Still, another example of unjustified declination...

[+Torgut]

This:

https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13H0R_The_Old_Man_Coimbra_Portugal

Was found unfit to be in Graffiti category. Not a graffiti, I was told, but a mural. Although a considerable number of waymarks existent in Graffiti category could be considered a mural and although the differences between graffiti and mural are, in some cases (like this one) non-existent.

 

And this is what the category's definition of graffiti is:

 

"Graffiti is a type of deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism."

 

Nothing less nothing more than what is in this waymark. If the fellows in this category wish to draw a line to separate murals, I am fine with it, but in that case the category's rules must be edited and updated accordingly. 

 

Note that the same officer who declined my WM because it's not a graffiti but a mural, approved these ones a few weeks ago, both described as murals:
https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13BMM_La_glace_au_poulpe_Civray_Vienne_Fr
https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13BMA_Pinocchio_Bessines_sur_Gartempe_Haute_Vienne_Fr

 

 

It hurts me to send this category to my blacklist because of an officer who knows better than the rules of the category and declines based in nothing more than his own will and against the own category rules.

 

There are plenty of beautiful pieces of art suitable to the categories Murals or Graffiti but both categories are plagued with incidents like this. The murals have this annoying rule of demanding a verbal description of the art as one would describe it to a blind person. It's silly but at least it's a rule, so it's up to me to decide if I have the patience to go through that. Myself, I usually find better ways to use my time in Waymark than writing that the wall is red if I am sending four pictures of a red wall. 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Torgut
Updating with a new idea

[+Alfouine]

Could you be fair please ?

Here is the reason why i declined this waymark : "Better in Mural category, but i can call for a vote if you want.
Alfouine"

And here is your reply "In practical terms there are no diferences, anything in graffiti category can be a mural, although the opposite doesn't not apply. Is it against any of the rules of this category? No it is not. I am starting to be a bit upset with this ping pong, graffitti / mural and with people who like to complicate things instead of simplifying, who like to raise problems instead of solutions."

So i called for a vote to have other officers opinions, i do not understand the problem, i had a doubt so i called for a vote

 

I do not share your point of view, it's not necessary a problem and i would be really happy to have opinion of people reading this discussion

According to me the too examples you gave are really differents than you waymark submitted.

[+Torgut]

4 hours ago, Alfouine said:

Could you be fair please ?

Here is the reason why i declined this waymark : "Better in Mural category, but i can call for a vote if you want.
Alfouine"

And here is your reply "In practical terms there are no differences, anything in graffiti category can be a mural, although the opposite doesn't not apply. Is it against any of the rules of this category? No it is not. I am starting to be a bit upset with this ping pong, graffiti / mural and with people who like to complicate things instead of simplifying, who like to raise problems instead of solutions."

So i called for a vote to have other officers opinions, i do not understand the problem, i had a doubt so i called for a vote

 

I do not share your point of view, it's not necessary a problem and i would be really happy to have opinion of people reading this discussion

According to me the too examples you gave are really differents than you waymark submitted.

 

Every graffiti / mural is different. I would like to learn about your own definitions and the reason why the graffiti I submitted shouldn't had been accepted in first place. Something different from your answer, in the line of "just because". To be more precise, "I am an officer and i can have my own opinion".

 

You see, thing is, a lot of work is invested in the preparation of categories, so their criteria and definitions are the clearest possible, in order to avoid subjectivity. Sometimes is difficult and there is still space for the factor "opinion". Doesn't seem to be the case in the present category, which is very clear and provide a clear definition of the accepted subjects.

 

Now, considering the criteria and definition of Graffiti category, how exactly do you base your "opinion"? How do you have the face to accept graffities defined by the authors of the waymarks as Murals and decline mine on account of being a mural? 

