COP OUT
imagine if a porn magazine came with a disclaimer?
this publication exists solely as a record of the acts performed by those it contains but is by no means intended to encourage masturbation.
it sounds like some kind of week joke russell howard might expel whilst being boss eyed on stage talking like he’s a spastic.
or a sandwich with a disclaimer telling you that it is for ornamental purposes only and should you choose to eat it you do so at your own peril.
i’m no idiot, i understand why such things exist.
in this suing culture we’re drowning in, this hateful american mindframe where you can always find a way of holding someone else financially responsible for your own stupid actions, legal disclaimers can be a way of guarding agasint precisely such ridiculous behaviour.
like writing may contain traces of nut on a packet of nuts. once again, this is not a shit joke i’ve appropriated from a tv panel show, it’s something which actually happens.
as though we’re too feeble minded to possibly apply our own rational judgment, that unless something is expressly written down it becomes utterly ambiguous and impossilbe to interpret using rational thought.
therefore any absurd misinterpretation is the fault of the manufacturer not the consumer.
i’m allergic to nuts, but it didn’t say anywhere on this packet of cashews that it contained nuts, so i cannot be held responsible for the consequences.
we’re being conditioned into believing that we actually need a nanny state, that the world is too hazardous and baffling to possible traverse using our own judgment so lets let the eton boys behind the benches sort it out for us.
much safer, after all they know best.
which is why i find it so weak that graffiti magazines have legal disclaimers in them.
what a fucking cop out.
the first and easiest point to make is nobody could possibly think that painting trains is allowed. regardless of their stance on graffiti, the fact (in england) that you almost never see it running on trains nor do you see people doing it coupled with the uninviting appearance of the train yards hints ever so slightly at its illegality.
furthermore, who reads graffiti magazines? writers and vandal squads.
if you’re a writer then you enjoy painting and are all too aware of its illegality, typically evidenced by a colourful criminal record and various scars/torn clothes. when you pore over graffiti magazines it can wind you up or inspire you but it will almost certainly get you motivated to go and do some graff.
the vandal squads only exist because graffiti is illegal. a publication detailing exactly who got away with painting what in their city is not gonna irritate them less if it contains a disclaimer explaining that it’s intention is not to promote or encourage graffiti but solely to document these ephemeral pieces of urban art before they are heartlessly washed away.
the fact that a graffiti magazine ever even comes to fruition is a testament to the publishers love of graffiti and his desire to record panels for posterity. it serves no other purpose if not to promote graffiti, and its physical existence condones it wholly.
if everything the magazine contains contradicts the law, its pretty fucking gutless to then put that little paragraph at the beginning to cover your own skin. surely if you paint you should be proud and have such a strong disregard for the law that even just the notion of including a disclaimer is repugnant.
it is a total fucking cop out.
if i ever make a graff mag, the first page will say in highly legible letters:
this publication exists with the sole purpose of promoting graffiti globally, condoning it as an activity and supporting those who do it.
or maybe nothing at all.
SHOOK
