The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

Ahh... you were referring to the street-level view of the value of satirical public art?? what actually is the general street-level view of satirical public art in the fine town of Clacton (a place I have visited many times!) - the street-level view that the councillors are so removed from? (and - how do you know this?)

Give it up bish ffs. Before you started banging on about potholes and dog poo, I was referring to a complaint alleging "racism" over a piece of art/graffiti that was obviously decrying it, which my post made clear enough. Just how much the council know about street level views was shown by their actions. That's it. I know you're determined to prove some obscure point (as ever) and I know you'll have the last word whatever. Like you said, you have your view, I'll have mine. End of.

[bobo the clown]

One man's art is another man's piece of racist graffiti. It seems too many people are too sensitive ... and too stupid ... to look at anything whatsoever which a reactionary eejit decides doesn't suit their personal agenda.

All of which is fine until you use public property as your canvas.

Agreed. I'm more interested in small minded pettiness which allows one objector to something they see as morally objectionable to get the whole machine into play. The idea that because it's Banksy it's OK tickles me.

Overall I abhor graffiti .... including Banky's stuff, clever & high quality as it is. So when people start cutting it from their walls and selling it and people get all in a lather I enjoy the irony more than a little.

This, being complained about by an over-sensitive no-mark and then being swiftly removed because someone used the 'r' word sums up a particular type of person & people.

[Bruce Rioja]

Not to interrupt these knowledgeable opinions, but wasn't it one of these "street-wise" council ensembles that caused the post in the first place by their rather crass action? It was reading that that caused my (hardly world-shattering) comment. in the first place.

Quick question, Tango. Well three actually, and to everyone.

If that had been painted by some local kid would there be the same kerfuffle?

Likewise, if Banksy turned up and simply sprayed 'Banksy woz ere' or some other piece of common graffiti, again, would there be the same kerfuffle?

Ultimately - who gets to play imperial arbiter here over what's acceptable and what isn't?

Not sure where that's going as they refer to hypothetical situations v a real one: However...

1. Probably not, but it wasn't. That's what it's all about and what I commented on.
2. I have no idea, but would he do that? Highly unlikely in my view.
3. Not sure what you're asking here? Obviously the council make the rules and complaining occurring after the event would be/was pretty futile anyway.


"A new Banksy mural showing a group of pigeons holding anti-immigration banners has been destroyed following a complaint the work was "racist"....is what the B.B.C report said.
Now, to me, the work/graffitti was having a dig at racism, not promoting it. It's a skit/mickey-take on all the "pinching our jobs" type views. If the council treated it as racism, then their attitude was far from "street-wise"....in my view.

So you're ok with vandalism if you approve of whose carried it out then. Was just wondering.

[William the White]

One man's art is another man's piece of racist graffiti. It seems too many people are too sensitive ... and too stupid ... to look at anything whatsoever which a reactionary eejit decides doesn't suit their personal agenda.

All of which is fine until you use public property as your canvas.

Agreed. I'm more interested in small minded pettiness which allows one objector to something they see as morally objectionable to get the whole machine into play. The idea that because it's Banksy it's OK tickles me.

Overall I abhor graffiti .... including Banky's stuff, clever & high quality as it is. So when people start cutting it from their walls and selling it and people get all in a lather I enjoy the irony more than a little.

This, being complained about by an over-sensitive no-mark and then being swiftly removed because someone used the 'r' word sums up a particular type of person & people.

True, very true...

[TANGODANCER]

Not to interrupt these knowledgeable opinions, but wasn't it one of these "street-wise" council ensembles that caused the post in the first place by their rather crass action? It was reading that that caused my (hardly world-shattering) comment. in the first place.

Quick question, Tango. Well three actually, and to everyone.

If that had been painted by some local kid would there be the same kerfuffle?

Likewise, if Banksy turned up and simply sprayed 'Banksy woz ere' or some other piece of common graffiti, again, would there be the same kerfuffle?

Ultimately - who gets to play imperial arbiter here over what's acceptable and what isn't?

Not sure where that's going as they refer to hypothetical situations v a real one: However...

1. Probably not, but it wasn't. That's what it's all about and what I commented on.
2. I have no idea, but would he do that? Highly unlikely in my view.
3. Not sure what you're asking here? Obviously the council make the rules and complaining occurring after the event would be/was pretty futile anyway.


"A new Banksy mural showing a group of pigeons holding anti-immigration banners has been destroyed following a complaint the work was "racist"....is what the B.B.C report said.
Now, to me, the work/graffitti was having a dig at racism, not promoting it. It's a skit/mickey-take on all the "pinching our jobs" type views. If the council treated it as racism, then their attitude was far from "street-wise"....in my view.

