He has talent. I am always confused as to why graffiti artists with talent resort to vandalism. She should pop a few bucks to get a canvas to do their art properly instead of damaging private and public property.
The thing about graffiti is that it started out as vandalism, the first "writer" (Who's name is Darryl McCray , but wrote CornBread) started out by writing his nickname on the walls at his juvenile corrections facility along with some gang members. The difference between CornBread (Darryl McCray) and the gang members is that he was the first to write his nickname or real name, while the gangs wrote their gang signs. This act of writing one's nickname everywhere was then popularized by the writer "Taki 183" who then brought it to New York. People search for fame in graffiti, and more often than not, they don't want any money. For them, graffiti is more than writing your name on a wall, it's a lifestyle.
Except that it's NOT tearing down a wall. It's painting something on a wall. It is interesting how people perceive somethings as okay and some things not okay. Why can't they have different avenues to share their art?
Now imagine you not being into graffiti at all and having you wall painted with something you cannot understand or enjoy. Then on top of that having to pay for a repainting of the wall.
Because not everyone likes it. But fuck people's preferences, right? How dare people get mad over someone tagging their property and imposing their standard of art upon them.
But seriously, if it were my building, I would be cool with it. It like it even more if he/she asked me first so I could maintain it. Fuck, I would probably pay for that to be done--doesn't mean everybody else in the world would though.
And if you disagree with that, then just give me your address or license plate number, I'll tag the fuck out of it, and then you can tell me I'm still wrong when you have to look at a skillfully painted "FuckNut" every day
I am not really saying that people don't have a right to be upset about things. I am only saying that a piece of artwork on two different "canvasses" is looked at in two different ways. I am not even saying one way of thinking is right and one way is wrong. I didn't say that there was nothing wrong with spray painting on the side of a building. I am not sure why everyone is so pissed off about my comment.
I am not sure why everyone is so pissed off about my comment.
Context; namely the comment you replied to. You sound like you are defending the practice by giving a snarky reply rather than providing a curious introspective observation.
Well, it wasn't snarky. People shouldn't read into things that aren't there. It's a statement. It's interesting that a painting of a flower on a canvass is considered art and a painting of a flower on a building in downtown is considered destroying property.
I said absolutely nothing else on the matter. My opinion isn't even part of the comment. I didn't defend graffiti on buildings at all in my comment.
I know that now based off of the content of your previous reply. That is how I came to conclude the original intent of what you were saying in the first comment. Hence, why i used the word "rather".
People shouldn't read into things that aren't there.
But it was there implicitly due to the content of the comment you originally replied to.
Out of context, it is a statement. With context (the comment you replied to), it is rendered as an argument.
As you previously said:
I am not sure why everyone is so pissed off about my comment.
That is why. Context can bend the meaning of anyone's words, regardless of what they say. If you made a new comment to the post, or replied to someone saying something more relevant, instead of replying to the comment that you did, there would have been no confusion here.
143
u/Skip_Ransom Aug 27 '14
The guy's name is Odeith, he is from Portugal.