deloco

For me at least, it's not that it's different - because i completely encourage people pushing different styles - its that these styles aren't any good. There are numerous people with completely individual styles in Melbourne, none of which are based off any existing "Melbourne style" but are still good because they adhere to the ideas not only of graffiti, but of letter form in general. And it's the people doing things that are completely outside of this with no knowledge of them which is why they look terrible.

I'd definitely agree with the majority of what you're saying alldope, but while in a lot of cases I'd say that what is being out is, as you say, absolute garbage masquerading as pieces, I think there has to be some merit given for different styles, or at least an attempt at doing something different. This isn't to say that I think it's good graffiti, but innovators have to be given some credit for trying to push something different. Often times I think the new style they're trying to push is bullshit, but I give credit for trying to push boundaries. That being said, I do agree that some of the most basic parts of graffiti get straight up passed by - proportional letters in particular. Basic understanding of letterform is something that I think is part innate and part learned, and a lot of new writers either don't have it or won't learn it. If you look at someone like Pilfer's style, or Sirum's, even when doing different things there are underlying principles in the letters that remain the same. These principles are tried and true, and are separate good graffiti from mindless scribbles. To get back on track, you're definitely not alone, but I think it's important to not tarnish all writers doing different styles with the same brush.