they're enitled to that opinion, but they can't expect anyone to be convinced by it - after all, there were people that said Turner's works had no merit when they were first produced, and people continue to do so about lots of art.

Sure. But Turner was a trained artist with demonstrable skills (whether you liked his work or not), but you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.

(*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it).

 

[Athos]

Sure. But Turner was a trained artist with demonstrable skills (whether you liked his work or not), but you're never going to convince me there's any artistic merit in some spotty 14yr old yoot crudely and hastily scraping his tag on a bus window.

(*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it).

I've no desire to convince you that it's art, but I'd be surprised if you could come up with a definition of 'art' that encompasses all that is widely regarded to be art, which doees not also include tagging.

 

[editor]

I've no desire to convince you that it's art, but I'd be surprised if you could come up with a definition of 'art' that encompasses all that is widely regarded to be art, which doees not also include tagging.

Perhaps you could show me some "artistic" examples of a hastily scraped tag on a bus window for reference?

You see, I can appreciate the artistic nature of good graffiti, but I fucking hate it when I get on a bus or a train and I can barely see out of the window because some selfish cunt has crudely scrawled his stupid fucking name all over the place.

But I'm always open to try and learn about (and appreciate) new art forms, so let's see some good examples please.

 

[Athos]

Perhaps you could show me some "artistic" examples of a hastily scraped tag on a bus window for reference?

You see, I can appreciate the artistic nature of good graffiti, but I fucking hate it when I get on a bus or a train and I can barely see out of the window because some selfish cunt has crudely scrawled his stupid fucking name all over the place.

But I'm always open to try and learn about (and appreciate) new art forms, so let's see some good examples please.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's art.

 

[editor]

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's art.

I have never claimed that to be the case, but I have asked for you to show me some good examples so I can at least make an informed judgement.

So have you got any?

 

[Athos]

I have never claimed that to be the case, but I have asked for you to show me some good examples so I can at least make an informed judgement.

So have you got any?

I could post up pictures of tags, but I know that you won't think they're any good, because, as you've said, you don't like tagging.

What's your point, though? I thought that you were trying to assert that tagging has no artistic merit; it seemed to me that your only real reason for doing so is that it's not to your taste.

You seemed to me to be making the distinction between "artistic" graffiti and tagging. That line of argument rests on one being able to distinguish between what's artistic and what's not, which is why I invited you to offer any definition of art which wouldn't also include tagging. You didn't.

 

[editor]

You seemed to me to be making the distinction between "artistic" graffiti and tagging. That line of argument rests on one being able to distinguish between what's artistic and what's not, which is why I invited you to offer any definition of art which wouldn't also include tagging. You didn't.

You seem to be the one claiming to be the arbiter of what is "art" here, not me.

Just because you like someone scratching their name all over a bus window, that doesn't make it art and your refusal to actually produce some examples for discussion doesn't do much for your argument either.

 

[Athos]

You seem to be the one claiming to be the arbiter of what is "art" here, not me.

Just because you like someone scratching their name all over a bus window, that doesn't make it art and your refusal to actually produce some examples for discussion doesn't do much for your argument either.

I'm not making any assertions about the nature of art, or about tagging. Contrary to what what you claim, I have neither said that I consider tagging to be art, nor that I like it.

I merely pointed out that there's nothing to your dismissive opinion of tagging beyond the fact that it's not to your taste. Of course, that's you're opinion, and you don't need me to tell you that you are entitled to it. However, I worry when you try to bolster it with claims that tagging should be dismissed because it's not artistic. Throughout the history of art, reactionaries in the art establishment has dismissed many great works on exactly that basis.

As I've already invited you to do, why not offer a definition of art which reasonably excludes tagging?

And I don't understand your point about me posting pictures of tags that are artistic? If you want to see some, google image "tagging." I know you won't like them, but I could challange you to post something by Goya, and I wouldn't like it, but what would that prove? that it's not art?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!

 

[Athos]

You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!

Do you think there's any creative merit to Duchamps 'Fountain,' or the adverts that pollute your visual environment?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Do you think there's any creative merit to Duchamps 'Fountain,' or the adverts that pollute your visual environment?

I asked the question first dude, answer mine and I'll give yours a shot.

 

[Athos]

You honestly think tagging has any creative fucking merit at all?!

Yes.

 

[editor]

I merely pointed out that there's nothing to your dismissive opinion of tagging beyond the fact that it's not to your taste.

I haven't dismissed it out of hand.

In fact, I've repeatedly asked for you to show me some examples of what you feel are "artistic" tags scraped on a bus window so I can make a more informed opinion on the matter.

And you keep on refusing to do so, so I can only go on the crude examples of petty vandalism I've seen thus far.

Look, here's what I said several posts ago: "*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it."

But if you're trying to convince me that the teenage 'big-up' scratchings on bus and train windows represents some sort of new, credible art form with parallels to masters such as Goya, you'll have to come up with something a bit more persuasive than your non-argument thus far.

Just because you like it, it sure don't make it art in the broad meaning of the word, you know.

 

[Athos]

I haven't dismissed it out of hand.

Well, your comments seem quite dismissive to me.

In fact, I've repeatedly asked for you to show me some examples of what you feel are "artistic" tags scraped on a bus window so I can make a more informed opinion on the matter.

As I keep trying to explain to you, your opinion of whether they're "artistic" will, in fact, amount to nothing more than whether or not they're to your taste, which, as I've said, they won't be, because you don't like tagging.

The only way that you could give a less subjective assessment of their artistic merit would be if you measured them against an objective standard, such as a definition of art. However, despite my repeated invitations, you declined to provide one. I suspect that's because you realise that you couldn't come up with one that would exclude tagging.

And you keep on refusing to do so, so I can only go on the crude examples of petty vandalism I've seen thus far.

That's rather my point, that you fail to see that something you dismiss as petty vandalism could be art.

If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art? Why?

Look, here's what I said several posts ago: "*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it."

All you're actually saying is that none of what you've seen is art, because you didn't like it.

But if you're trying to convince me that the teenage 'big-up' scratchings on bus and train windows represents some sort of new, credible art form with parallels to masters such as Goya, you'll have to come up with something a bit more persuasive than your non-argument thus far.

What definition of art encompasses Goya, but excludes tagging?

Just because you like it, it sure don't make it art in the broad meaning of the word, you know.

I didn't suggest that it does.

 

[editor]

What definition of art encompasses Goya, but excludes tagging?

Thing is, you keep drawing parallels with Goya, but don't seem to have anything to back up such a lofty association. Nothing. No argument. No examples. No peer reviews. No insights. Nothing.

You can't even furnish this debate with some "artistic" examples of window scratching so it seems pointless continuing.

 

[Blagsta]

He has a point though - art is in the eye of the beholder. Although I do think tagging is shite.

 

[Athos]

Thing is, you keep drawing parallels with Goya, but don't seem to have anything to back up such a lofty association.

You can't even furnish this debate with some "artistic" examples of window scratching so it seems pointless continuing.

I've told you where you can find examples of "artistic" tags - google images.

That's not to say that I necessarily like the ones that are shown there, but they're as "artistic" as any Goya painting, in so far as they are equally eligible to be defined as art (an objective fact), if not necessarily art which you (or I) consider to be of equal merit (a subjective opinion).

Which was my point all along. You don't like tagging because you think it looks shit - fair enough. But trying to give that opinion some weight by dressing it up as an objective argument that tagging is not "artistic" is fraught with difficulties. Not least of all your seeming inability to define that thing which you're so sure taggining is not i.e. art. I've asked you a few times, but you won't, so I agree, there's little point in continuing this.

 

[editor]

Not least of all your seeming inability to define that thing which you're so sure taggining is not i.e. art.

You're definitely suffering from an inability to comprehend my words.

Here they are for the third time:

*that's not to say that there may not be - somewhere - a true original artist somewhere creating masterful window scrapings, but I've yet to see it.

Seeing as you refuse point blank to point me in the direction of a single example of an 'artistic' bus window scratching, I'll be fucked if I'm going to waste my time trawling through google images looking for one.

 

[editor]

He has a point though - art is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure. But if he's going to keep on bringing up parallels with trained, well-respected masters like Goya, it's not unreasonable to ask for a few examples and some kind of reasoned argument why the bus window scrawls should be considered as having some sort of 'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase.

 

[Athos]

You're definitely suffering from an inability to comprehend my words.

Here they are for the third time:

Seeing as you refuse point blank to point me in the direction of a single example of an 'artistic' bus window scratching, I'll be fucked if I'm going to waste my time trawling through google images looking for one.

I'm not failing to comprehemnd your words; you're failing to reply to my points. I'm asking you to define art (in response to your suggestions that tagging isn't artistic). You can't or won't, so I guess the debate stops there.

You fail to grasp that the reason I don't post a picture of any particular tag is because we're not talking about the relative artistic merit of any individual piece, but rather about your suggestion that tagging per se isn't art. I would post a picture, and you'd say you don't like it - that would take us no further forward in establishing whether tagging is artistic. A definition of art would, but you keep dodging the issue, and pretending that it's my failure to post a picture of a tag that means there's no room for debate. To debunk that, here's some:

http://images.google.co.uk/images?s...2005-01,HPEA:en&q=graffiti+tagging+bus+window

 

[Athos]

Sure. But if he's going to keep on bringing up parallels with trained, well-respected masters like Goya, it's not unreasonable to ask for a few examples and some kind of reasoned argument why the bus window scrawls should be considered as having some sort of 'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase.

As I made the point with Turner, not all artists that are now "well-respected masters" were always thought of in those terms.

And what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?

 

[editor]

I'm not failing to comprehemnd your words; you're failing to reply to my points. I'm asking you to define art (in response to your suggestions that tagging isn't artistic).

Why the fuck should I try and 'define art' just for your benefit?

You're the one repeatedly drawing parallels between crude adolescent window scratchings and the work of recognised masters like Goya, so how about you back up this claimed association with a reasoned argument?

