Idiotic Graffiti on Loopline rail bridge

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ok I just passed the bridge. Ifs f*cking in tatter's, the stupid bastards. The damage can be seen from O'Connell St. Bridge.

Not sure if i can attach at photo from my phone, here's

Cookie_Monster

bound to be cameras around that caught them, IE or DCC somewhere.
Scumbags

subway

lots of respect for spray painters as artists(commisioned)

not young enough anymore to really get into the counter culture vibe, not old enough to blow a gasket when i see it, so on the fence in that regard.
(many of us would have some form of rebellious outlet as a youngster, none of us are angels I'm sure) i appreciate this is an "in your face" statement which pisses a lot of people off (ever think thats perhaps why they do it?)

but, in all honesty, other than the positoning being quite incredible, that is the ****test bit of painting i have seen in a while!

Hermy

Whatever about the merits or otherwise of graffiti, that looks awful.

djk1000

One good thing about tagging, when the guy eventually gets caught in the act, he will be well and truly busted. He'll have signed his name to every piece of criminal damage he has ever done. The councils/gardai photograph tags before removal for this purpose. There is a cleaning bill with his name on it, clocking up in a council office somewhere.

Hopefully he's some bored rich kid with deep pockets, cleaning that bridge will cost thousands.

D.

Tabnabs

I was recently in town in a building near to Merrion Square, the had a great view from the meeting room but I was fairly shocked by the size of the graffiti on the Bolands Mills buildings at Grand Canal Dock/Pearse Street. I found a photo I had taken which indirectly included the graffiti.



To give a context and idea of scale, this is the entire building in question

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=google+street+map&hl=en&ll=53.342353,-6.238067&spn=0.00303,0.014656&fb=1&gl=ie&hq=google&hnear=0x48670e80ea27ac2f:0xa00c7a9973171a0,Dublin,+Co.+Dublin&cid=0,0,15114045578144059516&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=53.342332,-6.237895&panoid=LsGZoT6KrtQ3G-87k5E8KQ&cbp=12,153.6,,0,-6.65

They must have used climbing gear to smear their tag all over the wall. I don't know which is worse, the ****ty look of the building which can be seen far and wide or the smug grin these guys must have every time they see their handy work :mad:

Happyman42

subway wrote: »

lots of respect for spray painters as artists(commisioned)

not young enough anymore to really get into the counter culture vibe, not old enough to blow a gasket when i see it, so on the fence in that regard.
(many of us would have some form of rebellious outlet as a youngster, none of us are angels I'm sure) i appreciate this is an "in your face" statement which pisses a lot of people off (ever think thats perhaps why they do it?)

but, in all honesty, other than the positoning being quite incredible, that is the ****test bit of painting i have seen in a while!

It's the prepubescent equivalent of scratching your name onto a school desk, made all the worse by adults portraying it as an art form.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Graffiti artists are talentless **** who see themselves as renegade outlaws, but then go home to their middle class families to play charades after supper.

Twats.

Jay D

Walk by, say nothing, em, or start a thread and highlight exactly what it is the perpetrators (or artists I'm easy), your pet (or intense) hates set out to do. Yayyyy...

Duke Leonal Felmet

Jay D wrote: »

Walk by, say nothing, em, or start a thread and highlight exactly what it is the perpetrators (or artists I'm easy), your pet (or intense) hates set out to do. Yayyyy...

Speak english, good you.

subway

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's the prepubescent equivalent of scratching your name onto a school desk, made all the worse by adults portraying it as an art form.

i would estimate that most of them are between 15-17, with a few between 18-20. vandalism is vandalism, spray painting is an art by pretty much any definition. if you can't see the difference then i'm not going to try to convince you.

_blank_

subway wrote: »

i would estimate that most of them are between 15-17, with a few between 18-20. vandalism is vandalism, spray painting is an art by pretty much any definition. if you can't see the difference then i'm not going to try to convince you.

Spray painting a piece of property which does not belong to you, without permission, is a criminal act.

