Martha Cooper 🇺🇸 Subway Art Book • New York Graffiti

[Winter]

Mar 26, 2015 0:39:19 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

Nothing shady about me my friend. I am just one guy in Florida whose been around the block a time or two. I am not a proponent of the way certain galleries and their minions behave. I am also very aware of a lot of other nefarious behavior on these types of boards, ebay, social media etc. Consider me a bearish troll who enjoys seeing the monetary benefits of this hobby dry up. I don't have a business or flat file filled with prints waiting to be sold.

I am a fan of the misbehavers like BNE, Hanksy, MBW, Pepper Spray, and other upstart artists who are bucking (mocking) the trend and doing things their own way.

It's a new beginning for me, hence the "Welcome Home" banner in my avatar.

As for these prints, I didn't know about them until today. I didn't take interest until the cost doubled. You are right, it is the way certain sellers run their "business." In my opinion, the business is shady, not me.

Isn't Hanksy just someone having a bit of fun? Apart from playing around with Tom Hanks/Banksy images I wasn't aware he was now trading as an actual artist.

[A.R.T.]

Mar 26, 2015 1:16:54 GMT 1 Winter said:

Mar 26, 2015 0:39:19 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

Nothing shady about me my friend. I am just one guy in Florida whose been around the block a time or two. I am not a proponent of the way certain galleries and their minions behave. I am also very aware of a lot of other nefarious behavior on these types of boards, ebay, social media etc. Consider me a bearish troll who enjoys seeing the monetary benefits of this hobby dry up. I don't have a business or flat file filled with prints waiting to be sold.

I am a fan of the misbehavers like BNE, Hanksy, MBW, Pepper Spray, and other upstart artists who are bucking (mocking) the trend and doing things their own way.

It's a new beginning for me, hence the "Welcome Home" banner in my avatar.

As for these prints, I didn't know about them until today. I didn't take interest until the cost doubled. You are right, it is the way certain sellers run their "business." In my opinion, the business is shady, not me.

Isn't Hanksy just someone having a bit of fun? Apart from playing around with Tom Hanks/Banksy images I wasn't aware he was now trading as an actual artist.

People buying Hanksy? Why?

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 1:16:54 GMT 1 Winter said:

Mar 26, 2015 0:39:19 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

Nothing shady about me my friend. I am just one guy in Florida whose been around the block a time or two. I am not a proponent of the way certain galleries and their minions behave. I am also very aware of a lot of other nefarious behavior on these types of boards, ebay, social media etc. Consider me a bearish troll who enjoys seeing the monetary benefits of this hobby dry up. I don't have a business or flat file filled with prints waiting to be sold.

I am a fan of the misbehavers like BNE, Hanksy, MBW, Pepper Spray, and other upstart artists who are bucking (mocking) the trend and doing things their own way.

It's a new beginning for me, hence the "Welcome Home" banner in my avatar.

As for these prints, I didn't know about them until today. I didn't take interest until the cost doubled. You are right, it is the way certain sellers run their "business." In my opinion, the business is shady, not me.

Isn't Hanksy just someone having a bit of fun? Apart from playing around with Tom Hanks/Banksy images I wasn't aware he was now trading as an actual artist.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

And I bought an original Hanksy to remind me to not take things so seriously. Wish I could afford another.

[bone]

Mar 26, 2015 1:32:31 GMT 1 A.R.T. said:

Mar 26, 2015 1:16:54 GMT 1 Winter said:

Isn't Hanksy just someone having a bit of fun? Apart from playing around with Tom Hanks/Banksy images I wasn't aware he was now trading as an actual artist.

People buying Hanksy? Why?

People buy things because they like it, not because you approve. Sorry you don't approve

[smallbylo]

First of all, thanks to all of you for your kind words. Alert, heads up! is one of the great things that we can do in this forum. Sharing our passion, reading how the people get excited about a piece, an artist, a framed paper, a beautiful image hanging on a wall surronded by smiles...

About the Martha/Banksy issue... I love Martha Cooper figure. She is a great photographer and as a pionner, she gets from me double recognition... In her case, three layers of love cause she seems a truly beautiful person.

