You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.

About Author

Bart Veldhuizen

I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.

100 Comments

  1. Lasse R. Bruntse on

    Thats pretty cool! I love the concept, it create some interesting results.

  2. Grandmaster B on

    You are damaging public property, the removal of your shit costs money. You could have easily sprayed your own stuff, but i guess you believe you're cool not to do that - or to stupid. Btw. that is not art, just random wannabe crap.

  3. Makes me sad. Artists should create and not damage public property.
    Why didn't you film it while spraying it on the wall of your own room?
    It doesn't even look good, perhaps that's why.

  4. The concept is cool, being able to draw in real life and have it converted into 3d but for your results you should have drawn on your own wall and not vandalized.

  5. I don't get the purpose, couldn't you made these with a wacom ??(using like a graphic tablet, not painting on it :) )

  6. Dear BlenderNation, re-posting a video with no writeup does *not* constitute "news". You could at least put up a screenshot of the video for those of use using the RSS feed, or some writeup of what's going on. "First repost!" doesn't win you any awards.

  7. Cool concept. But if you're gonna make graffiti on someone else's property, at least make GOOD graffiti.

  8. Benjamin Kay (formerly hitechboy722 / HTB) on

    Alphax if feel you bro! for those of us who cant watch the clip, posts like this are a nightmare!

  9. I, too, am sad to see this kind of thing promoted on Blendernation. I hope the video is used by the proper authorities to catch you guys and fine you to cover the cleanup costs.

  10. Congratulation you made some sucky art, now go clean up your shit so someone else doesn't have to...

  11. malevolution on

    "madmoto
    Jul 9th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    way cool..art is art. don’t let anyone tell you what to do!!"

    What a transparently idiotic statement. First, because by telling this person not to let anyone tell them what to do, you're being a hypocrite. Second, what happens if I decide murder is art?

  12. This is complete garbage! This is not art! This is a tool going around damaging private and public property! Blender Nation, you should be ashamed of your self for posting this.

    Art is creative, not destructive. I don't care one iota about the little piece of modern art that he was able to create, because the damage that was caused in making it is inexcusable.

    You could have gotten the EXACT SAME results if you had used a simple board and some butcher paper, but no! You chose to go around vandalizing people's property.

    And for those of you who think this is cool ... grow up. What if that was your store front, would it be cool then? Remember, there are people who would think walking up to you and cold clockin' you would be really cool too ... but how would you feel about it ...

    This makes me sick.

  13. offendedcitizen on

    (Incoming Sarcasim)

    Wow, did you see that advanced technology they used to black out their faces so they wouldn't get in trouble for an obviously illegal activity. I wonder if they used blender to do that...

    Please Blendernation, don't promote illegal activities.

  14. Hey, they even showcase the video they did in a public exhibition. So the local authorities would have an easy job discovering the real graffities and make the guys clean up the mess. I'm pretty sure the obscure videos where made with consent of the owners or they cleaned up things, anyways...

  15. i like the idea of transforming grafitties into 3D and through rapid prototyping into a real object. it's a great transition from a loose feeling to real creation. it's a kind of art happening.

    i'm not a fan of crappy tacking but i like good graffities. it's very difficult to define good and bad and i don't feel ( in opposite to others here) myself being able to judge in this.

    ahh yes the property. interesting to see the reactions on an open software forum.

    as an architect i feel that the city belongs to the citizens. i don't like a lot of the build architecture. it offends me. but as the properties belong to someone, they can do what they want and build what they want too (more or less of cause) nevertheless it becomes a part of my surrounding and i can't change it. this means, that the one who owns money has the right to do things others have not the right to.

    look at all the advertising in the city. i don't want to see it, but i can't change this because someone is paying for it.

    but if someone makes a small graffity on a busstation (where you surely will find a nicely designed advertising panell of two squaremeters beside) he should be put into jail?

    i have no final oppinion in that case, but surely things are not so clear. one should sometimes think twice....

    i think it's good to show this here. this technique doesn't need a forbidden grafity, you could create these also in your atelier or where ever. so thanks for sharing it.

  16. malevolution on

    LotD: "Graffiti" is both singular and plural. The word "graffities" does not exist. Now back to our irregularly scheduled rant.