 

This was my last post - at least directly addressed to you. I kept you in high consideration, I recognize your notable work in several category even if some of your previous declinations of my waymarks had made me raise an eyebrow. Still, nothing I could say it was openly wrong. On this one, however, there is nothing more there than complicating what is simple. Do not take this as method or positive rigor. Enforcing the category rules is good. In this case it's just a random exercise of power. It's because you have the will. I saw this happening - with me and towards other waymarkers - along the years.

 

Note I don't get upset because my waymarks are declined. Not "per se". It happens often, mostly because I failed to fully follow a category rule, because I didn't notice something in the criteria. It's normal and I always feel bad for wasting the officer time. 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Torgut

[+sernikk]

I would say that your posted waymark is definitely made with special equipment and is different from the type of "street-art" that this category is made for.

Two examples you've provided are also looking like a graffiti to me. I don't want to judge, but I can see the difference, however it is hard to explain.

Edited December 15, 2020 by sernikk
typo

[+PISA-caching]

For me, a Graffiti is a special kind of a picture on a wall. In the old days, most of them were an illegal work, executed in the night, but nowadays some companies pay good money to have a Graffiti on their building. Another difference (for me) is: A Graffiti is most always done with spray cans and therefore you hardly see completely straight lines in a Graffiti. I would have tried the Murals category first and can't see any reason why they would deny it.

 

[+Torgut]

5 hours ago, sernikk said:

I would say that your posted waymark is definitely made with special equipment and is different from the type of "street-art" that this category is made for.

Two examples you've provided are also looking like a graffiti to me. I don't want to judge, but I can see the difference, however it is hard to explain.

 

It is fine but... it MUST be explained. Not by you, of course, but in the category rules and description. As it it, my WM is undoubtedly edible for the category. 

[+Torgut]

2 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

For me, a Graffiti is a special kind of a picture on a wall. In the old days, most of them were an illegal work, executed in the night, but nowadays some companies pay good money to have a Graffiti on their building. Another difference (for me) is: A Graffiti is most always done with spray cans and therefore you hardly see completely straight lines in a Graffiti. I would have tried the Murals category first and can't see any reason why they would deny it.

 

 

I could agree, it's a sensible definition, however it's not the definition existent in the category and accordingly to it, the thing I documented is edible to the category and an officer should not be able to decline because... because what... he doesn't agree with the category's rules??

As I wrote above, I find it hard to comply with the Mural's demand to describe the piece of art in a way that a blind person could visualize it. It is what it is, but nevertheless it's capricious. Please understand that it's not my thing to disagree with existing category's rules, I am just mentioning this due to the context.

[+Alfouine]

2 hours ago, Torgut said:

 

It is fine but... it MUST be explained. Not by you, of course, but in the category rules and description. As it it, my WM is undoubtedly edible for the category. 

 

I would love to modify category description, but in this case the leader is inactive (i sent to him a lot of messages but he never replied) and i do not have the right, it's the same with a lot of categories where i am an officer. 

 

If i remember correctly, you do not like to crosspost waymark and you submit a waymark in the category where it best fits, why do not try Murals category ? You can also wait for vote result before. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Alfouine
.

[+Ariberna]

Some WM mine was denied in this cathegory because ALfounie said me that better in  murals, and no problem.

I think that graffiti is words with aerosol and mural is other type of art. For me your WM, Torgut is graffiti.

I don't know, but without definitions of graffiti and mural, for me a good paint (like realist) is mural and graffiti is the words.

Torgut, your WM will be published in mural, I'm sure.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Ariberna

[+Torgut]

1 hour ago, Ariberna said:

Some WM mine was denied in this cathegory because ALfounie said me that better in  murals, and no problem.

I think that graffiti is words with aerosol and mural is other type of art. For me your WM, Torgut is graffiti.

I don't know, but without definitions of graffiti and mural, for me a good paint (like realist) is mural and graffiti is the words.

Torgut, your WM will be published in mural, I'm sure.

 

Again, in this context it's irrelevant what you, me or someone else thinks graffiti is. What matters is the definition provided in the category and in its rules. For the zillion  th time, the place I waymarked is eligible in the category. It's not me saying, it's the category acceptance conditions saying it. An officer cannot (or should not) decide he knows better than the category description and rules. Just this. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Torgut

[+ScroogieII]

I just looked at your submission.

