06:55 am - Writing Yesterday, instead of studying Operating Systems, I spent a lot of time looking at picturesofwalls.com. As collections of pictures go, it's definitely a better use of time than the various lolcat sites or the tedious omnomnomnom.com. For those unfamiliar, it's a huge collection of graffiti from around the world. The photography and slogans speak for themselves, being delivered refreshingly without comment (except, occasionally, a translation if the graffiti happens to be in a non-English language).

Much of it is funny, thought-provoking or endearing though they are interspersed with a few reminders why 'ordinary' people don't like graffiti: the inane, the trivial, the pretentious, the coarse and the downright stupid.
I'm in two minds about graffiti in general, really. I don't know why people don't like it. Is it because much of it is so inane (in which case that's an opinion I can agree with) or is it because it's confrontational? I like confrontational graffiti. Anything that will make people stop and think has, I think, got to be a Good Thing. I don't like tagging -- given that it's, essentially, another form of territorialism, I don't see any difference between that and pissing in the street.
The real joke is that I'm sure some might say it makes the place look ugly. I don't agree with that at all. If anything, it serves as a reminder that the urban wasteland was ugly in the first place, which is something we all-too-often ignore. In that, there may be something 'hyperrealist' about graffiti which makes people uncomfortable.
 The existence of picturesofwalls.com raises interesting questions in itself. It is, essentially, graffiti-on-demand. You, too, can witness writing in public places from the comfort of your own home, via the magic of the intertubes! Given this controlled environment, I'm sure some of the impact -- and therefore some of the whole point of graffiti in the first place -- is lost. But it also puts some perspective on the issue by raising these very questions.
|