No body asks for huge billboard adverts for McDonald’s to be put in their neighbourhood. So as far as I’m concerned people have a right to decorate their neighbourhood as they see fit. If McDonald’s can deface a wall then why shouldn’t anyone else.
This comment seemed dumb at first but it's kinda a really good point how much stuff is shoved in front of our eyes without our permission to persuade us to spend money on crap we don't need, yet a message spreading awareness about peace and love is a 'crime'.
the fact Goldie has an MBE after his name and being so “in your face “ in the 80s is bad ass !!! and being able to het away carrying balls so big is deff bad ass !!!
It's a tricky one because to get started you need a big expensive canvas and to get local council permission is impossible if you are an unknown. I bet certain local councils would be queuing up to get Banksy to spray their property with his 'graffiti'.
But Banksy wouldn't have his graffiti everywhere looking so tacky like that, council's already have artist they hire to paint art pieces in some areas. These boys just make areas look awful and tacky, look at Peckham for example who thought a place like that could look any worse after 2020
@@ilovegot7754 - You don't seem to know Banksy's history. Or any other graffiti writer. Beautiful murals don't just appear like this, you have to put in many, many hours of work first to get to this standard. Therefore, there will always be lesser pieces on walls. It's evolution.
In many places, I'm particularly reminded of many Spanish cities, it makes for beautiful art. There's a distinct difference between a talented graffiti artist & a dumb kid tagging.
Any talentless person with spray paint who decides they're an artist shouldn't be able use property that isn't theirs as a canvas. There's not even an argument.
@@wisteela I agree he can paint but I wouldn't want his art on my private property. I also don't think he should be able to do it on public property without permission. Otherwise anybody who thinks they're talented can just go around willy nilly spraying up the neighborhood with their rubbish.
As an art student, I am really divided on this argument. For one thing, it can be beautiful and be used as self-expression. There are different types of graffiti, such as: tagging (the one most commonly seen on busses and objects), splash (like what this person is doing) and murals (big, large pieces, usually commissioned by a company or shop, and can be political in nature). Personally, I think graffiti can be really creative and pretty cool to research into, I like seeming it out and about in my town. But, there is also an argument about it being a nuisance and being a crime. Which I can also see. True, it makes the surroundings look dirty and disused but the big, bright murals always put a smile on my face and I can appreciate their skill and quick thinking. I am only young, so I’ve never had experienced the bad side of graffiti, just the aftermath, so I can’t make a very good comparison. Yes it is a crime and can be defacing another persons property, so I completely understand why people would not like it at all. I suppose it depends on the person. But I would love to hear more arguments, so please feel free to add your opinions in the replies :)
I’d like to see the word graffiti taken back. As an art form. Period. Tagging seems such a lazy, unimaginative and generally just facile “marking out your area (territory)” kind of thing. And is the one that makes an area seem grubby. And should have no connection with the art form. Graffiti art, only enhances I think 🧐 👍🏼👍🏼
I think we need to channel people’s creativity into different avenues, and create opportunities for people to get permission to use walls. You don’t get anywhere with a punitive approach to these things.
Laws are stupid blunt instruments. I'd resent someone like Banksy covering the wall of a house I'm living in with art, in fact I'd paint over it, but I wouldn't have a problem with some complete unknown doing graffiti on my wall, as long as I thought it was beautiful. How do you put that into law? What about if council put a little QR sticker next to new graffiti, so any passers by could vote on whether they liked it? If more people liked than disliked it within a certain period, it would either be given an official seal of approval or scheduled for removal. This would surely save money? 🙂
@@OlafProt To you it may seem "grubby" but graffiti is all about "getting up" as in having your name as widespread and as written many times as possible. Tagging is the most basic form of graffiti and without that the other parts wouldn't exist. Pieces would not exist without tagging and yes it's about marking your territory to show other graffiti writers where YOUVE been. Essentially, tagging isn't for the general public to understand but for the scene so I do understand how it can be a nuisance for non writers.
Yes, but a thousand years ago if someone put their unsanctioned "art" on another person's property of their own accord they would probably have been killed.
@@GhastlyCretinIn the 10th century, Vikings left their names crudely carved in the stones of the Hagia Sophia, Constantinople. It's very likely, given the scarcity of Vikings in Constantinople and access to the building, that these were members of the Varangian Guard, a Viking regiment of bodyguards used by the local royal family. Whoever these Vikings were, it seems unlikely they'd have signed their names if they were at risk of death if found out since it would be pretty easy to round up the few Vikings in the area. Vikings also did this to monuments in Greece, where again they'd be in a minority and stick out like a sore thumb. There are thousands of examples of surviving graffiti from Ancient Rome, much of it intentionally offensive, which regularly carried the author's name, job, or even their specific rank and regiment of the army. These pieces don't indicate a fear of death, either.
@@joechapman8208 You mean the Vikings from Scandinavia who invaded and pillaged those areas? You think that they would have left locals vandalize their homes back in Sweden for example? No, they would have lobbed off heads.
The problem I can see here is that the more property becomes in the hands of private individuals, the more there is social engineering & control over what art & self expression is seen in public; more alienation & disillusionment in the very spaces that should welcome & reflect who WE are
The irony when the officer says it's 'imposed' on people and that people can choose to go into a gallery to see art. How that argument could be used against authority today and the dismissal of the origin of the word 'graffito' is mind-blowing. I bet/hope Goldie is laughing all the way to the bank now!
Great stuff. If only we had more art graffiti nowadays. That Police guy was really cool about it. Great blast from the past seeing those buses as I used to be from the Birmingham area.
Graffiti artist should buy building and paint on them if they want, but whole areas and peoples shops just makes the area look awful, look at Peckham for example. Who woukd have though a place like that could look even worse after 2020, there is Graffiti on every inch of that place.
There is no singular "right" or "wrong" argument here; it is always a process of negotiation where culture and private or public property rights intersect. The covert nature of even accomplished street art is often part of the artistic statement, which many might object to yet, as individual guerrilla artists profiles are elevated through exposure, you will get a "legitimising" effect as a result (as amply demonstrated by 'Banksy').
The police superintendent and the cleaner had some fair points, but I think the presenter was rather nasty and narrow-minded by discrediting Goldie's work and similar artistic work as being "threatening" towards her. I'm Team Goldie
@@the-np4mr Oh, you're in desperate need of expanding your understanding, as you're only correct in saying that it's currently on the books as a criminal offense.
Basically as an approach I would suggest putting spray cans, markers, computers/illustration software, instruments/music/broadcasting equipment into the youths hands instead of guns, knives, crack pipes/booze etc! & admit that the system & modern living is toxic to people & especially their mental health or when you get attacked by someone who's lost control don't come crying to us for sympathy, if you believe in every man for themselves cynicism & are blinkered & bigoted to such a degree that you can't understand 'no man is a island' then you're looking for trouble, just don't bring that on the rest of us & drag us down with your folly!, it's not rocket science "Bro". Btw I'm not even a criminologist or in crime prevention! What's their excuse?
It’s subjective. Like people who don’t believe in the bible would say it’s full of racist homophobic nonsense. Just depends on how see things objectively
@@gump5ter01 No, why would I be happy if Banksy spray painted my house unless in increased it's value significantly? Would you be happy if I did it to your house?
@@GhastlyCretin depends what the art looks like. And if banksy painted your house the price of that house would triple. But it’s ok to be different and for people not to agree with your take. I’d be happy if an artist created art on my house. But I’m not everyone. I’m me. I speak for myself. Art to me is different from you.
Goldie is actually not the artist he is an actor a pawn we are living in the Truman show everything you think you know you actually don’t if that makes any sense 😂 your whole life has been a lie
Future drum and bass legend and Bond movie actor Goldie.
Who?
@@rohithpadikkal7082 The first dude we meet
@Tent Ringer
Was Goldie in a Bond movie!? 😆
Which one?
