? about Graffiti (1 Viewer)

[Bry_DD]

I'm doing this survey for my class and it's about graffiti.
is graffiti art or is it vandalism? and why?

thanks guys,
Bry

 

[Mike Frezon]

Um, Bry. You're gonna want to move this over to the After Hours section of the forum. Good luck with your assignment!

 

[DaveNel]

Actually its a little of everything:


Art version of Graffiti

I have been all over the U.S. and I have seen some great
Graffiti art that was done in some areas. Very beautiful pictures and graphics.

Vandalism version of Graffiti

Even though the art part of it was great on some things done
I have seen this done on Walls, Windows, Cars, Trains, Trucks, Trees, and just about anything and everything. The
problem is where it was done.

Gang version of Graffiti

Most graffiti 75% is led to Gangs and the way they do things
If you look at a lot of graffiti, Most of the distasteful graffiti is done on things that make graffiti art look bad.


Well thats what I have seen and thats my thoughts on it

 

[Mike Frezon]

Bry: Now that we've all gathered here in After Hours...my vote is for:

...vandalism.


Graffiti, to me, is simply the act of defacing someone else's property. I suppose there's nothing more subjective than art itself, but if someone takes a can of spray paint and uses it to do anything on my property, that's vandalism. If someone takes a can of spray paint and uses it on their own property, I guess they could call that art...but I don't know if that's ever been done.

I guess to make this all clear...you really need to define what you mean by "graffiti".

 

[Leila Dougan]

The deciding factor is location.

If the graffiti is done on any property that is not owned by the "artist", then it's vandalism. If it's done on property that IS owned by the "artist", then they can call it whatever they want, including art. I'd argue that it would certainly NOT be vandalism in that case, since that goes against the definition of vandalism.

It doesn't even have to be graffiti. A world-renowned painter could come in and paint a huge, beautiful mural on the freeway overpass and if it wasn't solicited and sanctioned by the property owner, that would be vandalism too. That's not to say it wouldn't be art also, but it would also be vandalism.

So as I say, it has nothing to do with the subject of the art, but rather it's location and property ownership. The biggest problem with this question is that art and vandalism are not mutally exclusive.

 

[Scott Wong]

I find it to be art. I don't consider myself an artist by any means, but I love graffiti. I can't say that I've ever tried it with a can of spray paint... but I love tagging my name on a good piece of art paper and different densities of lead pencils. *shrug*

I think it's a fine line, regardless. I think the same amount of people that hold it in high standards (there are numerous books and at least two bi-monthly periodicals dedicated to the art of graffiti)... there's an equal amount of individuals that would call it disgusting vandalism.

I only say that it represents a fine line because of the different scenarios. If it's a matter of property, then what kind of property distinguishes it as vandalism versus art? So if I tagged my name on a public building then it's art? What about a subway train? What if I sprayed a nice pretty mural on my neighbor's garage? What if I did the same on my garage door? What if Mark Ryden [or insert your favorite contemporary artist here] flew into town on his private jet and showed up at my house in the middle of the night and went to work on my garage door painting a priceless work of art? I'd run outside and shake his hand. But if the local teenager down the road comes over in the middle of the night and tags his name on my garage door with a can of Krylon, then I'd be calling the cops... regardless of how good of an artist he is. *shrug*

 

[LanieParker]

As others have mentioned, art is subjective. Frankly I think "graffiti" isn't all that spectacular. Seeing people's initials or gang names scrawled on the side of some abandoned building isn't what I consider art.

There is a wall that a man purchased in NYC for people to tag/paint/write on/whatever so as to help keep "graffiti" off of public/private property. It's now being hailed as a work of art. I've seen this wall and again, names and gang symbols are not what I consider art.

It's just my opinion.

 

[Scott_lb]

I think there is a big difference between graffiti and art. Example:

Graffiti = vandalism:
I used to live in Venice Beach and the exterior walls of my house were spray-painted (with a gang symbols, not an artful "picture") five times in a nine-month period. More over, Venice has an anti-graffiti unit who goes around covering up this stuff with brown paint. The problem is, my exterior walls were grey. So, I either had some ugly gang symbol on the side of the place or a big flattened turd.

