Graffiti can be beautiful or ugly, but when it comes to tagging - most people would probably agree that it's the most hideous type of street art. And what's even more annoying - it's almost always illegible.
Mathieu Tremblin is a French artist who decided to fix this. He paints over the ugly graffiti and makes them legible.
What do you think about this idea?
More info: demodetouslesjours.eu | h/t: designyoutrust
This post may include affiliate links.
Before it look like just a dirty wall....and couldn't focus on anything ....now you can find something
It's still a dirty wall. He would have fared better to have repainted it.
Load More Replies...
I like the before better they show expression. The after just looks like advertising. We don't need more advertising, it's everywhere!!
I think the do it just to p**s off the "artists" who did it. If they just erase it, next day it would be there again.
Load More Replies...
Why are so many people here calling this "art" and those people "artists" XD Seriously? Any dumbass with a spraycan can tag a damn wall with their cool gang name. It's street art when it means something , it's street art when it makes you want to look at it, it's street art when it improves a bland wall that you would otherwise have completely ignored. This is not street art. It's just dumb kids marking their "territory".
Individual tags are but one on a wall leads to a second and in time the colors and layered words look amazing
Load More Replies...
Hmmm... Graffitis are like artistic symbols. Change it to oridinary words is like delete. Like change Mona Lisa's head to geometric symbols - circle (head) with two little circles (eyes).
In my opinion this kind of graffiti is not an artistic expression, simply I don't get it.
Load More Replies...
Perhaps the man covering the graffiti and replacing with readable words is achieving two things at once: (1.) He's sending a message to the people who think nothing of making a public space ugly by capriciously spray-painting their 'whatever' wherever they want. As if he's taking back a little of the control and forcing *them* to feel the same compromise they've forced everyone else to feel/experience. And (2.), he's making it easier on the eyes. Converting ugly, indecipherable scrawls to something not quite cogent, but perhaps thought provoking in a way. It's more ordered, perhaps, and less ugly. Less chaotic.
"Artwork", "work", "art"... I am all for being ethical when it comes to ART. And if this were something I could recognize as having even a droplet of meaning or skill to it; I would be 100% for defending the original scribbles from the mean, mean guy with a paintbrush and legible lettering. BUT this is not art. This is a bunch of guys and girls who buy spray cans, invent some stupid "cool" name and a "signature" in a specific style; and then go around the city defacing walls and objects not unlike dogs peeing on random things to mark their territory. This so-called "art" is nothing more than a primitive declaration of ownership for places and items that the "artist" does not even have any ownership of. So please, spare us the "artistic ethics" talk on this issue.
Sorry Teo, but for many centuries the "primitive declaration of ownership", the simple mark of "I was here" was enough content to express. Many cave paintings are just that, and it´s hard to deny their artistic-social value.
Load More Replies...
There's only one way I could see this repainting useful - if the intention is showing what those scribblings really are to most: some random names without any meaning outside their "artists" circle, thus cancelling their original purpose and discouraging those not adding any artistic/aestethic value.
I love how much hate this getting. K, so first off, most of the "art" hes destroying is just tagging. Even the people doing it dont consider it art. If it was the crazy stuff people pull off on trains that would be another matter entirely. 2nd, its a form of art in itself. Think of it as industrializing art. Hes taking chaos and giving it conformity. The pop artists of the 60s would be proud. If Warhol had done it wed rant and rave for years over the genius.
These graffitis were just ugly but you couldn't read them. Now they are legible and you can see how stupid the people are who sprayed this kind of nonsense (fayse, aske ....)
I’ve had so many arguments with taggers that I’ve lost count. The sad truth is it’s like all forms of fashion... they think it means something and it does to them. We the vast majority look on in bewilderment......
The stuff these artists are covering is NOT ART. It's self indulgent a*s monkeys vandalizing walls with their dumb nicknames and claiming territory for their crew. There are so many graffiti parks where i live that allow actual artist to apply their trade over abandoned factories and buildings and it looks beautiful. The myriad of colors and actual designs create kaleidoscopes of intricate works built over each other. I don't know if what these dudes are doing is permitted by the building owners or the city, but it's definitely a funny way of responding to the tags. Technically bro, your name is still there... we can just all read it now. cheers!
>You can't read them >I don't like it >It doesn't mean anything >only art when it improves something >it isn't ethical Stop bitching. Whether it's art or not it's subjective and it is in no ways right to paint over another man's art. Imagine this, someone walks into the modern art museum and paints over all the items for those reasons. It doesn't make sense
Graffitis are a lot of work and streetart, but tags are just dumb. Where I live lots of taggers spray on existing streetart, graffitis and even the historic images of the East Side Gallery. Taggers are mostly just lazy, uninspired idiots and not the rebels they believe themselves to be. Once there was a kind of honor codex about respecting someone else's work, but with the current generation of taggers it is long gone. I really like this art project and think it's very amusing.
