411–420 of 474 posts
My hart jumped when I initially thought that they had implemented an idea that I had once. Turns out MetaWindow is not an augmented reality display in the train's window, where one can read information on the scenery that one passes through while traveling. What is that city in the distance? When was that church built? How many cows are in that meadow? Stuff one has to know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this: https://youtu.be/vg5OrytF_a0?t=65 TL;DW: Basically, the conductor alerts the police and stops the train, once they realize that the train is being decorated. If they started moving forward, it could seriously endanger the graffiti sprayers. So that's really the best course of action here.
If one graffiti artist delays my train for one minute, that’s one minute too many
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you dive into the graffiti scene a bit you will start to appreciate all those graffitis. The story behind some of them is super interesting. There is a lot of "competition", "collaboration", and group dynamics involved. It is truly fascinating. I was living in Cologne (Ehrenfeld) for a while in a place with awesome graffiti and every weekend there were people taking pictures "collecting" and documenting the graffi…
There is exactly nothing about defacing public infrastructure which elicits the tiniest spark of "admiration" or "interest" in me. If you want to live out your "artistic ambitions" do it somewhere away from public property.
I know it's commonplace, but let's consider whether extreme expression has any rational substance to it, whether it's somehow more meaningful than an argument with actual reasons.
Outrage is a weapon. Do we want it to be? I think (apologies to the parent comment) it should be disqualifying, shunned, excluded. It's a demonstration that they have no reasoned basis and will not contribute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile in non-defaced public property: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/1_times_... The thing about a big city is it's not just about the people who own the stuff you look at, it's about all the other people who have to look at it. I'll take graffiti over advertising any day. At least graffiti isn't trying to sell me anything or make me depressed or addicted or whatever.
Apples to oranges. The issue with graffiti is not that there are too many, it’s that they’re illegal. I doubt you’d admire an unrequested graffiti war over every wall and window of your house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, life is not black and white. Even without knowing anything about graffiti culture, there is a border between defacing and improving. And graffiti artists are moving over that border back and forth. Some of the most beautiful art I have seen are graffiti
What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law". It is black and white: someone is defacing something that doesn't belong to them. You can call the result whatever you want ("art","expression" etc) but the fundamental issue doesn't change. Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows on your house? Would you see this as an "improvement" too?
Let's apply some strict law-and-order to the wealthy and powerful, to corporations, to government officials. Then to all adults. Then I think it would be reasonable for kids with spray cans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile in non-defaced public property: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/1_times_... The thing about a big city is it's not just about the people who own the stuff you look at, it's about all the other people who have to look at it. I'll take graffiti over advertising any day. At least graffiti isn't trying to sell me anything or make me depressed or addicted or whatever.
Maybe it just boils down to the right to property and having your own stuff just the (legal) way you want it. It's all great until your stuff gets destroyed because someone thinks it's better a different way. And when the graffiti is truly spectacular you can find some consolation in the result, maybe truly appreciate it. But that's not the case 99.99% of the time. Most graffiti is just trash, some rando spraying the…
> Most graffiti is just trash
People say that about modern art, and about that crazy 'rock'n'roll'!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What a strange argument that seems to romanticise this "border" called "the law" Just because something is illegal, does not make it immoral or unethical by itself. I do understand the argument against graffiti, but there’s also something to be said about any kind of expression that’s inherently rebellious and counter-culture. > Would you be happy to wake up and see your car covered in paint? What about the windows…
Graffiti tends to appear on every surface which is not actively guarded. Including beautiful historical buildings, and including private properties. "Public" walls are just a visible example of a property which nobody cares about strong enough, and nobody is held responsible for (compared to a private owner who often can be fined for keeping vandalized facade as it is).
Terrible press release. The first picture shows an _intransparent_ barrier. Is that a before after picture? And what is "meta technology"?
This [1] is the official press release by Deutsche Bahn. I wanted to post this instead, but it is in German. [1] https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/presse/pressestart_zentrales...
They should just use the new picture and not make the previous way of doing things so central. If one just looks at the picture it could appear as if the wall changes translucency dynamically.
Terrible press release. The first picture shows an _intransparent_ barrier. Is that a before after picture? And what is "meta technology"?
My guess is it's related to "metamaterials", which are materials engineered to have interesting properties by including structures smaller than the wavelength of whatever is going through them (sound, microwaves, even visible light if the structures are fine enough). There is quite a lot of research into sound-absorbing yet porous acoustic metamaterials. (Related, but maybe not technically a metamaterial, previously…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority. Graffiti is (partially) just the consequence of not living in that ideal world, but because of all the other problems with graffiti, I'd rather just treat it as the vandalism it usually is in all cases. No sense holding an election before every prosecution or clean a…
> Basically, in my ideal world, whoever builds an ugly enough building should be liable to remove it or improve it if it is deemed too ugly by a majority This sounds like the words of a “community oversight” committee obstructing the construction of housing, and we already know the effects of that on the housing market. Society has swung too far into allowing other people to tell someone what to do with their propert…
The buildings have a lot more impact then the graffiti, and arguably should have more community voices involved.