Stencil Graffiti

the stencils would be great if they stuck to hoardings and stayed away from stone, but they don’t, so they piss me off.

Just because these stencils may have some artistic merit in their own right, does that mean that it is acceptable to deface pavements, buildings etc. with them or any other form of graffiti? Tagging has to be one of the most offensive and moronic forms of so called street art around at the moment.

Is it art though? Any cretin with a stencil and a spray can can leave behind an image. True artistic graffiti without the use of stencils must rank as superior.

<>
http://www.banksy.co.uk
this guy is amazing

look around you almost every bit of space these days is telling you/selling you someting, you may not be able to afford to advertise on billboards, but stencilling allows you do put ‘your message there for free’.
maybe not too much in dublin, but i love when you can walk around cities and see this creativeness all over everyting in the urban realm, this call tell you a lot about the people who occupy these spaces. also you can ofen see the different areas where different ‘urban’ artists frequent,

Is it art though? Any cretin with a stencil and a spray can can leave behind an image. True artistic graffiti without the use of stencils must rank as superior

Any cretin with a spray can can leave behind an image too, dont tink you can say one is better that the other. stencils reqire great thought and skill too, tinking of a good idea, designing,printing, cuting, and putting it up in an effective space.

perhapsthe note on the pedestrian crossing should say “if you are reading this you are not looking out for traffic and could be hit at any moment by a large truck”

And then, for those who like to rail against the destruction of our social fabric and the scourge of vandalism (I do like to offer a bit of something for everyone), some more ‘traditional’ (AKA non-commissioned, done on the sly) stencil graffiti. Clearly, the worth of these (is it art or vandalism?) is always up for debate, but I think it’s interesting to note the ways in which artists can use shape, color and image to ignore, complement, or work against the fabric of the built environment.

There’s something ephemeral about these images that endears them to me, whatever their ‘worth’ as design or ornament. Because they are nothing more than a coat of paint, they can easily be glossed over, leaving nothing remaining but their memory. They aren’t selling anything to me. They don’t bully me into a point of view or badger me to buy a product. They aren’t (like the tiny message in the crosswalk in a previous post) endangering my safety. And I know one day they’ll disappear and end up in the great cow parade pasture in the sky. But until then, love them or hate them, they exist. Part of the city that fell through the cracks, transient landmarks.

The camera fella pops up in several locales throughout the city, including a triptych on Pearse Street I have somehow missed in this particular gallery.

Like Banksy, only without the blistering social commentary. Or is there a blistering social commentary shrouded in the Asian-nurse-with-bear that I am somehow missing? Ah, hell. I knew I should have paid more attention in my semiotics class.

And if you don’t like them (or happen to love them), feel free to treat this as an addendum to the ‘How Well do You Know Dublin’ thread. No politics or palaver, just good old fashioned city scavenger hunting. Where have you seen these characters last?

@ctesiphon wrote:

Of those 6 pics, the only one I have to guess is the last one- is it the boarded up building with the funny shopfront under the bridge behind Trinity on Pearse Street?

That’s the one!

Great article on Banksy. Thanks, ctesiphon. Now that’s how I prefer to encounter my blistering social commentary: in print form with a cup of coffee. But that’s just me. Perhaps I need to dust off my anarchist’s handbook and revisit my recipe for Molotov cocktails.

For a slightly different (and more nuanced) take on the subject, there was a great bit in the New York Times’ 6th annual Year in Ideas issue about a British artist who uses what’s often termed ‘reverse graffiti’. It may or may not be art, but it raises interesting questions about the ethics and aesthetics of altering public space:

I like that idea. Reverse graffiti.
Very clever.

Has anyone noticed the Phil Lynott stencilled graffiti around Dublin? It was done a few years ago.

Care to elaborate, wearnicehats? For example, are you referring to the ‘reverse graffiti’, to graffiti on hoardings, to graffiti on stonework, or to all of the above?

@manifesta wrote:

In terms of stencil graffiti/art/vandalism (take your pick), is it mainly the choice of location that is problematic? Hoardings are OK but stone is out? Or is it primarily a question of permanence and materials, e.g. would a chalk drawing on stone be less offensive? Or is it just a question of the image itself, where one person’s idea of a cool piece of art is another’s asinine guff? Returning to the example in the north docklands, would something like the Sheriff Street bridge project have more value for the city because it was granted permission first? It’s easy to slam flat-out vandals, easy even to slam Banksy. But figuring out what is pleasing about these bits of unexpected art– that might be harder, and more worth the debate.

manifesta-
I don’t think I’d put the Sherriff St stuff in the category of graffiti. Street art, yes]The Conscience of the Eye[/I]. He compared NYC, Style Wars-era subway graffiti from the 1970s/1980s with Parisian late-1960s graffiti, saying, in essence, that the NYC stuff showed scant regard for context, being all about promotion of the ego, whereas the Parisian stuff was more in the category of social commentary. (This was a time before the NYC stuff a) was commodified by the gallery system, and b) became for the practitioners an aesthetic end in itself [as, for example, in the Smithfield case cited above]).

Funnily enough, I passed a bar in Seoul the other day that seemed to have the art of Jean Michel Basquiat as its theme (and Seoul bars sure know how to do attention to detail like few other places I’ve been- out-Basquiating Basquiat! :)). Then on my way ‘home’ in Sihung, I noticed a shoe shop that used the Basquiat name in its window advertising (I’d go out for a pic, but it’s lashing rain right now [hence the, eh, rambling post :o]). I mention this because afaik Basquiat worked in many transient materials on the street – chalk, etc – and was bemused / disgusted by the fact that art he had intended as transient became collectible purely because his name was on it. Same goes for Keith Haring, much of whose art was done in chalk on unpostered NYC subway advertising boards (though obviously he also embraced the highly commercial side of the art world too) . So not all ‘graffitists’ crave permanence and recognition- for some, the very transience of their chosen medium is the attraction, aiming simply to brighten up the day of the lucky few who happen to glimpse it before cleaners / the rain / the commodity scavengers get their hands on it.

Vandalism, pure vandalism? I can’t agree. It’s far too nuanced to be dismissed so simplistically.

And I can think of a dozen other ‘visual interventions’ in the publicrealm that I’d categorise as vandalism before all but the most crass graffiti made it onto my list. Sure isn’t the election, with all its attendant postering, just around the corner? Did someone say metropoles? The fridges on the bridge? Henrietta Street? Jeez, I’m beginning to sound like hutton. 😀 😀 😀 😀 😮

Oh look, the rain is beginning to clear…