Like I said, I'm open to find out more and be convinced, but so far you just keep on avoiding any kind of meaningful debate.

 

[editor]

As I made the point with Turner, not all artists that are now "well-respected masters" were always thought of in those terms.

That's a really piss weak argument, you know.

 

[Athos]

Why the fuck should I try and 'define art' just for your benefit?

You're the one repeatedly drawing parallels between crude adolescent window scratchings and the work of recognised masters like Goya, so how about you back up this claimed association with a reasoned argument?

A definition of art wouldn't be for my benefit, but for yours - your argument depends upon it; after all, it was you who tried to add some clout to your subjective opinion about the quality of tagging, by attempting to give it objective weight, through an assertion that tagging isn't art.

Why don't you just come clean and say that art is in the eye of the beholder, and, as such tagging may be art, but that you think it's shit? Why cling to the argument that it's not art, when you can't even define what art is?

 

[Athos]

That's a really piss weak argument, you know.

If you say so.

oh, and by the way... what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?

 

[detective-boy]

The only way that you could give a less subjective assessment of their artistic merit would be if you measured them against an objective standard, such as a definition of art.

Whether it is "art" or not is beside the point. Whether it is criminal or not is the question which should be asked. People are entitled to decide how their property is treated. No-one else has any right to interfere with the owners decision. Publicly (or pseudo-publicly) owned property is no different.
The graffitti may or may not be considered "art". But what it most definitely is is criminal. We are not talking here about the graffitti being objected to per se because we don't like it, we are talking about it being objected to because it has ridden roughshod over the rights of the onwers of the property.

If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art? Why?

No. It would be vandalism. Vandalism that many people would consider "nice" ... but vandalism nonetheless. (Unless, of course, it was Leonardo's own bus, or he had the bus owners persmission ...)

 

[editor]

oh, and by the way... what is "'artistic merit' in the broad sense of the phrase"?

Sorry, I'm not here to answer A level art questions for you.

But perhaps you could invite some of these "artists" over to your place so that they could scratch your house/car windows with their Goya-esque misunderstood "art"? Would you like that? If not, why not?

Do you like having the view from a bus window obscured by these adolescent scratchings, by the way?
Do you feel the bus is the better for this 'art'? (if the bus hasn't already been taken out of service to get the windows repaired of course - all at an extra cost to you, the passenger, who has to suffer for their 'art'!).

 

[zoltan]

"If the Mona Lisa was painted on a bus window, would it be art? Why?"

Different subject - gouging into safety glass on public transport has issues for everyone who uses it, not least the risk aspect whith the glass itself be weakened by the act.Its up there with chucking lifebelts into lakes when you are pissed - its not a political act or a bit of al fresco Guerilla art or Baader Meinhof " Art happening " style - its irresponsible juvenile twatishness that has an negative impact on everyone who comes into contact with it.

 

[Athos]

Whether it is "art" or not is beside the point.

Whether or not it's art is not beside the point; the point I was trying to make is that it's dodgy to object to tagging on the basis that it's not art, that's all.

I have no problem at all with people objecting to it because it looks shit, or because it dangerously weakens safety glass, or because it obscures the view from bus windows. People seem to be disparaging it because it's not art, though, and that argument doesn't stack up.

Whether it is criminal or not is the question which should be asked. People are entitled to decide how their property is treated. No-one else has any right to interfere with the owners decision. Publicly (or pseudo-publicly) owned property is no different.
The graffitti may or may not be considered "art". But what it most definitely is is criminal. We are not talking here about the graffitti being objected to per se because we don't like it, we are talking about it being objected to because it has ridden roughshod over the rights of the onwers of the property.

As I've already said, that depends on your views on property.

No. It would be vandalism. Vandalism that many people would consider "nice" ... but vandalism nonetheless. (Unless, of course, it was Leonardo's own bus, or he had the bus owners persmission ...)

And do you think that art and vandalism are mutually exclusive?

 

[Athos]

Sorry, I'm not here to answer A level art questions for you.

Maybe it's that you can't answer without destroying your own argument.

But perhaps you could invite some of these "artists" over to your place so that they could scratch your house/car windows with their Goya-esque misunderstood "art"? Would you like that? If not, why not?

Do you like having the view from a bus window obscured by these adolescent scratchings, by the way?
Do you feel the bus is the better for this 'art'? (if the bus hasn't already been taken out of service to get the windows repaired of course - all at an extra cost to you, the passenger, who has to suffer for their 'art'!).

I wouldn't want them to come to my house, or to scratch my windows, because I wouldn't like to look at that. And I don't think bus windows are better for their art.

However that's my subjective opinion of their art, and doesn't mean that what they do is not art. It's nothing more than an expression of my taste, but, unlike you, I don't try to invest my opinion with some objective truth by making pronouncements on what is and what is not art - it's not my place to do so.

Nor is it yours, and, as you've demonstrated, you're unable to support your assertion that it's not art, as a result of your failure to even suggest what art may be.