Look, we all know your type, "Fight de power" with a chip on your shoulder about "da man".

Please explain to me how some wanker spraying his name on a pole is "art".

It's not art, under any definition, and is a criminal act under the only one that matters.

Happyman42

subway wrote: »

i would estimate that most of them are between 15-17, with a few between 18-20. vandalism is vandalism, spray painting is an art by pretty much any definition. if you can't see the difference then i'm not going to try to convince you.

Banksy is a disaffected politician (now curiously and unsurprisingly part of the mainstream) who happens to spray paint things.
Masser (never outside the mainstream) is at best a craftsman, like 99.999% of spray painters/vandals.
Graffiti looks the same, says the same, across the whole world, from the suburbs of Rome to the walls of the canal. There are negligible stylistic, or local variations. That is why people grow out of it.

The act of graffiti is not art, art is a much more considered and intellectual process and is different to craft.

subway

Des wrote: »

Spray painting a piece of property which does not belong to you, without permission, is a criminal act.

Look, we all know your type, "Fight de power" with a chip on your shoulder about "da man".

Please explain to me how some wanker spraying his name on a pole is "art".

It's not art, under any definition, and is a criminal act under the only one that matters.

cos ive said already that i'm not talking about spray painting a pole or vandalising something?
and my type, what does that mean? please enlighten me what you are talking about

qz

Tabnabs wrote: »

I was recently in town in a building near to Merrion Square, the had a great view from the meeting room but I was fairly shocked by the size of the graffiti on the Bolands Mills buildings at Grand Canal Dock/Pearse Street. I found a photo I had taken which indirectly included the graffiti.[/url]

They must have used climbing gear to smear their tag all over the wall. I don't know which is worse, the ****ty look of the building which can be seen far and wide or the smug grin these guys must have every time they see their handy work :mad:

More than likely they would have broken into the building, made their way to the top and for the crude paint on the side of the building, they would have used ordinary paint rollers.

Duke Leonal Felmet

qz wrote: »

Tabnabs wrote: »

I was recently in town in a building near to Merrion Square, the had a great view from the meeting room but I was fairly shocked by the size of the graffiti on the Bolands Mills buildings at Grand Canal Dock/Pearse Street. I found a photo I had taken which indirectly included the graffiti.[/url]

They must have used climbing gear to smear their tag all over the wall. I don't know which is worse, the ****ty look of the building which can be seen far and wide or the smug grin these guys must have every time they see their handy work :mad:

More than likely they would have broken into the building, made their way to the top and for the crude paint on the side of the building, they would have used ordinary paint rollers.

Wow, what a bunch of simpletons. While the rest of us are out shagging hot chicks and living it up like Slurms McKensie, these toothless morons are breaking into commercial buildings and writing their name on the wall.

LMAO

Degsy

subway wrote: »

and my type, what does that mean? please enlighten me what you are talking about

I would personally hazard a guess that you dont own property of any sort..barring perhaps a bicycle and a rucksack.

subway

This place is like the twilight zone, I don't own a house. I own a fair bit more than a rucksack if that's any use to you.

I am not posting in support of vandalising anything, I know that's what everyone seems to think. I'm just not mouthing off calling them **** and scum. Sure their actions are stupid and pointless but I don't get that worked up about it. It's probably due to me not owning a house or railway bridge, but I said as much in my first post anyway...

Curlyhatescurls

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Graffiti artists are talentless **** who see themselves as renegade outlaws, but then go home to their middle class families to play charades after supper.

Twats.

I would have to completely disagree with you. I think graffiti (I mean proper artful graffiti, not this rubbish and I don't mean commissioned works either) is art, it allows a social and political commentary and it makes people think.

I think this quote by Terrance Lindall sums up the argument for graffiti- "Graffiti is revolutionary, in my opinion", he says, "and any revolution might be considered a crime. People who are oppressed or suppressed need an outlet, so they write on walls—it's free."