So you're ok with vandalism if you approve of whose carried it out then. Was just wondering.

Don't put words in my mouth if you don't mind. My claim was it wasn't racism. The council, in my view were less than decisive in accepting that. Beyond that, nothing more.

[thebish]

Ahh... you were referring to the street-level view of the value of satirical public art?? what actually is the general street-level view of satirical public art in the fine town of Clacton (a place I have visited many times!) - the street-level view that the councillors are so removed from? (and - how do you know this?)

Give it up bish ffs. Before you started banging on about potholes and dog poo, I was referring to a complaint alleging "racism" over a piece of art/graffiti that was obviously decrying it, which my post made clear enough. Just how much the council know about street level views was shown by their actions. That's it. I know you're determined to prove some obscure point (as ever) and I know you'll have the last word whatever. Like you said, you have your view, I'll have mine. End of.

you've opened an interesting discussion. you claim that the councillors are out of touch with the Clacton street-level view on satirical graffiti-art. I am interested to know what the street level view actually is in Clacton - and how you know that the councillors are out of touch with it...

my own experience of living in Essex in general (though not specifically Clacton) is that the general view of people (the street-view, in your words) is pretty anti-graffiti - and I can't imagine the majority being up in arms about the council removing a satirical Banksy... but you claim different... so I am interested.

this is an art thread and you've raised an interesting question... what's the harm in expanding on what you know?

[William the White]

Not to interrupt these knowledgeable opinions, but wasn't it one of these "street-wise" council ensembles that caused the post in the first place by their rather crass action? It was reading that that caused my (hardly world-shattering) comment. in the first place.

Councils will make decisions for all sorts of reasons. But I still don't think it is even close to being true that "Council officials rarely know much about life at street level."

I have a different opinion to you - you stated your opinion - I stated mine.

My experience of local councillors is that they have a very street-level knowledge of the communities they work in - they have to. they know about bins and cracked paving stones and dog-poo problems and how much it costs to replace dropped kerbstones and fill potholes and have to make priorities about all the day-to-day stuff that affects your life and mine far more directly than their more famous counterparts in Westminster...

your experience is clearly different.

My experience is clearly different to yours... The dumbest of all I ever met were Labour councillors in rock solid wards in Sandwell (West Brom and around) where they weighed the votes to save counting them, and once they had the first election they needed to do next to feck all to retain the position, and get the miserly (but much valued by them) privileges and money. These were people who claimed the party was 'full' when people tried to join it because they had twelve members that could all vote for each other in a cosy little cabal.

The most aware councillors I ever came across were those in Wednesbury north who had retained the ward for the Conservative Party against all the odds by a constant campaign on exceptionally local issues.

I was privileged to stand against them on one occasion, and lose by 200 votes. at one stage in the count i thought i might actually win as the votes stacked up evenly for a long time. I was, of course, prepared to demand a recount if I had.

Mixed bag, councillors. And no surprise there.

[thebish]

I was privileged to stand against them on one occasion, and lose by 200 votes.

and to think you were oh-so-nearly a dumb councillor with no connection to street-level views! I'm glad you kept your "street-cred" intact, Bill!

[William the White]

I was privileged to stand against them on one occasion, and lose by 200 votes.

and to think you were oh-so-nearly a dumb councillor with no connection to street-level views! I'm glad you kept your "street-cred" intact, Bill!

You are so right! The thought of dealing with the issues of dog poo and cracked pavements and other 'street-level' stuff is horrendous! It would have been four years of purgatory. I only stood to give the Tory a scare - which we did, and I enjoyed that. And it recruited a few more members of the LP branch. Anyway, the Tory that won it was a really nice guy personally, and, believe me, the moment I shook hands with him to concede was a truly happy one. For me, and, tbh, the voters of Wednesbury North...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I know this thread is called The Great Art Debate, but the following is not put forward for debate. These people are morons. End of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29446232

Is graffiti allowed if the perpetrator might be famous? Sounds like they were quite diligent to me.

if it's Banksy it's pretty much welcomed. Why? Because it's witty, often powerful, well executed and locally welcomed. it's not remotely vandalism.

Does that means Banksy is an exception when it comes to graffiti? You bet!

Now the council know it's a Banksy they might feel a little foolish. Indeed, they've said they'd be pleased if he did another.

Actually I agree that they are witty and well done.

But every now and then, if you paint on public walls without any accompanying announcement, then a few will be removed by local councils. I don't think this council need be embarrassed. How long should they wait for these things just in case?

Nobody will be more pleased about all this attention than Banksy himself, incidentally.

