The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Graffiti: Art or Vandalism? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=237554)

Shining Meganium November 26th, 2010 1:53 PM

Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?
 
Feel free to add your thoughts and discussions to the thread in addition to voting in the poll.

I myself see it as art, were expressing our feelings in a creative way. Whether we should do it or not is a different concept. I think a lot of the argument comes down to personal preference as to what you see as art.

My hypothesis for the poll is that most people will be torn between the two and say "It depends" because they split graffiti into 2 categories: The ones I like and the ones that make the streets look dirty and are vandalism.

Stratos99 November 26th, 2010 2:00 PM

It's obviously vandalism if you're going to do your art all over somebody's property but that doesn't mean it's not art. You can make graffiti on paper as well, which will much sooner be called art than 'bonethugs4life' on the back of a gas station!

Nick November 26th, 2010 2:04 PM

Certainly a type of art, ultimately, graffiti is vandalism. Graffiti is defined as public markings of images or lettering scratched, scrawled, painted, or marked on property.

There are other types of art that a creative spirit can find means of inspiration and creation that doesn't include the vandalism of property that doesn't belong to them. I've managed to do so. If one's interested in the specific style, nothing stops them from using that style in a less destructive median.

Shining Meganium November 26th, 2010 2:07 PM

Its a tough question that I've been thinking about for a while because Art and vandalism aren't opposites meaning that it could be both or it could be neither. Yet, its a question that I've had to answer in essays for art at school for the last to years, the most recent of which I recently finished. Its not a nice question when you have to stick to one side.

Rogue planet November 26th, 2010 2:10 PM

I'd personally much rather see some graffiti around the place than bland walls everywhere. The city's dreary enough as it is. It's art. If someone's graffiting on somebody's house then that's different, but in most cases it's just some boring old wall in the city that nobody really cares about anyway.

Although I'd much rather people did something actually good because most graffiti I see is crap-tier.

Bologna November 26th, 2010 2:15 PM

Graffiti is both art and vandalism. It's a form of expression and visual art. However, it is also done intentionally and it destroys property.

Then again, it wouldn't be considered vandalism if it was done on the property of the artist, or if the artist had the permission of the owner. It is not uncommon for a business to request, with their approval of the design, graffiti on their building for aesthetic purposes.

Still, I would classify the 'traditional' view of graffiti as both art and vandalism.

Kenshin5 November 26th, 2010 2:16 PM

For the most part graffiti is vandalism. Most of the graffiti I have seen is just a indication to mark a gang area. I have seem some Graffiti Murals though that I would say are the exception. Some of which where asked by the building or the surrounding area. For instance I have seen a Mural of graffiti that depicts a time line for the history of my state or a Native American Mural on the side of a building.

Kura November 26th, 2010 2:22 PM

Graffiti is art only when it's not done on someone else's property. Seriously. If I'm going to do a beautiful portraiture or rendition of a face, but it's done on public property or someone else's space, then it's still vandalism.

Graffiti is a style of art on it's own, and it can also be considered a textile. It's art only when it's not destroying someone else's work- because that's disrespectful.

And I say this because you have to realize that architecture is an art form, too. You wont like it if you make a nice drawing and someone scribbles over it and says "it's graffiti now and I made it better" now would you?
>_> Same goes for the architect that designed the building/ wall/ garbage can/ etc.

Dark: Random Guy November 26th, 2010 2:33 PM

Agreed with most people here. It really is art.

With the exceptions of when on other peoples property without their permission.
then it's just stupid markings of a gang area.

PlatinumDude November 26th, 2010 3:53 PM

It depends. There's a time and place for everything, and doing graffiti on others' property isn't the best time and place to do that. IMO, the graffiti artists should get the property owners' approval before doing graffiti.

Shanghai Alice November 26th, 2010 3:58 PM

Eh, if it's illegal, it's illegal. I could go out and make the most beautiful masterpiece in the world, but if I don't have the legal rights to the "canvas", it's a crime.

moments. November 26th, 2010 4:38 PM

Both I guess, but that's already been said. And I agree that it is art, but if done on public property without consent or permission or whatever then it is certainly vandalism!

Agent Clank November 26th, 2010 6:26 PM

I've always thought of it as vandalism \:

TRIFORCE89 November 26th, 2010 6:39 PM

It's always vandalism (unless, of course they were commissioned to do it and are allowed to on a property they do not own.

But, it can still be art. Artistic vandalism. Some stuff is just fantastic to look at. Skill and a message and a meaning and it looks beautiful.

Just scribbling your name down though, no. That's not art.

Fever November 26th, 2010 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendak (Post 6309733)
I'd personally much rather see some graffiti around the place than bland walls everywhere. The city's dreary enough as it is. It's art. If someone's graffiting on somebody's house then that's different, but in most cases it's just some boring old wall in the city that nobody really cares about anyway.

Although I'd much rather people did something actually good because most graffiti I see is crap-tier.

^ this.
Of all the different things Ive seen, its never been on someones house. Its always been along train lines, or some nothing wall around the place. Its just brightening up the place I reckon.
I dont see it as vandalism. I say let them go for their life if they have an artistic flair with a can of spray paint. They arent hurting anyone, and really, who cares that much anyway if its not done by some dirtbag gang?