    "What if that was your store front, would it be cool then?"

    It's a good point - but it's also sad that one must go to this level to explain it. This is what you tell a CHILD. "Well, how would you like it if someone did that to you?" These people don't get it. I suppose they envision themselves some kind of cool anarchist art-rebels, like most privileged idiots.

  17. malevolution on

    Pardon; I did not mean to say "graffiti" was singular; the singular is "graffito."

  18. I met an artist who is working hard to open his studio on a street near campus. He proudly showed me around his new space, and pointed out that someone had "tagged" the glass on his front door just days after he'd installed it.

    I asked him how he felt about that, and he said it made him angry. I said, "yes, but isn' that tag art, too?". He said he agreed that it was art, but then asked me, "Isn't the door my property? Don't I have the right to preserve my property as I want it?".

  19. Hmmmm. I like the design of the graffiti, in 2d as well as 3D.

    So now I guess I should make a comment about the actual "destruction of property" oh noes!

    Yeah, I wouldn't listen to the guys here about destruction of property and how BlenderNation should take this vid down. Looks to me like you were using a paint that was very runny, meaning EASY TO WASH OFF. All the "owners" of the walls you painted on would just have to wait for it to rain from the way the paint looked.

    And thirdsense, "ahh yes, the property. interesting to see the reactions on an open software forum." I chuckled, cause it's true.

    So what if it's illegal. I'm pretty sure everyone here has committed a crime knowing that they were breaking a law. Don't jump the guy who graffitied walls with washable marker because he had a cool idea. It takes me forever to make good looking curve models in Blender. If I had a laptop and that software, I would do the same thing he did (but with spray paint.)

  20. This is kinda neat, except that it involves illegal defacement of private property.

  21. If you were so proud of your work (art?) why didn't you video tape your faces to show everyone who you are?
    I'm disappointed BlenderNation is advocating the destruction of other people’s property by showing this video.
    Now the owners have to take money they worked for to clean up the coward’s destruction of they’re property.
    How can people call the destruction of other’s properties art? I don’t.

  22. Anonymous Coward on

    Wow, graffiti is still art?

    Thought that went out in the '80s with Keith Haring...

  23. This is not art. Plain and simple. I agree that BlenderNation should not promote this stuff.
    Posts like this make me wonder if it is worth following this site. All we have learned is that some of us celebrate the damaging of private and public property.

  24. @Spencer:

    So, by a logical extrapolation of your own argument you would have no problem with another person doing this to your car or your home. How about if someone decides that throwing stones through your window would be a great piece of performance art, now you have no window on you home ... you only think this is cool because it has no impact on you. Have you no empathy in you whatsoever? This is really a very basic point I am trying to get you to see. Try to grasp this moral: IT IS WRONG TO DESTROY OR DAMAGE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY

  25. Simply sad.

    It is like proof of concept, that you can put your left hand to right pocket through trouser leg, ripping your pants at same time. You can do that, but why? Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Some people would see art even in exposition of excrements on the dining plate but lets be frankly here - those dudes just have too much time on their hands and no artistic skill so had to compensate it. Failed miserably if you ask me.

    As for the vandalism - ofcourse it is vandalism and there is no doubt about it. Everyone who dont see nothing wrong in it simply do not own any property, dont know how much work it costs people to get their shops and houses. There isnt anything cool about someone working hard to get his place nice and clean and some idiot spraying mindless crap all over it and calling it art. Simple as that.

    And Blendernation... Come on guys - you should have some quality control. Posting BS like this just because Blender was there. Nothing to be proud of in the first place.

  26. Michael--page not found.

    Spencer--how old are you? It seems that someone who is old enough to read and write should understand the concept of private property.

  27. Grandmaster B on

    I'm very relieved that almost everyone here agrees with the talk about public property and not to damage it, i like you guys! And even if they are using washable paint (what i dont think) its still not okay to show someone painting graffiti on someone elses property and call it art. I cant walk around around and punch people in the face and call it freedom, can i? Maybe when i have a really original martial art style in punching people in the face???

    Proper and legal grafiti can be art but this looks more like tagging (which is as much offending like pissing on a door but also costly).

