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.
Graffiti is illegal and shouldn't be done. If the person is so interested in painting on buildings and other property, they should do it on paper and murals. Then I would call it art. Doing something illegal should not be called artistic and beautiful in any way, shape or form. It is wrong and shouldn't be done. Everything beautiful should be right.
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.
No i Think Graffiti Is Not Art , Why ? Because Its a Terrible Thing the thing people write on people Property , and they have to pay for it , its so wrong. Their Paying for People Believes WHat is stupid in my eyes. It Makes Places Look Like The Ghetto , Or a War Zone. People Might Be Scared to Live there.
Graffitti itself is not an art. Graffiti itself from what I know are just vulgar, crude and trashy words. But graffiti art is an art form born from graffiti techniques.
Of course sometimes there are meaningful phrases painted and sprayed in a beautiful way but more often than not its a joke.
Even if your Picasso graffitying on someobody elses land is not art and you shold not be able to do it! Its a waste of space and destroys beautiful buildings and landscapes! Sure it might look nice but its ruining beatiful places by pointless drawings! It is Not art at all!
In my opinion I think that in most cases graffiti has no meaning and is pointless, it has no thought of consideration. To be honest I can only think of one graffiti 'artist' and that's Banksy this is mainly because he is the only one who adds a morale or political message. However, overall graffiti spoils a nice day out for lots of people... I would also like to add this survey is slightly unfair due to the fact the main people who disagree with graffiti are older and don't used the internet or if they do they don't use it for the use of completing surveys
The google definition for graffiti is writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. This exactly enplanes the meaning of graffiti and how it is most likely illegal, how it is vandalism and that it really isn't art. But say you were talking about "graffiti ART" that was not illegal and someone allowed the graffiti artist to spray random words o their building then that could be considered art but in other circumstances I would not consider it art.
Graffiti is the marking or defacing of another person’s property
without consent from the owner. It is different from street art, which is
an artistic work with permission from both the owner of the property
and the Council. As it is wilful damage, graffiti is a criminal offence
under theGraffiti Prevention Act 2007
Graffitis not art because it is vandalism and it damages other peoples properties. Street art is acceptable because they always look nice and they have permission to do it. Most of the time graffiti is wrong and ussually vulgur. So thats why graffiti is not art because it is wrong.
Even if you think it is art it is still illegal. Also vandals might put themselves at risk just to write their name on the side of a bridge. Is it worth risking your life for that? Plus it gives a bad image. What parent would ever want to send their kid to a school, covered in swears and racial statement?