more like the work of someone with too much free time on his hands..

Who ever made this is trying to have us look at our own opinions of what is art, and what is vandalism. So which do you think it is?

Vandalism - It looks dreadful

IMHO its not art...it has an absence of style. Its merely an immature doodle in my opinion. Graffiti CAN be art...but that isn't.

This sort of stuff is the real grafitti art :

Vandal. I've seen dozens of tags with better execution than that cruddy mess

And it's not art if it causes harm.

Seriously speaking... I'm not sure that "art" isn't "art" when it's executed illegally. For example, it's still art if you take photos of Terrible Things happening in Bad Places, such as documenting the torture of political prisoners somewhere. It's also likely to get you thrown in prison, or worse.

I think that... when you get down to it... my first, tongue-in-cheek statement is closer to what most of us would accept as a working definition about the boundaries. Very few people would be even slightly annoyed if this vandal's work was defaced, removed, or destroyed- it's not very interesting, and the puerile attempt to be "thought-provoking" is... lame.

That's like putting up photos of nekkid girls doing things we don't talk about on ICRA 'sites... with little textboxes saying "this is art, really", and acting like it's cool or controversial if somebody gets annoyed at the pornography and takes it down. Or trying to defend the crap that hits my inbox by declaring it "art", and acting as if that changes the reality, which is that it's crap I didn't ask for, don't want and don't need.

Art is rarely useful if it's shoved in one's face... and most vandalistic "self-expression" isn't even interesting enough to justify the property damage. Calling property damage per se (without any attempt to gussy it up at all) as "art" is even more silly... I'll accept that it's "revolutionary statements from the downtrodden masses" or whatever fashionable phrase ex-hippies want to call it, but it's still property damage...

Is there a firm line here? Nope. It's purely subjective. But I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that what's in the picture isn't good art, and qualifies as vandalism... in large part, because it ain't any good. If it was executed in a superior way... then it might be more arguable. Here, it just looks lame, and deserves little respect.

my most humble opinion the fact that this picture even evokes a debate on the nature of art gives it some artistic merit. so some level of its value is down to its ability to move us. is the question of whether or not something is art or vandalism relative and contextual?

the relative aspect is easy to understand. i think some of the screenshots in FL are beautiful and that the aston martin db9 is currently the most beautiful car in production. others would find it difficult to even grasp how a game or a car could have any aesthetic qualities. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

with regards to context, andy warhol's picture of a discarded coke-a-cola can would be seen as vandalism if it had been sprayed on the side of a pepsi delivery truck. a stealth bomber might have an aesthetic quality but it ain't so beautiful when you are the one being attacked by it.

i read a book by an author who's sir name i can only remember as Benjamin, Walther might have been his first. he writes in one chapter about the aesthetiec qualities of a panzer tank. the blend of form, function, and historical context.

*Edit--this particular example of thought provoking rubbish however is neighter pretty nor well executed. i'm with argh all the way on this one
"My sig is in the post but the man in the shop promised I will find it witty and topical when it arrives."

Edited by - Druid on 12/3/2004 8:36:47 AM

I am reminded of this thread from a little while ago. it seems that there are two possible ways of looking at it. The one, advocated by Taw (Aod? Wtf?), is that art is not a matter of personal taste, rather it is all about set combinations of colours, textures shapes and whatnot. I can't really defend that position as that is yet another area where I am woefully ignorant. The other perspective is that art is about how it makes you feel. If it evokes emotion, if it makes you think (even if the emotion is revulsion and the thoughts are negative, perhaps) then it can be considered art.

My own personal opinion is that this is vanalism. It's like Argh said, whoever did it is simply trying to be "cool and controversial".

Man, it really is too bad Taw decided to leave. I think he might have enjoyed this.

Edited by - Codename on 12/3/2004 8:55:27 AM

With graffiti, it can nearly always be argued that what is drawn is art that happens to be drawn on walls by "disaffected youths" rather than on canvas.
There does come a point at which it ceases to be art in any form since it's purpose is no longer to be viewed and thought about but instead serves as a marker that the graffiti-ist was there; like some form of territorial pissing. Basically, there is no way that "habix" crudely sprayed on the walls all over a neighbourhood can be considered art.

i say its photoshopped
which is considered art

Already said with more eloquence by Argh and Druid. There is attractive vandalism and there is unattractive. This is more on the unattractive side although I've seen far worse.

The vandal isn't sharing his "art" for others to enjoy or appreciate. What has been put up is more an act to claim some kind of credit or to personally aggrandize the graffitist. And I'd say that this is what differentiates acceptable, so to speak, property damage versus unacceptable. Acceptable being vandalism which, in the end, also provides a measure of enjoyment or appreciation to bystanders.

wolfy, come to ashford and i'll rub your nose in it

What is your exact definition of the word ART?

Glock36
"No Comment"