    I bet that the students who made this were aware of the controversy and discussion but what i see here is a whole bunch of respectful and normal people who almost feel sorry or angry for such a sick idea. Yes, its a pity that the techniques and ideas behind this are overshadowed by showing disrespectful vandalism and - in the end - a sculpure without originality. Its a shame. But do you know what? In fact, this is not a controversy this is a FAIL.

    I hope next time they use a pirated version of 3D Studio MAX and bribe some bum to paint, maybe then it is art.

    Sorry for being so harsh but that i how i feel about it.

  28. @thirdsense

    Judging by your website tag under your post we can all see where you sympathies lie, and also that arguing the point with you will be an exercise in futility. But for the others here I wanted to point out something fundamental that I hope will help us all understand WHY some people think behaviour like this is not only acceptable but right and good.

    @all: Notice that thirsense's post has the qualifier "offensive" in front of the statement regarding private property. This is indicative of the idea of moral relativism ... this statement really means the following (just not in so many words):

    ---
    This isn't wrong because it doesn't offend me, I think this activity is not wrong because I am not adversely affected by it. Therefore, as my world view is absolute for myself, I am justified in saying this action is acceptable.
    ---

    What thirdsense (and those like him) are completely ignoring is what is evident to anyone with a modicum of understanding. That would be the moral absolute regarding abuse of others. Make no mistake, when you abuse other people's property you are abusing THEM, albeit indirectly, but you are still causing them undue injury (injury is used in a broad sense, meaning not physical ... if your ok with causing bodily harm ... well lets just say I don't care for you, shall we? ; )

    Your feelings have no impact on the morality of any action, what Mr. (or Ms.?) thirdsens' feelings about the vandalism are, are completely inconsequential. If feelings really did carry weight, those idiots would not have done this, because they would have felt the weight of the feelings of those who ARE adversely effected. Your feelings do not protrude beyond your own skin, truth is pervasive.

    Oh and BTW thirdsense... you don't see any dark streets!? Almost the whole video was shot at night!

    It deeply saddens me that as of late, ignorance and callousness seem to be usurping truth as the modus operandi of the world ... if our forefathers could see us now ...

  29. Much deeper discussions could come from it. Thirdsense on 9th Jul. has a point.
    Billboards are more annoying for me than graffiti.
    But I know it is annoying when people spray bad graffiti on my things.

    It is notas simple as many arguments make it in these comments and surely people take the consequences of this graffiti a bit too seriously...? I might be wrong... I dont know...
    Anyway it is a fun experiment telling something about how one of the most interesting (and discussed, and hated and and etc) 2 dimensional art forms is actually much more complex than just flat drawing. Because graffiti as this is done so quickly (not to be stopped by the police etc) it is usually done in one go, meaning that the order and direction of your strokes begin to mean a lot and consists of much more layers than just the drawing itself. This is a nice example of a simple experiment that shows this.

    And yes it is meant to provoke because people don't think of graffiti as something artistic, nor white... nor clean 3 dimensional volume hanging in the air...

    - YC Ejnar...

    ps dont shoot me...
    pps I dont think its bad graffiti... its just simple...

  30. AllNamesAreRegistered on

    Cool concept offset by absolute idiocy. The same effect could be used WITHOUT the paint or at least on your own personal property. This is absolutely despicable. Let me tell you firsthand that it is not fun cleaning graffiti. This is not art and Blender was barely used. This should not be on BlenderNation. Grow up!

  31. I totally agree with ejnaren. I don't get why people are so strict and not open minded. You could do it on a wacom or plate in your house , but then would have missed the concept of grafitti . Anyway, the grafitti discussion is a whole other thing, i like how they convert it in 3D and the shadow still represent the 2D grafitti.

    It makes me think about perspective, space, dimensions, movement,... So i think it succeeded in some area's

  32. So... If I bought a terrain in a city and i build a giant pile of horrendous but legit architecture on it... Is it nice because it is my propierty?
    What about the persistent advertising that subsidice the city? Someone paid to be advertised so I have to accept it, right?

  33. Grandmaster B on

    Ejnaren: If there was really a damage to a third party - yes it is that simple and should be taken seriously. ... its illegal and publishing a video of it is the most disrespectful thing you can do. I believe many would love to discuss about grafiti and art here but not on that circumstances.

