Would you want the building that you designed tagged? I doubt it.

i'd rather see a "graff" piece than eifs on a building


i still stand my ground to say leave it..... have it in a section in the back with some other art work you might have....

graff is an art ....legal/illegal it doesnt really matter... sure some of the "tags/burners/etc" might be wack that you see from other writers but if you set is correct then use them

there are legal walls to paint on..... i'd rather see a nice "piece" than some bullshit mural of civil/pride/etc that you see in cultural areas.....

it's just like the fighting that we "street dancers" have in making our dance "breakin/poppin/lockin" a real dance with foundations........ modern/jazz/tap is considered a dance and looked at in a different manner.... "street culture" will always look down upon because of it's "street" credit....... but yet how many commercials have you seen "street dancing/graff/djin'" in..... why are all the movies trying to strip the "street arts" to turn into a capitalist move......


people that dont understand it wont like it.........

people that dont respect it doesn't mean that you have to hate it also


stay creative and "do you"...... i've been fighting the whole "creative" issues for 8 years and can understand why people are quick to say no.....


b

ouch evilplatypus.. knives out.

by the way how's the airbrush of stevie nicks and jesus christ riding a unicorn along saturn's rings on the side of your van going? i definitely recommend you put that in your portfolio.

Ive only gotten this far so far

but im open to suggestions

myriam, I am pretty sure it was the Mellon Institute. What did he expect?! He's lucky he's not in jail.

"people that dont respect it doesn't mean that you have to hate it also"

I respect it when it happens legally. I don't respect it when someone thinks it's okay to paint a building they don't have permission to paint.

I think if you feel passionately about it, put it in. Always put what you think is your best foot forward.

and i dont like wack strip malls and shitty cookie cutter bigfoot homes either...... but yet they still happen

I hate illegal strip malls and bigfoot homes. Wait...

w4ih - can you use the above stevie nicks and wolf with the following jesus on a raptor and saturns rings and work them together? This is why they took away photoshop from me

I think you should put the graffiti in if it is something that you feel strongly enough to defend. Is the piece that you want to include just something that you did once, or is it something that influences your design, approach the the city, etc. My advice would be not to listen to me and not listen to anyone else in this chat thread. Do what you feel is right.

"and i dont like wack strip malls and shitty cookie cutter bigfoot homes either...... but yet they still happen"

unfortunately they are not illegal. i wish they were. you walk up to someone's house or business and tag their building without their permission, that's called vandalism.

screw photoshop i'm gonna put em on the side of the uptown theater.


my street credit score could stand to gain a few points anyway.

so i guess it's depends if the artwork is "illegal" or "legal" then..... so instead of reviewing the work....... the "area" of the work is the real "issue"

b

You know, I need some credits too. I should go steal my groceries tonight. Those bastards are big and corporate and can afford it. So why not?

Where was the piece done?

cryz,

going back to the original post, yes illegal vs. legal is the issue here.

g

gp: film it and put it in your portfolio if you do.


just make sure the cinematography isn't too cheesy.. otherwise i'd advise against it.

A time lapse would be cool.

why dont you tell them what you have in your portfolio work 4 idle hands. I think its one of the craziest things anyones ever put in a portfolio - certainly leaves them talking

mad street cred:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzCB-IJ2YsY

I ask you, is this legal?

thats what i figured then.....

what about the issue of doing renderings on your laptop from a bootleg cs3 that you got ....or some .dwgs from a bootleg cad2004?....... same scenerio i would believe.............. or doing personal work on company computers?..... isnt that illegal also...but yet we all are quick to do it..... maybe making copies for your portfolio on company paper/etc...


but the real "issue" i think is that "graff" is already termed as being "illegal" so to speak...... regardless if it's done on a legal wall or your fence...... it will be looked at in that manner..........

no back to a question i asked earlier...... if you installed a project on a site, isnt that illegal..... just as much as the "graff"...... i know alot of people that placed their "urban furniture" in areas that they didnt have permission to do it.... but yet the pics are still shown in their portfolios...


b

I'm so lost now...

ff33, that's cool. I'd say illegal, though not leaving a mark.

