You find the tattoos distasteful for a reason of your own. I share such a reason, but it’s your own. Therefore you find the display graffiti-like: a blight on the visual landscape (in that interpretation of grafatti)
Edit The significance of Nazi iconography being distasteful is an easy one, and that’s why it was used as an alternative display to prove the point.
I’ve already stated that I do not find the tattoos themselves distasteful. It’s the meaning behind them.
We’re assuming that the owner of the building didn’t do that themselves, but if they did it’s not my problem.
I’ve already stated elsewhere that the real difference between a women getting her body tattooed and a building getting tagged is one consented and the building owner(presumably) didn’t.
Consent is not part of the point being made. The woman, the Nazi dude, whatever. It’s the perceived appeal. You identified you have no issue with the art of the woman, but do with the art of the man. That’s the point. Don’t conflate into other topics, of course the woman is free to choose her art, even a swastika. The point is the others perception of that.
A building is inanimate , so it’s irrelevant to consider what it likes.
Therefore comparing tattoos to graffiti is about the style/perception of the art. (Especially as all involved tattoos are clearly applied with consent)
Therefore it isn’t a point of comparison or distinction. The top comment in this chain is suggesting “for those that think tattoo don’t look like graffiti, consider this:…”. It is a relevant point because it challenges the viewer’s possible acceptance / enjoyment of the woman’s tattoos, by showing obviously, (or at least widely) distasteful tattoos. Conclusion being that some tattoos could be perceived as junk.
You find the tattoos distasteful for a reason of your own. I share such a reason, but it’s your own. Therefore you find the display graffiti-like: a blight on the visual landscape (in that interpretation of grafatti)
Edit The significance of Nazi iconography being distasteful is an easy one, and that’s why it was used as an alternative display to prove the point.
I’ve already stated that I do not find the tattoos themselves distasteful. It’s the meaning behind them.
We’re assuming that the owner of the building didn’t do that themselves, but if they did it’s not my problem.
I’ve already stated elsewhere that the real difference between a women getting her body tattooed and a building getting tagged is one consented and the building owner(presumably) didn’t.
Consent is not part of the point being made. The woman, the Nazi dude, whatever. It’s the perceived appeal. You identified you have no issue with the art of the woman, but do with the art of the man. That’s the point. Don’t conflate into other topics, of course the woman is free to choose her art, even a swastika. The point is the others perception of that.
I disagree. The Consent is the point.
A building is inanimate , so it’s irrelevant to consider what it likes.
Therefore comparing tattoos to graffiti is about the style/perception of the art. (Especially as all involved tattoos are clearly applied with consent)
Therefore it isn’t a point of comparison or distinction. The top comment in this chain is suggesting “for those that think tattoo don’t look like graffiti, consider this:…”. It is a relevant point because it challenges the viewer’s possible acceptance / enjoyment of the woman’s tattoos, by showing obviously, (or at least widely) distasteful tattoos. Conclusion being that some tattoos could be perceived as junk.