|
|
my new baby..., by Daniel Silk on Sept 11, 2007 19:15:05 GMT 1, Did someone see the original pic where the space invader "would" have been hung on this guy walls in one piece ? Or did he make a nice photoshop work in order to know if he could sell it on this forum if he took it ? (crazy I know but this guy looks so)
From what I remember  it looked like a genuine photo of it hung on his wall at home.
Did someone see the original pic where the space invader "would" have been hung on this guy walls in one piece ? Or did he make a nice photoshop work in order to know if he could sell it on this forum if he took it ? (crazy I know but this guy looks so) From what I remember it looked like a genuine photo of it hung on his wall at home. |
|
jome
New Member
🗨️ 24
👍🏻 0
July 2006
|
my new baby..., by jome on Sept 11, 2007 19:17:43 GMT 1, So I guess this space invader is really dead by now.... 
Don't buy it from him !!!!!
So I guess this space invader is really dead by now.... Don't buy it from him !!!!! |
|
bonesy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,387
👍🏻 264
July 2006
|
my new baby..., by bonesy on Sept 11, 2007 19:18:01 GMT 1, Did someone see the original pic where the space invader "would" have been hung on this guy walls in one piece ? Or did he make a nice photoshop work in order to know if he could sell it on this forum if he took it ? (crazy I know but this guy looks so) From what I remember it looked like a genuine photo of it hung on his wall at home.
With a Banksy Flying Copper (might have been homemade) in the background.
Did someone see the original pic where the space invader "would" have been hung on this guy walls in one piece ? Or did he make a nice photoshop work in order to know if he could sell it on this forum if he took it ? (crazy I know but this guy looks so) From what I remember it looked like a genuine photo of it hung on his wall at home. With a Banksy Flying Copper (might have been homemade) in the background. |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by graeme501 on Sept 11, 2007 19:21:04 GMT 1, when i was in london i took great joy in seeing the invaders up and about, they should remain on the streets
i didnt c the 1st pic but if he wants a legitimit space invader on his walls, then he should have bough the invader kits that invader sells on his website - orginals for the streets, invasion kits for the house
when i was in london i took great joy in seeing the invaders up and about, they should remain on the streets
i didnt c the 1st pic but if he wants a legitimit space invader on his walls, then he should have bough the invader kits that invader sells on his website - orginals for the streets, invasion kits for the house
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Daniel Silk on Sept 11, 2007 19:21:17 GMT 1, So I guess this space invader is really dead by now.... Don't buy it from him !!!!!
The Invasion will overcome this small setback  Support the Invasion! ;D
Buy from - www.Space-Invaders.com
So I guess this space invader is really dead by now.... Don't buy it from him !!!!! The Invasion will overcome this small setback Support the Invasion! ;D Buy from - www.Space-Invaders.com |
|
jome
New Member
🗨️ 24
👍🏻 0
July 2006
|
my new baby..., by jome on Sept 11, 2007 19:28:25 GMT 1, That was not my point Silky
I rephrase : "don't buy that kind of piece from anybody" (don't buy a stolen street art piece. It has no value except in the street where everybody can enjoy it).
That was not my point Silky I rephrase : "don't buy that kind of piece from anybody" (don't buy a stolen street art piece. It has no value except in the street where everybody can enjoy it). |
|
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by curiousgeorge on Sept 11, 2007 19:29:24 GMT 1, Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown.
What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal!
Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property.
I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff
Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points??
Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown.
What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal!
Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property.
I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff
Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points??
|
|
GD303uk
New Member
🗨️ 601
👍🏻 8
October 2006
|
my new baby..., by GD303uk on Sept 11, 2007 19:32:45 GMT 1, f**k the law, and legality of street art,
f**k the law, and legality of street art,
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by curiousgeorge on Sept 11, 2007 19:35:15 GMT 1, Btw i don't think for one minute what this guy did is correct
Btw i don't think for one minute what this guy did is correct
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Fearkiller on Sept 11, 2007 19:36:00 GMT 1, morning,
Homemade Copper?
Not really the Banksy Copper is real.
As far as I remember the story it was in vienna and banksy put this piece up on some kind of market stand which later had to be destroyd so Syndicath bought it from the owner.
*Nothing against this kind of getting a street piece really who wouldn´t do the same as syndicath*?
greetz
morning,
Homemade Copper?
Not really the Banksy Copper is real.
