NationStates Jolt Archive

All of both, still hate it.

And this is now my thread.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/004_loathesome.jpg

Graffiti: Do you hate it or love it? Is it about freedom of expression, or is it vandalism?

Personally, I feel that some graffiti is art. I love the stencil art on street signs, the multi-layered word bubbles at a local train station, the shadow figures on a road nearby and strange statements found on the back of toilet doors. However, there is some graffiti that is purely vandalism. "Sheila is a slut" in a toilet cubicle, or poorly thought out tags on people's fences is just trashy. It damages personal property and doesn't contribute anything artistic, philosophical or even funny.

This is some of Bansky's work: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/banksy_whatareyoulookingatsmall.jpg

And this is some... "less than artistic" graffiti: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/uglygraffiti.jpg

OP sums up my opinion really, writing your name or the crew you be representing is just sad

however I have never been supportive of any type of graffiti in non-bland environments like parks or the case of the graffiti being done in the cemetery path about switching wind power (a university is nearby yes:p)

All of both, still hate it.

And this is now my thread.

You wish it was your thread.

Theres some nice looking stuff that’s clever and funny. That should actually be encouraged.

But my local skatepark is covered in red crap, basically. People thinking they're actually being funny by writing "gettoh brrraaapppp". Other (more legible) gems include, and I quote, "Gay sex 10p from Bob".

Usually, Graffiti is nothing more than destruction of property. But there are those rare occcasions when someone actually puts time and effort into what they do; once I came upon a scene of an open meadow with a rainbow in the background that someone painted overnight on a dumpster... that was art, but tagging your name or something stupid on a random spot is just rubbish.

what shown is just Vandalism not Graffiti Art

Then why don't you share some graffiti art pictures instead of making critical comments?

And, if you read the OP, you'd realise the last one wasn't supposed to be "art".

what shown is just Vandalism not Graffiti Art

*snip* once I came upon a scene of an open meadow with a rainbow in the background that someone painted overnight on a dumpster... that was art, but tagging your name or something stupid on a random spot is just rubbish.

That sounds really beautiful, and I'd agree that that's art.

In my city there are some professional graffiti pieces, which are very beautiful. There are several streets where people are allowed (or even payed I think) to make graffiti drawings. There is little "vandalism graffiti" where I live though, which I also appreciate. I like the "art graffiti" and I don't really mind the vandalism when it's not on important places (like under a bridge in the link you posted).

as long as it is done without the permission of the property owner, its vandalism. even if its breathtakingly beautiful, its vandalism.

legal graffiti isnt graffiti.

so

its vandalism.

Then why don't you share some graffiti art pictures instead of making critical comments?

And, if you read the OP, you'd realise the last one wasn't supposed to be "art".

http://www.melbournegraffiti.com/

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc80/Punky_Dory87/art/graffiti.jpg

If it's on MY property, it's vandalism.

If it's on the tagger's property, it's art.

If it's on MY property, it's vandalism.

If it's on the tagger's property, it's art.

So if I painted a beautiful seascape on the side of your plane yellow house you'd send the police after me :( (I'm ust guessing at the color)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/004_loathesome.jpg

Graffiti: Do you hate it or love it? Is it about freedom of expression, or is it vandalism?

Personally, I feel that some graffiti is art. I love the stencil art on street signs, the multi-layered word bubbles at a local train station, the shadow figures on a road nearby and strange statements found on the back of toilet doors. However, there is some graffiti that is purely vandalism. "Sheila is a slut" in a toilet cubicle, or poorly thought out tags on people's fences is just trashy. It damages personal property and doesn't contribute anything artistic, philosophical or even funny.

This is some of Bansky's work: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/banksy_whatareyoulookingatsmall.jpg

And this is some... "less than artistic" graffiti: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/uglygraffiti.jpg

Well i like it, it actually makes looking at walls interesting, instead of the default colour which is grey and pretty depressing, so much of it is hilarious to look at. Things like conversations in toilets about who is more gay or has a bigger[insert sexual organ here]. Can be a brilliantly funny and rather pointless thing to look at.
But i think it is vandalism, but a more chilled version. Things like "don't smash the cash" can leave you wandering for a few minutes wondering what the hell the person means, or "drunk mother*****r style" are pretty amusing too.
I've noticed alot of it spells out meaningless combinations of letters or names, i don't like these sorts of art they're just pretty words, i know i'm a pedant.

I'd like to see them graffiti something worthwile though, like buckingham palace or the whitehouse, as the operation alone just to get close enough to paint a cool image would be admirable, well depending on what the picture was but still a good idea.
So yeah it is a good thing, but it's still vandalism, as long as it's not on someone elses house.