I always wanted a piece of her work but the graffiti related items had been always far away from my range... I could get this beautiful pic and I got it hanging in my walls...



you still can get for 100 dollars at editiononehundred.bigcartel.com/product/new-york-state-of-mind-by-martha-cooper


but as a streetart photography lover I always looked for an streetart related piece... Since that Martha/Banksy appeared. No brainer. Two legends together in a pic that has something from both. (not as the Maya Hayuk/Martha piece).

I think she doesn't need to "use" Banksy to get attention or money. She is much more than that.(Banksy didn't exist when she realised graffiti was something more than vandalism)  Big B got into her beloved city, she pictured this and she chooses it as a print for her retrospective. It's a great picture! I'm sorry for all these negative messages out there. Let's enjoy these artists!

[Deleted]

No need to apologize. Another great thing about these forums is healthy debate. I'm sure Martha is a lovely person and a legendary picture taker, that's not the point. Still waiting for one our resident experts to answer these questions:

1) Why is it OK for a "gallery" to double the price of an edition just before it sells out? And how can we know the gallery didn't create the illusion of a sold out edition in order to justify such a price increase? Why is this OK, but "flippers" are trashed?

2) Why is it OK for an established/legendary artist to capture another artists work via a photo but an un-established artist cannot do the same thing via a silkscreen? We've seen people get eviscerated for doing exactly what Martha has done.

Who wants to answer these?

[Oliver Clatworthy Fine Art]

We have a couple prints left, shot by Martha Cooper of Maya Hayuk "Chem Trails (Bowery Wall) NYC"
www.signedoriginalprints.com/products/maya-hayuk-chem-trails-bowery-wall-nyc

[Deleted]

I must run, but to respond to Afrika, I am saying there is NO real difference between a silkscreen capture and a photographic capture. The only difference is the method of reproduction. So my question is why must an artist be "established" to reproduce another artists work through any method, but an un-established artist cannot. And Fairey is a great example of an artist whom I admire really dropping the ball through his theft of the Obama image. He lied, destroyed evidence and ultimately paid the price.

PS. Tiered pricing is complete and total horses**t. I am aware it happens all the time. That doesn't make it justifiable, it just makes it commonplace. It is still greedy, manipulative and disgusting.

[randomname]

I can only speak for myself, but here's how I feel about this photograph.

Martha Cooper is awesome. She took an interest in graffiti and treated it as fine art when 99.9% of the world saw it as nothing more than urban decay. They associated it with drugs, gangs and a general decline in civilization. For that, she was a visionary decades ahead of the times.

Fast forward to now. Banksy is not seen as urban decay. Quite the opposite. He is more representative of gentrification. The mural she shot has been seen by millions. Everyone who would be interested in seeing it already has seen it over a year ago. It's not presenting anything new or interesting the way the vast majority of her work has throughout her career.

If she had been more engaged with BOTI as it was happening, I think she could have generated much more interesting work. If she had shot the local "entrepreneurs" charging hipsters to see Banksy's beaver, that would have been amazing. Or if she had captured the property manager knocking that ragger on his ass, it would have said something powerful about the street art scene.

This print on its own is in no way interesting to me. It's staged after the fact and it's not really clear what she's trying to say, if anything. Putting a black kid on a discarded couch doesn't add anything creatively to Banksy's message. To me, it dumbs it down.

So for me, this photograph isn't a very good piece of art in and of itself. I think most people who like it only like it because Martha Cooper shot it. To me, that's like buying a Banksy print you don't really like just because Banksy did it. Which I would never do.

The thing that bugs me about street art in general, and this forum in particular, is the hype. Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation. I think all artists and all art should be open praise or criticism on its own merits. But again, I can only speak for myself.

[WOOF]

Mar 26, 2015 14:25:06 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

PS. Tiered pricing is complete and total horses**t. I am aware it happens all the time. That doesn't make it justifiable, it just makes it commonplace. It is still greedy, manipulative and disgusting.