I don't get the point of this. I mean if you're someone that likes graffiti, it's cool because it appears to be an art. It represents and symbolizes different things from that graffiti artist. I don't understand why he went through all the time to erase it just to boring-afy it. Why not either 1. not touch it or 2. erase it and leave it erased so people can come to work the next day to see that their buildings are all clean?
I think the point this is trying to make is how unimportant tagging is. He's not doing this to graffiti that is art, just to tags.
Bored Panda, I must say I'm really disappointed with that post. No, tagging is not the most hideous form of street art. It has a history within graffiti and Hip Hop in general. It is illegible and there's a point to that. That person is gentrifying a form of art and that's not ok.
The gentrification of "street art" makes my blood boil tagging is an art form in its own right unlike poxy stencils which anyone can make!
Load More Replies...
For most any artist, unauthorized altering of one's work is tantamount to defacing it. They would rather have their work destroyed, than have it "improved" by some artist wannabe. It is why, while legal, Weird Al will still ask permission from the original artist before parodying a particular song, This is just a disrespectful act by an arrogant and unoriginal "artist". Besides, the guy uses stencils, while the original artwork is freehand. His work just too bland.
"Artwork", "work", "art"... I am all for being ethical when it comes to ART. And if this were something I could recognize as having even a droplet of meaning or skill to it; I would be 100% FOR what you're saying here. BUT this is not art. This is a bunch of guys and girls who buy spray cans, invent some stupid "cool" name and a "signature" is a specific style; and then go around the city defacing walls and object not unlike dogs peeing on random things to mark their territory. This so-called "art" is nothing more than a primitive declaration of ownership for places and items that the "aryist" does not even have any ownership of. So please, spare us the "artistic ethics" talk on this issue.
Load More Replies... I like it... I don't see any "art" in those graffitis....
I think what he's doing is very creative. But calling the tags ugly is f****d up. U don't like it now but you appreciate the large murals. It takes time to develop skill and individual style. Even the masters of the arts started with a stick figure.
This is creative. My issue is calling tags ugly. But common people respect the large murals. Even the Renaissance masters started with stick figures.
I love this. It is the first time I see a heated debate on a bored panda article. This obviously hits a nerver.
I hate that he is doing this no offense but I like graffiti the way it is original and creative.
re: 100 year old church. Too bad enough people couldn't attend and donate to keep it the lovely church I'm sure it was. Maybe if I read the story I'll find out it's in a country without religious freedom. GO USA!
the idea is nice but I feel that it ruins the beauty of the art that somebody else created
what beauty? it's just useless, talentless scribbling, vandalizing other people's property. It's a pain on the eyes, not art.
Load More Replies...
Tagging is temporary is expected to be temporary. That was their expression, this is his. Of course it is art. "Anybody could do it" but they didn't, he did.
I think the do it just to p**s off the "artists" who did it. If they just erase it, next day it would be there again.
Load More Replies... Why are so many people here calling this "art" and those people "artists" XD Seriously? Any dumbass with a spraycan can tag a damn wall with their cool gang name. It's street art when it means something , it's street art when it makes you want to look at it, it's street art when it improves a bland wall that you would otherwise have completely ignored. This is not street art. It's just dumb kids marking their "territory".
Individual tags are but one on a wall leads to a second and in time the colors and layered words look amazing
Load More Replies... Hmmm... Graffitis are like artistic symbols. Change it to oridinary words is like delete. Like change Mona Lisa's head to geometric symbols - circle (head) with two little circles (eyes).
In my opinion this kind of graffiti is not an artistic expression, simply I don't get it.
Load More Replies... Perhaps the man covering the graffiti and replacing with readable words is achieving two things at once: (1.) He's sending a message to the people who think nothing of making a public space ugly by capriciously spray-painting their 'whatever' wherever they want. As if he's taking back a little of the control and forcing *them* to feel the same compromise they've forced everyone else to feel/experience. And (2.), he's making it easier on the eyes. Converting ugly, indecipherable scrawls to something not quite cogent, but perhaps thought provoking in a way. It's more ordered, perhaps, and less ugly. Less chaotic.
"Artwork", "work", "art"... I am all for being ethical when it comes to ART. And if this were something I could recognize as having even a droplet of meaning or skill to it; I would be 100% for defending the original scribbles from the mean, mean guy with a paintbrush and legible lettering. BUT this is not art. This is a bunch of guys and girls who buy spray cans, invent some stupid "cool" name and a "signature" in a specific style; and then go around the city defacing walls and objects not unlike dogs peeing on random things to mark their territory. This so-called "art" is nothing more than a primitive declaration of ownership for places and items that the "artist" does not even have any ownership of. So please, spare us the "artistic ethics" talk on this issue.
Sorry Teo, but for many centuries the "primitive declaration of ownership", the simple mark of "I was here" was enough content to express. Many cave paintings are just that, and it´s hard to deny their artistic-social value.
