View allAll Photos Tagged Relator
After the Governorship:
United Nations Photograph
"After the Governorship" presents images related to Scranton’s diplomatic and advisory service after his term as Governor, from about 1967 to 1977. Selected images relate to his participation in conferences, his chairmanship of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest (1970), his membership on the President's Price Commission (1971-1972); and his service as 13th Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations (March 1976 - January 1977).
Creator: Unattributed
Title: After the Governorship: United Nations Photograph
Subjects: Scranton, William Warren, 1917-; United Nations--Officials and employees, American
Location: Undesignated
Date: Undated
Measurements: 20.3 x 25.4 cm
Housed: Box 198.02
Preferred Citation: William Warren Scranton Papers, 1933 – 2005 (bulk 1952 – 1989), M 281, Historical Collections and Labor Archives, Special Collections Library, University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University.
Repository: Penn State Special Collections, University Park, PA, USA.
Looking for this photo at the Penn State Special Collections? You’ll find it in the Historical Collections and Archives.
I think we can all relate to this. The question is whether we have the courage to "let go" of some of the prideful… t.co/Fwk3x0KGMs (via Twitter twitter.com/Jaime_Hepp/status/824017228513366016)
Various papers relating to Mr.Thomas Wheeler my late Grandfather.Sadly he died when I was just eleven years of age.I do however recall it was he that took me on my very first fishing trip using the first fishing rod and reel that he bought me.The images here are from WWII papers when he was an active serviceman and I only recently found these in an old album of my late father`s.These are the first twenty images in nigh on eighty images of both his army papers and my Great Grandparents (to come later) images.Some images are somewhat the same but have different focus points and apertures,mainly to suit prospective customers on Alamy.com stock images.I sincerely hope you enjoy the images and hope you see,as I did,what I think is one of many of the Identity Card issued during WWII.As you can see my Grandfather first signed up in September 1940 and seved right up until the end of the war 1945.He was then signed up for the reserves.Do Not Use Without Express Permisison From Peter Wheeler.
Clemant Voule, Relator Especial das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos à Liberdade de Reunião Pacífica e de Associação, compareceu a evento no Centro de Artes da Maré, com organizações e coletivos para formalização de relatório. | Foto: Douglas Lopes
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Education relates evrythin to Science nd Ignorance wid fiction...Education broadenss up our thinkin nd mak u to thnk high nd betr....bt Ignorance compeles u to liv in some fixed boundares...widout makin any progres or markin d destinations !!
11 JUNE 13
R&B love songs of the 90's were ballads that everyone could sing along to and relate to that got your heart, but no one did it better then the soul sounds of the 60's. It's hard to pick a list of anyone's favorites because there are always too many to list and you start thinking well, I like this one, but I like this one too and so on. My list hunting started because I was looking for a particular song to go along with a client's pictures for a slideshow and she really loved old school R&B, so I started thinking of my own personal list, and well, this is it. I mean sure there are plenty more, but these are just some of my loves.
15. Musiq Soulchild-"Dont' Change"
14. Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrel-"Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing"
13. Temptations- "My Girl"
12. Brian McKnight;"Crazy Love"
11. Prince-"Adore"
10. Barry White-"Practice What you Preach"
9. Teddy Pendergrass "Turn off the Lights"
8. Babyface-"Whip Appeal"
7. Deele-"Two Occasions"
6. Mariah Carey-"Music Box"
5.Luther Vandross-"So Amazing"
If you have a list without Luther Vandross, I'm afraid you've missed the mark. Luther like all the greats just had the ability to sing the words that I'm sure you would have thought of if you would have thought of them, right. Every note was so tender and pure, just all around great music. It was hard to pick just one of his songs because all of them are 'so amazing.'
4. Tony Rich-"Nobody Knows."
Take note stupid stupid bruno mars song written to a girl he's still dating, this is how it's done. If you've ever been in a real relationship, you don't just end things and move on with your life like nothing ever happened--you feel it in the gut of your stomach and it hurts. It's not a pathetic thing or a you should get over them thing, its that knowing that you really did love them and its going to take a friggin' moment to let them leave your system. This song, although technically not a love song, I think typifies the feelings of a good relationship that just went bad and you want him to go back to her because, well, there's always hope right. Not to mention, great hooks, chorus.
3. Tony Terry-"When I'm With You"
Genuine, pure of heart.
2. Sade-"By Your Side"
I think of this as one of the most tender songs about love. The song is so smooth, you feel like you're floating on the feeling. I really don't have a 1950's housewife mentality as a Sagittarius and so Beyonce's "Cater To My Man" really makes my left eye twitch, but in Sade's By Your side, I think of this as more of the taking care of your partner song, always being there for them in a way that's more powerful then making him breakfast. It's about that connection of knowing that the little things, the small fights, the whatevers aren't important, its being there when they need you and when they really need you and vice versa.
1. Patti LaBelle;"Someone Like You."
A totally unexpected number one, I'm sure, but if you've ever heard Patti Labelle sing the intro to this song...I mean, wow. For a lot of people who eventually fall in love and/or get married, there is this moment where they thought it wasn't going to happen for them. You see everyone around you falling in love and going off to the chapel and there you are, but when it does---this is the song. Patti Labelle is an amazing singer-no words can describe her talent and do it justice. She practically takes you to church with this one and just the sincerity of the feeling, and then it breaks into just this all out joy and happiness for the rest of the song.
This image relates to SDG 15, Life on land. This goal is focused on restoring and promoting sustainable use of ecosystems, and these caterpillars in our garden is a good example of that. We are using the ecosystem in such a way that provides for us - food we eat - and provides food and shelter for other organisms as well. Using the compost we created we enrich the soil which is halting the land degradation that was the sparse grass before the garden was implemented.
立法會中醫藥發展事宜小組委員會參觀香港標準及檢定中心
立法会中医药发展事宜小组委员会参观香港标准及检定中心
LegCo Subcommittee on Issues Relating to the Development of Chinese Medicine visits the Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (2015.04.27)
Jeremy Corbyn showed heavily-redacted government documents, obtained by campaigners, relating to months of trade talks between the US and the UK.
Then he unveiled 451 pages of uncensored documents which he claimed prove US officials put the NHS on the table in Brexit trade talks. Talks were held between the UK's Department for International Trade and the US Trade Representative (USTR), according to the leaked documents. The documents named civil servants and details of negotiations. After one meeting, UK officials admitted the US was pushing for a no-deal Brexit to get more out of a trade deal with Britain. The document said: "USTR were also clear that the UK-EU situation would be determinative: there would be all to play for in a No Deal situation. But UK commitment to the Customs Union and Single Market would make a UK-US Free Trade Agreement a non-starter."