That's like being angry at water for being wet. It's just the way it is, so you kinda have to just deal with it. Or don't buy art. Don't forget, art for people that aren't extremely rich is also a fairly new concept in and of itself. In the end, it's a rich person's game, and they make the rules to suit that.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 14:02:17 GMT 1 @ling said:

Martha is a photographer who has been documenting the progression of street art for centuries. 

She looks good for her age.

[WOOF]

Mar 26, 2015 14:32:06 GMT 1 randomname said:

The thing that bugs me about street art in general, and this forum in particular, is the hype. Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation. I think all artists and all art should be open praise or criticism on its own merits. But again, I can only speak for myself.

There's subjective, and then there's objective. You can say you don't like martha's work. But to say Martha hasn't been a MASSIVE part bringing the urban art world to the masses, well that just smacks of someone that has no sense of the history of the movement.

It has nothing to do with protecting and hyping, it's just reality.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 14:54:56 GMT 1 WOOF said:

Mar 26, 2015 14:32:06 GMT 1 randomname said:

The thing that bugs me about street art in general, and this forum in particular, is the hype. Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation. I think all artists and all art should be open praise or criticism on its own merits. But again, I can only speak for myself.

There's subjective, and then there's objective. You can say you don't like martha's work. But to say Martha hasn't been a MASSIVE part bringing the urban art world to the masses, well that just smacks of someone that has no sense of the history of the movement.

It has nothing to do with protecting and hyping, it's just reality.

If you think that's what I said, I suggest your re-read my post. Straw man arguments are annoying and invalid in any context. 

[WOOF]

Mar 26, 2015 16:17:37 GMT 1 randomname said:

Mar 26, 2015 14:54:56 GMT 1 WOOF said:

There's subjective, and then there's objective. You can say you don't like martha's work. But to say Martha hasn't been a MASSIVE part bringing the urban art world to the masses, well that just smacks of someone that has no sense of the history of the movement.

It has nothing to do with protecting and hyping, it's just reality.

If you think that's what I said, I suggest your re-read my post. Straw man arguments are annoying and invalid in any context. 

Forgive me, but you said "Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation" in response to a discussion about Martha Cooper.

So, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying Martha is someone that can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd because of "hype". You're completely discounting her contributions to the street art world based on... actually, I have no idea. Seems you've pulled it out of your ass. And that, my friend, is just moronic.

No one is saying you can't criticize her, but the majority of people in this thread angered by her print clearly don't understand who she is, or what she does.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 15:16:19 GMT 1 @ling said:

Mar 26, 2015 14:32:06 GMT 1 randomname said:

 It's staged after the fact and it's not really clear what she's trying to say, if anything. Putting a black kid on a discarded couch doesn't add anything creatively to Banksy's message. To me, it dumbs it down.

Do you know this was staged by Martha? I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

edit:

Nice detective work. I'm not sure if you noticed this or not, but that was posted by a photographer by the name of Tristan Lamour. The person on the couch happens to be the same individual. I think it's safe to say he was working with her, most likely as an assistant. So the point still stands. It was staged and is not a particularly interesting shot. 

Tristan, on the other hand, got a far better image out of the shoot in my opinion. But he doesn't have the history that Martha has, so no one is lining up to spend a couple hundred dollars on a print. Call me crazy, but I'm more interested in the art than who created it.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 16:30:38 GMT 1 WOOF said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:17:37 GMT 1 randomname said:

If you think that's what I said, I suggest your re-read my post. Straw man arguments are annoying and invalid in any context. 

Forgive me, but you said "Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation" in response to a discussion about Martha Cooper.

So, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying Martha is someone that can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd because of "hype". You're completely discounting her contributions to the street art world based on... actually, I have no idea. Seems you've pulled it out of your ass. And that, my friend, is just moronic.

No one is saying you can't criticize her, but the majority of people in this thread angered by her print clearly don't understand who she is, or what she does.

Again, I suggest you read my entire post. I said she's an amazing artist. She saw graffiti as a legitimate art form when no one else did. I did not criticize her as an artist or a person. I criticized this particular image for being boring and unimaginative. There's a difference. It shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between the two.

I find it interesting that you're not defending the image, only the artist, when my criticism is directed exclusively at the image and not the artist. Do you think it's a great image? Or do you only like it because it was created by a great artist? A little introspection goes a long way.

