Graffiti on Outdoor Gallery mural - Kinsale Road

[maxxi]

Oh it's been"destroyed" has it? Crikey, I thought it was just a tiny part of this tiresome self-aggrandizing bilge that had been defaced. Call out the militia!

[rendelharris]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's be honest it's a pretty awful mural anyway,

> bland, obvious, pointless and derivative.

You're entitled to your opinion, I went out of my way to see it, having not heard of it until this thread, and I think it's a fabulous piece of trompe l'oeil, technically brilliant and visually enthralling. Of course it's derivative, that's the point of the Dulwich Outdoor Gallery project, all the works are based on/inspired by paintings in the Dulwich Gallery collection. Could you explain what's "self-aggrandizing" about it, unless you believe all works of art are self-aggrandizing? In any case, is it OK to vandalize stuff just because you think it's mediocre? If so I have a busy day ahead with my sledgehammer visiting some of London's newer architecture...

[maxxi]

And I would applaud some of the hammer swinging. I was reacting to an overreaction but if I must explain - it looks like a piece of municipal art with the kind of trompe l'oeil once only seen on a Changing Rooms makeover, fabulous it certainly isn't. Self aggrandizing because it's an impossible to avoid giant Athena poster flamboyantly signed - some people seem to think the crime of the century has been committed by a bored teen (prob) against a martyred saint.

[rendelharris]

Oh come now, you don't like it and that's fine, but nobody's said anything like that here; all that's been said is that people like it and don't like it being tagged.

"Giant Athena poster" is a meaningless insult, I'd be more interested to hear your reasoned critique, as you obviously feel passionate about it, than just name calling.

If signing one's artwork is self-aggrandizing then 99% of artists are guilty, no?

[flocker spotter]

The dulwich galley has appropriated a distinct and living art form for its own grasping and parasitic ends. The tag is the only life visible on the statis of this grotesque commitee approved wall painting.Appropriation from those who cannot fight back is the acceptable face of the intellectually hamstrung art facilitator *community*.

[rendelharris]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The dulwich galley has appropriated a distinct and

> living art form for its own grasping and parasitic

> ends. The tag is the only life visible on the

> statis of this grotesque commitee approved wall

> painting.Appropriation from those who cannot fight

> back is the acceptable face of the intellectually

> hamstrung art facilitator *community*.

I think there's some confusion here between street art and graffiti art. The only thing the Dulwich murals have in common with graffiti art is their presence on walls. They're not appropriating graffiti art, unless graffiti art appropriated the idea of painting on walls from the Romans, or the painters of Lascaux, or whomever you choose to decide is the victim of appropriation.

[edhistory]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The dulwich galley has appropriated

What has the Dulwich Picture Gallery got to do with this?

[Seabag]

east-of-the-Rye Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought this policeman on Consort Road was

> great, with a lovely smile, but someone tagged his

> face (before I took this picture) and changed his

> expression.The whole picture was, I suppose,

> graffiti, and has gone now - there are houses

> there now.

It's done by the same 'artist' who did the guy in his Calvin Klien's (which is often a stick up)

And that is crap too.

It's a lazy take on Banksy's style/work, done on an overhead and lacking technique.

It reminds me of that idiot that 'painted' the Nun Head rubbish.

[maxxi]

rendelharris Wrote:

>

> If signing one's artwork is self-aggrandizing then

> 99% of artists are guilty, no?

You missed out my main point re - impossible to avoid. Most artists sign work designed to be viewed by those who choose to view not those who are confronted with it on a daily basis regardless of their wishes. Seen a Banksy signature recently? Also street art is meant to be temporary not guarded and revered like the bleeding Sistine chapel

[nxjen]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think there's some confusion here between street

> art and graffiti art.

See my previous post regarding the former evolving from the latter.

Maxxi: Totally agree. The street art we see around Dulwich is a sanitised version of the art form. Some murals I like, others I don?t.

[Penguin68]

Also street art is meant to be temporary not guarded and revered like the bleeding Sistine chapel

That might be true of some types of street art - but think of the exterior detail (including bas relief etc.) on some buildings, particularly Victorian and earlier - that is 'street art' - that is art designed to be seen by those outside a property - and is very much not to be considered temporary - neither, for instance, is signage - such as pub signs - again 'street art' - just not one type of street art.

The pictures (albeit some by 'street artists' such as Stik) that we are talking about - murals inspired by (not commissioned by) the Dulwich Picture Gallery were all painted with permission of the wall owners - they are not wild graffiti tagging which can be temporary (ideally most of which are extremely temporary).

These were all intended to be long term additions to the street environment around Dulwich and East Dulwich.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > I think there's some confusion here between

> street

> > art and graffiti art.

>

> See my previous post regarding the former evolving

> from the latter.

>

> Maxxi: Totally agree. The street art we see

> around Dulwich is a sanitised version of the art

> form. Some murals I like, others I don?t.

See my previous post - the Dulwich street art is much more akin to classical murals, it's permanent. Very little of it has any relation to graffiti art, it derives from another tradition entirely.

[nxjen]

You?re just seeing the finished piece without seeing the journey taken to get there. I think the artists themselves are happy to be called street artists in the contemporary sense of the term with their roots in graffiti.

[rendelharris]

However they arrived there, they are permanent artworks of which, I believe, most of the community are extremely fond. I can't believe one really has to argue that it's not cool to go around vandalizing other people's work (and property) just because one doesn't like it, or has a chip on one's shoulder that it's somehow been "stolen." I hate UPVC windows in Victorian houses, if you have them installed is it ok for me to come and lob a brick through them?

[rendelharris]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Seen a Banksy signature recently?

I think I can just about spot it here...