Musée d'Orsay,
Paris, France
Eva Gonzalès
Une loge aux Italiens, 1874
Oil on canvas
The vivid female figure relates visually more directly to the bouquet of flowers - either presented to her, or intended for the star performer - than to her escort. The artist, Manet's only pupil, like her teacher showed at the official Salons rather than with the Impressionists.
The theatre auditorium, and in particular the box, a popular place for society exchanges, was a subject frequently chosen by the Impressionists. The most famous of these works is, without doubt, The Theatre Box (London, Courtauld Institute Galleries) which Renoir submitted in the first Impressionist Exhibition in 1874. This painting by Eva Gonzalès was produced at the same time and, in its first version, may have been refused initially at the 1874 Salon, before being exhibited, after some changes, at the 1879 Salon, where it was given a rapturous reception.
The young painter claimed that she had been taught by Manet, who advised her as a friend. This relationship can be clearly seen, as much in the choice of a "modern" subject as in the sharp contrasts where pale skin and light-coloured fabrics are set against a dark background. The bouquet placed on the edge of the box is almost directly quoted from the master, and recalls the bouquet offered to Olympia. One even wonders if Manet had not had a direct involvement in the painting's design, as there is a pastel version by him, which remained a sketch. The strange detachment of the figures – Henri Guérard, the husband of the artist, and her sister, Jeanne Gonzalès – also recalls Manet's decision never to give the spectator an explicit interpretation of the subject, thus avoiding the pitfalls of anecdote and facile sentimentality.
www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/works-in-focus/painting...
قررت احلق #kitten #cute #petstagram #cat #kitty #tumblr #followback #aww #trippy #lifeisgood #relateable #catstagram #tagsforshare #garden #shorts #outerspace #florida #instagroove #likes #galaxy #workout #instacat #kittens #love #park #chill #keepcalm #liam #high #catsofinstagram
154 Likes on Instagram
15 Comments on Instagram:
aliadnanabel: @aa_ab haram 3alaiki ya ayat I wanna look young im gonna be 21 in 6 days hhhhhh
its_aay: U look more mature without being haligged ya alooy loooool... n don't worry the amount of times u told me ur birthday khalas its stuck in my brain I memeorized it lmao
aliadnanabel: @aa_ab well ok ok im gonna change my bd hhhhhh and ill be younger than u or u know what ill remove the beared with laser lmao hhhhhhh
its_aay: Ahahahhahaha la la plzz irham nafsak yakhii.. khalas don't worry ull get a gift for ur bday bss don't cry @aliadnanabel
aliadnanabel: @aa_ab chb hhhhhh
its_aay: Ahahahahahah @aliadnanabel
soutqtr: حلاتين يابوحسن .. دمت في خير وفي أحسن حال
aliadnanabel: @soutqtr ماعليك زود ياخوي
Incorrect SLV title: Aerial views of buildings and factories, possibly relating to the agricultural industry, Clayton, Victoria.
Author/Creator: Airspy (Firm), photographer
Date: 8 October 1956
In October 1952, The Age reported that Allied Iron Founders Ltd., of London, had purchased a 30-acre site on Princess Highway, Clayton, for £31,500. The company's intention was to build a factory to manufacture solid fuel stoves, combustion cookers, water heaters and room heaters. The factory, located adjacent to the Chesebrough-Ponds plant, was opened by Sir Dallas Brooks, Governor of Victoria, on 15 May 1956.
The Allied Iron Founders factory was demolished in the early 2000s and is now the site of the Springvale Homemaker Centre (Ikea). The land between the foundry and Ponds is now the northern end of Westall Road. This site is just outside Monash City, but was inside the former City of Waverley.
Visible in this image are Dandenong Road and Garden Road.
SLV description: Aerial views of buildings and factories, possibly relating to the agricultural industry, Clayton, Victoria.
Subjects:
Industries -- Victoria -- Clayton
Clayton (Vic.)
Genre/Form
Aerial photographs
Aerial views
Film negatives
Summary
Aerial views over factory complex showing main road and farmland; Closer view of factory complex; Close view showing construction work on new factories.
Copyright statement: This work is in copyright
Copyright restrictions apply.
Source: SLV
Identifier(s): Accession No : H2010.91/412
Series:
Airspy collection of aerial photographs: Clayton 1956-1959
Record ID; 9939657295107636
Link:http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/4223290
District Six Museum of artifacts relating to aparthied, racial segration enforced through legislation
Peter, Ells
Blog relating to this story .... peterjemmett.blogspot.com/2020/01/heart-attack-to-10k-par...
Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.
Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.
Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.
ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES
Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.
The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).
Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).
A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".
In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.
In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.
ICONOGRAPHY
Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.
Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.
The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.
Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.
VAHANAS
The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.
Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.
The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.
ASSOCIATIONS
OBSTACLES
Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."
Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.
BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)
Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".
AUM
Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:
(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).
Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.
FIRST CHAKRA
According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".
FAMILY AND CONSORTS
Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.
The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.
Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.
The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.
WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS
Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.
Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).
Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.
Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."
GANESH CHATURTI
An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.
TEMPLES
In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.
There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.
T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.
RISE TO PROMINENCE
FIRST APEARANCE
Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:
What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:
In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.
Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."
One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.
A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.
First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).
VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE
The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .
Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".
Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.
PURANIC PERIOD
Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.
In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:
Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.
Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.
SCRIPTURES
Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.
The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.
R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.
BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM
Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.
Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.
Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.
Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.
Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.
The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
WIKIPEDIA
Relator do PLP 18/2022, senador Fernando Bezerra Coelho (MDB-PE), concede entrevista.
O parlamentar fala sobre projeto que limita a cobrança de ICMS sobre combustíveis, telecomunicações e energia elétrica. Fernando Bezerra fez a leitura, em plenário, do relatório do PLP 18/2022. Duas propostas de Emenda à Constituição sobre combustíveis e biocombustíveis devem ser apresentadas.
Foto: Roque de Sá/Agência Senado
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
This relates to the awful riots and looting by feral consumer units, oops I mean children and young adults who were let loose on Britain's cities to wreak complete devastation on shops, flats and warehouses.
We raised them to think only of themselves and money and now they don't care about anything except getting expensive gear which ever way they can.