And for what it's worth, the personal attacks are a big part of what's wrong with this forum. Misstating someone's opinion and then calling their opinion "moronic" based on your mischaracterization of it does nothing to further your cause. 

If you think it's a great image, we can respectfully disagree on that. If you think it's a mediocre image, but is above criticism because a great artist created it, we can respectfully disagree on that as well. There's no need to get defensive and offensive simply because someone disagrees with you.

[WOOF]

Mar 26, 2015 16:49:29 GMT 1 randomname said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:30:38 GMT 1 WOOF said:

Forgive me, but you said "Some artists can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd and any dissenting options are met with righteous indignation" in response to a discussion about Martha Cooper.

So, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying Martha is someone that can do no wrong in the eyes of the herd because of "hype". You're completely discounting her contributions to the street art world based on... actually, I have no idea. Seems you've pulled it out of your ass. And that, my friend, is just moronic.

No one is saying you can't criticize her, but the majority of people in this thread angered by her print clearly don't understand who she is, or what she does.

Again, I suggest you read my entire post. I said she's an amazing artist. She saw graffiti as a legitimate art form when no one else did. I did not criticize her as an artist or a person. I criticized this particular image for being boring and unimaginative. There's a difference. It shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between the two.

I find it interesting that you're not defending the image, only the artist, when my criticism is directed exclusively at the image and not the artist. Do you think it's a great image? Or do you only like it because it was created by a great artist? A little introspection goes a long way.

And for what it's worth, the personal attacks are a big part of what's wrong with this forum. Misstating someone's opinion and then calling their opinion "moronic" based on your mischaracterization of it does nothing to further your cause. 

If you think it's a great image, we can respectfully disagree on that. If you think it's a mediocre image, but is above criticism because a great artist created it, we can respectfully disagree on that as well. There's no need to get defensive and offensive simply because someone disagrees with you.

You're correct, I am defending the artist not the image. Because so many in here have been attacking the artist for creating and selling the image, not the imagery itself. Personally, I like the image. I like that long after the street piece is gone, the image will remain, a nice reminder of a great month in NY from a photographer that helped open the world's eyes to street art.

It's certainly not above criticism, and neither is Martha. But there's a lot of stupid running around in this thread. My comments, while quoting you, are less directed at you then at the people shitting on her.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 16:56:29 GMT 1 WOOF said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:49:29 GMT 1 randomname said:

Again, I suggest you read my entire post. I said she's an amazing artist. She saw graffiti as a legitimate art form when no one else did. I did not criticize her as an artist or a person. I criticized this particular image for being boring and unimaginative. There's a difference. It shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between the two.

I find it interesting that you're not defending the image, only the artist, when my criticism is directed exclusively at the image and not the artist. Do you think it's a great image? Or do you only like it because it was created by a great artist? A little introspection goes a long way.

And for what it's worth, the personal attacks are a big part of what's wrong with this forum. Misstating someone's opinion and then calling their opinion "moronic" based on your mischaracterization of it does nothing to further your cause. 

If you think it's a great image, we can respectfully disagree on that. If you think it's a mediocre image, but is above criticism because a great artist created it, we can respectfully disagree on that as well. There's no need to get defensive and offensive simply because someone disagrees with you.

You're correct, I am defending the artist not the image. Because so many in here have been attacking the artist for creating and selling the image, not the imagery itself. Personally, I like the image. I like that long after the street piece is gone, the image will remain, a nice reminder of a great month in NY from a photographer that helped open the world's eyes to street art.

It's certainly not above criticism, and neither is Martha. But there's a lot of stupid running around in this thread. My comments, while quoting you, are less directed at you then at the people s**tting on her.

That's one way of looking at it. Here's another.

If you believe she didn't add anything creatively to the image, you might come to the conclusion its only artistic merit comes from the work Banksy created. And if you were to come to that conclusion, it might feel exploitive to sell an image where the only creative element was created by another artist.

Whether or not you agree with that line of thinking, I think you should be able to see the validity in such an opinion. It doesn't take anything away from her as an artist or a person. Every artist makes mistakes and puts out some duds from time to time. This just happens to be a rare one from her in my opinion. 

