Is It Art?

[Owen_Kearno]

Firstly, I do not promote the destruction of public/private property. But I have a personal question I have only just thought about recently, do you class graffiti as art?
I have been "bombing" for about 3 or 4 years and i have always seen graffiti as an expression and almost all art forms are seen like that whether it be dance, music or painting. Close friends on the server will know of my current situation and how it's pretty rough and whenever I am angry, happy, sad I feel like grabbing a can and spraying on a wall, it released off a lot of steam. And nothing beats hitting up a train with a few mates, getting the picture of the throw up and sneaking off into the night to see the train pass by.
Understandably, the art is looked down upon by many people and sometime people say they like pieces but not tags. This is just overshadowing the art and so wrong, so wrong. The whole culture of hip-hop and graffiti is one and I would like opinions of people outside that culture and if it is indeed looked down upon, which I am pretty sure it is, all opinions are open but I will try to explain my side further as not many people understand the feelings involved with the art

 

[Mecharic]

Graffiti can be art if done properly. Things like this are:


Stuff that's just a really crappy image of genitals or someones initials and a middle finger... not so much.

 

[Owen_Kearno]

Graffiti can be art if done properly. Things like this are:
View attachment 27291

Stuff that's just a really crappy image of genitals or someones initials and a middle finger... not so much.

Click to shrink...

Obviously a clown with a spray can who draws a penis is not part of graffiti, that isn't graffiti.

 

[Owen_Kearno]

To anyone who wants a better view on the culture of it all;

 

[LadyTeddington]

Yes. Well, it depends. If the graffiti is like a punked up 'F*ck you' or something then... Naw. But if it's like what Mecharic posted, yeah, it would be owo

 

[Rinus]

I actually have an atlas of graffiti. I consider it a form of art, if it isn't crude words scribbled on a wall. If you put work into graffiti, it is less of a form of vandalism, and more a form of art.

 

[HereticTakao]

If it is a Symbol or Sort of Drawing than yes. If it is words, than No. Though it is illegal, it is beautiful.

 

[Owen_Kearno]

If it is a Symbol or Sort of Drawing than yes. If it is words, than No. Though it is illegal, it is beautiful.

Click to shrink...

The thing about a word in graffiti is the point is to make it big, alot of the time they are so complex and complicated that they look beautiful. The colours used and lines can make a brick wall look so good.

 

[FCCarnilord]

I went to Baltimore earlier today to hear a Orchestra practice. As we drove by, I saw the art along the way. The spray paints were amazing, and I could barely comprehend how they could get such an eye catching piece of work with spray cans.
Although yea, it was randomly on buildings and bridges, but honestly, if it weren't for even those, how many people would look at "normal" art within their crowded day?

 

[Owen_Kearno]

I went to Baltimore earlier today to hear a Orchestra practice. As we drove by, I saw the art along the way. The spray paints were amazing, and I could barely comprehend how they could get such an eye catching piece of work with spray cans.
Although yea, it was randomly on buildings and bridges, but honestly, if it weren't for even those, how many people would look at "normal" art within their crowded day?

Click to shrink...

The streets are a free gallery of the people, anyone can put up artwork there, that's what keeps me going

 

[Waminer]

Obviously a clown with a spray can who draws a penis is not part of graffiti, that isn't graffiti.

Click to shrink...

That is the equivalent of me saying lets say Orange cats are not cats. They fit the definition perfectly, but since they make you a green cat look bad, you refuse to admit them as being part of the species. Now, lets pretend 90% of cats are Orange, so not only are you blatantly ignoring the definition of a certain type of cat, but saying that the vast majority of cats are in fact, not cats at all, simply because you don't want to be associated with them. Just replace Orange cats with graffiti vandalism and green cats with artistic graffiti and you have what you just said.

Graffiti is simply writing or drawing on a wall. The first graffiti was in Roman days where politicians would advertise themselves and what they offered people for electing them. That means everything from a tag, to a crudely drawn penis, to a interpretation of the Battle of the Somme is all Graffiti if drawn on a wall. And it does not matter as it all falls under the same definition. When classifying Graffiti as good or bad you should not look at it being artistic you should look at if it was drawn with consent. Anything besides this is Vandalism as you have just defaced public or private property without consent with is vandalism. You do not know if they want "Art" there and hence it is vandalism until they give their consent. Of course, in sane places such as my city Toronto in Canada where making Graffiti in the form of a artistic mural or other design on public property is not illegal, ever, this only applies to private property which should always be respected and only drawn on with consent.

So ultimately it comes down to three options, move to a city where artistic graffiti is encouraged, gain consent from the public or private landowners about where you can draw artistic graffiti, or instead advocate for vandalism and destruction of other's property.

(For reference I do believe that certain pieces of Artistic Graffiti are Art and that Graffiti has potential to be an art, however that does not mean it is legal, good, or beneficial, nor that Graffiti that is not Artistic ceases to be Graffiti for not reason.

 

[Sven_Tu]

Art is art.
Graffiti is graffiti.
Vandalism is vandalism.
By their definitions alone they don't really effect one another. Art is art whether or not it happens to be vandalism as well. And so on for the others.

Bah, I'm so indecisive. I almost always believe things like this should be dealt with a case-by-case basis. To answer the question, graffiti by itself is simply a medium so yes, it can be art.

 

[Owen_Kearno]

That is the equivalent of me saying lets say Orange cats are not cats. They fit the definition perfectly, but since they make you a green cat look bad, you refuse to admit them as being part of the species. Now, lets pretend 90% of cats are Orange, so not only are you blatantly ignoring the definition of a certain type of cat, but saying that the vast majority of cats are in fact, not cats at all, simply because you don't want to be associated with them. Just replace Orange cats with graffiti vandalism and green cats with artistic graffiti and you have what you just said.

Graffiti is simply writing or drawing on a wall. The first graffiti was in Roman days where politicians would advertise themselves and what they offered people for electing them. That means everything from a tag, to a crudely drawn penis, to a interpretation of the Battle of the Somme is all Graffiti if drawn on a wall. And it does not matter as it all falls under the same definition. When classifying Graffiti as good or bad you should not look at it being artistic you should look at if it was drawn with consent. Anything besides this is Vandalism as you have just defaced public or private property without consent with is vandalism. You do not know if they want "Art" there and hence it is vandalism until they give their consent. Of course, in sane places such as my city Toronto in Canada where making Graffiti in the form of a artistic mural or other design on public property is not illegal, ever, this only applies to private property which should always be respected and only drawn on with consent.

So ultimately it comes down to three options, move to a city where artistic graffiti is encouraged, gain consent from the public or private landowners about where you can draw artistic graffiti, or instead advocate for vandalism and destruction of other's property.

(For reference I do believe that certain pieces of Artistic Graffiti are Art and that Graffiti has potential to be an art, however that does not mean it is legal, good, or beneficial, nor that Graffiti that is not Artistic ceases to be Graffiti for not reason.

Click to shrink...

All I was stating was basically, not all vandalism is graffiti, If it is there for destruction only and isn't a tag, throw or a piece its only purpose is the destroy the property. Where as graffiti has a meaning and shows something. Graffiti is Vandalism but not all Vandalism is Graffiti, same was as all Dinosaurs were Lizards, but not all Lizards were Dinosaurs. That is a much more simpler form of putting it

PLUS- The first graffiti was cavemen writing on walls to show stories, where they live, who they are. But as graffiti is criminalised people come up with street names to represent, not their names. And a story can be shown in a painting, like the tree Mech put up. It's just all modernised

 

[Rhuyne]

I personally think everyone is entitled to their own oppinion..
Some may see graffitti as art, some don't. Everyone has got different oppinions <3

 

[The Genie]

Ok. I voted that it was vandalism, but, if it's actual art and not just profanities and initials and not on private property, then I believe it is most definitely an aft form. If there's design and it isn't on someone else's property without their consent, it is quite interesting in my opinion.

 

[Kikopuz]

I think it can be art. Sometimes it just looks great and I think some of those guys are very talented. However, I don't like the tags (as in: just a signature). That's just fugly and it's vandalism most of the time. I also don't like it when people use it on private property. Here in my neighbourhood we have a few places where the local government gave permission, for example under a bridge. They make the most awesome stuff there, no tags, just art.

 

[A'mika]

There is a legitimate place in Toronto called Graffiti alley where you're allowed to graffiti, and I've seen it, and there's this massive fish mural among a lot of other stuff. There was a few swear words but not much. There's probably Graffiti Alleys in other places too, and those are a really good thing.
If the graffiti is simultaneously vandalism, then it's bad. But in graffiti alley, it's almost entirely art.
I think that doing it in legalised places is a Really Good thing. Doing it in illegal places is a bad thing.
So do it in places like Graffiti Alley!

 

[catbugthemango]

Yeah, some of it is art, but some is not. When I used to get the bus through London I saw some amazing graffiti on the sides of shops. I think it's cool.

 

[krios41]

 

[Owen_Kearno]

Those places require a harness, rope and a trusted friend. Or as you said, Spider-Man @krios41

 

[CanteringCodfish]

Graffiti is an interesting thing. Like others said, Graffiti can be vandalism, if you paint a swear or a penis or something, but it is art if you put time and effort into a good looking piece. However, I do not agree in full with this. Lets say you make the most beautiful graffiti-art ever. Art, right? yes, most likely. But... what if it was on the white house, or the empire state building? There are limitations on where you can put your art to keep it art, or else it is just vandalism again.

 

[Owen_Kearno]

All/Most Graffiti is vandalism, if it wasn't then it would take most the adrenaline out of being a writer. It's feels much better sneaking into a roof top and doing a piece so the city will see it when they wake up than walking to a cornered off section of wall the governemnt gives you

 

[Party_Penguin27]

Obviously a clown with a spray can who draws a penis is not part of graffiti, that isn't graffiti.

Click to shrink...

Actually by criminal law it is.

 

[ilublo]

"I mean no harm, nor put fault on anyone who lives in a vault"
Activities are codified by society in circuitous ways. Our safety demands it. Language demands it.
There's lot's of play - or wiggle room - in both our activities and our language about activities.
Art usually involves ritual. The best art involves passage - and takes important thinkers on the passage. All the best "Art" has broken someone's legal code, either about propriety or the boundaries of "legitimate" or "meaningful" expression. Art sometimes runs amok, at it's worst it gravitates towards some the the non-cognitive aspects of mysticism, sometime's even laden with religion's fantasy legal codes. The most important thing we can do is get our science straight. Keep double checking ourselves. Except when we're making "play" (better than doing "art" and a lot more honest epistemologically). When we're playing.... we seek abandon. Pure expression - then we need a safe place. Where we are protected from the rules. What is so intriguing about street art is it's attack on rules like "property, propriety, and piousness." Regardless of your aesthetic preferences. When it comes to art, the first rule - and if you don't follow this first rule you can't experience the reason for art - is CHECK YOUR PREFERENCE AT THE DOOR. There is no room for your "preference." No critical understanding can come from a experience that begins with the words "I like..."

 

[ilublo]

Yeah, some of it is art, but some is not. When I used to get the bus through London I saw some amazing graffiti on the sides of shops. I think it's cool.

Click to shrink...

I might concur if your words were rearranged. Maybe something like this...
"Yeah, art of it is some, but art is not."

 

[ilublo]

Much of this argument is muddled by language. Very ambiguous and highly subjective language to describe our response to the product of labors. To reiterate, the most valuable processes are transformative. Art is better thought of as an verb. A process. Usually the product (whatever "marks" are left on a canvas or a wall) is the excoriated detritus of a liminal ritual. A moving from one state to another. Increasing understanding. Beauty is another problematic noun so overused as to be almost devoid of meaning. "But I know what is beautiful" just doesn't cut it. Taking solace in hunches and superstition is only for the cowardly and complacent.