RavePGH Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Hey Folks, I posted a new article based on Lady Pink's assertion that the graffiti art movement is bigger than the Renaissance (as in like, Da Vinci, Raphael, Michelangelo, etc.). Let me know what you think. Here's the link: http://www.deadlybuda.com/graffiti-bigger-than-the-renaissance/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 That is just a moronic argument from the get go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavePGH Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share Posted March 25, 2014 Well, even though I don't agree that Graff has surpassed the Renaissance, Pink makes a pretty good case. For example, what other art movement has had a comparable distribution and adoption to graff? You can't really say that about ANY art movement in the western world for centuries. So, I would almost say Graff is second to the Renaissance in size and scope. I think with that realization the stakes of the game get a little higher. What will be the graff world's Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I've travelled a lot and to some pretty obscure joints, everywhere I've been had at least some graf, not of my doing. Vast shit is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Quantity does not mean more of an impact in the world. The average person does not know anything about graff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 that's an almost idiotic comparison. graffiti is not only art, it can be political or vandalism, or any number of other things.. so to call it an art movement is already redefining what it actually is, imo. there is NO ONE in graffiti that could compare to Leonardo Da Vinci the man was one of the world's greatest inventors, innovators, scientists and artists to have EVER lived. i agree with CIL the average person not only doesn't know about graffiti, they don't like it. to the regular folk, a graffiti writer is a loser and a criminal, and we won't be appreciated after we drop dead. lady pink isn't a bad person but i don't care for that opinion. leave it to a graffiti writer who came of age in the NYC 70s scene to have that kind of ego. what you could possibly argue with limited success, is that graffiti has gotten ALMOST as big as advertising. and animation and graphic design, separately considered or together, has easily surpassed graffiti in size, scope and influence 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedicineCabinet Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 spray paint > leonardo da vinci graffiti yo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnitzel Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 leave it to a graffiti writer who came of age in the NYC 70s scene to have that kind of ego. amen to that! glad somebody else shares the same opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Some of them annoy me too with their egos. For example, why does Seen get a pass on pushing his shit for sale on here? Dude rarely talks on his posts. Other people would get banned for doing the shit he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zed_Eastwood Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Quantity does not mean more of an impact in the world. The average person does not know anything about graff. during the Renaissance, the average person didnt know about Renaissance artists either. The Renaissance is only monumental in historical context. during the Renaissance they knew it was some new shit, just like Henry and Martha knew it was some new shit when Part and Slave were doing whole cars on the 2s and 5s. i think the purpose of Writing (not graffiti) has no real value outside of the Writing culture. For that reason, i doubt it will have much of an impact on humanity - even in 5000 years. However, what writing has done is bring together people of all races and socio-economic backgrounds unlike anything else in recent history except maybe sports. to that end, in the future i could see it recognized for that more than the actuall art. as for old school writers and their egos, MAD MAD MAD MAD people get paid off of graffiti, including the creators of this site. the people who created, popularized and made it so cool that YOU wanted to be involved deserve all the passes they can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 during the Renaissance, the average person didnt know about Renaissance artists either. The Renaissance is only monumental in historical context. during the Renaissance they knew it was some new shit, just like Henry and Martha knew it was some new shit when Part and Slave were doing whole cars on the 2s and 5s. i think the purpose of Writing (not graffiti) has no real value outside of the Writing culture. For that reason, i doubt it will have much of an impact on humanity - even in 5000 years. However, what writing has done is bring together people of all races and socio-economic backgrounds unlike anything else in recent history except maybe sports. to that end, in the future i could see it recognized for that more than the actuall art. as for old school writers and their egos, MAD MAD MAD MAD people get paid off of graffiti, including the creators of this site. the people who created, popularized and made it so cool that YOU wanted to be involved deserve all the passes they can get. I could get down with everything but your last paragraph. As for that. Get off their dick. He posts his shit over and over again, without contributing to the site. Fuck that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucksoe Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Pretty sure thats not Seen posting but some European dude who must like him a little bit.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zed_Eastwood Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 ^^exactly im on their dicks, but you are the one that is clearly salty because seen does not contribute or talk on this site make sense i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 IF it's not Seen posting it then that's an even better argument for the mods to fuck it off out of here. Annoys the shit out of me, to be honest, even when I thought it was Seen himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I have noticed that in the copenhagen thread, I have seen spamming of Seen goods but then also I have seen the same account actually posting flicks etc so that is why I haven't done anything about it. As for this thread, it is stupid. I don't really give a shit about art movements or art history (I know that shit is ignorant but old art does nothing for me). I do graf because I like it not to be part of some bigger movement, most graf writers are dicks anyway haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatDrawingBitch Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 First off, Decy and I argue about this shit all the time. ALL THE TIME. Last night we argued about whether it's biting for a writer to replicate a font, and then why it is biting to also replicate a font because another writer did it first. Basically, I came into graf via art... Decy is more... he's always been a writer, you know? Anyway. I'm sure most of this must have been said (sorry), this is my take tho... i really think graffiti has a massive social importance. It's reclamation, it is protest, it is courting the breaking of the law. It is a way that people have given importance to their neighbourhoods. It seems to be an inbuilt thing in humans... to mark walls. Since the beginning, people have wanted to not only MAKE a mark, but LEAVE something of THEM behind. you can apply that theory to grave markings, belief in ghosts etc; it's a human instinct, to leave your mark on the world. I also think that there is something extremely special about the way graffiti evolves as a single movement encompassing any style. It is almost more about the canvas choice than the subject matter. it is global, it is both accessible and alienating. I do think it is art, just because of the way it has evolved to be instantly recognisable. there's a set styles, set mediums, parameters... and yet those have dissolved over time, the rules have relaxed. I get immense satisfaction whether it is finishing one of my trad pieces of art, finishing a sprayed piece of graf or art, or spending a night bombing everything I can. There is gratification in making art. Whatever that gratification is, is personal. but making anything artistic leads to gratification. Graffiti takes that and forces it on the public. The hugely fascinating thing to me iis that advertising is a-ok because it's paid for. graffiti is like a fuck you in many ways; why shouldn't we mark walls? Why is my art less ok than a company buying a billboard space and bombarding you with subtle buybuybuy messages? Edit - I think graf and the renaissance are a fair comparison. both are close to being a cultural movement rather than a purely artistic one. Graf almost has its own four pillars - legal, illegal, merch, collab. Ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hua Guofang Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 First off, Decy and I argue about this shit all the time. ALL THE TIME. Last night we argued about whether it's biting for a writer to replicate a font, and then why it is biting to also replicate a font because another writer did it first. 1 - no, because they are ubiquitous and their creation was for communication in particular settings, not generally as art, the creativity involved is generally not for aesthetics and if it is aesthetics it is for a totally different context than graff. 2 - yes it is because seeing something general and adapting it for a specific creative purpose is a novel idea that some one else had. Taking almost any idea and adapting it to graff is fine as that's an original innovative use of a concept. But to then copy that adaptation is just copying without innovation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolling nowhere Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Quantity does not mean more of an impact in the world. The average person does not know anything about graff. Id bet the average person has a better idea of what graffiti is than what the renaissance was without mentioning any names or specific paintings that they have probably heard of but do not know they have anything to do with the renaissance. The average person probably doesnt know the capital of fucking montana. Its helena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I didn't read any of this and I've been drinking but that is a fucking retarded thing to think Apples and oranges... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 i think it's too soon to call graffiti anything near the renaissance. besides, most of this is imploding anyways, as the artistic side and the illegal side stray farther and farther from each other. the classical definition of a "graffiti writer" - illegal tags, throws, pieces - has mostly gone away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.