This color relates to acquired knowledge. It is the color which resonates with the left or logic side of the brain stimulating our mental faculties and creating mental agility and perception.
Being the lightest hue of the spectrum, the color psychology of yellow is uplifting and illuminating, offering hope, happiness, cheerfulness and fun.
In the meaning of colors, yellow inspires original thought and inquisitiveness.
Yellow is creative from a mental aspect, the color of new ideas, helping us to find new ways of doing things. It is the practical thinker, not the dreamer.
Yellow is the best color to create enthusiasm for life and can awaken greater confidence and optimism.
The color yellow loves a challenge, particularly a mental challenge.
Within the meaning of colors, yellow is the great communicator and loves to talk. Yellow is the color of the networker and the journalist, all working and communicating on a mental level. Yellow is the scientist, constantly analyzing, looking at both sides before making a decision; methodical and decisive. Yellow is the entertainer, the comic, the clown.
Yellow helps with decision making as it relates to clarity of thought and ideas, although it can often be impulsive. Yellow helps us focus, study and recall information, useful during exam time.
The color yellow can be anxiety producing as it is fast moving and can cause us to feel agitated.
Yellow has a tendency to make you more mentally analytical and critical - this includes being self critical as well as critical of others.
Yellow is non-emotional, coming from the head rather than the heart. Yellow depends on itself, preferring to not get emotionally involved.
Yellow is related to the ego and our sense of self worth, to how we feel about ourselves and how we are perceived by others.
Yellow is the most highly visible of all colors which is why it is used for pedestrian crossings. Take note of the crossings which are marked in white - they are less easy to see than those marked yellow, particularly on wet and cloudy days.
I can so relate to this quote. Cars/hot rods/street rods/muscle & pony cars/pickups/motorcycles are for DRIVING/RIDING not sleeping in da garage. I'm not a fan of 'Trailer Queens' and usually chose not to feature them.
DELTA RODDERS BALCLUTHA info
Postal: PO Box 248, Balclutha 9240
Geographical Area: South Otago
Meetings -
When: Last Tuesday of each month, except December.
Where: South Otago Town & Country Club, Yarmouth St.
Time: 7.30pm
See link below for a front angle of this stunning '55 Ford F100.
A second photo album relating to the Valdes Scott Family. The first album can be viewed here www.flickr.com/photos/runninginsuffolk/albums/72157665423... This album also turned up at a car boot sale but a year later than the other in 2017. Seems to date from 1951 and the birth of Roselle in Chile.
Graffiti (plural; singular graffiti or graffito, the latter rarely used except in archeology) is art that is written, painted or drawn on a wall or other surface, usually without permission and within public view. Graffiti ranges from simple written words to elaborate wall paintings, and has existed since ancient times, with examples dating back to ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire (see also mural).
Graffiti is a controversial subject. In most countries, marking or painting property without permission is considered by property owners and civic authorities as defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime, citing the use of graffiti by street gangs to mark territory or to serve as an indicator of gang-related activities. Graffiti has become visualized as a growing urban "problem" for many cities in industrialized nations, spreading from the New York City subway system and Philadelphia in the early 1970s to the rest of the United States and Europe and other world regions
"Graffiti" (usually both singular and plural) and the rare singular form "graffito" are from the Italian word graffiato ("scratched"). The term "graffiti" is used in art history for works of art produced by scratching a design into a surface. A related term is "sgraffito", which involves scratching through one layer of pigment to reveal another beneath it. This technique was primarily used by potters who would glaze their wares and then scratch a design into them. In ancient times graffiti were carved on walls with a sharp object, although sometimes chalk or coal were used. The word originates from Greek γράφειν—graphein—meaning "to write".
The term graffiti originally referred to the inscriptions, figure drawings, and such, found on the walls of ancient sepulchres or ruins, as in the Catacombs of Rome or at Pompeii. Historically, these writings were not considered vanadlism, which today is considered part of the definition of graffiti.
The only known source of the Safaitic language, an ancient form of Arabic, is from graffiti: inscriptions scratched on to the surface of rocks and boulders in the predominantly basalt desert of southern Syria, eastern Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia. Safaitic dates from the first century BC to the fourth century AD.
Some of the oldest cave paintings in the world are 40,000 year old ones found in Australia. The oldest written graffiti was found in ancient Rome around 2500 years ago. Most graffiti from the time was boasts about sexual experiences Graffiti in Ancient Rome was a form of communication, and was not considered vandalism.
Ancient tourists visiting the 5th-century citadel at Sigiriya in Sri Lanka write their names and commentary over the "mirror wall", adding up to over 1800 individual graffiti produced there between the 6th and 18th centuries. Most of the graffiti refer to the frescoes of semi-nude females found there. One reads:
Wet with cool dew drops
fragrant with perfume from the flowers
came the gentle breeze
jasmine and water lily
dance in the spring sunshine
side-long glances
of the golden-hued ladies
stab into my thoughts
heaven itself cannot take my mind
as it has been captivated by one lass
among the five hundred I have seen here.
Among the ancient political graffiti examples were Arab satirist poems. Yazid al-Himyari, an Umayyad Arab and Persian poet, was most known for writing his political poetry on the walls between Sajistan and Basra, manifesting a strong hatred towards the Umayyad regime and its walis, and people used to read and circulate them very widely.
Graffiti, known as Tacherons, were frequently scratched on Romanesque Scandinavian church walls. When Renaissance artists such as Pinturicchio, Raphael, Michelangelo, Ghirlandaio, or Filippino Lippi descended into the ruins of Nero's Domus Aurea, they carved or painted their names and returned to initiate the grottesche style of decoration.
There are also examples of graffiti occurring in American history, such as Independence Rock, a national landmark along the Oregon Trail.
Later, French soldiers carved their names on monuments during the Napoleonic campaign of Egypt in the 1790s. Lord Byron's survives on one of the columns of the Temple of Poseidon at Cape Sounion in Attica, Greece.
The oldest known example of graffiti "monikers" found on traincars created by hobos and railworkers since the late 1800s. The Bozo Texino monikers were documented by filmmaker Bill Daniel in his 2005 film, Who is Bozo Texino?.
In World War II, an inscription on a wall at the fortress of Verdun was seen as an illustration of the US response twice in a generation to the wrongs of the Old World:
During World War II and for decades after, the phrase "Kilroy was here" with an accompanying illustration was widespread throughout the world, due to its use by American troops and ultimately filtering into American popular culture. Shortly after the death of Charlie Parker (nicknamed "Yardbird" or "Bird"), graffiti began appearing around New York with the words "Bird Lives".
