Liam Byrne wrote: » Now lets see how many people condemn the idiots that did THAT defacing......
Azphyxi8 wrote: » I don't agree with what misterypainter has done, they have no right to cover over this art. Howeever, I do need to correct some of you. The murals of the rugby players outside the spot was tagged before it was painted over.
misterypainter wrote: » Hi IO, We painted over some of th C-IRA graffiti that you have mentioned in the above in Garryowen, there is some larger letters that have almost faded so we will try to futher remove with the sandblaster when we have it up and running, the smaller C-IRA stuff we painted over, we also painted over some of the tagging in Garryowen. We are not hell bent on strictly the dock rd. as per the lsit previously posted. We are trying to stop the continous tagging of the city which is causing most problems inb the city and is much worse than political spraying. I think we have as much authority as those who are graffiti-ing and tagging in the first place so puts us on an even keal.We would just like to clarify one point that the owner of the spot on the dock rd has never givin permission for anyone to graffiti or paint on the spot. The spot is currently for lease or sale, is 0.85 acres in size and is available for approx €15k annual rent. There is a pad lock on the gate and there is no insurance for any unauthorised use of the yard. If someone would like to provide some evidence on this point that permission was given before for the graffiti festival and permission is still there, it would be insteresting to see. With regards colms point of the people seeing what were doing as a negative effect to them I accept but how about all the negative effect that the tagging and graffiti has in the city. Why did the city centre, new business and the suburbs have to be tagged and defaced?? There has been clean up inititatives spear headed by the council and business groups previous to this, all have which failed in tackling the contastant graffiti and tagging which would eventually have a huge negative effect on the look of the city for people visiting and even locals coming to town. Edit; just reading few more of the many posts, no genuine grafitti art is going to be painted over, only that of which has been tagged as vandalism. Best Regards Mp
misterypainter wrote: » There was a murial of Paul O'Connell & Peter Stringer where we painted, we didn't paint over it, it was destroyed by tagging and graffiti.
iguana wrote: » Plenty. It's very highly regarded in London. Large areas of London are set aside by councils for genuine street art. There are even council run street art festivals in many boroughs. And interesting that you should mention the Tate as they do in fact celebrate street art and hold festivals in it's honour. Two years ago they invited a number of street artists to do large graffiti murals on the outside of the gallery building. Held an exhibition of photos of street art in the gallery and ran guided walking tours of popular street art sites around London.http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/streetart/
thebullkf wrote: » eh...Limerick ain't London.... and that rubbish Graffiti ain't Banksy..
Insect Overlord wrote: » Why shouldn't we as a city aspire to emulate the positive qualities of London? I know there's plenty of things wrong with London too, but being negative about Limerick just because it's a smaller city is silly. Also, just to remind you all, misterypainter has been banned for a month. As such, they cannot respond to your questions and comments.
gihj wrote: » Why London??? Because it has some nice graffiti??? Why not New york???Sydney???Toronto???Baghdad??Seoul??? Nonsense post. 2 incomparable cities for far too many reasons to say. If a mod has banned him for a month (??????) why not close the thread??It has turned into a mysterypainter bashing thread anyway.
zuroph wrote: » no it hasnt, people are still discussing whether graffiti should be removed or not.
gihj wrote: » Why London???
Raiser wrote: » Its not the fcuking Tate Gallery, its Kids with cans of Dutch Gold and Cans of spray Paint - Lets keep some perspective here.
gihj wrote: » Why London??? Because it has some nice graffiti??? Why not New york???Sydney???Toronto???Baghdad??Seoul??? Nonsense post. 2 incomparable cities for far too many reasons to say.
Tate Modern wrote: Blu from Bologna, Italy; the artist collective Faile from New York, USA; JR from Paris, France; Nunca and Os Gêmeos, both from São Paulo, Brazil and Sixeart from Barcelona, Spain. You can also take the Street Art Walking Tour: an urban tour of site-specific art from a group of five Madrid-based street artists: 3TTMan, Spok, Nano 4814, El Tono and Nuria – a map is available online and in the gallery. Various events will take place during the exhibition, including an interactive evening with experimental New York artists Graffiti Research Lab, refacing Tate Modern with graffiti light projections.
Insect Overlord wrote: » Because: Did you even bother to read the thread? The moderators will decide when threads need to be locked, thanks.
iguana wrote: » But lots of cities celebrate street art.
gihj wrote: » True and i'm all for it if it's tasteful. However the majority of that "art" pictured on this thread (and particularly the walls of the shop) is disgusting and looks filthy. The paint job is a little drab yes (suits the cities weather) but gives the city a better image than the previous rubbish that was on it.
zuroph wrote: » not one person on this thread has defended the taggers, and thats not in debate, its the pieces that were done by international artists being painted over.
gihj wrote: » Graffiti,tagging, call it what you like but anyone with a reasonable amount of pride in their city will have to agree that shop looks much better with the drab paint job than the random filth that covered it previously.Morons should be lynched for covering over the murals in the first place.
Kess73 wrote: » The graffiti over the rugby players seems to have been done in response to the painters going into the yard first and destroying the stuff on the walls in there first. Look back at the pic where the graffiti is over the rugby art and you will see the hash of a job inside the yard with the cream paint already over the stuff in there. First move was by the painters, not those who destroyed the rugby art. In my eyes both sides are in the wrong in the case of the rugby art. The fools who did the painting over the inside walls, plus the money behind them, and the fools who decided to hit back by ruining the rugby stuff with crap.
zuroph wrote: » nope, I think the mural was tagged before the painters came along IIRC
thebullkf wrote: » eh...Limerick ain't London....
keane2097 wrote: » Brilliant statement, shows exactly the kind of small town mentality you're dealing with here. You probably wouldn't know art if it fell on you.
eh...Limerick ain't London.... and that rubbish Graffiti ain't Banksy..
Kess73 wrote: » The photos taken of the area before and after the yard was painted says otherwise. The walls of the yard were painted and the Limerick post had a picture of the yard painted with the Rugby faces on show outside with nothing on them. Then in a picture in this thread there is a picture of the walls painted in the yard with the rugby faces tagged over. The one thing both pics have in common is the walls with the art being covered with the beige paint. So the wall painting inside the yard had to have come first, otherwise the two pics could not have had any differences.
zuroph wrote: » the photo was taken BY the painters AFAIK as a before and after for the painting OUTSIDE the spot.
concussion wrote: » The work on the building site backing onto Henry Street has been covered in grey paint - I wonder did the persons responsible get permission to be on a site???
Kess73 wrote: » Sure why should they? They seem to think that painting illegally on walls only applies to kids tagging.
