H
Hydrogen
Guest
True, but at least it's legal.
Not necessarily.
True, but at least it's legal.
Legal, shmegal - its hit-and-run nature is what gives graffiti credibility and differentiates it from the sort of dreary, government-subsidized, craft-based McVandalism shown in the videos that Roots_Energize has posted.
General Idea were more than happy to have their AIDS sculpture tagged. It was displayed outside the ROM a couple of years ago, and acquired several new messages. Indeed, GI objected when earlier tagging was removed by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art after it had been displayed there in 1993.
if the "painter" has no permission to tag a wall its illegal...and those who called this "art" should walk thru the lane ways of downtown..most of it is BS initials.Comparing Picasso to these idiot taggers is really stretching it...
what about the painter that has permission?
There are still issues of property standards.
Soliciting daubings, and therefore making them legal, no more determines whether they're art than doing them illegally determines that they're not art; it's little different from saying that art is only that which is displayed in a gallery. Sticking the word "art" on the end of the word "graffiti" doesn't transform those daubings into art either.
But it is an exclusive club. The talentless wannabees, whose work self-excludes their membership, far outnumber the elite few who hold court within.