Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

'Concept' Writers


-Unztopbl750-
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK then. What I mean by 'Concpt writers' are those who deal with a deeper theme, one that unites all their pieces, tag names etc. What comes first, eye candy or brain food ( ;) )?

Are these artists highbrow or lowbrow, or just plkain fucking pretentious?

 

Be clear I do not mean so called'Graffiti' writers who use art school training and one watch of wildstyle to appropriate an entire culture and do pieces on canvas to display in galleries (see McKenzie Galleries in St andrews for some truly shocking examples, not that any of you will live anywhere near sta's) I do in fact mean thoses who use grafitti as an expressive tool to convey serious points of view

 

Tell me if ive babbled a whole load of shit, i find it difficult to tell sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

KRink is definitely clever, but I think it kind of defeats the point. Graffitti by its nature is meant to be sorta freeform, and selling people your custom ink is (in my opinion) just like licensing people to use your style. Better to tell people how to make the shit, and let them individualise it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by -Unztopbl750-@Apr 7 2005, 04:35 PM

KRink is definitely clever, but I think it kind of defeats the point. Graffitti by its nature is meant to be sorta freeform, and selling people your custom ink is (in my opinion) just like licensing people to use your style. Better to tell people how to make the shit, and let them individualise it

 

how long you been writing? how much money do your parents deposit in your bank account every month?

writing is about getting up and getting over. 'krink' has made KR one of the most famous writers of the last decade, that wouldn't have happened if he gave shit away for free.

 

writers that have some obvious philosophical theme tying all their work together are one dimmensional and boring...or atleast in every scenario i can imagine they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that I was TRYING to make was just that I think describing KRink as a 'concept' totally misses the point of what I meant (no offence)

 

I am actually talking about a group of people I know who don't really consider themselves 'writers' but more traditional artists, but they paint on walls. They (3 of them) do stuff together, kinda surrealist type stuff, usually with no written content.

 

To start talking about graffiti was just confusing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by seeking@Apr 8 2005, 05:58 AM

writers that have some obvious philosophical theme tying all their work together are one dimmensional and boring...

 

seeking...one dimensional and boring..maybe true, and i prefer to take it case by case,

but really you just summed up your average writer, wouldn't you say?

furthermore, 'art fag bullshit'?? hahaha, i suppose this depends on what exactly

you define as artfag shit...

anything different is okay in my books, and personally, any shit that

gives a big fuck you to the so called 'unspoken rules' of graffiti(with

the exception of disrespecting others) and what most writers deem as 'dope' stands out

way more to me than your regular ass writer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by POIESIS+Apr 8 2005, 10:47 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (POIESIS - Apr 8 2005, 10:47 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-seeking@Apr 8 2005, 05:58 AM

writers that have some obvious philosophical theme tying all their work together are one dimmensional and boring...

 

seeking...one dimensional and boring..maybe true, and i prefer to take it case by case,

but really you just summed up your average writer, wouldn't you say?

furthermore, 'art fag bullshit'?? hahaha, i suppose this depends on what exactly

you define as artfag shit...

anything different is okay in my books, and personally, any shit that

gives a big fuck you to the so called 'unspoken rules' of graffiti(with

the exception of disrespecting others) and what most writers deem as 'dope' stands out

way more to me than your regular ass writer...

[/b]

 

no, your average writer has one purpose; to get up, and hopefully to do it with his (or her) own brand of style. that's not really a 'philosophical theme'. a nascar driver aims to drive faster than the other cars, a basketball player wants to score more baskets, etc. now i'll be the first to admit that there is a certain sort of 'zen' amidst the 'art' of writing, but it's a personal thing that comes about as a secondary result of dedication, not of the intial act itself. for instance, graff has taught/forced me to dedicate myself ceaslessly to something that defies logic. i do it for the same reason someone practices martial arts, for the experience and to see how hard i can push myself. now obviously theres all sorts of philosophical shit at play there, but to the outside world, it just looks like graffiti. im not trying to convey some 'message'. im not trying to 'rip the system' or free mumia. the way the guy described it, it seemed to me that was what he was hinting at; somebody that is trying to push a specified agenda. to me, that generally gets real old, real quick, because its so limited. whatever you do has to convey that message, and if it doesnt convey the message, it ceases to be what it was intended to be. i know that probably sounds ridiculous, because all graff is pushing an agenda, and is inherently limited i guess, but from my perspective, its completely different if your sole intention is to get up. for instance, you coould easily say someone like SI or JA is formulaic and boring because they do the exact same shit every time, but since that's the goal, IMO, it never gets old. does that make any sense? im not trying to argue my position btw, just trying to clarify. all of this is just my opinion, nothing more.

