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

Should Graffiti be art?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/21/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 73883
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Although it is wrong that does not mean that it is not art. If someone make a huge mural with awesome detail would you not call that person an artist? I know for sure I would. I think that graffiti is one of the hardest forms of art because you cannot erase or stroke, it is hard to get texture and shadowing.

Graffiti is art because it is something that inspires people and allows them to have a say. For example a very famous one is by meek. It says keep your coins, i want change.This saying was extremely powerful and captured the attention of several people. This saying is powerful. Graffiti has meaning throught the form of art.


Lets put down some basic definitions that I will be working off of.
Graffiti-The writings or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.

As such, it is not the act of creating the art that seems to be the problem. Such a person would be a muralist, and would be creating a mural, as you mention. However that is not graffiti. Graffiti includes much more than simply the artistic murals. Gang symbols. Acts of vandalism. Defacing civic and national property. These are not masterpieces, but merely criminal works that occasionally fall under the title of art. I do not have a problem with the creation of street art on building surfaces, so long as the owner has given their grace to go ahead.
Debate Round No. 1


I know what you mean. I lve all graffti, but not tags. Tags are not art. There just names


At the same time, however, tags are classified as graffiti. Any illegal writing or drawing in a public place is considered as such (graffiti). Art is supposed to be shown in ways of creativity. As you said yourself, tags (a large part of graffiti) are not art.

You say that it is"one of the hardest forms of art"" While I concur that large works, particularly the ones that are done by actual artists, do require a great amount of skill, the majority seem to be assisted by markers and stencils, easing the amount of work required. Again, not to belittle the actual artists, but much of the graffiti in urban areas does not need the same technique. Much of it is simple shapes or lines that are meant to "stick it to the man" more than anything else
Debate Round No. 2


Art is what is beautiful, appealing or of more ordinary significance. Art is any feild using skills or technique, art is mainly in form of paintings, sculptures and drawings.
But since dance is considered an art form why can't graffiti? Graffiti is beautiful, appealing and of more sigificances


I do hate to beat a dead horse, but again, we must look at graffiti as a whole. If you were to say that graffiti murals were beautiful, appealing, and more, I would agree specifically cause I consider murals to be art. However, that is only because of the mural. Graffiti encompasses much more than just street art. It includes tags, gang symbols, and regular defacement of public property. That is not art. That is vandalism.

I'm not against the use of murals or street art to be considered an artistic talent, so long that it is legal. It is not the exact same as street murals. Going on the textbook definition of graffiti, as well as the past history as a form of vandalism, graffiti in and of itself should not be considered an art form.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by nickel531 1 year ago
Wow this character limit thing for the actual arguments is throwing me off haha.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Conduct and language was good. Neither provided sources. Pro's opening argument was good, giving examples of why graffiti should be art. Con claimed that graffiti gang "logo's" for example are vandalism, and not art. Pro didn't rebut and that's why I give 3 points to Con. Pro should have argued that vandalism and art are not opposites. Pro should have claimed that some of these logo's can be beautiful and artistic. Pro should have argued that graffiti is similar to painting, but it's done on a wall, so it should be considered art...etc.