@@ThizOne he plays a henchman in the World is Not Enough.
@@tentringer4065 I’m not a big a fan of James Bond, but I’ll definitely have to check that out 🙃
Thanks for the info 👽👍
Life Changing moment on TV for millions of kids in the UK, I'm 46 year old Artist now, Thank you Goldie 🙏
No body asks for huge billboard adverts for McDonald’s to be put in their neighbourhood. So as far as I’m concerned people have a right to decorate their neighbourhood as they see fit. If McDonald’s can deface a wall then why shouldn’t anyone else.
Advertising is imposed on people.
This comment seemed dumb at first but it's kinda a really good point how much stuff is shoved in front of our eyes without our permission to persuade us to spend money on crap we don't need, yet a message spreading awareness about peace and love is a 'crime'.
As somebody who just sprayed 'bottom' on his neighbour's front door, this really is a conundrum for me
the fact Goldie has an MBE after his name and being so “in your face “ in the 80s is bad ass !!! and being able to het away carrying balls so big is deff bad ass !!!
That "Love" piece was dope. I wonder where it is now? Would the BBC have kept it & just stored it away? I think it should be in a museum.
Young Goldie!
Big up 👍🏿 yourself Goldie.
Drugs really changed Goldie's mannerisms! He was a lot less annoying back then!
It's a tricky one because to get started you need a big expensive canvas and to get local council permission is impossible if you are an unknown. I bet certain local councils would be queuing up to get Banksy to spray their property with his 'graffiti'.
It's not Tricky, it's Goldie.
@@tentringer4065 😆
@@tentringer4065 lol good one
But Banksy wouldn't have his graffiti everywhere looking so tacky like that, council's already have artist they hire to paint art pieces in some areas. These boys just make areas look awful and tacky, look at Peckham for example who thought a place like that could look any worse after 2020
@@ilovegot7754 - You don't seem to know Banksy's history. Or any other graffiti writer.
Beautiful murals don't just appear like this, you have to put in many, many hours of work first to get to this standard. Therefore, there will always be lesser pieces on walls. It's evolution.
In many places, I'm particularly reminded of many Spanish cities, it makes for beautiful art.
There's a distinct difference between a talented graffiti artist & a dumb kid tagging.
Funny how its vandalism, unless your banksy then you remove the entire wall and sell it
Middle class people are so weird
Any talentless person with spray paint who decides they're an artist shouldn't be able use property that isn't theirs as a canvas. There's not even an argument.
This guy clearly had talent though.
@@wisteela I agree he can paint but I wouldn't want his art on my private property. I also don't think he should be able to do it on public property without permission. Otherwise anybody who thinks they're talented can just go around willy nilly spraying up the neighborhood with their rubbish.
@@GhastlyCretin Spot on 👍
@@GhastlyCretin - found the Daily Mail reader.
@@repo136 No, you didn't.
Goldie is a super chill dude
Interesting discussion. Permission is the missing element in the young man's argument.
@@TinLeadHammer ? Seems you missed the point.
As an art student, I am really divided on this argument. For one thing, it can be beautiful and be used as self-expression. There are different types of graffiti, such as: tagging (the one most commonly seen on busses and objects), splash (like what this person is doing) and murals (big, large pieces, usually commissioned by a company or shop, and can be political in nature). Personally, I think graffiti can be really creative and pretty cool to research into, I like seeming it out and about in my town.
But, there is also an argument about it being a nuisance and being a crime. Which I can also see. True, it makes the surroundings look dirty and disused but the big, bright murals always put a smile on my face and I can appreciate their skill and quick thinking.
I am only young, so I’ve never had experienced the bad side of graffiti, just the aftermath, so I can’t make a very good comparison.
Yes it is a crime and can be defacing another persons property, so I completely understand why people would not like it at all. I suppose it depends on the person.