As far as I remember the story it was in vienna and banksy put this piece up on some kind of market stand which later had to be destroyd so Syndicath bought it from the owner.
*Nothing against this kind of getting a street piece really who wouldn´t do the same as syndicath*?
greetz
|
|
bonesy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,387
👍🏻 264
July 2006
|
my new baby..., by bonesy on Sept 11, 2007 19:50:08 GMT 1,
My bad then. I thought it said "Banksy" in big letters under it or something, which Im not used to seeing. I would have double checked but the pic has been removed
My bad then. I thought it said "Banksy" in big letters under it or something, which Im not used to seeing. I would have double checked but the pic has been removed |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by saltandiron on Sept 11, 2007 19:56:25 GMT 1, Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points??
Good question really.
The way I see it is that if you put something up on to someone's wall it becomes theirs to do with as they please, buff it, cut it out and sell it or just leave it where it is. When a third party (lets call him barry) comes along and takes it for their own enjoyment or gain then that's taking something that isn't theirs. The fact that it was put there illegally is a separate matter, its not barry's to take. If I came along and left something of value in your front garden you could call it fly tipping or you could see it as a piece of luck and enjoy it, nobody else has the right to come and take it from you though.
I reserve the right to edit this when someone points out a glaring fault with the logic in this hastily written response.
Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points?? Good question really. The way I see it is that if you put something up on to someone's wall it becomes theirs to do with as they please, buff it, cut it out and sell it or just leave it where it is. When a third party (lets call him barry) comes along and takes it for their own enjoyment or gain then that's taking something that isn't theirs. The fact that it was put there illegally is a separate matter, its not barry's to take. If I came along and left something of value in your front garden you could call it fly tipping or you could see it as a piece of luck and enjoy it, nobody else has the right to come and take it from you though. I reserve the right to edit this when someone points out a glaring fault with the logic in this hastily written response. |
|
Strange Al
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,293
👍🏻 64
October 2006
|
my new baby..., by Strange Al on Sept 11, 2007 19:59:25 GMT 1, Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points?? Good question really. The way I see it is that if you put something up on to someone's wall it becomes theirs to do with as they please, buff it, cut it out and sell it or just leave it where it is. When a third party (lets call him barry) comes along and takes it for their own enjoyment or gain then that's taking something that isn't theirs. The fact that it was put there illegally is a separate matter, its not barry's to take. If I came along and left something of value in your front garden you could call it fly tipping or you could see it as a piece of luck and enjoy it, nobody else has the right to come and take it from you though. I reseve the right to edit this when someone points out a glaring fault with the logic in this hastily written resonse.
Salt - as you'll see from my earlier post, I agree with this reasoning.
I do think there is a wider debate about graff on private property as opposed to public property. As a general rule, I'm against graffers writing on walls owned by private individuals.
Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points?? Good question really. The way I see it is that if you put something up on to someone's wall it becomes theirs to do with as they please, buff it, cut it out and sell it or just leave it where it is. When a third party (lets call him barry) comes along and takes it for their own enjoyment or gain then that's taking something that isn't theirs. The fact that it was put there illegally is a separate matter, its not barry's to take. If I came along and left something of value in your front garden you could call it fly tipping or you could see it as a piece of luck and enjoy it, nobody else has the right to come and take it from you though. I reseve the right to edit this when someone points out a glaring fault with the logic in this hastily written resonse. Salt - as you'll see from my earlier post, I agree with this reasoning. I do think there is a wider debate about graff on private property as opposed to public property. As a general rule, I'm against graffers writing on walls owned by private individuals. |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by numusic on Sept 11, 2007 20:04:12 GMT 1, Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points??
Yes, the only way you can legitimise council laws, is to break them. The whole point of graffiti and street art is to make private space ( i.e corporate and institutional space), public. Attempting to take the streets back from corporate dominance through advertising should be commended and the work should stay put, laws don't come into it.