Graffiti = art:
On the Venice Beach boardwalk, there is an area where people can skateboard and play basketball. There is a big concrete wall where people are invited to spray paint on the walls, and most of them make some rather artful designs. Over time, it gets painted over and another group of people spray over that.

The concrete wall on the boardwalk is intended for spray paint. The wall of my house wasn't.

 

[Kenneth]

I think it is the ownership of the property that is the question. If graffiti is placed on property that YOU own or to which you have been given specific permission to put graffiti on the it is art (good art or bad art is a different question).

If you put it on a property that YOU DO NOT own or do not have permission to put graffiti on it is vandalism. Just because property is in public space doesn't meet that the public have unrestricted access to it.

I park my car in public. That doesn't mean anyone can drive it without my permission.

Kenneth

 

[Joe Szott]

It's both.

 

[Ron-P]

If done with the proper authorization it's not vandalism. If done without proper authorization, it's vandalism.

To call it art or not is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ChrisMatson]

Artistic vandalism.

 

[Scott L]

Definition of art = it's art of someone says it is. Doesn't matter if *you* don't like it, that's the beauty of art.

I think it's both.

 

[Scott Wong]

Here's my contribution of vandalism... err... art. Just a few sketches I did in one of my blackbooks. I'm still working on getting better with a paintcan... but for the time being, I practice in my blackbooks.


Shibutoi piece I did for a friend




Omni piece I did for a friend.




ZOKU is what I write.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Yo, check out this piece

This shit is clean

(is that so?)

(If it's on a building it ain't art)

Well what about the Sistene Chapel?

I bet if you tried to give graff just half a chance you'd dig it

(Yo, that shit is ignorant, and all it is is vandalism)

(Go to school and get paid to paint, not playin' all night)

Oh, so if it don't pay it ain't art, and if it does it's all right?

I don't get it

(It's wrong 'cause you can go to jail you dipshit)

Oh, like they fed Christians to lions, how is this shit different?

(People can't even read it, how's it art, I thought so!)

'Cause art ??? lives like Basciot, ask Picasso

(Tell it to the judge when you up in jail dummy and don't even bother to call me or your mom for bail money)

I ain't asking you for shit, just 10 minutes to peep some flicks

If that's too much to ask you ain't got eyes to see this yet

If you ain't seen ??? you just missed impressionism

When Dondi flicks rough as Van Gogh the lessons given

(I didn't ask you to express yourself, give up your cans kid)

Fuck you Helen Keller, I'll hit the bricks, you hit the canvas

 

[Scott Wong]

*stares in awe*

WTF did I just read? hahaha. Awesome.

 

[MarkHastings]

I think the question needs rethinking. Art and vandalism are two separate ideas and you can't compare the two.

Vandalism is vandalism no matter what it is...and arguing wether graffiti is art or not, has nothing to do with the legality of it's placement.

As others have stated, there are 4 possibilities:
-Artistic Graffiti that isn't vandalism
-Artistic Graffiti that is vandalism
-Non Artistic Graffiti that isn't vandalism
-Non Artistic Graffiti that is vandalism

Typically, the last one is the most common form.

Meaning, Graffiti is art that is expressed through the means of vandalism.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

prominent graffiti artists have had their work displayed at some of the most distinguished and recognized museums around the world. Art is art, regardless of the medium and graffiti art is broad enough in it's form to transcend simple wall pieces from Seen or Mear One to incredible abstract and linear design. Graffiti artists today are making huge money doing art shows and selling canvases, etc. It's most definitely art in the purest sense. Warhol recognized that much.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Graffiti is art. When it's plastered all over someone else's property, it's also vandalism.

 

[Grant B]

We just got done painting and finishing up the exterior of our Victorian and it cost close to $90,000....which I think puts it out of the vandalism level and closer to justifable homicide if I catch someone