Modern graffiti art has its origins with young people in 1960s and 70s in New York City and Philadelphia. Tags were the first form of stylised contemporary graffiti. Eventually, throw-ups and pieces evolved with the desire to create larger art. Writers used spray paint and other kind of materials to leave tags or to create images on the sides subway trains. and eventually moved into the city after the NYC metro began to buy new trains and paint over graffiti.
While the art had many advocates and appreciators—including the cultural critic Norman Mailer—others, including New York City mayor Ed Koch, considered it to be defacement of public property, and saw it as a form of public blight. The ‘taggers’ called what they did ‘writing’—though an important 1974 essay by Mailer referred to it using the term ‘graffiti.’
Contemporary graffiti style has been heavily influenced by hip hop culture and the myriad international styles derived from Philadelphia and New York City Subway graffiti; however, there are many other traditions of notable graffiti in the twentieth century. Graffiti have long appeared on building walls, in latrines, railroad boxcars, subways, and bridges.
An early graffito outside of New York or Philadelphia was the inscription in London reading "Clapton is God" in reference to the guitarist Eric Clapton. Creating the cult of the guitar hero, the phrase was spray-painted by an admirer on a wall in an Islington, north London in the autumn of 1967. The graffito was captured in a photograph, in which a dog is urinating on the wall.
Films like Style Wars in the 80s depicting famous writers such as Skeme, Dondi, MinOne, and ZEPHYR reinforced graffiti's role within New York's emerging hip-hop culture. Although many officers of the New York City Police Department found this film to be controversial, Style Wars is still recognized as the most prolific film representation of what was going on within the young hip hop culture of the early 1980s. Fab 5 Freddy and Futura 2000 took hip hop graffiti to Paris and London as part of the New York City Rap Tour in 1983
Commercialization and entrance into mainstream pop culture
Main article: Commercial graffiti
With the popularity and legitimization of graffiti has come a level of commercialization. In 2001, computer giant IBM launched an advertising campaign in Chicago and San Francisco which involved people spray painting on sidewalks a peace symbol, a heart, and a penguin (Linux mascot), to represent "Peace, Love, and Linux." IBM paid Chicago and San Francisco collectively US$120,000 for punitive damages and clean-up costs.
In 2005, a similar ad campaign was launched by Sony and executed by its advertising agency in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Miami, to market its handheld PSP gaming system. In this campaign, taking notice of the legal problems of the IBM campaign, Sony paid building owners for the rights to paint on their buildings "a collection of dizzy-eyed urban kids playing with the PSP as if it were a skateboard, a paddle, or a rocking horse".
Tristan Manco wrote that Brazil "boasts a unique and particularly rich, graffiti scene ... [earning] it an international reputation as the place to go for artistic inspiration". Graffiti "flourishes in every conceivable space in Brazil's cities". Artistic parallels "are often drawn between the energy of São Paulo today and 1970s New York". The "sprawling metropolis", of São Paulo has "become the new shrine to graffiti"; Manco alludes to "poverty and unemployment ... [and] the epic struggles and conditions of the country's marginalised peoples", and to "Brazil's chronic poverty", as the main engines that "have fuelled a vibrant graffiti culture". In world terms, Brazil has "one of the most uneven distributions of income. Laws and taxes change frequently". Such factors, Manco argues, contribute to a very fluid society, riven with those economic divisions and social tensions that underpin and feed the "folkloric vandalism and an urban sport for the disenfranchised", that is South American graffiti art.
Prominent Brazilian writers include Os Gêmeos, Boleta, Nunca, Nina, Speto, Tikka, and T.Freak. Their artistic success and involvement in commercial design ventures has highlighted divisions within the Brazilian graffiti community between adherents of the cruder transgressive form of pichação and the more conventionally artistic values of the practitioners of grafite.
Graffiti in the Middle East has emerged slowly, with taggers operating in Egypt, Lebanon, the Gulf countries like Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and in Iran. The major Iranian newspaper Hamshahri has published two articles on illegal writers in the city with photographic coverage of Iranian artist A1one's works on Tehran walls. Tokyo-based design magazine, PingMag, has interviewed A1one and featured photographs of his work. The Israeli West Bank barrier has become a site for graffiti, reminiscent in this sense of the Berlin Wall. Many writers in Israel come from other places around the globe, such as JUIF from Los Angeles and DEVIONE from London. The religious reference "נ נח נחמ נחמן מאומן" ("Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman") is commonly seen in graffiti around Israel.
Graffiti has played an important role within the street art scene in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), especially following the events of the Arab Spring of 2011 or the Sudanese Revolution of 2018/19. Graffiti is a tool of expression in the context of conflict in the region, allowing people to raise their voices politically and socially. Famous street artist Banksy has had an important effect in the street art scene in the MENA area, especially in Palestine where some of his works are located in the West Bank barrier and Bethlehem.
There are also a large number of graffiti influences in Southeast Asian countries that mostly come from modern Western culture, such as Malaysia, where graffiti have long been a common sight in Malaysia's capital city, Kuala Lumpur. Since 2010, the country has begun hosting a street festival to encourage all generations and people from all walks of life to enjoy and encourage Malaysian street culture.
The modern-day graffitists can be found with an arsenal of various materials that allow for a successful production of a piece. This includes such techniques as scribing. However, spray paint in aerosol cans is the number one medium for graffiti. From this commodity comes different styles, technique, and abilities to form master works of graffiti. Spray paint can be found at hardware and art stores and comes in virtually every color.
Stencil graffiti is created by cutting out shapes and designs in a stiff material (such as cardboard or subject folders) to form an overall design or image. The stencil is then placed on the "canvas" gently and with quick, easy strokes of the aerosol can, the image begins to appear on the intended surface.
Some of the first examples were created in 1981 by artists Blek le Rat in Paris, in 1982 by Jef Aerosol in Tours (France); by 1985 stencils had appeared in other cities including New York City, Sydney, and Melbourne, where they were documented by American photographer Charles Gatewood and Australian photographer Rennie Ellis
Tagging is the practice of someone spray-painting "their name, initial or logo onto a public surface" in a handstyle unique to the writer. Tags were the first form of modern graffiti.