EDIT : As a general rule good writers and street artists don't unless absolutely necessary paint on private housing. The rest is fair game IMO
Not looking to stick up for anyone,But i've seen this subject come up a few times here, and often the same sentiments are shown. What i don't understand is often street art is illegal ie on someone's property which as far as i know is against the law, if people get away with it, fine and dandy. But when stuff is removed or buffed people go nuts, yet totally forget that the piece was more than likely illegal?? Often without a passing thought to irony, people will mention the damage to the wall during removal! Had something been put up with permission then i would kind of understand people getting bent out of shape over it. I often hear street art belongs on the street, but if it's put up without permission then i guess it really belongs in the Artists book and not on someone else's property. I know people are going to say street art would be nothing without using the streets as a canvas, however i'm not the one saying how wrong it is to remove stuff Can someone explain/debate this without going silly with +/- points?? Yes, the only way you can legitimise council laws, is to break them. The whole point of graffiti and street art is to make private space ( i.e corporate and institutional space), public. Attempting to take the streets back from corporate dominance through advertising should be commended and the work should stay put, laws don't come into it. EDIT : As a general rule good writers and street artists don't unless absolutely necessary paint on private housing. The rest is fair game IMO |
|
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Run Pig Run on Sept 11, 2007 20:08:59 GMT 1, f**k the law, and legality of street art,
the most sensible thing written so far, good call.
f**k the law, and legality of street art, the most sensible thing written so far, good call. |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by curiousgeorge on Sept 11, 2007 20:12:58 GMT 1, Law does not come into it?
Sorry dude, but that's a wee bit radical for me, Anarchy, break all the laws you don't like.I'm going to sound like a stick in the mud but i enjoy a bit of law and order myself. Many,many moons ago i used to spray, for none of the above reasons
Law does not come into it?
Sorry dude, but that's a wee bit radical for me, Anarchy, break all the laws you don't like.I'm going to sound like a stick in the mud but i enjoy a bit of law and order myself. Many,many moons ago i used to spray, for none of the above reasons
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by carlito on Sept 11, 2007 20:26:10 GMT 1, Law does not come into it? Sorry dude, but that's a wee bit radical for me, Anarchy, break all the laws you don't like.I'm going to sound like a stick in the mud but i enjoy a bit of law and order myself. Many,many moons ago i used to spray, for none of the above reasons
which is better CG an advert for Deodorant or Banksy? Which has more meaning and adds more to the environment?
Law does not come into it? Sorry dude, but that's a wee bit radical for me, Anarchy, break all the laws you don't like.I'm going to sound like a stick in the mud but i enjoy a bit of law and order myself. Many,many moons ago i used to spray, for none of the above reasons which is better CG an advert for Deodorant or Banksy? Which has more meaning and adds more to the environment? |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by mcnuts on Sept 11, 2007 20:28:20 GMT 1, well maybe someone can go check
well maybe someone can go check |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Fearkiller on Sept 11, 2007 20:35:39 GMT 1, hm?
I think Artpartments apartment would be far more intresting than the invader tile. ;D
greetz
hm?
I think Artpartments apartment would be far more intresting than the invader tile. ;D
greetz
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by dave313perry on Sept 11, 2007 20:37:19 GMT 1, Were demeaned, insulted, confused, imposed and emotionally played upon by adverts and billboards
So i see alot of street Graffiti, especially the Political type as a fight back from the peasants of society, and a genious way of getting a point accross and touching peoples minds and bring abit of realisation to the world.
Plus most of it looks bloody nice!!! were not talking skanky tags done by a 15 year old here!!
Were demeaned, insulted, confused, imposed and emotionally played upon by adverts and billboards
So i see alot of street Graffiti, especially the Political type as a fight back from the peasants of society, and a genious way of getting a point accross and touching peoples minds and bring abit of realisation to the world.
Plus most of it looks bloody nice!!! were not talking skanky tags done by a 15 year old here!!
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
🗨️ 5,388
👍🏻 254
January 2007
|
my new baby..., by pezlow on Sept 11, 2007 20:37:24 GMT 1, Just as a sidenote it is really great orbi has joined this forum. Orbi runs the Invader space shop and is a great guy to deal with. And syndicath - shame on you.....
Just as a sidenote it is really great orbi has joined this forum. Orbi runs the Invader space shop and is a great guy to deal with. And syndicath - shame on you.....
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Daniel Silk on Sept 11, 2007 21:09:31 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by mcnuts on Sept 11, 2007 21:17:44 GMT 1, great video but really bad music in it. whats up with that?
great video but really bad music in it. whats up with that?
|
|
ABC
Artist
Junior Member
🗨️ 5,533
👍🏻 1,923
August 2006
|
my new baby..., by ABC on Sept 11, 2007 21:41:56 GMT 1, Love that large work on the wall, is it "Scream"
Love that large work on the wall, is it "Scream"
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by cashman on Sept 11, 2007 22:06:21 GMT 1, Love that large work on the wall, is it "Scream"
shaw is scream, nice little video i thought 
Love that large work on the wall, is it "Scream" shaw is scream, nice little video i thought |
|
gbh
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,595
👍🏻 14
May 2006
|
my new baby..., by gbh on Sept 11, 2007 23:07:33 GMT 1, Good morning
8+)
Regardless of the general feeling, I still firmly stand by my opinion and comments.
