Urban Art Association

Heard about this onthe radio. 
Seems nowhere near as bad as the rothko damage. This one has been cleaned off already, I heard. 
Still worrying though. 
Sounds like the lady who did this is not at all well. 
Stunning painting. 

this is my worry too. i guess with all the coverage the rothko vandalism got it was inevitable someone else would have a go. hopefully the last.

I'm always interested in peoples reactions on this site when circumstances like this arise. This site is after all based around illegal street vandalism that masquerades itself as a form of art (which it is), we all muse at site based installations and we all enjoy seeing a bit of graff on a police car or a well executed stencil in a risky spot, perhaps even a clever, well thought out bit of tampering that adds humour to an everyday bland object. It's all fun and games whilst being a bit naughty, however the scene go's far deeper than the mere gimmicks of a pretty tag or throwup. With works by artists like Banksy, as you all know, often exuding a social commentary, tapping into a mass consciousness or reflecting particular political motivations......all under the urban, street, vandalism banner, often illegally (less so these days) often free, without the intention of releasing a print of said artwork (even less so these days) and sometimes illegal (one aspect that attracted a delinquent like me to the scene in the first place)

I was always under the impression that everything was fair game when tagging or bombing and every time a tag was sprayed on a shop wall or penned in a tube carriage it was a conscious two fingers being stuck up to society and consumerism and 'the man' and I for one loved it, nothing it seemed was out of bounds, houses, cars, trains, phone boxes, who cared?....until piece of expensive fine art was tagged.

I recall when the Rothko piece was vandalised with a marker pen last year. At first I didn't know how to feel about that, to me it was a massive contradiction as I'm an urban art fan and due to the nature of the art I/we like, am a fan of artistic vandalism and anarchy. This scene introduced me to art and an interest in art is something I'll now always have. The only thing that's changed for me is, as I've got balder and fatter my taste has expanded and developed and my knowledge has grown. A year or so after the Rothko incident I look back on it with anger and contempt that a mindless vandal tried to, and nearly succeeded, ruin an impossibly important piece of art that almost defines an entire art movement just to promote a cause.

The strange thing is, I felt nothing of the sort when Banksy changed the famous King Robbo throwup a few years ago, despite it being an important piece in a much younger scene.

But isn't that what urban art is?

Does urban art have boundaries?.......should it?


It's funny how opinions change over time.

Even graff has rules. The tagger who goes over a piece is disrespecting the author of the piece and is inviting battle/fisticuffs. Most writers do recognise the talent or respect of another writer and wouldn't dream of challenging them unless they wanted all out war with them - at least thats how the old skool writers saw it. A vandal of an art work is nothing but a cheap fame seeker, in the same way writers who tag on a writers background know their name will live long in a hundred photos of the piece. When someone feels the most likely way they will find their place in art history is by ruining someone elses work the majority of artists will feel its a misplaced channeling of creativety.