[WOOF]

Mar 26, 2015 17:24:48 GMT 1 randomname said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:56:29 GMT 1 WOOF said:

You're correct, I am defending the artist not the image. Because so many in here have been attacking the artist for creating and selling the image, not the imagery itself. Personally, I like the image. I like that long after the street piece is gone, the image will remain, a nice reminder of a great month in NY from a photographer that helped open the world's eyes to street art.

It's certainly not above criticism, and neither is Martha. But there's a lot of stupid running around in this thread. My comments, while quoting you, are less directed at you then at the people s**tting on her.

If you believe she didn't add anything creatively to the image, you might come to the conclusion its only artistic merit comes from the work Banksy created. And if you were to come to that conclusion, it might feel exploitive to sell an image where the only creative element was created by another artist.

Whether or not you agree with that line of thinking, I think you should be able to see the validity in such an opinion. It doesn't take anything away from her as an artist or a person. Every artist makes mistakes and puts out some duds from time to time. This just happens to be a rare one from her in my opinion. 

I do see the validity in that opinion.  I don't necessarily agree that it's exploitive because Martha is as much a documentarian as she is an artistic photographer, but I see what you're saying. I'll still enjoy having a piece of her work on my wall, and a banksy image at the same time. Win win for me haha.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 14:35:11 GMT 1 AFR1KA said:

"So my question is why must an artist be "established" to reproduce another artists work through any method, but an un-established artist cannot."

Considering that no artist starts off as an established artist I don't really understand the question. Fairey was doing the same process for years making very little money until he became popular.

Honestly it sounds like you know the answers to the questions you are asking. You just don't like those answers.

Yes, I know the answer to my question, I just enjoy watching gallerists and other sellers dodge it. The fact is the game is rigged. No one knows about the "real" inventory of these works accept those in control of selling them. I know for a fact that editions and shows are billed as "sold out" when they aren't. It's a game of perception and the fear of missing out. I won't smear the names of these HIGH profile galleries, so don't ask. I am interested in pointing this fact out so that buyers who are new to the game know the rules.

I wanted to provoke a discussion and I have been successful. Not everyone who reads, responds. And I don't need people to agree with me to know they're listening.

Are you reading me?

I buy very little these days and I've never participated in the price gouging...er... tiered pricing that these galleries engage in. I buy maybe one or two works a year. I plan ahead, do my research and know that as the buyer, I am in control. I can take my time in making my decision, ask questions and even bargain before purchasing.

Not everything is as it seems sometimes.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 19:15:33 GMT 1 @ling said:

Here's Martha ripping off Haring's work too. Nothing added. Despicable. 

She didn’t even give him a chance to finish it...

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 16:35:34 GMT 1 randomname said:

This is a great shot,  thanks for sharing.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 19:15:33 GMT 1 @ling said:

Here's Martha ripping off Haring's work too. Nothing added. Despicable. 

I disagree. I find capturing the artist in the moment far more interesting than a poorly staged photo shoot. But that's just me.  

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 19:15:33 GMT 1 @ling said:

Here's Martha ripping off Haring's work too. Nothing added. Despicable. 

I'll bite. What you have there is a picture of Haring working. How is that the same as a staged photo op of an another artist's existing work? Very different IMO.

If Martha was so tight with Banksy, as some have suggested, why couldn't she snap him (or his team) creating any of the BOTI works? She is apparently trusted and skilled enough and to shoot so that no identities are revealed. That would be a more appropriate work to release and one I may have considered buying.

[Black Apple Art]

Mar 26, 2015 20:03:51 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

Mar 26, 2015 19:15:33 GMT 1 @ling said:

Here's Martha ripping off Haring's work too. Nothing added. Despicable. 

I'll bite. What you have there is a picture of Haring working. How is that the same as a staged photo op of an another artist's existing work? Very different IMO.

If Martha was so tight with Banksy, as some have suggested, why couldn't she snap him (or his team) creating any of the BOTI works? She is apparently trusted and skilled enough and to shoot so that no identities are revealed. That would be a more appropriate work to release and one I may have considered buying.