Unfortunately there is a lot of 'graffiti' that is not art, has no thought and in no way questions or makes the viewer question anything and it is this that gives graffiti a bad name.

thelungs

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Graffiti artists are talentless **** who see themselves as renegade outlaws, but then go home to their middle class families to play charades after supper.

Twats.

Of all the stupid posts in this thread... we have a winner.
(Excuse the pun) but you can't paint them all with the same brush.
Maybe the city should designate more areas for these guys to paint as has been done in other counties eg. Cork, Limerick and Drogheda.

(Just to be clear I'm not, ever was or will be a graffiti artist)

Happyman42

I think the 'stupid' ones on here are those who confuse commissioned and thought out art pieces with vandalism and graffiti.

Degsy

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the 'stupid' ones on here are those who confuse commissioned and thought out art pieces with vandalism and graffiti.

They can think it out all they want but they're not scrawling on thier own property ergo its unwanted and therefore vandalism.

Whatever the content it all boils down to one thing..Ego.."I can write my name in bigger letters in a more prominant place than you"...and perpertrated by prats with no property of thier own.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Curlyhatescurls wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Graffiti artists are talentless **** who see themselves as renegade outlaws, but then go home to their middle class families to play charades after supper.

Twats.

I would have to completely disagree with you. I think graffiti (I mean proper artful graffiti, not this rubbish and I don't mean commissioned works either) is art, it allows a social and political commentary and it makes people think.

I think this quote by Terrance Lindall sums up the argument for graffiti- "Graffiti is revolutionary, in my opinion", he says, "and any revolution might be considered a crime. People who are oppressed or suppressed need an outlet, so they write on walls—it's free."

Unfortunately there is a lot of 'graffiti' that is not art, has no thought and in no way questions or makes the viewer question anything and it is this that gives graffiti a bad name.

I read the first line, boring...

Duke Leonal Felmet

thelungs wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Graffiti artists are talentless **** who see themselves as renegade outlaws, but then go home to their middle class families to play charades after supper.

Twats.

Of all the stupid posts in this thread... we have a winner.
(Excuse the pun) but you can't paint them all with the same brush.
Maybe the city should designate more areas for these guys to paint as has been done in other counties eg. Cork, Limerick and Drogheda.

(Just to be clear I'm not, ever was or will be a graffiti artist)

Yawn.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Degsy wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the 'stupid' ones on here are those who confuse commissioned and thought out art pieces with vandalism and graffiti.

They can think it out all they want but they're not scrawling on thier own property ergo its unwanted and therefore vandalism.

Whatever the content it all boils down to one thing..Ego.."I can write my name in bigger letters in a more prominant place than you"...and perpertrated by prats with no property of thier own.

Superb analysis.

Paparazzo

CianRyan wrote: »

Regardless of the delivery the insult was still there.
If I wanted to make something of it I'd have reported but I'm not really arsed.

I'm over it.



I've seen more graffiti than most.
What are you trying to say? That because I haven't posted the terrible stuff I know nothing about it?

I was taken up on the term "artist", I backed up why I used this term.
I'm well aware of the terrible tagging that goes on but I'm not throwing an artists talents out the window because he used the same type of canvass as some twat with a can of auto paint.

This is the problem with Graffiti. It's 99.9% shíte tagging like in the below posts. And no doubt the people who do it think they're shít cool, and writing "Anto" on a bridge makes them Banksey.

Sawyer Fierce Burglar wrote: »

Ok I just passed the bridge. Ifs f*cking in tatter's, the stupid bastards. The damage can be seen from O'Connell St. Bridge.

Not sure if i can attach at photo from my phone, here's

Tabnabs wrote: »

I was recently in town in a building near to Merrion Square, the had a great view from the meeting room but I was fairly shocked by the size of the graffiti on the Bolands Mills buildings at Grand Canal Dock/Pearse Street. I found a photo I had taken which indirectly included the graffiti.