Modern graffiti art often incorporates additional arts and technologies. For example, Graffiti Research Lab has encouraged the use of projected images and magnetic light-emitting diodes (throwies) as new media for graffitists. yarnbombing is another recent form of graffiti. Yarnbombers occasionally target previous graffiti for modification, which had been avoided among the majority of graffitists.
Theories on the use of graffiti by avant-garde artists have a history dating back at least to the Asger Jorn, who in 1962 painting declared in a graffiti-like gesture "the avant-garde won't give up"
Many contemporary analysts and even art critics have begun to see artistic value in some graffiti and to recognize it as a form of public art. According to many art researchers, particularly in the Netherlands and in Los Angeles, that type of public art is, in fact an effective tool of social emancipation or, in the achievement of a political goal
In times of conflict, such murals have offered a means of communication and self-expression for members of these socially, ethnically, or racially divided communities, and have proven themselves as effective tools in establishing dialog and thus, of addressing cleavages in the long run. The Berlin Wall was also extensively covered by graffiti reflecting social pressures relating to the oppressive Soviet rule over the GDR.
Many artists involved with graffiti are also concerned with the similar activity of stenciling. Essentially, this entails stenciling a print of one or more colors using spray-paint. Recognized while exhibiting and publishing several of her coloured stencils and paintings portraying the Sri Lankan Civil War and urban Britain in the early 2000s, graffitists Mathangi Arulpragasam, aka M.I.A., has also become known for integrating her imagery of political violence into her music videos for singles "Galang" and "Bucky Done Gun", and her cover art. Stickers of her artwork also often appear around places such as London in Brick Lane, stuck to lamp posts and street signs, she having become a muse for other graffitists and painters worldwide in cities including Seville.
Graffitist believes that art should be on display for everyone in the public eye or in plain sight, not hidden away in a museum or a gallery. Art should color the streets, not the inside of some building. Graffiti is a form of art that cannot be owned or bought. It does not last forever, it is temporary, yet one of a kind. It is a form of self promotion for the artist that can be displayed anywhere form sidewalks, roofs, subways, building wall, etc. Art to them is for everyone and should be showed to everyone for free.
Graffiti is a way of communicating and a way of expressing what one feels in the moment. It is both art and a functional thing that can warn people of something or inform people of something. However, graffiti is to some people a form of art, but to some a form of vandalism. And many graffitists choose to protect their identities and remain anonymous or to hinder prosecution.
With the commercialization of graffiti (and hip hop in general), in most cases, even with legally painted "graffiti" art, graffitists tend to choose anonymity. This may be attributed to various reasons or a combination of reasons. Graffiti still remains the one of four hip hop elements that is not considered "performance art" despite the image of the "singing and dancing star" that sells hip hop culture to the mainstream. Being a graphic form of art, it might also be said that many graffitists still fall in the category of the introverted archetypal artist.
Banksy is one of the world's most notorious and popular street artists who continues to remain faceless in today's society. He is known for his political, anti-war stencil art mainly in Bristol, England, but his work may be seen anywhere from Los Angeles to Palestine. In the UK, Banksy is the most recognizable icon for this cultural artistic movement and keeps his identity a secret to avoid arrest. Much of Banksy's artwork may be seen around the streets of London and surrounding suburbs, although he has painted pictures throughout the world, including the Middle East, where he has painted on Israel's controversial West Bank barrier with satirical images of life on the other side. One depicted a hole in the wall with an idyllic beach, while another shows a mountain landscape on the other side. A number of exhibitions also have taken place since 2000, and recent works of art have fetched vast sums of money. Banksy's art is a prime example of the classic controversy: vandalism vs. art. Art supporters endorse his work distributed in urban areas as pieces of art and some councils, such as Bristol and Islington, have officially protected them, while officials of other areas have deemed his work to be vandalism and have removed it.
Pixnit is another artist who chooses to keep her identity from the general public. Her work focuses on beauty and design aspects of graffiti as opposed to Banksy's anti-government shock value. Her paintings are often of flower designs above shops and stores in her local urban area of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some store owners endorse her work and encourage others to do similar work as well. "One of the pieces was left up above Steve's Kitchen, because it looks pretty awesome"- Erin Scott, the manager of New England Comics in Allston, Massachusetts.
Graffiti artists may become offended if photographs of their art are published in a commercial context without their permission. In March 2020, the Finnish graffiti artist Psyke expressed his displeasure at the newspaper Ilta-Sanomat publishing a photograph of a Peugeot 208 in an article about new cars, with his graffiti prominently shown on the background. The artist claims he does not want his art being used in commercial context, not even if he were to receive compensation.
Territorial graffiti marks urban neighborhoods with tags and logos to differentiate certain groups from others. These images are meant to show outsiders a stern look at whose turf is whose. The subject matter of gang-related graffiti consists of cryptic symbols and initials strictly fashioned with unique calligraphies. Gang members use graffiti to designate membership throughout the gang, to differentiate rivals and associates and, most commonly, to mark borders which are both territorial and ideological.
Graffiti has been used as a means of advertising both legally and illegally. Bronx-based TATS CRU has made a name for themselves doing legal advertising campaigns for companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Toyota, and MTV. In the UK, Covent Garden's Boxfresh used stencil images of a Zapatista revolutionary in the hopes that cross referencing would promote their store.
Smirnoff hired artists to use reverse graffiti (the use of high pressure hoses to clean dirty surfaces to leave a clean image in the surrounding dirt) to increase awareness of their product.
Graffiti often has a reputation as part of a subculture that rebels against authority, although the considerations of the practitioners often diverge and can relate to a wide range of attitudes. It can express a political practice and can form just one tool in an array of resistance techniques. One early example includes the anarcho-punk band Crass, who conducted a campaign of stenciling anti-war, anarchist, feminist, and anti-consumerist messages throughout the London Underground system during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Amsterdam graffiti was a major part of the punk scene. The city was covered with names such as "De Zoot", "Vendex", and "Dr Rat". To document the graffiti a punk magazine was started that was called Gallery Anus. So when hip hop came to Europe in the early 1980s there was already a vibrant graffiti culture.
The student protests and general strike of May 1968 saw Paris bedecked in revolutionary, anarchistic, and situationist slogans such as L'ennui est contre-révolutionnaire ("Boredom is counterrevolutionary") and Lisez moins, vivez plus ("Read less, live more"). While not exhaustive, the graffiti gave a sense of the 'millenarian' and rebellious spirit, tempered with a good deal of verbal wit, of the strikers.