So if I painted a beautiful seascape on the side of your plane yellow house you'd send the police after me :( (I'm ust guessing at the color)

Yes.

Have I asked you to do it?

Perhaps my plain yellow house is plain yellow because that's what I wanted?

Why should your seascape infringe on my right to have my home painted the way I wanted it painted?

In other words, why should your sense of aesthetics take precedence over mine on my own home?

Yes.

Have I asked you to do it?

Perhaps my plain yellow house is plain yellow because that's what I wanted?

Why should your seascape infringe on my right to have my home painted the way I wanted it painted?

In other words, why should your sense of aesthetics violate mine on my own home?

You could sell the wall off to an art gallery for millions of Dollars, then get a nice new house with all the money. (as a matter of interest do you get insurence for graffiti damage?)

You could sell the wall off to an art gallery for millions of Dollars, then get a nice new house with all the money. (as a matter of interest do you get insurence for graffiti damage?)

Or I could paint over it and have the vandals arrested if they're caught.

(as a matter of interest do you get insurence for graffiti damage?)

Nope! I'm sure no insurance company would cover graffiti in MY neighborhood. It would be like having flood insurance at the bottom of the Pacific. :(

And, I agree with Kat. If I wanted art on my house/garage/retaining wall, I'd have it put there myself.

Or I could paint over it and have the vandals arrested if they're caught.

What if it was a really pretty painting of something you liked? (i dunno a horse or something).
Besides it's unlikely police would catch vandals. (vandals were a German tribe weren't they?)
But if it was ugly then i'd be pretty irritated too.

Vandals were a German tribe weren't they?

Yes, they got displaced from thier homes in the north Atlantic area by what at the time were more aggresive tribes. To survive they became raiders, the word Vandal is used to describe someone who causes property damage because the Vandals were infamous for destroying litterally anything in thier way.

Yes.

Have I asked you to do it?

Perhaps my plain yellow house is plain yellow because that's what I wanted?

Why should your seascape infringe on my right to have my home painted the way I wanted it painted?

In other words, why should your sense of aesthetics take precedence over mine on my own home?

But its just a little one :'(

Yes, they got displaced from thier homes in the north Atlantic area by what at the time were more aggresive tribes. To survive they became raiders, the word Vandal is used to describe someone who causes property damage because the Vandals were infamous for destroying litterally anything in thier way.
wow
how did you know that?

wow
how did you know that?

WHen I was a kid, I wanted to teach High School History classes.

Well, perhaps if I am being so unreasonable about having my home appear the way I want it (imagine, being so selfish! and not wanting to tear out a wall, rendering the structure unsound, to sell it for "lots of money"? to WHOM? and having to buy a new house because someone decided s/he wanted to paint on my wall? What gall!) what about if I catch a graffiti vandal, take him or her to the tattoo parlor, and have a duck tattooed onto their face?

It's a beautiful picture of a duck, I assure you. Every feather looks like it's real enough to be plucked out.

Well, perhaps if I am being so unreasonable about having my home appear the way I want it (imagine, being so selfish! and not wanting to tear out a wall, rendering the structure unsound, to sell it for "lots of money"? to WHOM? and having to buy a new house because someone decided s/he wanted to paint on my wall? What gall!) what about if I catch a graffiti vandal, take him or her to the tattoo parlor, and have a duck tattooed onto their face?

It's a beautiful picture of a duck, I assure you. Every feather looks like it's real enough to be plucked out.

Well, its not like I actually would paint on your house unless payed too. I was just posing the question.

what about Hypthetically you didn't like your yellow house paint and I painted it into a gorgeous sea scape?

Well, perhaps if I am being so unreasonable about having my home appear the way I want it (imagine, being so selfish! and not wanting to tear out a wall, rendering the structure unsound, to sell it for "lots of money"? to WHOM? and having to buy a new house because someone decided s/he wanted to paint on my wall? What gall!) what about if I catch a graffiti vandal, take him or her to the tattoo parlor, and have a duck tattooed onto their face?

It's a beautiful picture of a duck, I assure you. Every feather looks like it's real enough to be plucked out.
guess you don't like graffiti then.

Generally art, some is vandalistic. Could you really imagine a city without it or even want a city without it? It's just not the same.

Well, its not like I actually would paint on your house unless payed too. I was just posing the question.

what about Hypthetically you didn't like your yellow house paint and I painted it into a gorgeous sea scape?

If I asked you to do it, no worries.
If I didn't ask you to do it, why assume you know better than the homeowner what s/he wants their home to look like?