  34. Grandmaster B on

    Stef: The concept of grafitti is that its damages public property? I dont think so! There could have done it in abandoned factories or ask around if somebody has a wall for a students project.

  35. @Idaho06: are you an idiot? Yes if you bought some land you have the right to build whatever you wish regardless of what it looks like the same goes for the advertisement... You people seem to miss the main point here... OWNERSHIP!

  36. @Idaho06 - Yes, a building you build on your own land is, by definition, "nice" because it is your property. If you live in a city where the architecture offends you, move. Or don't look at it. As to advertising, by which people seem to be deeply offended, quit whining on the Internet and write a letter. If you don't want advertisements in public space, let your elected officials know about it. They can do something about it, although I will admit that they probably won't since most people simply accept that advertising makes the world go 'round. Supporting the destruction of private property through graffiti will in no way ever affect advertising at bus stops.

    The point is that this is destruction of another's property plain and simple, and BN shouldn't be promoting it. Property rights are a good thing, and flaunting them is a bad thing. Even open source software developers retain property rights in what they create. I would get sued (and lose) if I took the entire Blender source code base, copied it, compiled it, called it Toaster, and tried to pass it off as my own. So don't give me any "you can't support open source and condemn people 'expressing themselves' through destruction of private property" arguments. Others have said it, but i will reiterate: grow up.

  37. Of course you accept it if someone pays someone else to put up a billboard. Just because you don't approve doesn't give you the right to ban them.

    On the other hand, graffiti is something you're forced to accept, just like the ads, except *you* are paying for it (assuming you pay taxes). The property owner also suffers. The 80% of passersby who don't appreciate the graffiti suffers.

  38. @afalldorf: Something is owned if can be keeped out of sight. The sight of something can not be owned. It is experienced by the observer. No matter how much money is paid. The city is a public place.
    The visual aggresion in the city is legitimate if is paid? Why?
    Ps: why the insult? My questions make you nervous? :)

  39. TheOtherBlenderFan on

    According to the video, it was done with the support of the city, guys. If it weren't, I doubt the post would be so blatant about their identities.

    While I question the aesthetic appeal of the paint on the wall, this is an interesting application of "drawing" 3d shapes, without use of a tablet.

  40. @Idaho06: You obviously don't own property. Otherwise you wouldn't have some a narrow-minded concept of the protection of property rights. Also, "The sight of something cannot be owned." ??? Not even in the ballpark of what is being discussed here.

  41. Advertising serves a purpose.
    This doesn't.
    Might as well be pissing on the wall.
    This is piss.

    Which gallery was that.

  42. The whole concept is very original, using spray paint and technology to create a work of sculpture, even the use of the light as a way to re-illustrate the original design is very clever... However, the graffiti used in this work was anything but clever, lacks any feeling or originality. Most people would not even take notice of it while passing. There is graffiti out there that will make you stop and look but that is not what we have here, if the original design is flawed then no matter how smart you are in creating your final piece of artwork, the final product itself will be flawed and you will find that onlookers will comment more about the process than the work itself.

    I would go a little bit further than Anonabus and say that it would have been more effective to drink some black ink then piss against a wall to achieve a more interesting effect...

  43. @Idaho06: "The sight of something can not be owned." Really? That's your argument? Well the "site" of something is dependent upon what the owner wants it to look like. How many store owners want the site of their store to be clean and presentable or covered in spray paint?

  44. I just lost a lot of respect I had for this site.

    Are you really this desperate for content?

  45. Art to evoke a reaction by others. And look..it's successful. I congratulate Evan Roth with this small success. Hopefully it'll be constructive for you in the future.

  46. No they are not that desperate for content. A post about a blender user asking support for a children's orphanage wasn't blender related enough, but a post about people putting their hands on items (let's avoid the "property" statement) that serve a purpose to a lot more people than just them (in other words, vandalize) makes frontpage.

    Clever use of concept, use a light source to trace a drawing and turn it into something completely different, but the execution is utterly lacking in respect.

    the thing thirdsense posted IS both cool and respectful: http://graffitianalysis.com/

  47. I don't think posting this video was wrong. What's shown is wrong.

    Without news sites like this showing us this type of content, we remain ignorant of the destructive actions of others and therefore they go unchallenged. The anger expressed in this thread is very encouraging but should be directed at those who commit these acts of violence against us as a community (local or global it doesn't matter which).

    At best these individuals are misguided thinking there is some higher justification for the harm they caused to others (saying it is art is never a justification for harm).

    Thanks Bart.

    Just my thoughts on this...

  48. As nice as the technical implementation is, the execution is just immature.
    Defacement of public property or property of others is NOT something the Blender community (or anybody else for that matter) should support.

    I'd much prefer this whole thing without the spray can. i.e only the light & notebook setup. Showing the "virtual" spraying in a video would be a lot cooler. Now THAT would be something to show, and it would hit two bird with one stone.

    I'll not criticize the "art" itself, but I can't say I consider it as such. "tagging" describes it a lot better in my opinion - which is not art, just the real-world equivalent of copy&paste (wow, I'm blown away).

    PS: I love graffity, but there IS a limit to everything.

  49. wow, you guys need to get out of the sub urbs and untighten your panties. how are you guys gonna say this isnt art but its being displayed in an art show? the curves and the abstractness of it all its what makes it unique and art. graffiti artists are different from other artists as they push for originality and try not to be like everyone else like half of the blender users on this site.

    any true artist knows that art does not have a true definiton. so for you guys to try to tell somebody else that their stuff is not art makes you that much less of an artist, instead of keeping an open mind and appreciating the art.

    while those guys are out actually doing original things, you guys are in here bickering like ol geezers.

  50. The great thing about art is that people with no talent or drive can participate too! How about go to school, grow some skills, and get a job where people pay you to create. Until then, keep your "art" in Blender or the Gimp.

    I say take this post down as it only encourages other idiots.

  51. This article is offensive to people. Graffiti is for stupid people who commit these acts is just a poor thug...
    Remove this article please is offensive and ILLEGAL.

  52. Clever program to bad it is used in such a bad way.
    If ya wanna paint do it on a paper...

  53. They could have just used the 'light pen' to write in the air.

    They could attach the pen to a katana and made a hell of a performatic show to the video presentation. The same goes for a nunchaku.

    They could use the track system to track the tip from the ribbon of a Rhythmic Gymnastics girl (nearly dark with some 'glow in the dark paint' maybe?)

    There is a lot of options to make art with this 'technology'. But the morons just choose crappy graffiti...

  54. Allow me to play the devil's advocate, no offense intended, but a thread with such extreme positions is a candy.

    @ Elcrapocrew
    quote:" Try to grasp this moral: IT IS WRONG TO DESTROY OR DAMAGE OTHER PEOPLE’S PROPERTY "

    Really? So, the French revolution was basically a wrong thing, King Louis XVI should have kept all his properties intact, and we all should live now under absolutist governments because there is an unbreakable moral law about property.
    mind note: Remember to never destroy the weapons of the enemy, THEY ARE THEIRS.

    quote:"That would be the moral absolute regarding abuse of others"

    People that defend moral absolutes scare the sh*t out of me, they are the reason why there are revolutions from time to time, things are much more relative buddy, especially morals.

    @ twitcher
    quote: "Some people would see art even in exposition of excrements on the dining plate"

    It would be worthless, it has already been done. Piero Manzoni 1961, they were cans, not dishes, but the point is excrements have been used in contemporary art for half a century.

    @ Grandmaster B
    quote:"I cant walk around around and punch people in the face and call it freedom"

    Actually, yes, it can be called freedom. Going to prison because of that can be called consequence, limiting your range of action because of moral and social conventions can be called repression, and limiting your range of action because of your own moral convictions can be called choice.

    quote: " its illegal and publishing a video of it is the most disrespectful thing you can do"

    Ok, it's illegal, so it must be wrong, right?. Fellatio is illegal in half of the states of the United States of America, and I dare anyone to tell me that it's a bad thing. Have you ever seen a video of it, by the way?