So the new question might not be "legal vs. illegal" but "no harm no foul?"

then there is another issue

mediums for "graff"

chalk/paint/stickers/etc....


i know it's not illegal to stick a sticker on something..... and i know that chalk washes off......... and that old fences do need a new paint job....


tag the sticker then stick...thats not illegal.....

chalk a stencil on a building...thats not illegal......



now we can discuss mediums and techniques


b

Oh, so not vandalism.

So many of the posts show that people really don't understand graffiti in the sense that this person wants to use it. If you are talking about a well crafted mural, you should not worry about if its illegal or not....include it. Murals are creative, beautiful and part of the urban life cycle. When it comes to tags, they are worthless, contextless and should not be inlcuded in a portfolio.

If you look at murals vs. tags; murals are not on just any wall. Locations are carefully selected and more than likely, they are not in places that would be damaged by their presence. Is Williamsburg, Brooklyn a scary, gang infested neighborhood?........no. Just because something is termed "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean that its harmful, dangerous or negative for society. How many people smoke cigarrettes vs. marijuana? How many people jaywalk in NYC? How many people will drive through a red light if there is nobody else in sight? How many people have used fake id's? If it didn't harm anyone, then it doesn't matter.

vandalism is damaging or defacing of property.... but since stickers/chalk can be removed then it's not vandalism.....

what about when you go to your car and you have a flyer under your window...is that illegal?.....


b

Not sure if it's legal or not, but if I ever caught anyone putting that shit on my car I'd chase them down and stuff those little papers up their noses and into their heads where I am sure to find plenty of empty space.

on these notions of legal street activities....

I have always been fascinated by skate parks..they often look like training ground for the areas of the city that are illegal to skate. Or , some sort of concession made to the skate community by the business community perhaps....but skating, like graffiti, is spontaneous and emergent...would graffiti be the same if it were sponsored by the business community.


One thing is for sure, we all probably dislike bad graffiti....poor kids with no spelling skilz.

"One thing is for sure, we all probably dislike bad graffiti....poor kids with no spelling skilz."............what's that about? And, what does a person's income have to do with their ability to spell? Formfunction33, that's messed up. Also, if you were familiar graffiti, you would know that it was reinvented by poor kids and it would not be what it is today without them. Ever heard of "wildstyle"? Also, check out the second project on my website. We designed a skatepark for my grad school in Chicago (Grant Park).

http://www.roninart-chitecture.com/Portfolio/uic.html

Its the second rectangle down. (It will make more sense if you look at the website.)

Skating on the building encouraged..........

just meant "poor kids" ..you know the ones with no graff skilz YET..but still bother to paint train with a weak tag ...I didn't mean their income.

Aesthetics were based on graffiti, form and function were based on skateboarding and the whole concept was based on appropriation of space which is shared with street art (including graffiti for the unfamilliar) and skateboarding.

ronin, thats pretty sick...


I wonder if graff artist have a street version of a "desk crit"...

Yeah, they paint over it if they don't like it. Its called a "dis". They let it be if its good.

I painted a wall once with my roommate who was a crazy train painter...I am pretty sure it was 'dissed' shortly after, LOL

That stuff takes practice. I guess practice is why we see so much shitty graffiti

Yup. It takes refining. I'm working on it at the same time I'm trying to work it into an architectural aesthetic, approach to urban planning and incorporating it into my painting.

So back to the original question.............use it in your portfolio.

yup

21ronin that is wrong on so many levels.

my brother went through a red light 2 years ago. no traffic. he thought. he nearly died when the car going through the green at high speed sideswiped him. sometimes we don't have enough information to decide a law is not worth paying attention to, just for us, cuz we are special. but anyway, if you break the law you should at the very least own it.

graffiti is vandalism when it is done without permission. but i think that is part of the tagging culture. its not a consequence-free past-time. if it were, it would never have emerged at all. the need for speed shaped the style. but just cuz it is nice to look at don't mean it is legal. and the person who started this thread knows it. that's why there is a question at all...

hell, even bansky gets that his art might be illegal, or painted over. and he is a big deal now.

which is why i brought up the uni's reaction. personally everyone on the admissions committeee might think it is great, but the uni could have a policy against it. i doubt it would be an issue at an architectural school, but one never knows. i figger if it is great art then include it. but don't get upset if some people don't get it, or don't appreciate it.

one of the positive things about graffiti is that it forces a choice. like a tattoo you are either in or you are out. a sticker tries for best of both worlds, but somehow lacks authenticity...

just musing out loud, mind...