[William the White]

I know this thread is called The Great Art Debate, but the following is not put forward for debate. These people are morons. End of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29446232

Is graffiti allowed if the perpetrator might be famous? Sounds like they were quite diligent to me.

if it's Banksy it's pretty much welcomed. Why? Because it's witty, often powerful, well executed and locally welcomed. it's not remotely vandalism.

Does that means Banksy is an exception when it comes to graffiti? You bet!

Now the council know it's a Banksy they might feel a little foolish. Indeed, they've said they'd be pleased if he did another.

Actually I agree that they are witty and well done.

But every now and then, if you paint on public walls without any accompanying announcement, then a few will be removed by local councils. I don't think this council need be embarrassed. How long should they wait for these things just in case?

Nobody will be more pleased about all this attention than Banksy himself, incidentally.

How do you know this? Do you not think it possible he'd rather have his work on display?

[bobo the clown]

It's graffiti Will. He could knock another one out (so to speak) in the blink of an eye.

[William the White]

It's graffiti Will. He could knock another one out (so to speak) in the blink of an eye.

It is graffiti. He could do another, he certainly could. But he won't, I suspect.

Clacton now pissed off they don't have a rival to Tracy in Margate.

Banksy cast the pearl before them. The swine do as they do...

[Montreal Wanderer]

In Montreal we have a lot of urban graffiti. We even have an annual festival. Below I give a couple of examples. The first is 'permanent' and religious on a five-storey building near me (the area of the town is Notre Dame de Grace and the picture is called Our Lady of Grace) , while the second was in the annual festivale and may get removed. I have no problem replacing ugly brick with interesting pictures.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

How do you know this? Do you not think it possible he'd rather have his work on display?

Ok, I don't *know* this, but I think this whole debate about what public space is, who owns it, and who has the right to control it is a big part of what he lives for.

[Bruce Rioja]

It's graffiti Will. He could knock another one out (so to speak) in the blink of an eye.

It is graffiti. He could do another, he certainly could. But he won't, I suspect.

Clacton now pissed off they don't have a rival to Tracy in Margate.

Banksy cast the pearl before them. The swine do as they do...

So where does the tipping point lie, Will, between what's acceptable graffiti and what isn't? Should there be an arts panel for this and who gets to sit on it? Graffiti's graffiti and we either allow it or we don't.

[thebish]

So where does the tipping point lie, Will, between what's acceptable graffiti and what isn't? Should there be an arts panel for this and who gets to sit on it? Graffiti's graffiti and we either allow it or we don't.

not the local council, clearly - they are now also "swine"!

[Bruce Rioja]

So where does the tipping point lie, Will, between what's acceptable graffiti and what isn't? Should there be an arts panel for this and who gets to sit on it? Graffiti's graffiti and we either allow it or we don't.

not the local council, clearly - they are now also "swine"!

Indeed. They could've had their snouts in Banksy's trough, look.

[William the White]

It's graffiti Will. He could knock another one out (so to speak) in the blink of an eye.

It is graffiti. He could do another, he certainly could. But he won't, I suspect.

Clacton now pissed off they don't have a rival to Tracy in Margate.

Banksy cast the pearl before them. The swine do as they do...

So where does the tipping point lie, Will, between what's acceptable graffiti and what isn't? Should there be an arts panel for this and who gets to sit on it? Graffiti's graffiti and we either allow it or we don't.

Do you think it's impossible to make a judgement on anything at all? I mean, bread's bread, but some tastes crap and another wonderful. A chair's a chair. One's hard, another's soft, and a third's electric. I reckon I could make my way to a judgement on those.

Anyway, Bristol council seem to be able to make that judgement. And i reckon you could as well.

http://visitbristol.co.uk/things-to-do/ ... s-p1545663" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bruce Rioja]

It's graffiti Will. He could knock another one out (so to speak) in the blink of an eye.

It is graffiti. He could do another, he certainly could. But he won't, I suspect.

Clacton now pissed off they don't have a rival to Tracy in Margate.

Banksy cast the pearl before them. The swine do as they do...

So where does the tipping point lie, Will, between what's acceptable graffiti and what isn't? Should there be an arts panel for this and who gets to sit on it? Graffiti's graffiti and we either allow it or we don't.

Do you think it's impossible to make a judgement on anything at all?

Did you bother to read what I asked?

Of course it's possible to make a judgement. Had this been carried out by Jackson Pollock then our friend would be claiming it to be something worthwhile whilst I'd be volunteering to drive the water cannon - two judgments for you right there. My questions remain - where does the tipping point lie? Who gets to sit in judgement and what would qualify then to do that? Until that question can be answered then all graffiti must be treated the same. We either allow it or we don't.