Torgut - that's a MURAL!

I side completely with Thierry, Andreas and sernikk here. I would have declined it and immediately suggested that Murals is the place for this one!

(No, I didn't read the requirements in Graffiti. Common sense suggests this to be a mural, not graffiti. The mural extends upward 20 to 30 feet above ground level. Few graffiti artists possess such a capability.)

Keith

Edited December 15, 2020 by ScroogieII

[+PISA-caching]

16 hours ago, Torgut said:

As I wrote above, I find it hard to comply with the Mural's demand to describe the piece of art in a way that a blind person could visualize it. It is what it is, but nevertheless it's capricious. Please understand that it's not my thing to disagree with existing category's rules, I am just mentioning this due to the context.

 

This sounds to me like you know that the Murals category would fit much better, but you find it too difficult to describe the mural and so you chose a category, that is easier, and just kind of fits, because the rules are not precise enough? Well, I don't see that this one is more difficult to explain than the murals you already made a waymark for. Like the description says "Pretend the viewer cannot SEE the mural and then describe it to that person."

 

With a little research I found that the painter was João Samina and that the mural was done in 2016 and why.  See the bottom of https://buenosairesstreetart.com/2019/01/street-art-and-graffiti-in-portugal-at-estarreja-aveiro-and-coimbra/

 

So, my advice would be to describe it a little more and post it the Murals category.

[+Ariberna]

Congratulations Torgut for publishing this mural.

[+Torgut]

On 12/16/2020 at 10:27 AM, PISA-caching said:

 

This sounds to me like you know that the Murals category would fit much better, but you find it too difficult to describe the mural and so you chose a category, that is easier, and just kind of fits, because the rules are not precise enough? Well, I don't see that this one is more difficult to explain than the murals you already made a waymark for. Like the description says "Pretend the viewer cannot SEE the mural and then describe it to that person."

 

With a little research I found that the painter was João Samina and that the mural was done in 2016 and why.  See the bottom of https://buenosairesstreetart.com/2019/01/street-art-and-graffiti-in-portugal-at-estarreja-aveiro-and-coimbra/

 

So, my advice would be to describe it a little more and post it the Murals category.

 

 

I could provide the politically correct and deny it, but it's true. I do write what I consider is a fair amount of text in my WM's, but describing a place as I would do to a blind person it's a bit too much for me. For that, there are the pictures. 

 

Scroogiell, for the fourth of fifth time: whatever it is, it's clearly respecting the definition of the category. Yes or no? If yes, then it is to be approved. If the leading team of the category decide so, they should edit the category definition and I am happy with that. As it is, they have only one right thing to do: approve anything which is a " deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism".

[+ScroogieII]

4 hours ago, Torgut said:

Scroogiell, for the fourth of fifth time: whatever it is, it's clearly respecting the definition of the category. Yes or no? If yes, then it is to be approved. If the leading team of the category decide so, they should edit the category definition and I am happy with that. As it is, they have only one right thing to do: approve anything which is a " deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism".

 

Well, all I can say about that category description is that it is in obvious need of a rewrite. Oft times category writers are able to foresee the shortcomings in their requirements. Apparently, in this case they weren't. That's not to say that I have a good vision for a rewording of the above quoted statement at present.

 

Their shortcoming, however, doesn't let you off the hook, Torgut. Your submission was quite obviously a mural, not graffiti. Should yours be accepted then pretty much ALL murals must become acceptable. As I wrote above, common sense reveals the work to be a mural, not graffiti. Though the submission in question respects the "definition of the category", it falls well short in terms of respecting the spirit of the category.

Keith

Edited December 18, 2020 by ScroogieII

[vulture1957]

one of the problems i have with this category is this: graffiti is a temporary thing. It was not commissioned to be put there, so the property owner will shortly remove/paint over it. So by the time someone decides to go visit it, it may already be gone. Why would I want to list a temporary piece of art on a site that will (hopefully) be here for many years.