I think graffiti writing is a way of defining what our generation is like. Excuse the French, we're not a bunch of p---- artists. Traditionally artists have been considered soft and mellow people, a little bit kooky. Maybe we're a little bit more like pirates that way. We defend our territory, whatever space we steal to paint on, we defend it fiercely.
The developments of graffiti art which took place in art galleries and colleges as well as "on the street" or "underground", contributed to the resurfacing in the 1990s of a far more overtly politicized art form in the subvertising, culture jamming, or tactical media movements. These movements or styles tend to classify the artists by their relationship to their social and economic contexts, since, in most countries, graffiti art remains illegal in many forms except when using non-permanent paint. Since the 1990s with the rise of Street Art, a growing number of artists are switching to non-permanent paints and non-traditional forms of painting.
Contemporary practitioners, accordingly, have varied and often conflicting practices. Some individuals, such as Alexander Brener, have used the medium to politicize other art forms, and have used the prison sentences enforced on them as a means of further protest. The practices of anonymous groups and individuals also vary widely, and practitioners by no means always agree with each other's practices. For example, the anti-capitalist art group the Space Hijackers did a piece in 2004 about the contradiction between the capitalistic elements of Banksy and his use of political imagery.
Berlin human rights activist Irmela Mensah-Schramm has received global media attention and numerous awards for her 35-year campaign of effacing neo-Nazi and other right-wing extremist graffiti throughout Germany, often by altering hate speech in humorous ways.
In Serbian capital, Belgrade, the graffiti depicting a uniformed former general of Serb army and war criminal, convicted at ICTY for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnian War, Ratko Mladić, appeared in a military salute alongside the words "General, thank to your mother". Aleks Eror, Berlin-based journalist, explains how "veneration of historical and wartime figures" through street art is not a new phenomenon in the region of former Yugoslavia, and that "in most cases is firmly focused on the future, rather than retelling the past". Eror is not only analyst pointing to danger of such an expressions for the region's future. In a long expose on the subject of Bosnian genocide denial, at Balkan Diskurs magazine and multimedia platform website, Kristina Gadže and Taylor Whitsell referred to these experiences as a young generations' "cultural heritage", in which young are being exposed to celebration and affirmation of war-criminals as part of their "formal education" and "inheritance".
There are numerous examples of genocide denial through celebration and affirmation of war criminals throughout the region of Western Balkans inhabited by Serbs using this form of artistic expression. Several more of these graffiti are found in Serbian capital, and many more across Serbia and Bosnian and Herzegovinian administrative entity, Republika Srpska, which is the ethnic Serbian majority enclave. Critics point that Serbia as a state, is willing to defend the mural of convicted war criminal, and have no intention to react on cases of genocide denial, noting that Interior Minister of Serbia, Aleksandar Vulin decision to ban any gathering with an intent to remove the mural, with the deployment of riot police, sends the message of "tacit endorsement". Consequently, on 9 November 2021, Serbian heavy police in riot gear, with graffiti creators and their supporters, blocked the access to the mural to prevent human rights groups and other activists to paint over it and mark the International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism in that way, and even arrested two civic activist for throwing eggs at the graffiti.
Graffiti may also be used as an offensive expression. This form of graffiti may be difficult to identify, as it is mostly removed by the local authority (as councils which have adopted strategies of criminalization also strive to remove graffiti quickly). Therefore, existing racist graffiti is mostly more subtle and at first sight, not easily recognized as "racist". It can then be understood only if one knows the relevant "local code" (social, historical, political, temporal, and spatial), which is seen as heteroglot and thus a 'unique set of conditions' in a cultural context.
A spatial code for example, could be that there is a certain youth group in an area that is engaging heavily in racist activities. So, for residents (knowing the local code), a graffiti containing only the name or abbreviation of this gang already is a racist expression, reminding the offended people of their gang activities. Also a graffiti is in most cases, the herald of more serious criminal activity to come. A person who does not know these gang activities would not be able to recognize the meaning of this graffiti. Also if a tag of this youth group or gang is placed on a building occupied by asylum seekers, for example, its racist character is even stronger.
By making the graffiti less explicit (as adapted to social and legal constraints), these drawings are less likely to be removed, but do not lose their threatening and offensive character.
Elsewhere, activists in Russia have used painted caricatures of local officials with their mouths as potholes, to show their anger about the poor state of the roads. In Manchester, England, a graffitists painted obscene images around potholes, which often resulted in them being repaired within 48 hours.
In the early 1980s, the first art galleries to show graffitists to the public were Fashion Moda in the Bronx, Now Gallery and Fun Gallery, both in the East Village, Manhattan.
A 2006 exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum displayed graffiti as an art form that began in New York's outer boroughs and reached great heights in the early 1980s with the work of Crash, Lee, Daze, Keith Haring, and Jean-Michel Basquiat. It displayed 22 works by New York graffitists, including Crash, Daze, and Lady Pink. In an article about the exhibition in the magazine Time Out, curator Charlotta Kotik said that she hoped the exhibition would cause viewers to rethink their assumptions about graffiti.
From the 1970s onwards, Burhan Doğançay photographed urban walls all over the world; these he then archived for use as sources of inspiration for his painterly works. The project today known as "Walls of the World" grew beyond even his own expectations and comprises about 30,000 individual images. It spans a period of 40 years across five continents and 114 countries. In 1982, photographs from this project comprised a one-man exhibition titled "Les murs murmurent, ils crient, ils chantent ..." (The walls whisper, shout and sing ...) at the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris.
In Australia, art historians have judged some local graffiti of sufficient creative merit to rank them firmly within the arts. Oxford University Press's art history text Australian Painting 1788–2000 concludes with a long discussion of graffiti's key place within contemporary visual culture, including the work of several Australian practitioners.
Between March and April 2009, 150 artists exhibited 300 pieces of graffiti at the Grand Palais in Paris.
Spray paint has many negative environmental effects. The paint contains toxic chemicals, and the can uses volatile hydrocarbon gases to spray the paint onto a surface.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) leads to ground level ozone formation and most of graffiti related emissions are VOCs. A 2010 paper estimates 4,862 tons of VOCs were released in the United States in activities related to graffiti.
In China, Mao Zedong in the 1920s used revolutionary slogans and paintings in public places to galvanize the country's communist movement.