    @ David_UA
    quote:"this is destruction of another’s property plain and simple, and BN shouldn’t be promoting it"

    Yesterday I saw images of an armed conflict on the CNN, I don't think that channel should be promoting war, I'm going to write a letter to my elected officials.

    quote:"I would get sued (and lose) if I took the entire Blender source code base, copied it, compiled it, called it Toaster, and tried to pass it off as my own"

    Right, but you can do that with the OS of Berkeley, add some nice graphics, call it Mac OSX, and make a fortune without giving a dime to the helpless original developers, it all depends on the license.

    @ Anonabus
    quote:"Advertising serves a purpose.This doesn’t."

    This is the best definition of art I have read in my entire life, congrats.

    quote:"This is piss."

    So was Andy Warhol's Sheet of steel that was used as a toilet at "the factory", now it's worth a fortune.

    quote:"Which gallery was that"

    It was a museum dude.

  55. well put Malenko. who made these guys the moral police?

    he has his work presented in a museum and most of the people on this site have their face glues to their computer screen trying to preach to a guy that could care less about what they have to say.

  56. I find it funny how people argue over a video, that has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is terrible graffiti, I agree, I won't say graffiti is right, or wrong, it can be either depending on where it is. If it's on some abandoned train cart then it's ok, because that cart was never going to be used again, and if it is high quality, then people will enjoy it. And if it is enjoyed, then there is no problem, I am not trying to include myself in this argument, just stating my opinion and showing people that ethics are a personal opinion. And I'm glad you said that Malenko, because then I might have had to go through he trouble of doing it myself.

  57. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with it. It is illegal. There's no gray area here, defacing personal property is against the law.
    Why is that so hard to understand?

  58. namekuseijin on

    yay, flames!

    Blender even has very little to do with it since the generated data is imported from another program... and all this fuss just to have a 3D printed representation of the urban doodle in a museum? I guess the real fun would be to actually mess up with the museum walls, but that's the best you can get without getting caught, huh? :p

  59. Malenko - I see you are trying almost just as hard as they are - different field though. Talking.
    Comparing French Revolution with tagging? Give me a break man, this is ridiculus. I may have some respect for guys that in one night changed ordinary bus stop into piece of art by making a REAL graffiti on it. Piece that is saying something or plain and simple is beautiful. I wouldnt call that vandalism. Art? I'll show you street art - Banksy. This guy can back up his vandalism with some thoughts behind it and great skill:

    http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm

    This here - even if we leave all that properity talk on the side - is WEAK. As much as it can be. I can bet it wouldnt be so much negativity about it if those guys could do something more then tagging like 3 years old kid. We are all against it mainly because all they did was making a sad looking space even worse.

  60. Good basic idea. Nice use of Blender. However, this graffiti...I wouldn't call it artistic - not at that low level. As for damaging other people's property, all of this has been said. Next time, paint your own walls.

  61. Promoting Vandalism...... Not smart!, not responsible! not justifyable..... take it down, and clean up your judgement.... shocking lapse in an otherwise solid, dependable site

  62. not to be sarcastic but i can do same thing using a wacom tablet and not doing it at night on some wall ...

  63. I like in the end with the room of 5m² to expose a monochrome piece of shit... oops a masterpiece of 3cm³.

    This video shows exactly the pseudo artist of our time, trendy technoïd-painter with horrible electro music
    doing a piece of crap with the longest and ridiculous way to make his pseudo-art meaning something!

    Dialog:
    "critc": mmh, how do you call this singularity, dear?
    "teknoid_painter": Hem, let's say it is a door open on the mistery of the universe inside each of us because you know...
    "critic": brilllllliant!
    "teknoid_painter": a lot of work has been necessary, i worked on the concept for 3 years without eating, to express the extrem sadness inside my....
    "critic": stop stop, i'm cumm' ooh... haar'

    This videos it's an insult to real graffitis!!!

  64. Shame on you Blendernation, that's how I feel.
    Next time I hope to see simulated trajectory of baseball bats on trashbins and metro cars after a soccer match in the city.

  65. Vandalism it is illegal and face some penality in any law on earth. Damaging property for fun without the owner consent it is damaging the other`s right on theyr "wall" "house" "car" etc.

    Professional graffity are made with authorization from the state officials , etc.

    This video can be used by prosecutor to get you in a court.

    And this "fun" cand get you in prisson if ones complain.