[+sernikk]

35 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

one of the problems i have with this category is this: graffiti is a temporary thing. It was not commissioned to be put there, so the property owner will shortly remove/paint over it. So by the time someone decides to go visit it, it may already be gone. Why would I want to list a temporary piece of art on a site that will (hopefully) be here for many years.

 

There are many graffities made on request of the property owner. I have often seen such projects, mainly founded by the city, to make the surrounding more colourful. For example pillars under a viaduct or walls of an underground passageway.

Edited December 19, 2020 by sernikk
typo

[+ScroogieII]

3 hours ago, sernikk said:

There are many graffities made on request of the property owner

 

I wasn't aware of this, but let's soldier on nonetheless. The category remains extant, so let's try to live with it.

I've thought about this subject for a few hours and this is my suggestion for an edit:

Let's take the quoted lines from the category requirements: " deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism" and change them to this:

 

" deliberately inscribed marking made by humans on surfaces, both private and public, without the prior knowledge of, and/or approval of, the property owner. It can take the form of art, drawings or words. When done without a property owner's consent it often constitutes vandalism".

 

Admittedly, this will not encompass "graffiti made on request of the property owner", but I'm not yet convinced that these should be considered graffiti. Depending on the quality of the work, it may become impossible to objectively differentiate between "guerilla graffiti" and "commissioned graffiti", opening yet another metaphorical can of worms should "commissioned graffiti" not be considered true graffiti henceforth.

 

This seems to be an opportune time to revert to our old friend, The Dictionary:

Merriam-Webster: usually unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface

Oxford Dictionary: Writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.

Encyclopædia Britannica: form of visual communication, usually illegal, involving the unauthorized marking of public space by an individual or group...

Legal definition by Law Insider: any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, painting or other defacement that is written, marked, etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted or engraved on or otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by any graffiti implement, to the extent that the graffiti was not authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or, despite advance authorization, is otherwise deemed a public nuisance by the City Council.

 

Other dictionaries often do not specifically categorize graffiti as illegal or surreptitious. So, from a linguistic paradigm, graffiti may or may not be done without the knowledge or approval of a property owner, whereas from a legal paradigm, generally, graffiti must be of the surreptitious sort. This is actually quite unfortunate, as it ultimately leaves the definition of graffiti to the whim of the individual observer.

 

In its truest sense, graffiti has been with us for thousands of years, and can be traced back to the cave art of the Paleolithic Age. Hence, it we're willing to go overboard here, any ancient native artwork, whether cave or rock paintings or etchings, may be admissible to the category in question.

 

Ultimately, though, it remains the judgment of the category officers as to how the situation should be handled and, indeed, if a "situation" even exists.

 

Keith

Edited December 19, 2020 by ScroogieII

[+Torgut]

13 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

Well, all I can say about that category description is that it is in obvious need of a rewrite. Oft times category writers are able to foresee the shortcomings in their requirements. Apparently, in this case they weren't. That's not to say that I have a good vision for a rewording of the above quoted statement at present.

 

Their shortcoming, however, doesn't let you off the hook, Torgut. Your submission was quite obviously a mural, not graffiti. Should yours be accepted then pretty much ALL murals must become acceptable. As I wrote above, common sense reveals the work to be a mural, not graffiti. Though the submission in question respects the "definition of the category", it falls well short in terms of respecting the spirit of the category.

Keith

 

There is a detail. It's not me on the hook. It's the incident and the refusal of a legitimate WM accordingly to the category rules and requirements. If some people have a problem with such rules and requirements, not my problem, not directly. But I can understand the feeling. There are plenty of categories out there with rules and requirements which deserve my disagreement. Starting by Murals and this obsession with the verbal description of what is shown in the provided images. 