Based on different national conditions, many people believe that China's attitude towards Graffiti is fierce, but in fact, according to Lance Crayon in his film Spray Paint Beijing: Graffiti in the Capital of China, Graffiti is generally accepted in Beijing, with artists not seeing much police interference. Political and religiously sensitive graffiti, however, is not allowed.
In Hong Kong, Tsang Tsou Choi was known as the King of Kowloon for his calligraphy graffiti over many years, in which he claimed ownership of the area. Now some of his work is preserved officially.
In Taiwan, the government has made some concessions to graffitists. Since 2005 they have been allowed to freely display their work along some sections of riverside retaining walls in designated "Graffiti Zones". From 2007, Taipei's department of cultural affairs also began permitting graffiti on fences around major public construction sites. Department head Yong-ping Lee (李永萍) stated, "We will promote graffiti starting with the public sector, and then later in the private sector too. It's our goal to beautify the city with graffiti". The government later helped organize a graffiti contest in Ximending, a popular shopping district. graffitists caught working outside of these designated areas still face fines up to NT$6,000 under a department of environmental protection regulation. However, Taiwanese authorities can be relatively lenient, one veteran police officer stating anonymously, "Unless someone complains about vandalism, we won't get involved. We don't go after it proactively."
In 1993, after several expensive cars in Singapore were spray-painted, the police arrested a student from the Singapore American School, Michael P. Fay, questioned him, and subsequently charged him with vandalism. Fay pleaded guilty to vandalizing a car in addition to stealing road signs. Under the 1966 Vandalism Act of Singapore, originally passed to curb the spread of communist graffiti in Singapore, the court sentenced him to four months in jail, a fine of S$3,500 (US$2,233), and a caning. The New York Times ran several editorials and op-eds that condemned the punishment and called on the American public to flood the Singaporean embassy with protests. Although the Singapore government received many calls for clemency, Fay's caning took place in Singapore on 5 May 1994. Fay had originally received a sentence of six strokes of the cane, but the presiding president of Singapore, Ong Teng Cheong, agreed to reduce his caning sentence to four lashes.
In South Korea, Park Jung-soo was fined two million South Korean won by the Seoul Central District Court for spray-painting a rat on posters of the G-20 Summit a few days before the event in November 2011. Park alleged that the initial in "G-20" sounds like the Korean word for "rat", but Korean government prosecutors alleged that Park was making a derogatory statement about the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak, the host of the summit. This case led to public outcry and debate on the lack of government tolerance and in support of freedom of expression. The court ruled that the painting, "an ominous creature like a rat" amounts to "an organized criminal activity" and upheld the fine while denying the prosecution's request for imprisonment for Park.
In Europe, community cleaning squads have responded to graffiti, in some cases with reckless abandon, as when in 1992 in France a local Scout group, attempting to remove modern graffiti, damaged two prehistoric paintings of bison in the Cave of Mayrière supérieure near the French village of Bruniquel in Tarn-et-Garonne, earning them the 1992 Ig Nobel Prize in archeology.
In September 2006, the European Parliament directed the European Commission to create urban environment policies to prevent and eliminate dirt, litter, graffiti, animal excrement, and excessive noise from domestic and vehicular music systems in European cities, along with other concerns over urban life.
In Budapest, Hungary, both a city-backed movement called I Love Budapest and a special police division tackle the problem, including the provision of approved areas.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 became Britain's latest anti-graffiti legislation. In August 2004, the Keep Britain Tidy campaign issued a press release calling for zero tolerance of graffiti and supporting proposals such as issuing "on the spot" fines to graffiti offenders and banning the sale of aerosol paint to anyone under the age of 16. The press release also condemned the use of graffiti images in advertising and in music videos, arguing that real-world experience of graffiti stood far removed from its often-portrayed "cool" or "edgy'" image.
To back the campaign, 123 Members of Parliament (MPs) (including then Prime Minister Tony Blair), signed a charter which stated: "Graffiti is not art, it's crime. On behalf of my constituents, I will do all I can to rid our community of this problem."
In the UK, city councils have the power to take action against the owner of any property that has been defaced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) or, in certain cases, the Highways Act. This is often used against owners of property that are complacent in allowing protective boards to be defaced so long as the property is not damaged.
In July 2008, a conspiracy charge was used to convict graffitists for the first time. After a three-month police surveillance operation, nine members of the DPM crew were convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage costing at least £1 million. Five of them received prison sentences, ranging from eighteen months to two years. The unprecedented scale of the investigation and the severity of the sentences rekindled public debate over whether graffiti should be considered art or crime.
Some councils, like those of Stroud and Loerrach, provide approved areas in the town where graffitists can showcase their talents, including underpasses, car parks, and walls that might otherwise prove a target for the "spray and run".
Graffiti Tunnel, University of Sydney at Camperdown (2009)
In an effort to reduce vandalism, many cities in Australia have designated walls or areas exclusively for use by graffitists. One early example is the "Graffiti Tunnel" located at the Camperdown Campus of the University of Sydney, which is available for use by any student at the university to tag, advertise, poster, and paint. Advocates of this idea suggest that this discourages petty vandalism yet encourages artists to take their time and produce great art, without worry of being caught or arrested for vandalism or trespassing.[108][109] Others disagree with this approach, arguing that the presence of legal graffiti walls does not demonstrably reduce illegal graffiti elsewhere. Some local government areas throughout Australia have introduced "anti-graffiti squads", who clean graffiti in the area, and such crews as BCW (Buffers Can't Win) have taken steps to keep one step ahead of local graffiti cleaners.
Many state governments have banned the sale or possession of spray paint to those under the age of 18 (age of majority). However, a number of local governments in Victoria have taken steps to recognize the cultural heritage value of some examples of graffiti, such as prominent political graffiti. Tough new graffiti laws have been introduced in Australia with fines of up to A$26,000 and two years in prison.
Melbourne is a prominent graffiti city of Australia with many of its lanes being tourist attractions, such as Hosier Lane in particular, a popular destination for photographers, wedding photography, and backdrops for corporate print advertising. The Lonely Planet travel guide cites Melbourne's street as a major attraction. All forms of graffiti, including sticker art, poster, stencil art, and wheatpasting, can be found in many places throughout the city. Prominent street art precincts include; Fitzroy, Collingwood, Northcote, Brunswick, St. Kilda, and the CBD, where stencil and sticker art is prominent. As one moves farther away from the city, mostly along suburban train lines, graffiti tags become more prominent. Many international artists such as Banksy have left their work in Melbourne and in early 2008 a perspex screen was installed to prevent a Banksy stencil art piece from being destroyed, it has survived since 2003 through the respect of local street artists avoiding posting over it, although it has recently had paint tipped over it.