In her interview she stated the only person she has never shot but wanted to was Banksy, so don't think that was an option, but having the man himself in front of a piece would really be something, hoodie / monkey mask and all and could easily off a few thousand of those. As I said, love her body of work and have much respect for what she has done for so many years. Seems she tried something with this piece which works for some and not for others. Personally does zero for me but hey there are 75 happy owners somewhere. 

[Mirus Gallery Poesia]

Mar 26, 2015 20:03:51 GMT 1 @shadynasty said:

Mar 26, 2015 19:15:33 GMT 1 @ling said:

Here's Martha ripping off Haring's work too. Nothing added. Despicable. 

I'll bite. What you have there is a picture of Haring working. How is that the same as a staged photo op of an another artist's existing work? Very different IMO.

If Martha was so tight with Banksy, as some have suggested, why couldn't she snap him (or his team) creating any of the BOTI works? She is apparently trusted and skilled enough and to shoot so that no identities are revealed. That would be a more appropriate work to release and one I may have considered buying.

What would be interesting about shooting some assistants install a piece?  I am sure there is no way Banksy would be filmed regardless of who was shooting. Martha shot the work in context of the environment it was shot in the moment and people interacting with it. People dont remember how BOTI was and the real impact of it? I think she captured what BOTI was, it wasnt about Banksy painting a piece. I think the picture captured the people interacting with the piece and I am not certain but possibly someone who had the piece placed in their neighborhood. I think Boti was about both of these things and this photo captures that. How fast we forget and are quik to call anyone an opportunist. In 20 years people will be happy someone caught the excitment of this month. I dont know if people are being serious about Martha capitalizing on this, she doesnt run or own the company that is pushing this print and I am sure gets paid like a regular artist with little input on the release.

[randomname]

Mar 26, 2015 20:18:41 GMT 1 @ling said:

Mar 26, 2015 20:03:37 GMT 1 randomname said:

I disagree. I find capturing the artist in the moment far more interesting than a poorly staged photo shoot. But that's just me.  

I agree, this photo is far more interesting. Still, it's just Martha using others work for her own gain isn't it? or is it the documentation of art on the streets?

This image has its own artistic merits. It shows a then obscure artist in the act of creating his art. That very much is documentation.

Her most recent image is very different. It's a photo shoot staged in front of a mural which had already been documented by thousands of journalist and average people though traditional and social media. I don't see a staged photo shoot after the fact as documentation. 

Had the image been staged in a more interesting way (as Tristan did), it would have more artistic merit in my opinion. As it stands, I think it's a poor image regardless of who pushed the shutter button. 

I'm not trying to convince you that it's bad. If you like it, great. If you think it's in keeping and on par with her entire body of work, I would disagree.

[Deleted]

I am sure there is no way Banksy would be filmed regardless of who was shooting

I'm sorry, I may be remembering things incorrectly, but wasn't Banksy filmed in Gaza, which was released only this month?

I would like to see his work executed on the streets, since I am pretty sure it isn't a one person job anymore. But I like behind the scenes/making of bonus features on DVD/BR too.

[Petrusino]

Mar 26, 2015 16:35:34 GMT 1 randomname said:

Mar 26, 2015 15:16:19 GMT 1 @ling said:

Tristan, on the other hand, got a far better image out of the shoot in my opinion. But he doesn't have the history that Martha has, so no one is lining up to spend a couple hundred dollars on a print. Call me crazy, but I'm more interested in the art than who created it.

Honestly I think that with "ghetto for life", with a young boy good dressed, with spray paint in hand and a Butler makes more sense the photo with a sofa and a man sitting on it instead of this Tarzan.The dude on the sofa complete the scene and seems to say "doesn't matter my social status now, I come from the ghetto and I'm still on these streets ... these Streets are my house (look at the sofa), i'm ghetto for life!" This makes sense to me...not Tarzan.

[Dungle]

The amount of absolute shit punted on here is phenomenal. Yet people seem to be more offended by a photo documenting a great show by a top photographer of street art over the years. Exploiting the market by selling 75 prints for 120 euros each. Do me a favour.