Should Graffiti be art?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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
But since dance is considered an art form why can't graffiti? Graffiti is beautiful, appealing and of more sigificances
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
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.