In February 2008 Helen Clark, the New Zealand prime minister at that time, announced a government crackdown on tagging and other forms of graffiti vandalism, describing it as a destructive crime representing an invasion of public and private property. New legislation subsequently adopted included a ban on the sale of paint spray cans to persons under 18 and increases in maximum fines for the offence from NZ$200 to NZ$2,000 or extended community service. The issue of tagging become a widely debated one following an incident in Auckland during January 2008 in which a middle-aged property owner stabbed one of two teenage taggers to death and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.
Graffiti databases have increased in the past decade because they allow vandalism incidents to be fully documented against an offender and help the police and prosecution charge and prosecute offenders for multiple counts of vandalism. They also provide law enforcement the ability to rapidly search for an offender's moniker or tag in a simple, effective, and comprehensive way. These systems can also help track costs of damage to a city to help allocate an anti-graffiti budget. The theory is that when an offender is caught putting up graffiti, they are not just charged with one count of vandalism; they can be held accountable for all the other damage for which they are responsible. This has two main benefits for law enforcement. One, it sends a signal to the offenders that their vandalism is being tracked. Two, a city can seek restitution from offenders for all the damage that they have committed, not merely a single incident. These systems give law enforcement personnel real-time, street-level intelligence that allows them not only to focus on the worst graffiti offenders and their damage, but also to monitor potential gang violence that is associated with the graffiti.
Many restrictions of civil gang injunctions are designed to help address and protect the physical environment and limit graffiti. Provisions of gang injunctions include things such as restricting the possession of marker pens, spray paint cans, or other sharp objects capable of defacing private or public property; spray painting, or marking with marker pens, scratching, applying stickers, or otherwise applying graffiti on any public or private property, including, but not limited to the street, alley, residences, block walls, and fences, vehicles or any other real or personal property. Some injunctions contain wording that restricts damaging or vandalizing both public and private property, including but not limited to any vehicle, light fixture, door, fence, wall, gate, window, building, street sign, utility box, telephone box, tree, or power pole.
To help address many of these issues, many local jurisdictions have set up graffiti abatement hotlines, where citizens can call in and report vandalism and have it removed. San Diego's hotline receives more than 5,000 calls per year, in addition to reporting the graffiti, callers can learn more about prevention. One of the complaints about these hotlines is the response time; there is often a lag time between a property owner calling about the graffiti and its removal. The length of delay should be a consideration for any jurisdiction planning on operating a hotline. Local jurisdictions must convince the callers that their complaint of vandalism will be a priority and cleaned off right away. If the jurisdiction does not have the resources to respond to complaints in a timely manner, the value of the hotline diminishes. Crews must be able to respond to individual service calls made to the graffiti hotline as well as focus on cleanup near schools, parks, and major intersections and transit routes to have the biggest impact. Some cities offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of suspects for tagging or graffiti related vandalism. The amount of the reward is based on the information provided, and the action taken.
When police obtain search warrants in connection with a vandalism investigation, they are often seeking judicial approval to look for items such as cans of spray paint and nozzles from other kinds of aerosol sprays; etching tools, or other sharp or pointed objects, which could be used to etch or scratch glass and other hard surfaces; permanent marking pens, markers, or paint sticks; evidence of membership or affiliation with any gang or tagging crew; paraphernalia including any reference to "(tagger's name)"; any drawings, writing, objects, or graffiti depicting taggers' names, initials, logos, monikers, slogans, or any mention of tagging crew membership; and any newspaper clippings relating to graffiti crime.
Second image relating to Ernest W. Carter, makes you appreciate the ability of the photographer and the quality of the processing given the technology of the 1950's.
Where did he work from? Does anyone know anything about the man or company?
Incedently, the lady pictured is a Gainsborough girl born and bred, still living in the town and quite a fan of the "Gainsborough, past and present" publications. I'm trying to persuade her to recall some memories before the oppurtunity is missed and dig deeper into the family albums.
The Museum of the history of Gedera and the Biluim is located in a special building, that was donated by Moshe Mintz and his wife Rachel. Dr. Mintz bought the land at the end of Biluim Street, and commenced planning to build a house that would serve as his home and a community center.
The Museum substantiates the idea of Zionism in its development, through observing the culture of the Biluim and the history of Gedera from 1882 until today. The Museum is an educational institution, whose purpose is to hold, protect, document and distribute the material and spiritual artifacts that relate to the ideas and deeds of the Biluim who founded.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Graffiti relating to Xinjiang and Tibet is seen on the pavement during a rally in Hong Kong on December 22, 2019 to show support for the Uighur minority in China. - Hong Kong riot police broke up a solidarity rally for China's Uighurs on December 22 -- with one officer drawing a pistol -- as the city's pro-democracy movement likened their plight to that of the oppressed Muslim minority. (Photo by Anthony WALLACE / AFP) (Photo by ANTHONY WALLACE/AFP via Getty Images)
Each Friday at the Campbell Historical Museum kids can enjoy craft activities that relate to a historical theme.
I chose coffee and tea shops or cafés as my topic because it can be relatable to almost everyone. While researching I realized that there are many aspects that go into making coffee. It starts with the farmers that grow the plants that then turn into beans, then get processed, then shipped here and then get pieced out into cups. Coffee or tea could be a dividing question among groups of people, but everyone has their choice. I drink both, but if I had to choose just one I would have to say tea. It’s a good thing most coffee shops serve tea as well. I think the target audience would be anyone older than 13. Caffeine consumption seems to be starting earlier and earlier with teenagers, and people have serious addictions to these drinks. I think that the goal would be to inform the background on how coffee is made, display and feature the café, as well as selling products and merchandise for the café.
relating the front of the building to the scale of the lakeside garden to the lake and background beyond. The scale of the building is a little bit off.
This is a photo and Newspaper Clipping that relates to Elizabeth (Hennen) Mariner. Elizabeth was born 2 August 1811 in Greene County Pennsylvania to George Hennen and Mahala Argo. She married on 29 January 1830, Dr James Mariner. She died 19 January 1909, and at the time of her death she was the oldest woman in Greene County!
This photo for a time was Misidentified as Sarah (Stewart) Thomas, mother of Eliza Jane Thomas, wife of Jackson Kughn. That has proven to be Incorrect.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.