But I would love to hear more arguments, so please feel free to add your opinions in the replies :)
I’d like to see the word graffiti taken back. As an art form. Period. Tagging seems such a lazy, unimaginative and generally just facile “marking out your area (territory)” kind of thing. And is the one that makes an area seem grubby. And should have no connection with the art form. Graffiti art, only enhances I think 🧐 👍🏼👍🏼
I think we need to channel people’s creativity into different avenues, and create opportunities for people to get permission to use walls. You don’t get anywhere with a punitive approach to these things.
@@OlafProt they all make an area look grubby no matter what they are painting
Laws are stupid blunt instruments. I'd resent someone like Banksy covering the wall of a house I'm living in with art, in fact I'd paint over it, but I wouldn't have a problem with some complete unknown doing graffiti on my wall, as long as I thought it was beautiful. How do you put that into law?
What about if council put a little QR sticker next to new graffiti, so any passers by could vote on whether they liked it? If more people liked than disliked it within a certain period, it would either be given an official seal of approval or scheduled for removal. This would surely save money? 🙂
@@OlafProt To you it may seem "grubby" but graffiti is all about "getting up" as in having your name as widespread and as written many times as possible. Tagging is the most basic form of graffiti and without that the other parts wouldn't exist. Pieces would not exist without tagging and yes it's about marking your territory to show other graffiti writers where YOUVE been. Essentially, tagging isn't for the general public to understand but for the scene so I do understand how it can be a nuisance for non writers.
This is just bizarre.
It's been around thousands of years in one form or another. We are not as modern as we think we are.
Yes, but a thousand years ago if someone put their unsanctioned "art" on another person's property of their own accord they would probably have been killed.
@@GhastlyCretinIn the 10th century, Vikings left their names crudely carved in the stones of the Hagia Sophia, Constantinople. It's very likely, given the scarcity of Vikings in Constantinople and access to the building, that these were members of the Varangian Guard, a Viking regiment of bodyguards used by the local royal family. Whoever these Vikings were, it seems unlikely they'd have signed their names if they were at risk of death if found out since it would be pretty easy to round up the few Vikings in the area. Vikings also did this to monuments in Greece, where again they'd be in a minority and stick out like a sore thumb.
There are thousands of examples of surviving graffiti from Ancient Rome, much of it intentionally offensive, which regularly carried the author's name, job, or even their specific rank and regiment of the army. These pieces don't indicate a fear of death, either.
@@joechapman8208 You mean the Vikings from Scandinavia who invaded and pillaged those areas? You think that they would have left locals vandalize their homes back in Sweden for example? No, they would have lobbed off heads.
@@GhastlyCretin the word 'probably' doing a lot of work there.
@@michaeldallaway1988 Well, let's just say that people have never liked their property being defaced by strangers .
I appreciate graffiti that's made with effort. It's the random, meaningless scribbles (sometimes with profanity) which I hate.
What about Banksy then? Expensive art or vandalism?
I think this banksy
Pompous prick, that’s what he is
The police officer reminds me of Doctor Who- Peter Davison.😁
The problem I can see here is that the more property becomes in the hands of private individuals, the more there is social engineering & control over what art & self expression is seen in public; more alienation & disillusionment in the very spaces that should welcome & reflect who WE are
You never get anywhere with a punitive approach. The man is quite right that people need opportunities to express themselves.
The irony when the officer says it's 'imposed' on people and that people can choose to go into a gallery to see art. How that argument could be used against authority today and the dismissal of the origin of the word 'graffito' is mind-blowing. I bet/hope Goldie is laughing all the way to the bank now!
The officer isn’t actually wrong though is he…
@@makara80 I think you've missed my point on the virtue of choice and the implied notion of coercion by authority over the last 2 decades.
Great stuff. If only we had more art graffiti nowadays. That Police guy was really cool about it. Great blast from the past seeing those buses as I used to be from the Birmingham area.
Graffiti artist should buy building and paint on them if they want, but whole areas and peoples shops just makes the area look awful, look at Peckham for example. Who woukd have though a place like that could look even worse after 2020, there is Graffiti on every inch of that place.
Pamela Armstrong tho. ❤
I was looking for a comment on that😆
@@joebryant5722 You knows it.