21Ronin, I totally agree there is a difference between tags and murals, and there is also a difference between legal and illegal versions of both of those.

jump, why you trippin Ronin?

why don't we forget legal/illegal and make the threshold 'damage'. if you've done something that the owner of the property would consider damage, it's not such a good thing. agreed?

louisville (metro gov't) designated the area of a particular underpass in our gallery district and the surrounding walls as acceptable graffiti areas, recognizing that it is an art that could be celebrated. all went well for a while until the artists decided not to be limited by the officially sanctioned site. > they started causing damage.

Makes sense. They only want to damage.

Sorry "they" wasn't fair. I should say the few bad seeds.

So, the thing about all of this is that I don't expect all architects to understand. Graffiti is an artform that has greatly changed since hip hop emerged. If you understand a the hip hop culture, you understand that graffiti is a fraction of the total culture. I agree that it is illegal, but look at what IS legal. It is more of a moral issue. IF you think it is wrong, then it is wrong. If you think its a beautiful artform, expressive of a culture that you identify with, then you probably don't care if it is legal or not. That's the point. I do not to intend that someone getting sideswiped in a car deserved what they got. But, I do think it is wrong for the police to give that person a ticket after the accident. Legality doesn't determine morality!

Graffiti is illegal and I think we all understand that. Arguing that it is illegal has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that I used graffiti designs from my blackbook/sketchbook in my portfolio competition and I won $1500 in graduate school. I used graffiti as an inspiration for a design in my first architectural project in graduate school and I won the portfolio competition again. So, it is a choice that a person has to ask themselves. Is something that they are interested in worth risking some criticism? You will not be arrested if you use it in your portfolio. You may be looked down upon by the snooty architect that is so prevalent in the profession. Someone that would use graffiti in their portfolio probably has other artistic interests and they should let their portfolio reflect their interests. I used photography, drawing, sketches, architecture, graphic design and everything that I am possibly interested in and that is what led my portfolio to win competition. It kept my mind open to staying away from plastic spiral bound, 8.5" x 11" pages with a transparent cover. If you want to be creative and express that, use your creativity (no matter the format) in the portfolio creation and in the content.

the "elements".........

ronin's last is a well-formulated rejection of any judgment of graffiti based on legality or damage. but if those are not acceptable among the criteria for assessing this art, i can't figure out exactly where you're coming from:

having been through a fairly conventional education (mn/uic) and having worked at respectable, professional offices, you must understand the importance of property, value, and certain agreements we must make in order to live in civil society (i.e., laws).

is solidarity with graffiti's culture just a way of pretending you still have an edge?

does a distinction need to be made between thoughtless tagging and political acts? can a distinction be made? again, i think some property owner commissioning a mural done in a graffiti style does not make it graffiti, it's kitsch.

ust because I can find value in something that is considered illegal by some, doesn't mean that I can't value architecture. Laws are useful, but too often reinforce a single culture. There are many cultures where murals are very important. I have worked in respectable offices and I can guarantee you that no graffiti artist would do any piece on their work.

I am an artist as well as an architect and I am sorry if you do not understand the value of creativity. In studying both art and architecture, I have seen how students just study the past and make themselves historians in practice. There are some people that don't use history as a catalogue to make money. To some, creativity is important. To some, art is important because they pour themselves into it.

If you think that I have an edge, than that means that something else must be dull.

Civil? That is a matter of opinion. We start wars with countries preemptive. We torture people and have no qualms. We steal elections and spread democracy. We have enslaved. We oppress for profit. I hardly think that a person making a beautiful mural is threatening the stability of our government.