YO!

what do you think about graffiti?

try to visit this url

http://www.otherthings.com/grafarc/

actually there are more of interesting urls that show us cool graffiti but i like the concept and the message that this site trying to say.

graffiti is graphic icons that say a lot of social and politic movements. it's the voice of street junkies. it's postmodern representation which means it's what we are in our own time. it's part of everyday landscapes. yes it's messy, it's dirty, it's somewhat unorganized but it is very well fluid and organized at the same time. yes it's a kitsch but that what we have been living in as well. why erasing it?

not to mention that it is art itself.

why the city keep erasing graffiti?

it's a mural painting in the funky cathedral in 21st century urban space. it is teh representation of our own era, it is our icon!

why we appreciate mural painting in the temple that also has some nasty images hidden around the bushes or teh naked venus milo but not graffiti?

how can you roll those white paint to cover up such a wonderful spray paint artworks which gives some politic or social status recognition to people who drive by?

hmmmm....

maybethis is just the way it should be...sneaky, quick and dirty, running across town at night, got chased by policemen...keep adding little by little...just to be erased within a wink of our eyes...

now that's postmodern!

craps!

yeah but one of the very great artist in wahol time, Jean Micheal Basquait who was the father of eminem grew from Graffiti...

it's a rigid prove that it is ART

but i understand your point and i also agree (altho agreeing with Slurms can be comsider as an act of insanity, but yet special)

wahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

irritating teenagers 'experssing' themselves is not graffitti...well not the real stuff anyway. Check out Futura2000, banksy or Swifty for some really good stuff...

http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/subpages/banksy.htm

http://www.swifty.co.uk/swifty/portfolio.php

http://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/

VERY nice!!! Mark!

thanks!

check thislink out too...wicked!!

http://painting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3201344.stm

Mark do u work for CNN or National Geography?

it's all cool..

thanks a bunch!!!

for me, it's a art that represent politic expression.

for social trend...it's the cultural remark...which is a kitsch but still..is bollocks but...undeniable that in overall it is the story of how our society moves on.

hey! sorry...it's crappy what i just said but well...

The Banksy stuff has a political edgy feel to it..which is why he doesn not show his face..for fear of prosecution. It just has a very raw feel to it and being on the street, anyone can see it...doesnt matter who you are...

..if it is a nie piece of work it will get my attention...whatever the political message (if any at all)

Dali sold blank canvas with his signature on...he sux but his own art wasnt that bad...

picasso is, same as paul gauguin...has brought a new dimention to arts in the modern age...i've never appreciate his art as well...but it's the way he got to it instead that seems to be well accepted in art world, i guess

wahol?...well...it's more like an extreme ironic queer artist to me...

u r porbably an adbuster as well hah!

i'm sure u r

i read loads of books and found then absurd and ridiculous...really!

Having lived in New York City before there was graffiti, during the graffiti explosion and then the great graffiti cleanup, I can tell you this:

We're basically better off without it.

Graffiti is sometimes art, sometimes social statement (a way for ghetto kids consigned to society's trash can to basically say I'M HERE, MOTHERFUCKER!) and most of the time just plain vandalism. Frequently, it's all mixed together. A lot of the time, however, the intention of the person doing it is not to make art, but something more like the last two reasons.

Now, I've seen some graffiti-style murals that have blown me away. But at least 90% of the stuff, as with 90% of most efforts in any artistic genre, is just plain crap. The difference is that with most other forms of art, if I think it's crap I don't have to buy it, look at it or listen to it. But with graffiti, it's all over my building, my school, my subway, whatever. And while, at first, this may seem interesting and quaint or even revolutionary, after a while it just makes everything look like crap, like a slum, like garbage, and you start to wonder and wish for the city or whoever to clean it all up.

New York got to look really bad when the graffiti craze was its height. The city felt lawless and as if it was in terminal decline. It was symptomatic of a lot of other stuff. When it got cleaned up in the '90s, the city looked better and, with a lot of other stuff improving also, there was a new mood of optimism about the place. But I think even the government and some communities realized there is some value to graffiti art and it was allowed to flourish in certain spaces.

I'm sure whatever is on the websites you've listed are great examples of graffiti art. Unfortunately, most of what I was subjected to while living and commuting in New York was crap and filth.

I think you guys are off the mark about Picasso and Dali, though. I'm not saying "you're wrong" because art is art and eveyone's entitled to think and feel whatever they want about it. That's freedom. But Picasso didn't paint like a five year old because that's the only way he knew how to paint. He had the talent and the training to paint like Leonardo if he wanted to. Same with Dali. And both of them went through so many phases it's hard to believe there isn't something they've done that you can appreciate. What do you think about the Impressionists? Van Gogh, Monet, etc. When they first staged their shows people reacted exactly the same way, saying they painted like five year olds.

I've got real mixed feelings about Warhol. I tend to think of him as an image maker and marketing genius rather than an artist.

Jean Michel Basquiat, whom I met at clubs in New York but wouldn't say I knew, was a junkie fraud feted by pretentious people with too much money, privilege and time on their hands.

However, Jack Vettriano, who is celebrated by some as one of the more talented artists of the past half centtury, and derided by others as a pornographer, speaks to all my fantasies! Now you know how kinky Loburt can be.

WONNNNNNNNNNNNNNDERFUL!

this is what i've been waiting for!!!

i'll write more...but now i have to do another conf. paper!

be right back!!!

: )

u make me feel so happy, K. Loburt!

ah ah ah!!! van gogh...i ahve to go against you this time Slurms....

and for the basquait...stick around..i ahve a lot more to say, k. Loburt...

cubism...and abstract...i do appreciate picasso as an artist and what he's brought to teh art world but as a nivice viewer, i dont havemuch impression to that...it was until i read about him...that's what i mean...so, his art alone for a novice viewer is difficult to understand...and yes, his practice is as great as micheal angello...no doubt about that...my point is that...i see the value of his works but dont have any appreciation towards his cubism painting (YET).

basquait was very pretentious, coz he was a black artist in NYC and he struggled to be accepted to other artists, that's another cause of the pretentious behavior....he was hungry to be accepted...Bell Hook wrote an article, suggests that maybe we can appreciate basquait's art better if we were black in the mainstream society where white artists were HUGE!

wahol, he's more like an experimentalist to me...in his queer sort of way...and being arrogant and unpredictable were also the key to be accepted, in superficial way. basically what he did was...throwing out whatever he had in mind and be arrogant about it and gave a silent statement that 'here is what is great, if u cant see it then u are an idiot'...that's his strategy....well...it's only my opinion anyway...

van gogh, ridiculously enough, all of his life, he's been trying to bring arts to teh poor but his painting 'sunflowers'have become one of the most expensive painting on earth. i dont think he's crappy...according to what i read in his many letters to his brother 'Theo', family and friends. his letters are practically literatures themselves.

you hate arts, or you hate artists, slurms?

arts can be crappy and artists' brains might full with loads of craps...i agree but believe me...there are soooooooooooooooooooooooo many idiots who called themselves 'artists' but whatever they ahve been displayed have completely NOTING to do with art.

next time i am going to talk about eminem...our favorite....

whatever i wrote here solely based on my personal opinion and how i view it...

; )

ok, i got your point now, Slurms and appreciate your effords ; )

luv you too!

art is a frivalous waste of time. worship the intrinsic value, not the representational image.