Wow really?, the irony of people from countries with a Christian background referring to art based on the word LOVE as menacing is divinely hilarious
Indeed! Irony lost on some, it seems.
He was absolutely gorgeous then uh. Immense talent!
There is no singular "right" or "wrong" argument here; it is always a process of negotiation where culture and private or public property rights intersect. The covert nature of even accomplished street art is often part of the artistic statement, which many might object to yet, as individual guerrilla artists profiles are elevated through exposure, you will get a "legitimising" effect as a result (as amply demonstrated by 'Banksy').
Wow..!
Goldie bk in the day
There are lots of positive ways you can ‘leave your mark’ on the area you grew up, but defacing someone else’s property is not one of them!
Graffiti is art, tagging is a crime. There’s a huge difference
But it looks like the same crap, doesn't it?
@@Siouxsi-Sioux
Nope.
@@Siouxsi-Sioux no, it doesn’t.
Goldie a bit outnumbered
Goldie a mf legend !! F authority, graff em all ☝️😎
Goldie argues his case well here.
does anybody bother with it anymore ?
they actually double-teamed him
Ok goldie you seen this today
Worldomination.
Graffiti is just the human equivalent of dogs urinating on a lamp post.
It is a blight.
Nope. It's beautiful.
The police superintendent and the cleaner had some fair points, but I think the presenter was rather nasty and narrow-minded by discrediting Goldie's work and similar artistic work as being "threatening" towards her. I'm Team Goldie
Jeremy Shields, looks like he could be the father of Goldie there are similarities.
Crime, was then and is now
In Spanish cities it makes for beautiful art.
There's a distinct difference between a talented graffiti artist & a dumb kid tagging.
@@cbarronie2361 nope
@@the-np4mr Hahaha, how very open minded of you
@@cbarronie2361 when you're this correct all of the time, you don't need to open your mind
@@the-np4mr
Oh, you're in desperate need of expanding your understanding, as you're only correct in saying that it's currently on the books as a criminal offense.
OMG Goldie was a graph???
Duh my brain hurts😂😂😂
Basically as an approach I would suggest putting spray cans, markers, computers/illustration software, instruments/music/broadcasting equipment into the youths hands instead of guns, knives, crack pipes/booze etc! & admit that the system & modern living is toxic to people & especially their mental health or when you get attacked by someone who's lost control don't come crying to us for sympathy, if you believe in every man for themselves cynicism & are blinkered & bigoted to such a degree that you can't understand 'no man is a island' then you're looking for trouble, just don't bring that on the rest of us & drag us down with your folly!, it's not rocket science "Bro". Btw I'm not even a criminologist or in crime prevention! What's their excuse?
Crime.
What a well thought out reasonable critical argument.
It's a crime and an eyesore.
It’s subjective. Like people who don’t believe in the bible would say it’s full of racist homophobic nonsense. Just depends on how see things objectively
@@gump5ter01 Crime is objective. It would be criminal if I turned up at your house and spray painted my "art" on it.
@@GhastlyCretin the eyesore part is objective. Would you be happy if banksy chose your house to paint on ?
@@gump5ter01 No, why would I be happy if Banksy spray painted my house unless in increased it's value significantly? Would you be happy if I did it to your house?
@@GhastlyCretin depends what the art looks like. And if banksy painted your house the price of that house would triple. But it’s ok to be different and for people not to agree with your take. I’d be happy if an artist created art on my house. But I’m not everyone. I’m me. I speak for myself. Art to me is different from you.
Goldie is actually not the artist he is an actor a pawn we are living in the Truman show everything you think you know you actually don’t if that makes any sense 😂 your whole life has been a lie
I like to be naked in public as part of my ‘art’. If I think it’s art then it must be allowed!
You are allowed to be naked in public, it's not illegal
What's wrong with being naked? That's not the slam dunk you think it is.
@mrgoldie timez have changed?
_"It corsts them seven hundred and fifteh thowzeand pinds a yaaaaaer!...."_