Melody November 27th, 2010 1:47 AM

I look at it this way, if it seems like they put some serious effort into it, then I classify it as art.

But the WHERE matters quite a bit too. On private property it is frowned upon, and should rightly be considered vandalism. On public use structures such as a building within a park or a wall is somewhat of a different story.

WHAT matters as well...as long as they took time to make it artistic. If it's nothing but their 'tag' in big bubbly letters, or happens to be a territorial symbol of some sort, then yes, it is vandalism! The content of the work must first be considered in a public venue before it is considered vandalism.

For example if I were to go to a school building and paint 'Skye Wuz Here' on there, regardless of how much work I put into it, or what colors I use, it is vandalism!
Continuing this example, if I were to go to the school and paint it's mascot on the building in a very creative, and appropriate way...then it's not nearly as bad, though if the school still insists on it being removed, it's appropriate that the artist shoulder the responsibility of it's removal at minimum...even if the art itself wasn't a crime, so the laws are there indeed to protect the unwanted recipients, including the public, from such things.

I do agree it's better off to express one's creativity without damaging others' rights, but I don't believe it needs to be a crime if the art adds any wanted value at all. I certainly think that in places where graffiti is a problem, that if they built walls or structures where it is clearly marked that people have the right to decorate it in whatever way they see fit. If a wall is a particular favorite target, put a tarp on it and let them tag away. When that gets full, flip it over, let it fill again and then replace it. No need to suppress creativity. Just discourage territorial markers, and trouble-making gangs. Offer a canvas that they can use, and they will be less likely to tag property that they shouldn't tag.

angel November 27th, 2010 2:00 AM

I believe its art, but it depends on where it is.

If its on paper or its a moral you've been asked to do then its art. But if you grab a spray can and go to the closest building and spray paint a dog on it, its vandalism. You don't own that building, you didn't ask the owner if they wanted a dog on the side of their building. It may be art but why not do art on your own property or better yet paper.

Dark Pulse94 November 27th, 2010 2:01 AM

I agree with Pachy 100%...

that's why I hated the government removing a public Grafitti Plaza (run by a lady on a wall of her property (that was also on a vacant block) - where Kids could Grafitti as much as they liked - It's an old news story, but nonetheless...

but one thing that I will NEVER consider art... tags.

Who's with me? Tags are Vandalism, no ifs, buts or maybes?

Elite Overlord LeSabre™ November 29th, 2010 10:39 AM

Graffiti as a style can be considered art. But graffiti that's done on public or private property without the owner's permission is vandalism, pure and simple.

poopnoodle November 29th, 2010 10:48 AM

on private property, it's literally vandalism. that doesn't take away the aesthetic value- vandalism is always art. be it effortless tagging lacking significance or an elaborate portrait that represents a valuable message, art knows no rules or boundaries. so my answer is both

Meduza November 29th, 2010 11:06 AM

If the graffiti is on the property of the person weho made it, than yes, it's fine.

If it's on someone else's, than no, it's vandalism.

It's like trashing someone's house. It's not yours, and you really don't have the right to do it.

Gun Gear Alpha November 29th, 2010 11:26 AM

In My days going up and down in the bay area and all of california, Ive seen some really good graffiti. From tagged river sides of LA to the walls of buildings of taipei. I consider it a art, but still vandelisim if approval is not meet. All you know, you could walk into a alley and expect crappy art, or a hidden gem of masterpiceces. It depends How we see it, as its a artform.

Stellar November 30th, 2010 3:05 AM

A police officer once told me that the difference between art and vandalism is permission. And this came from a former graffiti artist.

Yes, graffiti is a form of art, one that I actually have a ton of respect for. It's a wonderful act of expression if you do it on your own property, but once you violate someone else's property, you're a vandal. It's a pretty clean-cut issue IMO. Stick to your own canvas and you're golden.

The only exception I can think of is if you're trying to make a statement with the placement of your graffiti, kind of like what Banksy does with his work. In that case, I still think it should be illegal... but I won't discourage you from doing it either.

Percy Thrillington November 30th, 2010 4:59 AM

If it's good, it's art. If it's bad, it's vandalism. Sure, there's probably a technical differentiation for the two but that's how I see it.

Cold Fusion November 30th, 2010 5:35 AM

As almost everyone has said, it really can be both art and vandalism it just depends on the place it has been done and who owns the property. If the work has had some thought and effort into it, it's art, no matter if it's a stick-man with a stick sword. If that person thinks it's well done and put effort into it, it's art. Graffiti is no exception. If the graffiti drawn on a building "Kerry ♥ George 2k10" for example, and it not owned by the drawer then that is vandalism. If it's not yours, you have no right whatsoever to place your mark on another's property. But if it's on their own property, I don't see why they cannot decorate their building in graffiti, they own it after all.

mondays suck November 30th, 2010 6:52 AM

It depends. If a graffiti looks like art, I consider it art. But, profanities written on walls (unfortunately the far more common form of graffiti)? Well, yeah. No.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:44 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.