Stab*City wrote: » They picked the easiest and most visable
Stab*City wrote: » Instead of painting over the graf why didnt you volunteer to help the elderly by painting their houses or something?
cutymonalisa wrote: » Spotted this while driving out the Dock Rd today (the POC / ROG 'mural' and that derelict area beside it) and I am confused.....its a half ass job and looks awful - was that your intention?
Mc Love wrote: » The same authority scumbags tag their shite on walls etc
misterypainter wrote: » Thanks for that and just to clarify a few inaccuracies in the Limerick Post. The report of the painters being "armed" with paintbrushes, I would have used equiped. No body was told anybody that the painters were from the council and did not talk to anybody at the skate park, 3 youths approached the painters in the spot and didn't discuss anything with them, they were told the painters were there to do a job and talk to the boss. I would assume the youths relayed the council as it was an easy answer and would add an element to the story. All of the spot was painted the first time as there was a very limited amout of graffiti art which had not already been de faced by other tagging or graffiti. The neighbouring business signs were also cleaned and tagging painted over. The development sign for the spot had tagging and graffiti painted over. The electrical boxes were re painted. The local Limerick Search and Rescue sign also had been tagged and vandalised which we take particular offence to considering they are a voluntary organisation and risk their lives for others. Only the outside wall of the skate park was painted which had racial and offensive on it. At no time did any painter enter or paint anything in the park. Litter was also removed from the outside of the park. The spot was then again painted at a later date. Graffiti and tagging which was the same as that to town and local neighbourhoods was painted over. Artistic art and graffit WAS left untouched on this occassion where they had not tagged or vandalised the city. The spot was again recently repainted with similar effect to the above 2 lines. The wall of the skate part was repainted, again no painters entered the park. Peoples idea that murials are left in some cases do work but the murial of Paul O'Connell and Petere Stringer was graffiti'd and tagged at the spot. How much of a negative effect does the outside of the spot have on the thousands of rugby supporters passing through the dock road for match's. In many cases its not about art but vandalism and ego's amoungst peers which cannot be excused and this is what will continue to remove from the city. We have all better things to be doing than painting over people's graffiti, we understand that people want to graffiti and express themselves, however what about the negative effect this is having on the city. What about the hard work that people are doing to survive the recession and try and progress and create employment. The super market that recently opened in the brown brick building by the side of Arthurs Quay was tagged and vandalised the first week they opened after the spending thousands re doing the building which had been derelict for years. In many cases business and premise owners don't have the ability or resources to remove graffiti or tagging from their buildings. We have no intention of painting over graffitti or art that is in the skate park or the spot as long as its not the same people that are tagging, graffiting or vandalising the city. We have done many other areas, motorways, estates and concentrate on the city centre. Hope this clears up some issues and some misconceptions. Best Regards and looking forward to a better, brighter and cleaner city, which will benefit everybody, including the taggers some day. All of the above are facts, and only facts, if were unsure about something we don't say it. MP. - Were here for a long time, not a good time!! PS nearly forgot to the most positive person on boards...... We won't be running for mayor and its not beige, its a mix of recycled paints we use so maybe the next batch we make will be more to your liking.
Insect Overlord wrote: » If you are not from the council, then what authority have you to paint over property that does not belong to you?
munstergirl wrote: » Page 6 limerick post. 3 men armed with paint have been going around city covering up all the graffiti. They have been telling people they are from limerick city council but they are not. So far they have done skateboard park + the spot on dock road. Well done mystery men.
misterypainter wrote: » There should be an article in the Limerick Post tomo with hopefully some correct details of whats being going on.... I will post a detailed blog with my version of the events. Looking forward to a better, tidier and more prosperous Limerick. Rgds MP
Itsdacraic wrote: » This is sensational. I was a tagger myself. Quite an accomplished one. I once went a whole lunch at primary school without getting tagged.
misterypainter wrote: » Maybe someday you'll find out about the beige... there's a perfectly good reason..... How's a light grey next time?? MP
Stab*City wrote: » Those walls look pretty ugly now.. and in my opinion alot worse than the proper artwork that was on the dock road..
Liam Byrne wrote: » Fair enough. I don't think many would have referred to that as tagging, hence the confusion. Good question
Stab*City wrote: » The extent of my tagging is kept to my black book and my pc..
Stab*City wrote: » So has anymore been heard about the guys who painted the walls beige?
Liam Byrne wrote: » You said that you were an ex- tagger, so what's available in 2010 is irrelevant (unless you only gave it up last month or something) As for books, etc, I've doodled and - ahem - "tagged" my own, but I certainly wouldn't have posted that I was ever a "tagger" in a thread about graffiti, because that's a completely different context.
Liam Byrne wrote: » I'm off to tag a cheque, so..... :rolleyes:
Stab*City wrote: » its 2010 theres alot more mediums out there than walls..
Stab*City wrote: » A tag is a signature nothing else
Nockz wrote: » Tagging is a signature yes... but in the context of graffiti. Why on earth would you feel that it is necessary to bring up some benine context it has in the discussion of graffiti via spraypainting? You said you were an ex-tager. That, in this discussion, should only mean you have taged with spraypaint.
Stab*City wrote: » A tag is a signature nothing else.. its the means by which you convey it that makes you a criminal or not.. as for being a doodler all taggers are.. Some examples of "doodling" without walls:http://vimeo.com/12547619 these artworks all began as a doodle.. on a bag or a black book or on your hand or whatever.. the point being not every graf artist is a criminal.. its 2010 theres alot more mediums out there than walls..
osarusan wrote: » In my defence, I read his post, but since he's explained earlier that the main point of tagging is to get your name in as many places as possible, I thought it was pretty unlikely that his tagging consisted of just writing his name on his books and school bag.
Nockz wrote: » Pfft, that's no tagging at all. Tagging refers to the spraying of graffiti. Putting marker on your schoolbag is doodling at best.
Insect Overlord wrote: » Honestly, does anybody around here ever read posts in full? The guy explained himself hours ago.
osarusan wrote: » His point is that you say you are an ex-tagger, but you speculate on the consequences of tagging your own house. This leads him to believe that your previous tagging was not done on your own property. But you also say you would never defend taggers who deface the property of others. So if you didn't tag your own property, and won't tag the property of others, where did you do your tagging?
Stab*City wrote: » ever heard of a black book? a computer? a schoolbag? a bit of paper for gods sake!!
Liam Byrne wrote: » You're entitled to, if you want, however you are not entitled to deface other people's property. Tag away in your own backyard, or buy a derelict site and work away to your heart's content there. If "taggers" want to tag their own property, then fire away.
Stab*City wrote: » Thats a good point though i wonder what would happen if i took a spray can to my own house.. what would the neighbours say then.. (total imaginary scenario before anyone jumps down my throat)..
Liam Byrne wrote: » OK, you've totally confused me now. You've either defaced other people's property or you haven't. You suggested that the "imaginary scenario" would be the first time defacing your own property, therefore it's not a "twist" to deduce that the property that you previously defaced wasn't your own.
Stab*City wrote: » Hey hey your actually right about something.. So in actual fact you interpreted correct, you just twisted it to suit you.. How does the statement ex tagger & totally imaginary scenario mean that go around causing criminal damage..