  66. The tracking technology might be cool, but the 'graffiti' is very low brow. The technology could better be used to track car lights or whatever.

    tracking tech +1
    graffiti -2
    total: -1

  67. @ Malenko
    quote:”Advertising serves a purpose.This doesn’t.”

    This is the best definition of art I have read in my entire life, congrats.

    quote:”This is piss.”

    So was Andy Warhol’s Sheet of steel that was used as a toilet at “the factory”, now it’s worth a fortune.

    quote:”Which gallery was that”

    It was a museum dude.

    lol

    You haven't read many definitions then. Art's a selfish pursuit. At least when Warhol pissed on something it was his own property. He wasn't harming other people without their consent like these guys.

    That's great dude. Which museum?.

  68. I have seen the work in the Kunsthalle Vienna last week. It was part of the exhibition "From Street art to Seripop", which I found quite boring. The Kunsthalle is "famous" for its quite popular / populistic exhibitions ("Summer of Love", Marilyn Manson, this exhibiiton etc.). It is even not primarily the responsibility of the artists but the misconcepts of politics and the makers of this kind of exhibitions.
    In the 1990ies they made quite exceptional international exhibitions with great artists.
    It is like in all kind of media: they think, people like simplified, sensational and colorful stuff. But most people cannot like better quality, because it is not offered widely to them.

    To be not misunderstood, I like good graffiti and I like good conceptual art. I just found this work quite poor.
    But not because part of it are writings onto public or private property. Maybe this aspect is part of the concept. The point is also not, if you or I could have made it. This is not quite meaningful in contemporary art. As Andy Warhol said: "everybody could have made it".

    I am only a little irritated about some postings here. Possibly it is not the most intelligent way to react with hate and intolerance just because of an artwork. And if one cannot understand the essence of an artwork, maybe it is because he/she has not enough experience with contemporary art or just was to lazy to think about the concept of the artwork. Just my opinion.

  69. To all of those who have voiced their support for this so called 'art':
    1. This could have been done in a better way.
    2. It did not need to be damaging.
    3. This 'art' has directly or indirectly hurt people. Someone has to pay for the cleanup. This costs money. It can be quite expensive. At some point down the line it will hurt anyone that pays taxes.
    4. Calling something 'art' does not make it right, nor does it make it good. This stuff is not only bad quality, but harms innocent people. See #3
    5. What was the cause or purpose this person made this stuff? Personal gain is all that I saw, the recognition for the so called 'art' is what the sought. The did not contribute to a good or noble cause.
    6. The net hurt from their actions far outweighs the net gains.

    Lastly, why did they not try less destructive methods? There are people who have created graffiti with just lasers or lights. The software only tracked the bright spot.

  70. Zombiebraineater on

    Remove immediately. Please. It's as much art as anything, however if it had been done in the
    artists homes I doubt they would happreciate it as much. Must agree with the majority. It just makes people
    angry that they will have to pay to have it removed. Because honestly, that's no DaVinci fresco.

    And what a childish comment "don't let anyone tell you what to do".... Grow up.

  71. @ChrisS
    "3. This ‘art’ has directly or indirectly hurt people. Someone has to pay for the cleanup. This costs money. It can be quite expensive. At some point down the line it will hurt anyone that pays taxes."

    It already has. It was shown in a museum -_-

  72. I am very disappointed that this video is still posted here. Don't encourage criminal behavior BlenderNation.

    You should take some responsibility and replace it with the video on this page http://graffitianalysis.com.

    It will take like 30 seconds and could save someone from having their property vandalized.

  73. I waited a while to gather my thoughts before replying to the comments above. This movie was posted because I think it's an interesting artistic process, and not because I condone damaging other's property.

    Remember, this is a newssite and I don't have to agree with everything in order to publish it. Do you think newspapers agree with every war they write about? Or closer to home: let's say someone creates a very succesful porn movie in Blender. Should we stay quiet about that, just because some people might object to it?

    So, the discussion above is good and you're right to have it here. However, don't tell me to remove the post or threaten me that you'll never read BlenderNation again if I don't. I believe it deserves a place here and I do not intend to remove the post.

    Because I think we've heard all the arguments and emotions now I'll close the comments for this post, and enjoy the rest of my weekend (reading it all took quite a bit of - emotional - energy). We'll continue with more news, don't worry!