Dubstepforum.com

Agent 47 wrote:kinda like how some music you can feel it has soul - you feel what the artist wanted to portray, not necessarily a message or meaning

That isn't art though, that's folk work.

Agent 47 wrote: i never get more than an 'oh that looks kinda cool' with graffiti

For me personally, the skill that goes into spraying and writing good graffiti was, and still is, something to admire. Same thing with listening to music when you're observing the way something has been mixed, or the way a sound is put together.
Have you ever tried graffiti?
I think it might be about the personal relevance you gain from being a part of a 'community' of people who do the same thing, it becomes inspiring. I wasn't hugely into music before I started making it tbh.

this picture

im so hungry i could eat a unicorne

Agent 47 wrote:

kidshuffle wrote:again tho, anyone who really appreciates graffiti, rather than graffiti inspired murals, completely understands its vandalism. thats half of the concept.

thats like saying you don't understand its wrong to steal [insert item agent has stolen]. its wrong, but you still find some sort of appeal to it.

yeah cool thats fine

thats the aspect i like most about it tbf lol

but ive heard people argue that its not vandalism before. i was just addressing dat

Generally, those people argue on the grounds that, in doing it seriously, they avoid private property. In this case, public refers to anything without an owner, so to say it's vandalism doesn't make sense because vandalism is the defacement of property.

To most people though it's recognized as vandalism, and that's what makes it so fun. In taking people out, you vandalize their shit, so they vandalize yours back, and you have a petty war. Which is fun and games until you meet face to face and shit goes down.

public goods are owned by.........

the public

i'm curios about their motivation tbh
do they have some sort of vague marxist background (vandalism as a means to confront the idea of private property)? is it some sort of "art should have no boundaries" discourse? egdy kids being edgy? or some primitive tribalistic bullshit?

probably a mix of all 4

Molzie wrote:

this picture

"art"

theyre streaming the dj rashad tribute show in chicago but only the vid is coming through, no sound

its fucking hot

dubunked wrote:public goods are owned by.........

the public

This. Can't expect EVERYBODY to like feeti, so I think you've gotta stick to agreed places. I don't mind it, some of the pieces down by the canal near my work are SICK. But also, I know a lot of people thinks it makes the place look trampy. I'd be vexed if somebody did it on my property without my say so, because it can fuck things up for you, especially if you're trying to sell a house or something. But there's a company near the canals that has an office that's covered from top to bottom in graff and it looks sick.

A big part of what's cool about it is the aspect of creating art that's illegal like that. I think you're kidding yourself if you think there's an honest, grand, subversive, consistent philosophy behind it all. If you can go and do some impressive shit where you're not supposed to, that's sick.

kidshuffle wrote:again tho, anyone who really appreciates graffiti, rather than graffiti inspired murals, completely understands its vandalism. thats half of the concept.

thats like saying you don't understand its wrong to steal [insert item agent has stolen]. obviously you realize its wrong, but you still found some sort of appeal to it.

This is not the case anymore at all man. Spain, Czech rep, Italy and Germany (mainly hamburg/berlin) have the sickest scenes in the world and there's different foundations, like some are politically based, some are more just artistic and some are referential to the original new york territory/just getting up attitude.

In Italy they wouldn't clean the trains and it was almost accepted at a point.
Same with for example barcelona where a lot of areas even in living areas are 'legal'.

Also just realised that's the first post I've seen from Harkat in ages. Did you go somewhere bro?

Harkat wrote:A big part of what's cool about it is the aspect of creating art that's illegal like that. I think you're kidding yourself if you think there's an honest, grand, subversive, consistent philosophy behind it all. If you can go and do some impressive shit where you're not supposed to, that's sick.

that's why i asked tho lol
it's not implausible tho. seen lots of street/urban art or w/e you wanna call it with a subversive or political message behind it - lot of it seems to be illuminati bullshit (dunno why that's so popular in hiphop & graffiti culture)

and lol @ it being impressive. around here at least, for every good piece there's a thousand shitty tags, hearts, "fuck *insert random soccer team*" and leftovers from protests

Harkat said 'if you can go and make something impressive' not the same as saying it is impressive.

yeah but do dudes seriously go tagging shit thinking they're doing something impressive?

and it really doesn't matter how impressive it is as long as it's on someone's private property (without their consent obvs)

ultraspatial

yeah but do dudes seriously go tagging shit thinking they're doing something impressive?

It seems like you have an agenda or answer ready to defuse an oppinion. But i'll bite. I dont think Jimi or Beethoven thought what they did was impressive. It's the audience who does that.

and it really doesn't matter how impressive it is as long as it's on someone's private property (without their consent obvs)

Then just don't care man it's obviously not for you then.
Which is completely fair, ofcourse.
But to me it's like discarding pirate radio like don't they even pay royalties ?
The shit both the good and the bad is part of a point in a necessary discussion of who owns the public space. Commercials infringe on private property aswell.
Not that it's an excuse but it's a global almost movement like deal.

sharting

[quote="hubb"] Commercials infringe on private property aswell.
[quote]