 

All murals are already acceptable. Not only because the category description and definition says so, but also because there is a past of acceptance of wider pieces of street art, including some to which the submitter called MURALS, which didn't stop this officer to accept them.

 

There isn't much to add to this discussion. Some folks seems to think it's OK for an officer to openly challenge the rules and definitions of a category to which he was invited, in the name of his and others vision of what is right for the category. I believe that's the beginning of chaos and the sparkling of conflicts.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Torgut

[+Alfouine]

9 hours ago, Torgut said:

 

There is a detail. It's not me on the hook. It's the incident and the refusal of a legitimate WM accordingly to the category rules and requirements. If some people have a problem with such rules and requirements, not my problem, not directly. But I can understand the feeling. There are plenty of categories out there with rules and requirements which deserve my disagreement. Starting by Murals and this obsession with the verbal description of what is shown in the provided images. 

 

All murals are already acceptable. Not only because the category description and definition says so, but also because there is a past of acceptance of wider pieces of street art, including some to which the submitter called MURALS, which didn't stop this officer to accept them.

 

There isn't much to add to this discussion. Some folks seems to think it's OK for an officer to openly challenge the rules and definitions of a category to which he was invited, in the name of his and others vision of what is right for the category. I believe that's the beginning of chaos and the sparkling of conflicts.

 

 

What arrogance !!!

You explained to all of us you did not publish your waymark in murals category because you are just lazy

Everybody considers this waymark better fits in murals category but you don't care

This is your discussion, your waymark and your problem and your problem is that your are lazy... and too agressive when your waymark is denied

It's not a problem of category description, it's a mural not a graffiti

[+K13]

When I see the "Old Man" photo, I do not see graffiti. I'm not sure that it constitutes my idea of a mural either. It is more of what I would call a patriotic or memorial display.

[+PISA-caching]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 5:12 PM, Torgut said:

… but describing a place as I would do to a blind person it's a bit too much for me. For that, there are the pictures. 

 

I don't understand that. The _mural_ you want to post can be described in one sentence:

 

The mural that covers almost the whole wall of the building shows two portions of the black and white picture of an old mans face with beard, embedded in a geometrical pattern made in the colors red, gray and black.

 

That's it. Just one sentence. Of course, you could also include much more details, but IMHO my description would be enough. I, personally, would add a few more words or sentences, but if I were you, I would not take photos of murals anymore.

[+ScroogieII]

12 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

I were you, I would not take photos of murals anymore.

 

LOLOLOLOL

[+Ariberna]

There's no reason to be angry about this either, Torgut. Sometimes we have problems with reviewers, and not by standards, but by subjectivities (which there are). If I have one WM that can be in one cathegory I don't worry because in other no.

In August, someone told me in a forum that I was angry because I had less than 100 WM published. Now I have 1500, six months later and I can assure you that I have categories in a "black list" due to arbitrariness and silly subjectivities of some reviewer. This cathegories aren't in which are Alfounie, Scroogiell, fi67, outspoken, lumbricus who are reviewers that always helped me a lot abd are very friendly.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Ariberna
i forgot one reviewer

[+pmaupin]

Do you think it's so easy to accept or deny a waymark? You have to ask yourself a lot of questions, but that's part of the game, and it's always unpleasant to refuse, because behind a proposal there is always a lot of work.

[+Ariberna]

21 hours ago, pmaupin said:

Do you think it's so easy to accept or deny a waymark? You have to ask yourself a lot of questions, but that's part of the game, and it's always unpleasant to refuse, because behind a proposal there is always a lot of work.

I don't know if this answer is for me, but with you, bluesnote and grahamecookie I hadn't have conflicts. Sorry for not remember you in the last entrance of the foro. 

If the answer is for me, the revievers that I said that aee friendly and helped me, of course, some WM mine was declined because need more or best photos, more information or can't stay in one cathegory.

Finally in other messages of the foro or when I wrote to wayfrog, Always I appreciated the work of the good reviewers who I understood thay they were volunteers.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Ariberna