 

as for the second part of your statement, i completely disagree. i value the 'unspoken rules' of graffiti, because to me, they're no different than the 'code of honor' that every 'underground' organization/scene goes by, and once you erase them, you erase the artform itself. which isnt to say that those rules dont change or adapt with time, but there are certain things that will never go out of style, and that cant be changed. good letters, heart, respect, dedication, etc. all of those things are of the utmost importance to me. if a writer lacks them, in most situations, he's not a writer IMO, he's something else, and i'm not concerned with anything else.

 

there is a difference between coming up in the system then expanding outside the confines and coming up outside the system but standing close enough that from a distance, you look to play the part. all the guys in Transcend are a perfect example. many of them have very unique 'non traditional' styles, but at the same time, every single one of them can burn you with any style you want from them. they learned how to play by the rules in order to break them. make sense?

 

i dont care if anyone agrees with me, just as long as they understand where i'm coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...graffiti is not art...it never will be...it's just fuckin graffiti...

 

 

...that statement may piss some of you off, but it's true...one of the things i was trying to get across in the other thread is the huge difference between underground arts and Art...i have no idea what kind of 'concept' graffiti you're talking about, but if you're referring to people painting murals, than it's not graffiti, it's a mural...murals then relate to the history of mural painting, not graffit, wether they used spray paint or not...

 

...i'm kinda drunk...i'll finish my thoughts later...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why couldnt anyone just understand the concept and then discuss it? Instead of arguing our own definitions for the word 'graffiti'.

 

 

Conceptual writers, the idea is fairly new, possibly as old as the internet. (The most powerfull medium in the graffiti world, where as before it would have been magazines or video) The internet romanticizes certain aspects of graffiti and hides others. For instance, drugs are often culturally alied with graffiti, (at least where I live) tag banging etc. I had no idea that graffiti was as violent as it is when I first began, this was generally because I was wet behind the ears and had spent my time watching wildstyle and reading graffiti.org and not spending time outside with real writers.

 

Now writers come from different cultural backrounds aswell. Some in less urban enviroments, writers of different types will come out of different backrounds.

 

On the art school matter. It only seems natural if you had been writing all through high school, to choose a career in the area that you have the most interest in. Graphic design and Art still interact with graffiti, they have been since writers had blackbooks.

 

It seems to me that graffiti has a natural tendency to lend it self to more thought. Even if a writer has developed some sort of philosophy on writing itself which justifys it further than being just a cultural phenomenon. A way to get 'ups'. (Ups are important, still)

 

Yes, I like conceptual graffiti. You cant have two polar opposites existing; all style, no substance (graffiti) all substance. no style (art)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'Style' is the 'Substance'

The 'Act' is the 'Art'

 

 

 

 

 

See attched pic from

 

'VFR'

We Kill Shit

 

 

 

 

Now hurry along, your art, humanities, social studies, philosophy, yada yada yada bullshit lecture starts in 10 mins.

 

Don’t worry you will still be ignorant about the graffiti culture as when you went in.

vfr.gif.0bd1ce87fc5a6b2f0e0bcdfea529dec7.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'Style' is the 'Substance'

The 'Act' is the 'Art'

 

I would definitely agree as far as most writers ar concerned.

 

the act of bombing or tagging or whatever has a quality of 'fuck you',and more than that graffiti is also a way to define yourself (kinda similar to battle rhyming- trying to find a similar example of what i mean by this)- the skill of the individual writer is usually what defines the piece

 

But im talking about trying to seperate skill from the statement. The guy that said this is pushing a specific agenda eg free mumia: this could be, but not necesarily. To have a subject for a piece is not such a crazy idea eg memorial graffiti, or yes, political graff. I just mean using the 'act' to convey something: this could change from piece to piece, but after all writers use words, and words mean things

 

whatever you do has to convey that message, and if it doesnt convey the message, it ceases to be what it was intended to be.

 

That would be graffiti where the writer has started with an idea (political or whatever) and tried to work a piece around it. And yes that gets quite tired quite quickly because it is inherently formulaic. But to start with the graffiti and use it to express an idea, much as that might seem like the same thing, is in my eyes totally different. Tht can be fresh, interesting, and appeal to the reader on two levels- graffiti that makes you think. More than that, I don't see why doing this kind of graffiti prevents you from getting up. So long as it executed with skill and people respect it as graff, then why is it different to any other peice? to describe that as "artfag bullshit" is just narrow minded. I don't necesarily love this kind of graff, but I think it is an interesting direction to push

 

PS who the fuck are you to tell me I don't understand graffiti? Ive been writing since I was 10, and I understand the concept of getting up perfectly (and yes it is a concept)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SPORTO@Apr 10 2005, 02:09 AM

The 'Style' is the 'Substance'

The 'Act' is the 'Art'

 

 

 

"It seems to me that graffiti has a natural tendency to lend it self to more thought. Even if a writer has developed some sort of philosophy on writing itself which justifys it further than being just a cultural phenomenon."

 

 

Dorks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...