The Third of May 1808 Graffiti

1. hannah
   May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

   You should really read "Graffiti World" - I think it'd enlighten you about graffiti as an art.

2. K
   May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

   There's a really bad type of misinformation going around the web, as usual -

   there's a difference between a PAINTED MURAL and modern day graffiti.

   People need to be re-educated and understand the difference. Graffitti is vandalism, such as the yellow paint that's done over the mural, here.

3. Ali
   May 9th, 2007 at 1:24 am

   Yellow paint...*looks closely at picture*...that is just so wrong...damn philistines.

4. Ed
   May 9th, 2007 at 1:24 am

   You're against graffiti?
   What about different colors? Also against?
   What about history? What about blogs?

   check out http://banksy.co.uk/
   you might reconcider

5. JD
   May 9th, 2007 at 1:30 am

   I think that grafitti is a perfectly valid artform, making bland parts of the city exciting and alive. It doesn't have to be Goya, I can see Goya in a museum, but where can I see phosphorescent yellow phalluses on a Goya? Well, maybe a Chapman Bros exhibit, but you get the point. Grafitti is awesome and I wish that we had more of it here in Japan.

6. yayo
   May 9th, 2007 at 2:12 am

   Our goverment spends a lot of money cleaning that crap from historical rated buildings. is that art?

7. jonno
   May 9th, 2007 at 3:56 am

   Why should we ignore the yellow bit on the ...... oh wait... now i see ..... *sniggers*

8. Jose
   May 9th, 2007 at 7:36 am

   Yellow paint…*looks closely at picture*…that is just so wrong…damn phallustines.

9. Sid
   May 9th, 2007 at 8:51 am

   It's a MURAL when it's painted on a building you own or with permission of the owner.

   It's GRAFITTI or VANDALISM when someone paints something they don't own or have permission to paint.

   It's got nothing to do with skill or artistic ability. The vellow-talliwacker-painting vandal is just less artistically skilled than the vandal who painted the Goya knockoff. Catch both vandals and have them spend a few weekend cleaing it all off. That little "disincentive" really put the brakes on the formerly grafitti-laden NYC subway trains.

   If you want to paint big murals, get somebody to pay you to do it on their property like Banksy has somehow managed. If you do it on public property, you should be suitably punished. Anybody remember how Singapore handled Michael Fay? heh heh

10. bill
    May 9th, 2007 at 8:59 am

    i believe graffiti to be a perfectly valid artform and when done well can be an act of reclamation of public space. i think many peoples' rejection of *all* graffiti/street art/whatever outright is embedded with racialized conceptions of the artists.

11. yayo
    May 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am

    What do you mean by racialized?
    Do you hate spaniards?
    I'm Spanish.
    Have you got something against us caucasian europeans?

12. l'elk!
    May 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am

    of course they know the francisco de goya. they went to art school like the rest of us. you shouldn't automtically write off grafitti artists as being un-educated.

    a desire to paint the city flows through many types of individuals.

13. yayo
    May 9th, 2007 at 9:50 am

    I write about the things I know and I don't know you. But... even if you know Van Gogh, if you paint on the rocks of the Cathedral of León, then you're not an artist ^g^

14. FetishForPerception
    May 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    I hate the way graffiti is frowned upon, there's some amazing graffiti out there and it's much nicer to observe than a horrible grey wall or an some billboard advertising some useless corporate shite.

    Just look at Banksy, he's a genius and puts out some very important messages.

    I just wish good graffiti was more common than bad graffiti!

15. *
    May 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    your characterization of graffiti artists smacks of classism. And calling them "supposed" artists underlines your lack of understanding of the nature of art itself. Legality and skill level have nothing to do with status as art. For that classification only intention and function matter. If you must remain steadfast in your distaste for the work or the form in general you would be well served to express it without lowering yourself to bigot or fool.

16. yayo
    May 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Some break into houses and completelly paint them ¿so that's art?

17. Nathan B.
    May 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Bravo *

18. yayo
    May 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    ¡Arsa!

19. Steve
    May 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    *'s on the ball. Mindless tagging is often pretty bad but well done graffiti be it a stencil or a mural gives an area character,imagine if every city had a large public area where is was ok to spray, a constantly changing wall of art.

    not to mention thats its a starting place for some of the best graphic designers around.

    check out the documentary Rock Fresh.

    P.S Banksy's kind of sold out, he sold this http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8816/angelinajolie074ltr2.jpg to Angelina Jolie for $75,000, unless he comes out in a few months and says he gave the money to charity and it was all "art" he's pretty hypocritical.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT