Judge orders Ecko to PAAARTY!

I still think Bloomberg is right. If the game catches on like Tony Hawk, expect to see woolly-hatted teenagers spraypainting "Wikkid Cru" all over our cities.

And then taxes go up to foot the cleaning bill! Hooray!

I still don't know who he is or what this game's about. And more to the point, I still don't really care.

Ban all Advertising!

/available on bumper stickers

Good call there, it feels as relevant as the lawsuits against publishers/developers after Columbine.

But it's 'art'! And he's a 'designer'. God forbid we stifle his 'creativity'...

Amercian Judge rules in favour of big business!

I'm shocked, really. This never happens all the time.

"encouraging revenge murder"? So in Marc Ecko's party do all the graffitti guys die at the end?

I don't even understand the title: "Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure" what the hell is that supposed to mean?

As long as they´re only decorating models, I can´t see what all the fuss is about really...

/Crashing indifference.....

oh on, give the full quote from the bloke - "a street performance of Hamlet would be tantamount to encouraging revenge murder. As for a street performance of 'Oedipus Rex,' don't even think about it."
I like this lawyer.

bad: "Getting up" is graffiti parlance for putting one's graf tag upon a wall/building/whatever. "Content Under Pressure" is a reference to the fact that aeroso l cannisters (used by graffiti creatives) used pressured gas cannisters, and the cans have a warning printed on them, reminding the graffiti creative not to dispose of said cannister upon a flame, potentially causing an 'explosion'.

Explanations aside, it's still the shittest name ever for a game. I remember when I was a lad, and we had had games like Pyjamarama...

some trains could use a healthy portion of creativity... good Graffiti namely.

I wonder whether parents in the stone age also got angry at their kids' graffiti in the cave that nowadays is a most important thing called "caveman painting" in archelogical science. ^^

Judge Rakoff went on to say Bloomberg's objection was the equivalent of suggesting, "a street performance of Hamlet would be tantamount to encouraging revenge murder."

Depicted violence not responsible for actual violence? Can we have this Judge for all videogame related trials?

"both tagging and the majority of graffiti is painting shit on other people's property without their permission. For pretty much everybody else it's the same thing: vandalism they'd rather do without. Art or Fart, we don't care. Paint on your own damn wall." (Deaner)

"n. pl. graf·fi·ti

A drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public. Often used in the plural.

graf·fi·ti
n.

(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Plural of graffito.

---

graf·fi·ti

n : a rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls [syn: graffito]

---

Well Zuiyo, the Dictionary says I'm right.

Dictionary's are books, aren't they?" (Some other gentleman)

Gentlemen, thanks for your comments.

Now allow me to express my point of view.

It is inadequate to classify graffitti as "shit". It is a worldwide art form that requires a special and difficult to acquire set of skills from the artist. It also needs hard and time consuming planning, time and money investment for all the artistic tools and a set of knowledges. Even if it is not of your personal taste, it is wrong to call it "shit" just because you don't like it. In the same fashion, you could call ballet, street performers and other forms of art "shit" as well, just because you don't know them or don't like them.

Would you consider graffitti as an art and a legitimate activity if it was always done "legally" (with the approval of the owner of the wall)? Is it then the illegal or legal aspect of it what makes it fall into the category of either "shit" or "art"? That would put public painting of nude models fall in the "shit" category, since there will be a nude body exposed in the public and that is considered as illegal.

The dictionary made us both right, not you only, and if anything, what was closer to my definition came out first, ("A drawing or inscription made on a wall or other surface, usually so as to be seen by the public" than what was closer to yours ("a rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls". Then we would need to see whether it being rude deprives it from being art.

And dictionaries have the shape of books, granted. But it is rather difficult to grasp the complexity of phenomenons on ten word definitions. For instance, everything related to "sex", an extremely important element for humans and our daily behaviours and relationships, would be resumed in "sexual activity involving the penis or vagina, especially when a man puts his penis into a woman's vagina". What I meant was for you to read either whole books on the subject, or a whole books related to the widest area to which graffitti belongs, that is, art.

You are obviously entitled to your rather short sighted views, but beware that in public speaking places like this there will be always people like me ready to give a little depth to your grumpy statements.