The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Graffiti: Art or Not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,926 times Debate No: 43252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am for Graffiti being an art form, anyone can debate


I accept your debate and I hope for a quality debate round.
Debate Round No. 1


Art is away to express yourself, whether litterer, dance, music or drawings. Graffiti is medium in these castigator. Once it used to be just a way to vandals or tab a building for no reason at all such as

has become a beautiful art form at is practiced and demeaned by building owners wanting a painting on their walls, piece such as

I do agree that, yes not all graffiti is art, but i disagree that all graffiti is vandlism.


Graffiti: writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place
Vandalism: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property
All graffiti is vandalism, because all graffiti is on private property and all graffiti is defacement of said property. If art comes at the expense of others then it is not art at all. Based on the definitions I have presented graffiti has to be vandalism, and thus cannot be considered art.
Debate Round No. 2


Mya5101 forfeited this round.


In many situations graffiti might be considered beautiful, but the purpose of a person spraying something on a wall is rebellion. They want to paint on the wall not to express themselves but to go against the law. If they needed to express themselves through they're art they would put it on a piece of paper or a landscape. Because of this graffiti is not art, because it comes at the expense of others the painter is not expressing to them, even though art is meant to be directed to all. Even if they where to post an image of peace, they would be failing to express the message because they wouldn't bring peace to the property they are vandalizing. Because of the reasons I have presented I urge you to vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3


To close this debate i would first like to look at a comment

Posted by Cheetah 6 days ago


Do you mean graffiti on public places? Or graffiti just graffiti as a style of art?

This is about graffiti on public places.

closing argument


noun: graffito; plural noun: graffiti

    1. 1.

      writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.

      "the walls were covered with graffiti"

      synonyms: street art, spray-painting, inscriptions, drawings;


      "the graffiti on the underpass"


verb: graffiti; 3rd person present: graffitis; past tense: graffitied; past participle:graffitied; gerund or present participle: graffitiing

    1. 1.

      write or draw graffiti on (something).

      "he and another artist graffitied an entire train"

        • write (words or drawings) as graffiti.


This is the definition of graffiti. you'll notice that yes, he dictionary defines it as Vandalism but that is not how you need to look at it! in fact countrys such as Germany enjoy having graffiti on there walls. it is eye catching and colorful. It grings in more and more visitors every year making more money then losing. I would strong erg pleople to vote pro, to show that you cannot steretype something with out knowing the other side


My opponent presented the full definition of graffiti, this definition includes the word vandalism and never once mentions art. Based on the definition he presented graffiti is not art. He states that you do not need to look at it in that way, however that doesn't change the fact that it is not art. You could view a serial killers patterns as art, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not art. I understand how you could view something in an artistic way, but art is not for expressing oneself, it is meant as rebellion. I strongly urge you to vote for the con side in this debate round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by N0yer 2 years ago
Graffiti is an art that is mostly expressed through vandalism. I am a graffiti writer/artist and you can look through my photos and you cant tell me that graffiti is not an art. It doesn't matter if its on a wall or on some paper, its fu cking art.
Posted by PhDMan 2 years ago
I have to think the con is using the black and white mentality or what is known as using explicits when in reality there are very few explicits. It's like asking is a man homosexual because he gets aroused by a visually naked man when there is more to the science of arousal than just declaring sexual orientation.

Also qualifying one thing does not disqualify it from another. An example is speeding is illegal (end of story). In reality speeding also is seen as a form of getting to your destination at a quicker pace. Does one definition disqualify it from being used in another? No. Example is sex. How sex is conducted qualifies it for other definitions. Some forms of sex are illegal while others are not. Example is rape is illegal on the other hand people who agree to have sex is not illegal in specific terms. Also sex occurs in many ways.

Graffiti is a form of art but can be legal or illegal. Graffiti that was put on a building without permission is vandalism but that does not disqualify it from still being an art. A better term would be illegal art because he/she did not have permission. Graffiti that was planned and given the go ahead by an owner of a building is art along with being legal. So two words would that would define it is legal art.

I may have provided too much info in this comment but it just saddens me to see people who use black and white thinking when in reality there are numerous shades of gray.
Posted by PhDMan 2 years ago
I would ask the same thing as Cheetah asked, graffiti that was painted without permission or graffiti that was given the okay. If you are asking on the premise of graffiti = art, then that is a simple give away. Graffiti is a form of art. The definition of art "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination in a medium such as painting, acting, music etc."

Graffiti is a form of expression which then is art. Now if you asked the question more directly such as graffiti without permission may be considered art but it is also considered vandalism. Something to think about.
Posted by Cheetah 2 years ago
Do you mean graffiti on public places? Or graffiti just graffiti as a style of art?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con turned that final round back on pro very effectively, in addition to the weakness of trying to bring a new definition into the final round (the final round is usually not the time to bring up new points, as you can't defend them). Leaving conduct tied, merely as an act of compassion, seeing how I rated their final round argument so badly, when it was probably intended to be posted in the missed round.