Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?

[Shining Meganium]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

I've always thought of it as vandalism \:

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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™]

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]

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