311–320 of 474 posts
Ask the typical DB customer if they want their trains to be on time or more silent and I promise you, the answer will not be surprising.
The Deutsche Bahn has literally decades of maintenance to catch up on. Even if the Deutsche Bahn does everything right from now on, the next decade is going to be very painful for German train commuters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As someone with an art degree (with no great admiration for street art per sé) I have to ask one question: Could you imagine that one person's "defaced" is another person's "finally some colors"? The destruction of property, trespassing etc. is obviously on the wrong side of the law, but on purely aesthetical terms this could be argued either way making it for that narrow category a subjective thing. Proponents of gr…
No. The graffiti I have seen in my life was clearly put there as narcissistic self expression by (usually criminal, if only by trespassing) youths, very rarely I have seen something which comes close to presenting an attempt at improving the environment.
I grant you that I can emphazwith the idea of clearing withering concrete slab with anything at all. But the few times I have seen it be an improvement were when it was a commissioned piece. But even then it was a small improvement at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I’d be relatively happy if I woke up one day and saw a banksy or an invader mosaic on my wall. I’ve seen graffiti art that definitely improved grey ugly walls and barriers. I’ve also seen ugly tags that are nothing more than letters. It’s relative
Is not relative at all to rational people. Let me just put it this way, do I get to just move into your home and take it over simply because I believe that I can make it a better home than you can? Do I get to steal your car/property because I believe I can make better use of it? Stop rationalizing narcissistic behavior and people trying to impose themselves on others. It’s not relative at all. You or the narcissisti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Every shitty graffiti is about to be replaced by a better one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. By that logic, graffiti artists as regular people who use public infrastructure in the area should as much right to paint on the wall as you do to paint the wall in your house. And you can paint over it if you hate it so much. But its all down to the community. It should not be a crime enforced by a ruling class who nominally owns the wall but doesn't…
I'm not thinking that I'm on some side or defending some class. As you said, I'm part of the community, the public. Why should the right to have wall painted override the right to have the wall as it is? I'm betting most would want it without graffitis, but apparently one person can decide themselves how it should look. It's a simple conflict of opposing tastes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most graffitis I've seen are on empty walls or buildings with no ads. Brick wall looks way better without them. And to me it looks more like it's the graffiti maker that thinks that they own the wall and can choose what should be on it.
Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. By that logic, graffiti artists as regular people who use public infrastructure in the area should as much right to paint on the wall as you do to paint the wall in your house. And you can paint over it if you hate it so much. But its all down to the community. It should not be a crime enforced by a ruling class who nominally owns the wall but doesn't…
In reality we just want to live in a city that doesn’t have ugly graffiti all over it.
It’s OK, when you grow up you’ll understand. Walking little kids past a wall that reads FUCK because “the community” (aka a single edgy teen) decided it should is not a comfortable experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They definitely have a very hyper-capitalist definition of violence. It's sort of pathetic how much people somehow care about the property of the ruling classes that they will never own.
I am not at all a hyper capitalist. I would even consider myself anti-capitalist. But imposing your own preferred art on public commons is a (minor) form of violence, in any economic system. Especially when you do so with paints of questionable chemical composition, or with images/text that is likely to offend. I would also say that doing the same thing even on your own property can be reprehensible, as long as it is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property that is used by the public should be owned by the public. By that logic, graffiti artists as regular people who use public infrastructure in the area should as much right to paint on the wall as you do to paint the wall in your house. And you can paint over it if you hate it so much. But its all down to the community. It should not be a crime enforced by a ruling class who nominally owns the wall but doesn't…
Yeah this seems on-brand. Graffiti artist imagines himself as the hero in some epic class struggle, anyone who opposes him must be an enemy sympathizer! In reality we just want to live in a city that doesn’t have ugly graffiti all over it. It’s OK, when you grow up you’ll understand. Walking little kids past a wall that reads FUCK because “the community” (aka a single edgy teen) decided it should is not a comfortable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this would make looking out of (or at) the window as enjoyable as with a normal transparent window. Unless you mean that there would still be a normal window, too?
The idea is to install only a few of these, possibly only in designated railway carriages. It would make for a great conversation starter, which might be an improvement over people staring at their own screens.