To give a context and idea of scale, this is the entire building in question

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=google+street+map&hl=en&ll=53.342353,-6.238067&spn=0.00303,0.014656&fb=1&gl=ie&hq=google&hnear=0x48670e80ea27ac2f:0xa00c7a9973171a0,Dublin,+Co.+Dublin&cid=0,0,15114045578144059516&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=53.342332,-6.237895&panoid=LsGZoT6KrtQ3G-87k5E8KQ&cbp=12,153.6,,0,-6.65

They must have used climbing gear to smear their tag all over the wall. I don't know which is worse, the ****ty look of the building which can be seen far and wide or the smug grin these guys must have every time they see their handy work :mad:

Degsy

Paparazzo wrote: »

This is the problem with Graffiti. It's 99.9% shíte tagging like in the below posts. And no doubt the people who do it think they're shít cool, and writing "Anto" on a bridge makes them Banksey.

Banksey is no better than anybody else,another retard who wants the world to see him defacing somebody else's property.

thelungs

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I read the first line, boring...

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yawn.

Genius. With replys like that why even debate ART OR VANDALISM.

One common belief is:

"Graffiti is the purest form of art because the artist does not get recognition for his/her work. Therefore, there is no monetary gain to it nor a gain in fame, making graffiti solely an expression of self."

I agree that some of the tagging is rubbish (and the one used to start this thread won't be to my taste), but you can't sum up a whole art form as crap.

It has always been around (since the cave painting) and always will be.

One last point is loads of major international chain stores, brands and companies use graffiti in their ads.
Just a few:
RTE
TV3
Sky TV
McDonalds
Burger King
Reebok
Coke cola
Adidas
... I could keep going.

So are these to blame too.
Lets open our minds a little people.

Degsy

thelungs wrote: »

One last point is loads of major international chain stores, brands and companies use graffiti in their ads.
Just a few:
RTE
TV3
Sky TV
McDonalds
Burger King
Reebok
Coke cola
Adidas
.

Ah yes..the doyens of fast-food,televisual idiocy and tracksuit culture.

You've actually done more to prove my point than yours.

CianRyan

It's worth mentioning here, most decent graffiti artists wont paint private property, cars, trucks, ect. There is always an exception to the rule, we know that but there's not point in tarring them all with the same brush.

If some knacker sprays a dick on your wall, blame him for what he is, a knacker, not a graffiti artist.

uberwolf wrote: »

within the scene, are the people who leave tags scrawled where ever takes their fancy not distinguished from artists who just happen to use the streetscape as their canvas?
For me, a tag is one step below 'bloggs woz ere' and I presumed that these individuals where just narcissists? Do they garner respect within the scene?

It varies, some people, myself included, spend hours on end perfecting a tag, making it into something that is actually nice to look at and not just, "ANTO WOZ ERE 2K11".
Tagging is a big part of what graffiti culture is about. There'll be a tag beside every piece, bomb, block buster, etc.the same way an artist will sign his painting.

Tagging is definitely acceptable in the scene, "toys" how ever are looked down upon and shunned.
A toy is some one with no tallent and a big ego, generally making the place look a heap.

The stuff on the bridge, in my opinion, was done by a group of toys. Looks absolute cack and they've wrecked something that was already nice to look at. Not on at all.

Des wrote: »

See that word, bolded, it's very important.

Commissioned means someone has asked them to decorate the walls in question. It is not the same as some arsehole with a spraycan thinking he's Banksie and scribbling a "tag" on the side of a bridge.

They are two completely different things.

I play football with my mates every saturday, it doesn't mean I earn fifty grand a week for doing it.

Where do you think these lads started?
They just put an ad in the paper and people started paying them 4 or 5 figures to paint their wall?
No, they started on the streets and you can bet they're still painting the streets although probably under a different name.

Paparazzo wrote: »

This is the problem with Graffiti. It's 99.9% shíte tagging like in the below posts. And no doubt the people who do it think they're shít cool, and writing "Anto" on a bridge makes them Banksey.

As said above, within the scene they're not considered credible graffiti artists, they're just knobs or rather, "toys".