RE: (idm) grafikloo

From Kelley Hackett
Sent Mon, May 10th 1999, 13:52

Hmmmmmm.  Rjyan's point is well taken(or should I say his question).

I dont want to get in the logical bullshit of it, cuz its mere rhetoric
but here is the thing!  If ya look at many of the countries in the West,
they have recieved many of their material items at the expense of
others(Yes, fucking yes this is general so dont get bent out of shape by
my general terms---but read your history books though)----thus this, in
my eyes, is a form of stealing-----as Rjyan question kinda
dictates----it wasnt yours in the beginning!

  In fact, when ya hit that cold and dark ass ground(when ya die) then
who's property does ones belong to.   Typically we humans just past our
items along to our family members, those same items that we got from
someone else---.  Vicious cyle of human culture--- 

So, to try and tie this all together---a building, a building, hmmmm.
It was built by a numerous amout of people for one person or one group
of people----but the ownership part is tricky!  Here again, if ya think
about it, we dont even own our bodies---------but along the graffiti
lines----just spray all the walls with the best  graffiti---and let me
sit back and get excited!

Hk-90!

> -----Original Message-----
> From:        ~(({[Endemic~Distortion]}))~ [SMTP:xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx]
> Sent:        Sunday, May 09, 1999 9:08 PM
> To:        Rjyan C Kidwell
> Cc:        xxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject:        Re: (idm) grafikloo
> 
> Well, we are quite far afield from the topic of graffiti. It might
> also be
> asked "what gives anyone the right to foist their concept of art on
> people
> in the public forum as such?". The burden of proof would actually lie
> with
> you, though, as the commonly accepted position IS that of the
> propriety of
> personal ownership - notwithstanding the fact that you slipped your
> premise
> under the door in the form of a question - and you need to unseat the
> established position before proceeding to establish a new one. Even
> so, I'd
> go with this : Personal investment in said object(s) along the lines
> of
> commonly accepted currency and the responsibilities thereof in the
> community
> at large. Behind this would lie the self-evident (imo, of course)
> problem of
> human nature....while a world where we dole all things out equitably
> is a
> nice ideal, it doesn't seem to fit well into the experience of
> reality. We
> all tend to be a tad selfish, greedy and get-over at times. Without
> the
> conventions we recognize as boundries and ownership, I'm not at all
> convinced that we wouldn't be even less civilized than we are.
> NOW...really,
> I like graffiti in most cases. I'm just not certain it's entirely
> ethical in
> every situation.
> Listcontent: Who else was abit disappointed in the Depth Charge
> Electro-Boogie? I guess I was just expecting a bit more. Just me,
> or...?
> 
> jeff
> 
> Rjyan C Kidwell wrote:
> 
> > >>>Yes, graffiti is art, but it is also vandalism.  What gives an
> > >>>individual a right to destroy another's property?
> > >>
> > >> what gives you the right to own things?
> > >
> > >Again, can I come over and test this proposition with your music
> > >collection?
> >
> > not until you answer my previous question
> > with a declarative statement.
> >
> > rjck.,/__
> > ,)__www.gl.umbc.edu/~nworth1
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
> http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> 
> --
>     jeff
> 
> "10,000 people all screaming the same thing at the same time are
> wrong, even
> if they're right."
> 
> dancing/about/architecture "...with wandering steps and slow..."
> ICQ904008
>