I'm not condoning removal, just offering some different angles of perspective. Open your eyes.
Feel free to continue negging me all you like.
At least I am happy to offer some variety of opinion on these forums as opposed to the general trend of the many sheeple here.
I'm now begging to have a more clear understanding of why so many of the longer term members have left.
Good morning
8+)
Regardless of the general feeling, I still firmly stand by my opinion and comments.
I'm not condoning removal, just offering some different angles of perspective. Open your eyes.
Feel free to continue negging me all you like.
At least I am happy to offer some variety of opinion on these forums as opposed to the general trend of the many sheeple here.
I'm now begging to have a more clear understanding of why so many of the longer term members have left.
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by Coach on Sept 11, 2007 23:18:21 GMT 1, i think it was wrong to remove the piece. it belonged where it was. if it was on my building, ethically i could remove it and do with it as i pleased. if not, i should leave it, unless it was clear that it was meant to be taken. as to whether its illigal to do street art on someone else's property, thats niether here nor there IMhumbleO. if its crap people will paint over, if its good they will probably paint over, or they might just leave it. but it wont last forever. but, i will defend anyone's right to an alternative opinion.
i think it was wrong to remove the piece. it belonged where it was. if it was on my building, ethically i could remove it and do with it as i pleased. if not, i should leave it, unless it was clear that it was meant to be taken. as to whether its illigal to do street art on someone else's property, thats niether here nor there IMhumbleO. if its crap people will paint over, if its good they will probably paint over, or they might just leave it. but it wont last forever. but, i will defend anyone's right to an alternative opinion.
|
|
|
|
my new baby..., by shavemysoul on Sept 12, 2007 2:07:01 GMT 1, Crash Bang Wollop! what a.......Tile?
"You can be quiet n'all or I'll take down your particulars!"
Crash Bang Wollop! what a.......Tile? "You can be quiet n'all or I'll take down your particulars!" |
|
|
|
my new baby..., by artpartment on Oct 8, 2007 18:19:33 GMT 1, I think there is other problems in the world than a removed space invader. in vienna there are about 50 still hanging around . i remember in the 80ties where big gallerist went around and removed works by keith harring.nobody gave any shit about it.this is an normal problem when street artist skip in galleries .of course each one who can not affort an originall from the gallery gonna try to get one from the street.thats life and so when the prices of the pieces getting higher and higher other people gonna try to remove them.i think invader should stay over it and maybe coming back to vienna and make some new and fresh stuff.
life goes on,art too
I think there is other problems in the world than a removed space invader. in vienna there are about 50 still hanging around . i remember in the 80ties where big gallerist went around and removed works by keith harring.nobody gave any shit about it.this is an normal problem when street artist skip in galleries .of course each one who can not affort an originall from the gallery gonna try to get one from the street.thats life and so when the prices of the pieces getting higher and higher other people gonna try to remove them.i think invader should stay over it and maybe coming back to vienna and make some new and fresh stuff.
life goes on,art too
|
|
dodge
New Member
🗨️ 515
👍🏻 8
November 2006
|
my new baby..., by dodge on Oct 8, 2007 19:46:54 GMT 1, This thread makes me very sad. About three months ago Newcastle got hit by invader. I remember catching sight of one for the first time and I got a real buzz from realising what it was. It kind of made me feel like I was the only one who had seen it. Like the one in the thread title, most of them have been 'removed'. I feel this is a great shame as it has effectively robbed people of experiencing the same excitement I felt. Shame.
This thread makes me very sad. About three months ago Newcastle got hit by invader. I remember catching sight of one for the first time and I got a real buzz from realising what it was. It kind of made me feel like I was the only one who had seen it. Like the one in the thread title, most of them have been 'removed'. I feel this is a great shame as it has effectively robbed people of experiencing the same excitement I felt. Shame.
|
|
it looked like a genuine photo of it hung on his wall at home. 
Support the Invasion! ;D
