Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.
Ah yes, the universally revered beauty of a naked concrete wall. How dare they blemish the grey, depressing blandness of soulless, utilitarian construction?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen actually beautiful architecture defaced by art. Most beautiful architecture is way above, out of sprayers’ reach. Most graffiti I’ve seen are on boring, functional surfaces. I don’t find them visually appealing, generally, but I see them bring colour and life to lifeless, drab spaces.
Hell, one train station I frequent has graffiti on its walls that’s more helpful in navigating it than the official signs placed overhead with smaller print, streetnames barely useful to locals, let alone visitors, and a tiny pictograph for the bus departures.
The exception would be on trains, which is a dick move if they obscure windows or door-buttons, but that’s a complaint against that specific choice of canvas, not against the practice in general. And even then, it’s about impeding function, not aesthetics. Our trains don’t exactly win beauty contests either.
(I get the “vandalism” angle, but that’s a different argument. Individual expression is also not the subject of this comment.
My point here is that I don’t see the “beauty of the original architecture” that’s supposedly being defaced.
This also has little to do with tattoos, where the vandalism argument doesn’t apply, natural beauty is too subjective to base arguments on and individual expression is a fundamental liberty.)
Yes, some art on walls is purposeful. Examples are a school mascot on a school wall or highlights of the history of a city on a city wall.
However, tattoos can be compared to graffiti on a building in which an architect designed to be a certain color. Men find tattoos on women attractive only if they’re small and in hidden places. This means that men prefer watching plain skin on women.
That comparison would require human skin to be the work of some designer, rather than a product of the genetic lottery. There is no intent behind skin colour, no particular way it’s supposed to look.
This is what I mean with “too subjective”:
My wife has a tatted arm and I’m egging her on to add more to it because I love them. I know for a fact that I’m by far not the only man to think so. Several communities I’m in each have a discord channel dedicated to sharing your tattoos, because we love them. Tattoos are pretty widespread in the Goth scene too and are becoming increasingly mainstream. I’ve not heard any of my peers complaining about them.
So unless you wanna go Texas Sharpshooting and start defining which men you’re talking about based on what you want to say about them, that statement is just plain bullshit. The only group of men I can think of that categorically don’t like tattoos are men that don’t like tattoos, and that’s as useless a description as it gets.