Someone's home (and to extent,business) is something very personal. They have paid for it, and have put work into creating an appearance they find pleasing. It's no different in my mind than grabbing someone, saying, "Your hair would look better pink and in a mohawk" and forcing them to conform to your sense of aesthetics.

guess you don't like graffiti then.

Guess you don't like tattoos, then.

Guess you don't like tattoos, then.

They're okay, but i probably couldn't afford one, and they can't be removed as easily a graffiti if they go wrong.
Graffiti Livens up things a bit at least, instead of a dull grey colour of most cities.

If I asked you to do it, no worries.
If I didn't ask you to do it, why assume you know better than the homeowner what s/he wants their home to look like?

Someone's home (and to extent,business) is something very personal. They have paid for it, and have put work into creating an appearance they find pleasing. It's no different in my mind than grabbing someone, saying, "Your hair would look better pink and in a mohawk" and forcing them to conform to your sense of aesthetics.

I think you misunderstand what I ask.. I am asking that say in a hypothetical situation you decide you totally hate how your exterior of the house looks. You can't decide how to fix it up though. One day out of the blue your house has been painted in a sea scape with very good detail... would you still be angry?

I think you misunderstand what I ask.. I am asking that say in a hypothetical situation you decide you totally hate how your exterior of the house looks. You can't decide how to fix it up though. One day out of the blue your house has been painted in a sea scape with very good detail... would you still be angry?

Yes, I probably would. Perhaps I don't like seascapes. Perhaps as the property owner I would like to be consulted about what's put on my property. Perhaps I live in an area where the covenant (which has the force of law) proscribes all but a certain range of colors) (See the town Celebration (http://www.celebrationtowncenter.com/ee/)in Florida as an example).

You're honestly trying to set the argument up to make it look as though the artist is doing the property owner a favor -- if so, then why don't more of them ask permission before starting to paint? Because what you're talking about is making it a fait accompli, with the owner now having to either accept something that is not to his or her taste, or go to the expense of removing it.

They're okay, but i probably couldn't afford one, and they can't be removed as easily a graffiti if they go wrong.
Graffiti Livens up things a bit at least, instead of a dull grey colour of most cities.

Oh, it can be removed perfectly easily. You just need to pay a fortune and undergo some pain to have it burned away.

The same way a property owner has to go choose new paint, or replace his siding, and redo his home or pay others to do it.

Yes, I probably would. Perhaps I don't like seascapes. Perhaps as the property owner I would like to be consulted about what's put on my property. Perhaps I live in an area where the covenant (which has the force of law) proscribes all but a certain range of colors) (See the town Celebrations in Florida as an example).

You're honestly trying to set the argument up to make it look as though the artist is doing the property owner a favor -- if so, then why don't more of them ask permission before starting to paint? Because what you're talking about is making it a fait accompli, with the owner now having to either accept something that is not to his or her taste, or go to the expense of removing it.



Oh, it can be removed perfectly easily. You just need to pay a fortune and undergo some pain to have it burned away.

The same way a property owner has to go choose new paint, or replace his siding, and redo his home.

You're trying to analyze my agenda too much.. I havn't slept in over 48 hours, I am jived on caffiene, I'm at work and dying painfully of boredome, I am being forced to listen to country western music... and I just wanted to know how you'd feel.. not supporting (Or not supporting) vandalism.

that would probably violate zoning laws or subdivision covenants so she would be in violation for letting you do it.

Being me I assume I'd paint the house the way I was requested too... unless she said surprise me....

Well, its not like I actually would paint on your house unless payed too. I was just posing the question.

what about Hypthetically you didn't like your yellow house paint and I painted it into a gorgeous sea scape?

that would probably violate zoning laws or subdivision covenants so she would be in violation for letting you do it.

Being me I assume I'd paint the house the way I was requested too... unless she said surprise me....

yes but there may well be ways that are illegal for her to choose.

she would be the one in violation for a seascape house, not you.

Encouraging artists to paint murals however is great, as the permission is there.

Indeed.

Theres some nice looking stuff that’s clever and funny. That should actually be encouraged.

But my local skatepark is covered in red crap, basically. People thinking they're actually being funny by writing "gettoh brrraaapppp". Other (more legible) gems include, and I quote, "Gay sex 10p from Bob".

I agree with SaintB ... if it isn't your wall, post, sidewalk, etc., then you are imposing your tastes on somebody else's thing unless they said you could tag it.

Encouraging artists to paint murals however is great, as the permission is there.

Graffiti vandals should be subject to the full rigor of the law. Furthermore, the parents of gang punks who deface private or public property should be held financially and criminally liable for the actions of their brats.

