The status of something as art is separate from its legal status. So if someone vandalizes a building with graffiti, it may be illegal, but they still have created art with a viewing audience in mind. There was still a method and an intention behind the expression, which renders it art, even if it is low-brow or unremarkable.
For me, the major reason I resist the “graffiti is art” movement is ownership. If I create a painting it seems I have a large degree of control over how it is used. I don’t mean that I can keep people from parodying, commenting on it, or using themes from it to create their own art. Nor can I control how others relate to it. But it seems that I *can* choose to display it or not. I can license people to make reproductions or use it commercially, and I can sell the original.
None of this applies to graffiti. In fact, it seems a large point of graffiti is to take away someone else’s right to control what he owns. (I read a study, I forget where, attributing much of graffiti to a desire for the poor to “make their mark” in a world whose power structures seemed to silence them.) I’m not sure whether this is essential to art or not, but it does seem like a reasonable objection that should be answered.
Graffiti is "in its own right" art. Although, it is an illegal form of expression, it is none the less artistic. Its designs, coloration and depth are all attributes given by its creator in a means of conveying a message to the viewer/reader. It gives a sense of identity to the hidden artist, and a satisfaction that stems from other forms of artwork, though not esteemed as prestigious.
but that doesnt give anyone the right to go around painting graffiti in ones town..thats vandalizing and should remain illegal. Doing graffiti in designated spots or studios etc is a dfferent thing and should be encouraged, it will take a lot of kids of the streets if you think about it.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not art. Just because ANYTHING is illegal doesn't mean it's not art, or beautiful, or moral. A serial killer could create a breathtakingly beautiful painting with the blood of its victims...The fact that it's illegal and arguably morally flawed has no effect whatsoever on its beauty. Because beauty is art, and because anything can be art, graffiti is most definitely art.
This also applies to music, dance, drama/theatre, movies, speeches, literature, design/architecture as well as paint-and-canvas art. Graffiti is a method of expressing yourself, in a strong and public manner. While I cannot agree totally with painting on other people's buildings, it is still an art in my opinion.
The person in "no" is inappropriately adding a moral dimension to the definition of the word "art". "It's OK" is not part of the definition of the word "art". "Art" is a created expression intended for someone to admire. Just because it is "art" doesn't mean we have to accept it, except arguably if you mean "graffiti" in a broad sense, referring to the sort of style that is seen in graffiti but performed on one's own property or with permission. Some cities even have legal graffiti walls just for the purpose of graffiti in order to deter illegal graffiti.
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.
In order to answer this question, you have to consider what art is. Marcel Duchamp is an artist whose works included a bicycle wheel and a urinal. (He literally took these everyday items and exhibited them.) Marcel teaches us that really anything can be art, so I see no good reason why graffiti, though disrespectful, isn't art.
We think that graffiti is art because it expresses someone's feelings in public but somehow people who do that are blamed of vandalism. Graffiti is art that can be shared with the public for free. Graffiti expresses your individuality and personality in more ways than one. So yes we do think that graffiti is art.
I do not think that graffiti is art because it is a bunch of letters and it is not very attractive. However, Street art is art because a) it has the word in it and b) because it often symbolises, Such as a hidden meaning. Whereas graffiti usually only has people's names or rude/crude words.
Graffiti is not art because if you don't have permission to paint on a wall or building then you can't do that because it is not your property. People paint on walls that they don't own and they just think that everything is free. If you don't own something then you can't use it and it is disrespectful that people even change it.
People may think that graffiti is art and they see the finished project but no one really sees how dangerous graffiti is and could badly injure someone whom may hit there head when falling etc. . You should not graffiti unless you have a classified permit or get a thumbs up from the persons wall you are spraying or painting
The majority of graffiti is words, Names, Or symbols painted on walls. I defy anyone to make an argument for how those can be interpreted as art. Some murals, However, Are simply beautiful. Others I wouldn't say are beautiful but still require quite a bit of skill. However, No matter how beautiful it is, It's never okay to graffiti another person's property without the owner's permission. How would you feel if someone came and spray painted your house? Unless it was in a design or color you wanted, It wouldn't matter how beautiful it was because you want your house the way you want it, Not how someone else wants it. What's worse is that you might need to be the one to pay to have it repainted. If you're one of the many living paycheck to paycheck or close, You might not have the money and need to look at the thing for an indefinite period of time. If you need to sell your house, The graffiti could lower the property value by thousands of dollars. Of course, Usually it's businesses or abandoned buildings that get targeted. Okay, It's probably harmless to graffiti abandoned buildings. However, Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean that they can afford to clean up graffiti. It can drive away customers, Giving the building a sketchy appearance. Small business owners can't afford that. Bigger franchises might not suffer the same effects, But it's still fairly selfish to graffiti a building without the owner's permission. You're only thinking about what you want, Not what anyone else wants. Instead, Either look into programs that allow people to graffiti buildings with the permission of an owner, Or maybe approach a local business owner. If you're talented and want to paint a mural, A sample of work might be enough to convince a business owner to let you paint their walls. Or, Just paint your own property.
It’s vandalism! I hear people all the time try to excuse graffiti as art. But the truth is that it's vandalism and destruction of other people's property. Someone may like graffiti and consider it an art form. And they try to use the definition of art to excuse it. But those people are missing a major point about what art is. Art is created by commission or on the property the owner wants the art made on. Most graffiti is done without the consent or permission of the owner of which the graffiti appears on. The graffiti "artists" go where ever they want and destroy other people's property. I wouldn't want someone to tag up may walls of my building, Just because it's their "self-expression". . . If I asked them to do so, Then it's a different story. Why doesn't the graffiti "artists" do their work on canvas? Why do they need to tag public property? Self-expression isn't about destruction, It's about creation. Graffiti destroys. Go create graffiti and display it in a museum or an art show.
Some people say graffiti is a one way to show creativity in public but in my opinion it doesn't help to improve the environment its pure vandalism, If they want to show their creativity it might be paper or in musuems not in public places where its not belong or to be displayed which is might not appropriate to be seen by youngsters eg. Words that can be explicit that can produce negative behaviour to our generation
Nceijfjeewhwfhoewwwww fbeiefbew fbiwe ewe ew eefifbeebifebiefeqj q eeq ejef hefb jfe feflb3f bf rw fj frf ww rfr f wfwe kr wfw w rkhfkh frf f wfrw rf rf rwf rwhr fwr fhrf whrf wh rwkrwhrhwkh rfw rfrw frwhw rkhkr wrf rhh frwf rh frw ffhwjfwhj ff r w w rihfjf
Graffiti is yes, Sometimes pretty, However, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW! If you don’t have permission to paint on a persons property then that is what is know as vandalism and you could be sent to prison. If you DO have permission then all should be alright. Don’t graffiti otherwise. 👩🏼🔧👨🏼💼
Imagine a world with a scribble on every wall or area you walk past. Should that be our future? What would kids think once they walk past a wall of scribble with rude words sprayed over it? It can influence children to do they same negative behaviour. Vandalism is negative damage to our society and needs to stop! It can not be classified as art because art is what children look up to and vandalism shouldn’t be what people look up to! Why should destruction and damage to our society classify as art; human creative skill and imagination?
Art has been created for the enjoyment of the people and a form of expressionism. Graffiti on the other hand is vandalism as it is defacing ones property without legitimate permission. Graffiti is not for enjoyment of others and not art. If you spray paint a shirt you are not commiting graffiti but spray paint art.
They are different things.