Load More Replies... There's only one way I could see this repainting useful - if the intention is showing what those scribblings really are to most: some random names without any meaning outside their "artists" circle, thus cancelling their original purpose and discouraging those not adding any artistic/aestethic value.
I love how much hate this getting. K, so first off, most of the "art" hes destroying is just tagging. Even the people doing it dont consider it art. If it was the crazy stuff people pull off on trains that would be another matter entirely. 2nd, its a form of art in itself. Think of it as industrializing art. Hes taking chaos and giving it conformity. The pop artists of the 60s would be proud. If Warhol had done it wed rant and rave for years over the genius.
These graffitis were just ugly but you couldn't read them. Now they are legible and you can see how stupid the people are who sprayed this kind of nonsense (fayse, aske ....)
I’ve had so many arguments with taggers that I’ve lost count. The sad truth is it’s like all forms of fashion... they think it means something and it does to them. We the vast majority look on in bewilderment......
The stuff these artists are covering is NOT ART. It's self indulgent a*s monkeys vandalizing walls with their dumb nicknames and claiming territory for their crew. There are so many graffiti parks where i live that allow actual artist to apply their trade over abandoned factories and buildings and it looks beautiful. The myriad of colors and actual designs create kaleidoscopes of intricate works built over each other. I don't know if what these dudes are doing is permitted by the building owners or the city, but it's definitely a funny way of responding to the tags. Technically bro, your name is still there... we can just all read it now. cheers!
>You can't read them >I don't like it >It doesn't mean anything >only art when it improves something >it isn't ethical Stop bitching. Whether it's art or not it's subjective and it is in no ways right to paint over another man's art. Imagine this, someone walks into the modern art museum and paints over all the items for those reasons. It doesn't make sense
Graffitis are a lot of work and streetart, but tags are just dumb. Where I live lots of taggers spray on existing streetart, graffitis and even the historic images of the East Side Gallery. Taggers are mostly just lazy, uninspired idiots and not the rebels they believe themselves to be. Once there was a kind of honor codex about respecting someone else's work, but with the current generation of taggers it is long gone. I really like this art project and think it's very amusing.
I don't get the point of this. I mean if you're someone that likes graffiti, it's cool because it appears to be an art. It represents and symbolizes different things from that graffiti artist. I don't understand why he went through all the time to erase it just to boring-afy it. Why not either 1. not touch it or 2. erase it and leave it erased so people can come to work the next day to see that their buildings are all clean?
I think the point this is trying to make is how unimportant tagging is. He's not doing this to graffiti that is art, just to tags.
Bored Panda, I must say I'm really disappointed with that post. No, tagging is not the most hideous form of street art. It has a history within graffiti and Hip Hop in general. It is illegible and there's a point to that. That person is gentrifying a form of art and that's not ok.
The gentrification of "street art" makes my blood boil tagging is an art form in its own right unlike poxy stencils which anyone can make!
Load More Replies... For most any artist, unauthorized altering of one's work is tantamount to defacing it. They would rather have their work destroyed, than have it "improved" by some artist wannabe. It is why, while legal, Weird Al will still ask permission from the original artist before parodying a particular song, This is just a disrespectful act by an arrogant and unoriginal "artist". Besides, the guy uses stencils, while the original artwork is freehand. His work just too bland.
"Artwork", "work", "art"... I am all for being ethical when it comes to ART. And if this were something I could recognize as having even a droplet of meaning or skill to it; I would be 100% FOR what you're saying here. BUT this is not art. This is a bunch of guys and girls who buy spray cans, invent some stupid "cool" name and a "signature" is a specific style; and then go around the city defacing walls and object not unlike dogs peeing on random things to mark their territory. This so-called "art" is nothing more than a primitive declaration of ownership for places and items that the "aryist" does not even have any ownership of. So please, spare us the "artistic ethics" talk on this issue.
Load More Replies... I like it... I don't see any "art" in those graffitis....
I think what he's doing is very creative. But calling the tags ugly is f****d up. U don't like it now but you appreciate the large murals. It takes time to develop skill and individual style. Even the masters of the arts started with a stick figure.
This is creative. My issue is calling tags ugly. But common people respect the large murals. Even the Renaissance masters started with stick figures.
I love this. It is the first time I see a heated debate on a bored panda article. This obviously hits a nerver.
I hate that he is doing this no offense but I like graffiti the way it is original and creative.
re: 100 year old church. Too bad enough people couldn't attend and donate to keep it the lovely church I'm sure it was. Maybe if I read the story I'll find out it's in a country without religious freedom. GO USA!
the idea is nice but I feel that it ruins the beauty of the art that somebody else created
what beauty? it's just useless, talentless scribbling, vandalizing other people's property. It's a pain on the eyes, not art.
Load More Replies... Tagging is temporary is expected to be temporary. That was their expression, this is his. Of course it is art. "Anybody could do it" but they didn't, he did.
