The Instigator
urapai
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
tanquish123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Graffiti is art

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
urapai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,425 times Debate No: 42834
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

urapai

Pro

I will be in favour of graffiti being art. Anyone is welcome to this debate.
tanquish123

Con

Art is an expression of beauty. How is something that disrupts some type of work already present a source of beauty? It is a distraction.
Debate Round No. 1
urapai

Pro

There are various forms of vandalism. One of these forms of vandalism is known as graffiti.

Graffiti: "pictures or words painted or drawn on a wall, building, etc." [1]

Art : "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings " [2]

Graffiti is basically drawings, words and more drawn or written on walls. Art can be defined in many ways. As you can see, in the definition of art, it explains how it is something created trough imagination and skill. Art can be shown through many ways like visual art. Graffiti is a way to express emotion and creativity on to a wall. Though it is illegal, it is still art. Art is also viewed as creative and spontaneous. Graffiti is a way to quickly on the spot create a message. It's like spontaneous painting, but instead of a canvas, a wall, or a sign is used. [3]Graffiti shows important messages, and feelings. These people who do graffiti are held back from art, and in result they take it out on the walls, where they are free, and don't need to follow rules. Graffiti can have various images, secret messages, and more using creativity and art to express. [4]

Graffiti is a way to illegally, spontaneously express emotion, mark territory and more, using art and creativity. Ergo, graffiti is a hated, misjudged form of art. Some graffiti is actually amazing. [5]

Sources:
1.http://www.learnersdictionary.com...
2.http://www.learnersdictionary.com...
3.http://www.spontaneouspainting.com...
4.http://library.thinkquest.org...
5.https://www.pinterest.com...
tanquish123

Con

Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)



So. you are destroying art, not creating art.


Additionally by saying amazing you Are expressing your opinion and you are actually fueling this argument from your heart not brain.
www.spontaneouspainting.com is a commercial website and pinterest is a social website.

Art is, by your learner dictionary website definition, supposed to beautiful or be an idea, but you instead mess up the preexistent facade you use and block preexistent ideas.
Debate Round No. 2
urapai

Pro

Great points of view. But you are thinking to literally, you also need to think metaphorically to resolve this argument.

Rebuttals:

"Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. (http://dictionary.reference.com......)
So. you are destroying art, not creating art."

Think of graffiti like photoshop. Sometimes, you find a picture, or art and you change it completely. You edit things, change the lighting and more. Sometime you change a picture completely, as if to change it to your perspective. Graffiti can be like this. Imagine a piece of art. You may see it as something beautiful and majestic, however a person may possibly see it as potential. They change it with things like scribbles, and words. It is not exactly destroying the painting, but actually changing it. Though some may just to graffiti randomly on this painting, it can still be considered art.

Now here are more arguments explaining how graffiti is art.

Firstly, anything can be art. It all depends on how someone perceives it. For example, you may see graffiti and vandalism, but someone else may see art that is forbidden, and hated. So if someone draws a scribble, it may represent something, or have hidden messages. [1]. Many people perceive art through what is hidden, through what is behind the painting. What the painting is really trying to express. In the words of Napoleon Bonapart "A picture is worth a thousand words." [2]
Graffiti expresses hidden messages, and hidden thoughts, just like in art.

Secondly, graffiti is not only vandalism, it is a form of art. For example, when you draw graffiti on a piece of paper, it is still graffiti, not vandalism. Here are some examples. [3] So graffiti is not always connected to vandalism. Since vandalism according to your argument "Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures." and graffiti can be done on paper without vandalising or destroying anything, it is considered art.

Also, graffiti is technically art, since graffiti is also known as street art. It literally has the word "art" in it.

In conclusion (thus far) graffiti is a form of art that portrays drawings, scribbles or symbols. This can be done illegally by being portrayed in areas accessible to the public, or simply drawn on paper or a canvas. When graffiti is done illegally, it is spontaneous and dangerous. However it is free, giving street artist no boundaries. Also these artist go against the world to demonstrate their ideas, their ideas that society has rejected. Ideas that only few people who truly see art for what it is, not for how it was done can understand. Graffiti is not only art, but it is more worthy of being considered art than many famous paintings such as the Mona Lisa. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci was a loved man. He was a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. [4] He was praised and loved, and his art work was as well. He could make a painting with ease and all would love him. He had little to fear when it came to his art. Street artist are forsaken, they have a lot to fear. However, they fight against the odds, and create amazing art that no one would except, but they were not scared, they did what they loved. Leonardo da Vinci loved his work also, but street artist had to fight for others to love their work to. So in conclusion, graffiti is a form of spontaneous dangerous art that is only excepted by few.

Sources:
1.http://www.psfk.com...
2.http://www.brainyquote.com...
3.http://chottomatteiru.blogspot.ca...
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
tanquish123

Con

tanquish123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
urapai

Pro

Arguments extended
tanquish123

Con

tanquish123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
urapai

Pro

urapai forfeited this round.
tanquish123

Con

On dictionary.com, vandalism is described as willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. So once again vandalism and graffiti are destruction of art not production of art.

"Ergo, graffiti is a hated, misjudged form of art." -It is hated because it destroys art, otherwise aren't we supposed to look at art fondly?


If graffiti is photoshop it is the 'erase button' and thus is not art. Even if it was function of photo shop it cannot be art itself so this photoshop option is very out of place.

In round 3 your analogy of old and new artists is very unuseful and is off-topic. Being afraid and whether graffiti is art are not at all related and only put confusion to your conclusion.


And to correct your last sentence in round 3-

So in conclusion, graffiti is a form of spontaneous dangerous crime that is only excepted by few who are in the same criminal profession.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by N0yer 3 years ago
N0yer
i agree with pro, thank you for understanding that it is an art
Posted by urapai 3 years ago
urapai
Darn it, in my argument in round 3, I meant to say "accepted" I apologize for this failure.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
urapaitanquish123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for con forfeiting twice, and posting a round that pro was unable to respond to. Pro had better S&G, in my opinion. Arguments and sources are self-explanatory.