Graffiti is art
Debate Rounds (5)
So the debate will be as the following:
1st round: Pro explains the debate
Con (you) will start with opening arguments.
2nd round: Pro rebuttals and makes arguments
Con rebuttals and makes arguments
3rd round: same thing
4th round: Pro make arguments and rebuttals
Con makes ending arguments.
Last round: Pro rebuttals and makes final arguments
Con writes "No round as agreed upon"
While reading debates I have noticed also voting has 7 points. So as I have seen on other debates, failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point loss.
I am excited to commence, and thank whoever accepts this for spending the time to debate with me for the first time. Good luck!
I think that graffiti is not art. I think that if you want to do art, you should do it so it looks nice. Graffiti on walls or doors or trucks or wherever is not art. You are kind of ruining the thing if you draw graffiti. Graffiti is usually letters put together. Im trying to say that art is something that makes you feel good inside. In my point of view, graffiti makes you feel scared. Like, if I see many graffiti drawings on the streets, I think that I am in a dangerous place and should get out of there. Art, on the other hand, makes you feel like you should admire the work and stay. I guess graffiti makes places look... gangster like. This is why I think graffiti is not art.
Now for rebuttals:
1. "I think that if you want to do art, you should do it so it looks nice."
Art does not have to "look nice". Art can be seen in many ways, looks don't matter. If I precisely drew an ugly person to represent that everyone is beautiful no matter what looks, it would still be art wouldn't it?
2. " Graffiti on walls or doors or trucks or wherever is not art. You are kind of ruining the thing if you draw graffiti. "
Destruction can also be seen as art. Art is very vague, so it is seen in many different ways. Let em elaborate. Take
"The art of war", a book written by a man of the name Sun Tzu. War brings destruction, yet there is an art to it. Same for graffiti, though you are ruining a wall, you are skilfully creating art, under the pressure of being caught. There is an art in that!
3. "Graffiti is usually letters put together."
No way! Graffiti is usually pictures, images, and sometimes letters. And if you didn't know, when you put letters together, it is called a "word". Say it with me now, "word". And even if it is mostly words, writing is an art. They are sharing codes, words, on a wall. There is an art to that. They are painting their stories onto a wall.
4. " I'm trying to say that art is something that makes you feel good inside. "
Well as I said earlier, war is an art. Does war make you feel good inside? Art does not need to make you feel good? Also there are horror movies, that scare people. It is an art of creating movies. But do these movies make you feel good and happy and safe inside?
5. "Art, on the other hand, makes you feel like you should admire the work and stay. "
Some art is boring, or to tedious to understand. But it is still art.
Now that I rendered all my opponent's points invalid, I would like to continue with my arguments.
Before we can even begin to explain how graffiti is art, we need to understand definitions.
Graffiti: "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place:" 
Art: " the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" 
So art is expression, application, creativity! And what do street artist do? (other word for graffiti artist). They apply their skills, expression and creativity onto a huge illegal canvas. This is still art, but just not as respected.
Also, it is called graffiti art for a reason. Art is literally in the name!
So basically, I just want to explain how anything can be art, graffiti included. Though some art is more respected than others, it doesn't mean the others are not art. Graffiti is an art, involving skill, and knowledge. "Where can I put graffiti without getting caught? What message of logo or picture do I wan't to express?" These are questions that echo through the minds of graffiti artist. They create art that is not accepted, but it is still art. Art that is hard to create, but still as amazing as the ones that society accepts.
Back to you con!
I. "If I drew an ugly person to represent that everyone if beautiful no matter what looks, it would still be art wouldn't it?"
Yes it would be. But you wouldn't draw that on someone Else's property because it wont look like you are trying to show that everyone is beautiful. It would look like you are humiliating them by drawing an ugly person.
II. "War brings destruction, yet there is no art to it."
War and graffiti are not the same in any way. War isn't illegal. When you have a war, you are trying to do it for good. What was the Revolutionary War for? How about the Civil War? This was for a good cause. Revolutionary war brought some destruction, but there was also a good ending. They got independence. The Civil War brought a lot of destruction, but it freed the slaves didn't it?
III. "Destruction can also be seen as art."
Destruction cannot be art. Illegally destructing someone's property is just plain illegal, not art. If people really want to do graffiti, tell them to do it on their property.
IV. "Also there are horror movies, that scare people."
People find watching horror movies entertaining and they choose to watch it. I don't like to watch horror movies so I don't have to watch it. They don't HAVE to watch it either. When people see graffiti art on their property, they wont feel entertained. They will feel maddened. Its people's choice to watch a horror movie. Let's say that there are these teens who draw graffiti all over a neighborhood. But how about if the community doesn't want graffiti in their neighborhood? Isn't that their choice too?
V. "[Street artists] apply their skills, expression, and creativity, onto a huge illegal canvas."
That's what I'm saying! They use this creativity onto an illegal canvas! If they do it on something illegal, its not art. Its illegal! Many people don't like graffiti in places that they own or places that graffiti shouldn't be. No one minds graffiti if you do it on your own house, but under bridges, on trucks, on other people's property, its just not legal. How is it art if it's illegal? In the US, smoking weed is illegal. But people do it because they like it. If someone calls it a hobby, I would totally disagree. You are using drugs. It cant be called a hobby. Similarly, graffiti cant be called art because it is illegal.
VI. "So basically, I just want to explain how anything can be art, graffiti included."
Like I said before, art is legal. But doing it under bridges, on other people's property, is not, and shouldn't be called art. I don't think it should be encouraged too.
