The Great Art Debate
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Great Art Debate
To be fair, Boris, I was just about to pick Tango up on that myself. I know a couple of local councillors, one, a recent Labour mayor who I know particularly well, and I'd be backing their judgement as to what's going on at street level over Tango's everytime.boltonboris wrote:Had anybody else posted that, you wouldn't have responded
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: The Great Art Debate
dittoboltonboris wrote:Had anybody else posted that, you wouldn't have responded
but what do you think about the actual issue, boris?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14085
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: The Great Art Debate
I think it's ridiculous and very out of touch, as Tango alluded tothebish wrote:dittoboltonboris wrote:Had anybody else posted that, you wouldn't have responded
but what do you think about the actual issue, boris?
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: The Great Art Debate
do you think that Council officials rarely know much about life at street level?boltonboris wrote:I think it's ridiculous and very out of touch, as Tango alluded tothebish wrote:dittoboltonboris wrote:Had anybody else posted that, you wouldn't have responded
but what do you think about the actual issue, boris?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14085
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: The Great Art Debate
In my very limited experience of them, yes.thebish wrote:do you think that Council officials rarely know much about life at street level?boltonboris wrote:I think it's ridiculous and very out of touch, as Tango alluded tothebish wrote:dittoboltonboris wrote:Had anybody else posted that, you wouldn't have responded
but what do you think about the actual issue, boris?
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14085
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: The Great Art Debate
"very"
It's written above
It's written above
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: The Great Art Debate
boltonboris wrote:"very"
It's written above
fair enough - but then it's difficult to assert that something is rare in a group of people you have VERY little experience of...
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14085
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: The Great Art Debate
Which is why I didn't feel the need to quantify it
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43327
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Great Art Debate
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.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: The Great Art Debate
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."TANGODANCER wrote: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.
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.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Great Art Debate
Quick question, Tango. Well three actually, and to everyone.TANGODANCER wrote: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.
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?
May the bridges I burn light your way
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: The Great Art Debate
Is graffiti allowed if the perpetrator might be famous? Sounds like they were quite diligent to me.EverSoYouri wrote: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
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 19597
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
- Contact:
Re: The Great Art Debate
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.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: The Great Art Debate
All of which is fine until you use public property as your canvas.bobo the clown wrote: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.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Re: The Great Art Debate
That's not why it was removed though. In fact the guy they interviewed said they'd welcome an original Banksy.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
Re: The Great Art Debate
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.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Is graffiti allowed if the perpetrator might be famous? Sounds like they were quite diligent to me.EverSoYouri wrote: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
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.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43327
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Great Art Debate
Not sure where that's going as they refer to hypothetical situations v a real one: However...Bruce Rioja wrote:Quick question, Tango. Well three actually, and to everyone.TANGODANCER wrote: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.
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?
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.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43327
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Great Art Debate
Well, I was actually referring to street level views on slightly larger issues than yer actual cracked paving stones, kerbstones, potholes and dog poo sort of steet level, important as those things are, but whatever.thebish wrote: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."TANGODANCER wrote: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.
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.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: The Great Art Debate
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?)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests