Is graffiti a real art form?

[johntalin]

Could graffiti be praised as real art even when it is vandalism?

http://www.graffiti.org/

 

[MacHeadCase]

I used to think it was. Then I couldn't shake out of my head the image of a dog urinating on a fire hydrant. Graffiti is about tagging spaces and to me tagging is delimiting territory. Like a dog and his fire hydrant.

Some of the invented typefaces are pretty interesting. Some are unreadable though.

I am looking at your linked webpage, taleen, some of those drawings are very good!

 

[giulio]

I believe so. Why should something not be called art simply because it's placement is illegal?
In some places, a cow is sacred. Does that rule make the cow not beef anymore?

I look at the mastery and level of detail, and am blow away sometimes. I have a high level of respect for the talent involved. Tagging or not, its still artwork. It's a logo. Is a logo not art?

 

[KoDorSean]

Could graffiti be praised as real art even when it is vandalism?

http://www.graffiti.org/

In my opinion graffiti is art.. on the other hand, if you want to tag something do it on your wall at home.

 

[Stretch]

Yeah, not all graffiti is vandalism though. It depends on where it is done. The style is art, just not all of it is done in the proper place.

 

[steven11]

I've been exposed to much art in my life contemporary and guerilla. I think it is art to express one's self in whatever way seems fit to the person. There is one artist that I've been following particularly for a few years that has offended many and impressed few. He had a stint where he was breaking into galleries and hanging his work in secret. In most cases it was unnoticed by the curators simply because it was good or good enough in their opinions to be there, until informed otherwise. This person goes by the name Bansky and I hope bringing the name up isn't to bothersome to any of our friends across the puddle but I like his work and think its worth a look.

 

[technologist]

Graffiti can be art, but the vast majority of graffiti contains no artistic expression.

Some towns even have a dedicated public wall for graffiti. Giving people a place to mark up helps to keep vandalism down. Doesn't work as well in big cities, though...you could never have enough of them.

 

[johntalin]

As a business owner, would you accomodate graffiti on your walls even though the images are nothing to do with your business image or what you are selling?

Just to be clear, tagging is different than graffiti. Tagging in U.S. means gang graffiti for the purpose of territory marking, not any form of art expression. On the other hand, there is urban graffiti where some artists like to express themselves without any regard to other's property.

 

[UserofMacOSX]

If it wasn't defacing public and private property, and had real meaning behind all of it, I would say yes. But I see things painted on Norfolk/Southern railway cars all the time, sometimes peoples houses get it, and even schools. It's not as much the graffiti though, as much as it is those who graffitify things.

 

[leecho7]

To answer this question, one must first answer the question, "What is art?"
What does art do?
It inspires, provokes thought, plays with one's emotions and feelings. It could brighten someone's day, it could encourage someone to take over the world, or it could cause someone to yell out "what the #*$&@*$ was that !**#@$&?"
If graffiti can do that to a person, than it is art to that person. However, it can me it's nothing but vandalism to another.
But thats the beauty of art, its always open for interpretation.

 

[Benjamindaines]

Quite simply anything expressing feeling / emotion is art. It all depends what the intentions of the person doing it had at the time. If they're just bored, go out and spay curse words on the walls then it's not art. But if the "sprayer" is depicting their feelings and such then it's art.

 

[UserofMacOSX]

If the sprayer is depicting his feelings on the side of my truck or home, then we have a problem.

 

[Benjamindaines]

If the sprayer is depicting his feelings on the side of my truck or home, then we have a problem.

In that case you're biassed so your opinion can't be counted.

 

[Ryan13]

If the sprayer is depicting his feelings on the side of my truck or home, then we have a problem.

Haha! Thats when they have crossed the line!

 

[steven11]

there's two kinds of stupid...the guy that goes out naked throwing snowballs at people and the guy that walks into your living room naked and starts throwing snowballs at you. one of them you can kinda shake your head at but the other one kinda requires your attention, no?

 

[Ryan13]

there's two kinds of stupid...the guy that goes out naked throwing snowballs at people and the guy that walks into your living room naked and starts throwing snowballs at you. one of them you can kinda shake your head at but the other one kinda requires your attention, no?

I think that is the case here! Everyone is okay with something until it directly involves them!

 

[eric]

art, if nothing else, is always open to interpretation.
the best art is not always safe or simple or easily classified.

tagging for the sake of marking one's turf is more often than not non-artistic.
well done graffitti is art. it may make some feel uncomfortable. it may make some feel violated. and it is, in most places, completely illegal.
but it is, or at least can be when it's well done and/or compelling in some other way, art.

 

[PowerBookG4]

I agree with the majority on this one. I think graffiti can be considered art. I think it doesn't even necessarily have to be on a wall, or illegal for that matter. My friend does "graffiti art" and its on paper, I am sure if she was to get a wall, it would be amazing. Art should does not have to be legal to be considered art, but I do think that it should not be considered art if it is destroying somebody else's property. So I think graffiti can be art, if it is either on paper (graffiti is a style not where it is) or on a wall that it is allowed to be on.

So I guess, in all that wordy-ness (and probably not written well granted i am tired) my position is that graffiti is art.

 

[eric]

woud the sistine chapel had been any less a work of art if Michelangelo had snuck in to do it?

;P

 

[PowerBookG4]

woud the sistine chapel had been any less a work of art if Michelangelo had snuck in to do it?

;P

no... however that took months.. it would be impossible for him to sneak in and paint that and nobody have a clue. not to mention he didnt' do it alone.