Graffiti vandals should be subject to the full rigor of the law. Furthermore, the parents of gang punks who deface private or public property should be held financially and criminally liable for the actions of their brats.

and what counts as the full rigor of the law?
do i spot an assumption "actions of their brats".
"gang punks"?:p

Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?

Graffiti: Do you hate it or love it? Is it about freedom of expression, or is it vandalism?



Simple answer... yes

What about if I catch a graffiti vandal, take him or her to the tattoo parlor, and have a duck tattooed onto their face?

It's a beautiful picture of a duck, I assure you. Every feather looks like it's real enough to be plucked out.

That's great Kat.

as long as it is done without the permission of the property owner, its vandalism. even if its breathtakingly beautiful, its vandalism.

legal graffiti isnt graffiti.

so

its vandalism.

If it's on MY property, it's vandalism.

If it's on the tagger's property, it's art.

what does the legality of an act have to do with its status as art? how are you defining art such that the exact same original composition could both be and not be art based entirely on the disposition of the owner of some wall?

what about if I catch a graffiti vandal, take him or her to the tattoo parlor, and have a duck tattooed onto their face?

It's a beautiful picture of a duck, I assure you. Every feather looks like it's real enough to be plucked out.

i'm pretty sure there is some meaningful distinction we can draw between people and property, as well as between vandalism and kidnapping.

Is it about freedom of expression, or is it vandalism?

Personally, I feel that some graffiti is art.


If it is done on or to private or public property that you do not own it is vandalism. If it is done on private property you own or have permission to do it on then it is whatever you want to call it.

Both,... well, it's pretty much subjective.

They say it's an art, they say it's a crime. I say, give me a wall and some paint.

So, does the graffiti in protest, like the ones on the Wall of Berlin, art? Not all graffitis are vandalism, there are commissioned graffitis and murals as well.

As long as it isn't on someones house and isn't some lame tag with the persons name or lewd humor then it is art.

It is, by definition, vandalism. It could be art. It could be not art. Art's subjective.

If it's done on their own property or is paid to do it, then it could be considered Art.

All other times, it's Vandalism.

All other times, it’s Vandalism.
Vandalism can still be art.

There is nothing inherent in the definitions of "art" and "vandalism" that make them mutually exclusive terms.

i'm pretty sure there is some meaningful distinction we can draw between people and property, as well as between vandalism and kidnapping.

Why?
Both are blank canvases which belong to someone else, on which a third party with no legal right to said canvas is imposing his sense of aesthetics.

You mean it's wrong to tattoo someone against their will? Even if you think it will improve their looks? Why is that?

what does the legality of an act have to do with its status as art? how are you defining art such that the exact same original composition could both be and not be art based entirely on the disposition of the owner of some wall?

Because the artist has not the ownership of the wall; the person who owns it does. Hence, s/he can declare it shit and have it removed from their property, hopefully at the expense of the moron who put it there.

Because the artist has not the ownership of the wall; the person who owns it does. Hence, s/he can declare it shit and have it removed from their property, hopefully at the expense of the moron who put it there.

which has what do do with whether the thing they can have removed is art or not? at the most silly level, this implies that if i bought an acknowledge masterpiece - a rembrandt, say - and decided that i didn't like it and so painted it to match the wall i hung it on in my house, then it wasn't actually art at all.

Why?

because people are people and walls are walls. the violation of someone's ownership of a wall is most certainly not the same as the violation of a person.

because people are people and walls are walls. the violation of someone's ownership of a wall is most certainly not the same as the violation of a person.

says whom? you?

I actually used to be quite a prolific writer including trackside and top to bottom train carriages so I know what im talking about here

I think Graff is an artform...alot of people confuse graffitti with tagging

graff is the artform...though it does include two colour throw ups(dubs) it mainly involves full production pieces which take time and effort to design, plan and execute...some of my friends are very well known in the UK and are talented artists in their own right...many exhibiting their work in galleries ableit with a different pseudonym and are very accomplished and talented artists.

Tagging on the other side of the coin is just pissing rights 'Taki 183' was supposedly the grandfather of modern graff and all he used to do was spray can his tag(name) on his way delivering the post...but this is the most destructive form of the graff family and often the one that is derived the most

which has what do do with whether the thing they can have removed is art or not? at the most silly level, this implies that if i bought an acknowledge masterpiece - a rembrandt, say - and decided that i didn't like it and so painted it to match the wall i hung it on in my house, then it wasn't actually art at all.

Because, of course, the Rembrandt was not a commissioned work, and was placed on someone else's property where it could not be removed without significant trouble and expense.

because people are people and walls are walls. the violation of someone's ownership of a wall is most certainly not the same as the violation of a person.

