(no subject)
You know, usually videogames don't piss me off. But then I found out about Marc Ecko's game 'Getting up: Contents under pressure'.
What a wonderful concept for a game. Commit a crime (spray graffiti randomly), ruin public property, and if someone doesn't agree with what you're doing, beat the hell out of them.
'Tagging' and graf 'art' is possibly the most pointless concept I have ever heard of. It's not art, it's ugly street crap perpetuated by drug addled teenagers who have no future and do not wish to better themselves in order to provide one. It's not a revolution, it's petty crime.
Here's a thought. Rather than daub your meaningless slogans over public property, where everyone is subjected to having to stare at unsightly and offensive images, why not try putting paint to paper and selling that picture to those who actually WANT to look at it? I don't remember Picasso 'tagging' nearby houses with pictures of sunflowers. I'm sick of my taxes being raised to clean up your mess.
As grown-up people, Marc Ecko and Atari should be ashamed of themselves for promoting this idealogy to the public. Then again, perhaps by commiting it to videogame format, those individuals may less be inclined to go ahead and actually perpetuate the crime if they have the outlet to do it virtually.
All I know is that, if I were to throw a bucket of paint over your car, Mr. Ecko, calling it 'art', you'd be quite annoyed. But this is exactly what you insinuate is acceptable. Perhaps you would like to inform me what the difference is between that and what you promote?
And on a side point, if a certain Mr. Ecko is so interested in what the urban youth is promoting, then why does he charge so much for his clothing range, given that the average target youth is likely to have to resort to crime in order to pay for one of his hooded tops, and that it is most likely produced for a significantly lower percentage by poorly paid third world workers?
What a wonderful concept for a game. Commit a crime (spray graffiti randomly), ruin public property, and if someone doesn't agree with what you're doing, beat the hell out of them.
'Tagging' and graf 'art' is possibly the most pointless concept I have ever heard of. It's not art, it's ugly street crap perpetuated by drug addled teenagers who have no future and do not wish to better themselves in order to provide one. It's not a revolution, it's petty crime.
Here's a thought. Rather than daub your meaningless slogans over public property, where everyone is subjected to having to stare at unsightly and offensive images, why not try putting paint to paper and selling that picture to those who actually WANT to look at it? I don't remember Picasso 'tagging' nearby houses with pictures of sunflowers. I'm sick of my taxes being raised to clean up your mess.
As grown-up people, Marc Ecko and Atari should be ashamed of themselves for promoting this idealogy to the public. Then again, perhaps by commiting it to videogame format, those individuals may less be inclined to go ahead and actually perpetuate the crime if they have the outlet to do it virtually.
All I know is that, if I were to throw a bucket of paint over your car, Mr. Ecko, calling it 'art', you'd be quite annoyed. But this is exactly what you insinuate is acceptable. Perhaps you would like to inform me what the difference is between that and what you promote?
And on a side point, if a certain Mr. Ecko is so interested in what the urban youth is promoting, then why does he charge so much for his clothing range, given that the average target youth is likely to have to resort to crime in order to pay for one of his hooded tops, and that it is most likely produced for a significantly lower percentage by poorly paid third world workers?