should there be such a thing as regular readers of this blog, then they (you) will be aware of me seeing, or if you like observing, peculiarities on my travels. it is so that this post concerns such an incident happening, look you see.
graffiti, or wanton vandalism, is what i saw this time. to see such is all too common in the modern world, as it is rife and prolific. although most see it as a nuisance and a distraction, certain types - the "right on" and with it, who would presume to dictate how their view should be accepted as common consensus - celebrate some of it. this would be particularly true of someone called "Banksy", whose such works are actually not bad, but also they could be placed on a traditional canvas or piece of paper and cause not quite so much distraction.
usually i would ignore such blemishes on buildings and so forth. the proliferation of such defacement means most of us are immune to it all. every now and then, though, i see such callous damage that i find, for want of a better word, intriguing. no actually that word shall do.
the most curious part about this - the reason i took the image - is the name of whoever it is that, apparently, according to one has "t!ts" but this is disputed by another. i am almost (almost) certain that it is someone called Ben that stands accused, but it could also be Den. what's throwing me off, or causing me to have a sense of doubt, is the little bump and indent at the top right hand side of the first letter. it seems, or would appear, that the intention was a "B" but the brickwork has caused an imperfect representation of it. then again, really it could be a flamboyant "D".
a certain level of (perhaps) understandable interest is the attempted defence of they who stand accused of having "t!ts". someone (perhaps Ben or Den themselves) felt that the best way to deny or refute the claim made was to draw a single chalk line thorough each of the words. presumably this was only a symbolic gesture of defence rather than an actual, real attempt to hide or remove the allegation. maybe it was a friend, who felt a sense of duty or obligation to try and protect them, but was also of an awareness that maybe the statement was in some way true.
one aspect of mild (or passing) interest to the observation made here is the location. this was in a place quite near to one which i, once, called home. going further, it was on a wall upon some local shops where i would walk, under instruction of mum and dad, to fetch certain things. yes, this was all a time somewhere either just north or south of 40 years ago now, but once a place has been a home there is always a kind of an intrinsic link to it, i guess. maybe.
from the very same place, and indeed the same wall, is the above, rather depressing and pathetic missive. well, maybe not. should it be that the above is supposed to be "wee'd", as in someone is proclaiming that they have done wee-wees there, or if you like had a piddle (or a gypsy's kiss, or indeed if you like p!ss), then fair enough. but, if as i suspect, this is supposed to be some sort of showing off or proactive statement intent on promoting the consumption (inhalation, perhaps) of marijuana, then it really is sad.
we live in a time where there is a relentless drive to "normalise" cannabis use, with the argument being that it is harmless, medicinal and/or of great benefit in all sorts of ways. to what extent any such proposals are accurate is simply not for me to say. but none of this appears to have stopped those who believe that simply by using the stuff (or claiming to) they are in some way, cooler, more hip and more remarkable than anyone else, or at least those who did not think to write such on a wall.
i am not sure there is much else i can add. certainly, nothing that would not serve to impinge or distract you from your own interpretation of this base defacement. or any interpretation that you care to have on behalf of someone else.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment