ctesiphon

@publicrealm wrote:

I suppose we should be grateful that they are still there :confused:

…and that Dick Roche didn’t give direction for them to be be preserved by record. 😉

Probably just a hangover from the bank holiday weekend. 😉 Maybe give them a quick ring, though I’d imagine it will be any day now.

Doesn’t appear to be from the picture, Peter, but the article above says: “But the new 11-storey building will be welcomed by victims of crime and their families as they will no longer have to confront each other because of the unique design of the new courts complex .”

Is this the site that was earmarked for the new HQ for the Dept of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & The Islands (as was) in 1999 or so?

http://ireland.archiseek.com/unbuilt_ireland/dublin/ahgi_dublin/index.html

Free summer concerts in the outdoor disco!

http://www.analogconcerts.ie/

(FYI- Konono No.1 know how to bring the party. Pray for sun.)

EDIT: Double post (that couldn’t be undone in work).

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…

@notjim wrote:

the stencils would be great if they stuck to hoardings and stayed away from stone.

Agreed.

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?

Also, a tongue-in-cheek (or is it painfully accurate?) crit of Banksy from The Guardian 🙂 :

For the curious, that ABP decision referred to a grant from South Dublin County Council for an ‘internally-illuminated monopole’ on the Long Mile Road that was refused on appeal by the Board.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can’t find the actual ABP ref. no.

Update:
The ABP reference number (if you search on http://www.pleanala.ie) is: 213886. Useful context.

@PVC King wrote:

Hmmmmm

Not the wording I would have expected Ctesiphon.although I can understand your feelings on this which are not unique.

Over the weekend I considered editing that post to soften the language, but in the interests of historical accuracy I’m going to let it stand.

The revised version would have read:

This is the wrong decision. I can’t believe that the various planners involved in determining each of the 120 applications had no issues with any of them, whether on grounds of ‘serious traffic hazard’ or otherwise. This smacks of direction being handed down from above within DCC. It has been suggested on this forum recently that An Bord Pleanala has become the de facto planning authority in high profile / controversial planning cases, with LAs shirking their duties. However reprehensible that tactic might be for your Lansdownes and your Ikeas, it positively stinks in this instance owing to the prohibitively high costs of a comprehensive appeal.

I give it two years before some enterprising solicitor stands up in court and says ‘Your honour, my client does not deny that he hit the cyclist who, he acknowledges, had right of way at the junction, but he contends that the internally-illuminated advertising hoarding at the junction distracted him. According to a decision of An Bord Pleanala in 2005** in refusing permission for a similar sign:
“It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its bulk, scale and visual impact, including impact of illumination and scrolling, on a major distributor road, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.
[…]
Having regard to the location of the proposed development adjoining a major distributor road, it is considered that it would tend to distract road users, compete with statutory road signage and would thus endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.”
For this reason, my client contends that Dublin City Council shares responsibility for this accident and should be included in proceedings accordingly.’

Or, put more simply: Fuckwits – blood on your hands.

Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong!

(Also, Condition 2 as highlighted by PVC King, if read in a purely legalistic way, does indeed mean that for every metropole granted 100 billboards should be removed. It’s obviously a mistake, but I’d love to see it enforced. ‘You mean you’ve only removed 100 billboards and there are none left? Then all you get is one metropole. Choose carefully…’

**For the curious, that ABP decision referred to a grant from South Dublin County Council for an ‘internally-illuminated monopole’ on the Long Mile Road that was refused on appeal by the Board.
SDCC: SD05A/0503
(Alternative reference: PL06S.213886)
Can’t find the actual ABP ref. no.

If anyone’s appealing, this ABP case would be key to your argument. In essence, the Board has set down very simply why a sign virtually identical to the metropoles should be refused, so it would seem that similar logic should apply to any appeal on a similar proposal.