This is what I have to say about if graffiti is art. If its illegal, then it shouldn't be called art. Its illegal, so don't encourage it. Use your creativity on big posters and stuff. This is why I think I will win this debate. Thank you.
On to you pro!
I. You are not humiliating them, and either way it is art. It is a drawing that involved creativity, therefore an art.
II. Graffiti is used to express yourself in a world where your art is not accepted. War brought violence, though it is not illegal, it was worst. What is worst? Killing thousands, or drawing something on a wall you don't own?
III. Destruction can be art. If it applies creativity and expression, according to the definition we used, destruction is art.
IV: I said " Art does not need to make you feel good" which is why I brought up the horror movies. Basically, it is art even if it is unwanted.
V: Where does it say illegal things aren't arts? Tell me where? According to the definition we used, graffiti is art. The ethics behind it have nothing to do with it. Let us say for example a person drew a painting against Islam. It would be illegal because it would insult Muslims, but does that make it not art any more?
VI: You said it shouldn't be considered art. That is not the debate. The debate is whether it is art or not, not whether it should be art not. So this point kinda has nothing to do with the debate.
I am basically trying to express how anything can be art, regardless of the ethics. Going against the law is an amazing thing that takes courage. Having courage is an art. Graffiti is an art, no matter how much you dislike it.
II. Ok if you ask me, I think that ruining from neighborhoods to blocks, to every single property they dont own is worse than killing thousands and saving millions to make the world a better place.
III. In your opinion, destruction is art. But in the opinion who has "art" on their property, its destruction. They DONT want art on their property. Therefore, it is not art, its destructing someone's land.
IV. Yes but I am saying that horror movies do make some people feel good because they enjoy getting scared.
V. You can consider it art, but some people wont consider it art. Like I said before, they would consider it... a not-good thing.
" Los Angeles Times supplies this bit of legal advice from former LAPD Chief William J. Bratton: "If you want to be an artist, buy a canvas." It also offers upbeat spin from Jeffrey Deitch:
"We want to put out an inspirational message: If you harness your talent you can be in a museum someday, make a contribution and a living from it.""
People wont consider it art if you do it on their property.
VI. Going against the law is not something good. Im saying that graffiti shouldn't be considered art because if you do it on someone else's property, its jts just plain ILLEGAL. Its not courageous thing to risk yourself in jail for graffiti. And people wont consider it art if its on their property. If you really want to be so artistic, just do graffiti on a canvas or your own property. No one told you you cant have graffiti on a canvas. Tell me who did? Why would you ruin someone else's property for your entertainment?
"I. It is humiliation because its their property, and its their opinion on how they want the place to look. If they want it to look "artistic" they would do it or have someone do it. But they dont want "art" on their property. Therefore, it is humiliation."
First of all, graffiti is not only on walls, or other peoples property, but also on paper. Because of such, according to the definition we have established, graffiti is a form of art. To continue, though it may be "humiliating" it is still art. Graffiti is illegal, and some people think it is wrong, or humiliating, but how does this take away what it is? Art is seen in
everything, including graffiti. Just because it may be seen as humiliating, it is still an art. Anyway. some people do not think graffiti is humiliation, including me. So not in all cases graffiti is humiliation, but it is art in all cases, no matter how you see it.
"II. Ok if you ask me, I think that ruining from neighborhoods to blocks, to every single property they dont own is worse than killing thousands and saving millions to make the world a better place."
How on earth does killing thousands of people, destroying millions of cities, and ruining families better than having a few marks in a city that can easily be removed? Tell me how? This is obviously incorrect, even though it is your opinions, it is a terrible one. War is much worst than graffiti.
"In your opinion, destruction is art. But in the opinion who has "art" on their property, its destruction. They DONT want art on their property. Therefore, it is not art, its destructing someone's land."
Though they might not see it art, it is art. It is not my opinion, but the opinion of art itself. Anything is art, and graffiti is one to. Why do you think it's called "graffiti art"? It literally has the word art in it!
"V. You can consider it art, but some people wont consider it art. Like I said before, they would consider it... a not-good thing."
But this is their incorrect opinions. According to our definition, graffiti is art. You can consider it otherwise, but in the end it will always be art. It's like how people think war is a good thing, but no matter what it will always be killing, and destroying.
"Going against the law is not something good."
Going against the law can be good. It all depends on how you understand the world. If a law is terrible, it is good to go against it.
" If you really want to be so artistic, just do graffiti on a canvas or your own property. "
People do do graffiti on a canvas. And people do it in public for everyone to see, a place where their art has to be seen, you can't ignore it very easily.
Art is as we have already discussed, any way to express yourself creatively. Graffiti requires such, therefore an art. Graffiti requires expression as I have already mentioned. Here is a text I found in order to elaborate,
"Graffiti is a form of expression, and artists should be free to make their thoughts and beliefs public. Serving as a way to avoid violence, graffiti is an outlet for many to express their feelings. Making street art illegal limits the freedom of artists to create influential masterpieces. Graffiti artists create works that reflect both struggles and accomplishments and at many times display political and social messages. The paint that coats walls in communities everywhere can contain symbolism so profound that it has been compared to poetry." 
As you can see, graffiti requires enough to be seen as an art. Everything can be an art. Even doing nothing is an art. So graffiti is art, no matter how bad, humiliating, or illegal it may be. Graffiti requires creativity, courage, expression, all the signs of a masterpiece. So how could this thing, though illegal possibly not be and art? According to our definition, and all definitions, graffiti is an art, no matter how wrong it may or may not be.
honasababa forfeited this round.
DarkChiyoko forfeited this round.
honasababa forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.