Why? We say slavery is wrong because a person inherently owns his or her own body and the right to do with it as they please.

How is violating their property rights over their corpus different from violating their property rights over their domicile or business?

Does it not cost them money and aggravation to remove unwanted "improvements" from both?

says whom? you?

sure. your own precious law does, too, of course.

Why? We say slavery is wrong because a person inherently owns his or her own body and the right to do with it as they please.

How is violating their property rights over their corpus different from violating their property rights over their domicile or business?

Does it not cost them money and aggravation to remove unwanted "improvements" from both?

actually, that is not the reason slavery is wrong. in fact, allowing the ideas of ownership into the question actually opens the door to the legitimate existence of slavery. if i own my body in the same sense that i own my car, then i can sell my body to another as a slave.

anyways, your conflation of them directly implies that vandalism is ontologically the same as assault and battery. which is ridiculous, and you can't actually say that with a straight face. property and persons are not the same sorts of entities, and the violation of them differs in line with that. it is a much much much worse violation for someone to come up and break your arm than for them to tear out the flowers in front of your house.

Because, of course, the Rembrandt was not a commissioned work, and was placed on someone else's property where it could not be removed without significant trouble and expense.

again, what does any of that have to do with whether it is art or not?

you are all talking like writers target peoples homes and spray 12 foot high letters...most graff is in places that are non residential...shop sides...railtrack sides...trains etc etc...unless you live in the heart of the ghetto it really wouldnt encroach on your life...and even then...alot of why the movement was initially started was to brighten up the run down neighbourhoods alot of the artists lived in...

Why? We say slavery is wrong because a person inherently owns his or her own body and the right to do with it as they please.

Well, maybe you do. My opposition to slavery has nothing to do with anyone "owning" themselves in the same way they own, say, a house.

Furthermore, that seems to be the general consensus... for instance, most people, when pressed, will accept the legitimacy of eminent domain, but I doubt most people would be okay with the government seizing ownership of people even if they paid fair market value.

you are all talking like writers target peoples homes and spray 12 foot high letters...most graff is in places that are non residential...shop sides...railtrack sides...trains etc etc...unless you live in the heart of the ghetto it really wouldnt encroach on your life...and even then...alot of why the movement was initially started was to brighten up the run down neighbourhoods alot of the artists lived in...

That, sir, was the hypothetical given to me: that someone painted the side of my "plane yellow house" without my permission.

And this is some... "less than artistic" graffiti: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/uglygraffiti.jpg

at least those guys are trying. living in the middle of nowhere in wisconsin and in idaho, you get to see some truly pitiful attempts that have no visually redeeming features at all, not even in a cheap knock-off sort of way. its all "trust jesus!" and "class of 2003" written in sloppy handwriting with black paint.

thankfully there were at least some people who took up stencil-graf to start counteracting that.

If one pays the fair market value to put in something that benefits all the people -- such as a school, library, hospital, et cetera -- it's regrettable, but far less offensive to me.

That's good enough. Would you be okay with the government doing the same to people?

It is on the face of it the same act.

Which face are you looking at? No, it isn't.

Yes, both are things not owned by the maker of the graffiti. That's one distinction we can draw. But far from the only one, and certainly not the best.

For instance, just for starters we could draw a distinction between a sentient human being and a non-sentient wall... or we could go with a simple utilitarian calculation, and realize that violating somebody's bodily autonomy is likely to be a far worse harm than spraypainting a wall they happen to own.

Edit:
Why would it not be art to tattoo a realistic tiger pattern onto someone's face against his will, if it looks really really good?

Of course it would be art. It just wouldn't be very ethical.

Well, maybe you do. My opposition to slavery has nothing to do with anyone "owning" themselves in the same way they own, say, a house.

Furthermore, that seems to be the general consensus... for instance, most people, when pressed, will accept the legitimacy of eminent domain, but I doubt most people would be okay with the government seizing ownership of people even if they paid fair market value.

I happen to think that eminent domain as currently being practiced is theft. When government tries to justify taking one's house away in order to give it to developers so they can sell more expensive houses, as is happening in Atlantic City, that's theft. If one pays the fair market value to put in something that benefits all the people -- such as a school, library, hospital, et cetera -- it's regrettable, but far less offensive to me.

Why is it though that people are horrified over my suggestion that I tattoo grafitti artists yet believe that a property owner has no right to have his wall left unmolested? It is on the face of it the same act.

Why would it not be art to tattoo a realistic tiger pattern onto someone's face against his will, if it looks really really good?

Why would it not be art to tattoo a realistic tiger pattern onto someone's face against his will, if it looks really really good?

yeah, why wouldn't it be?

as long as it is done without the permission of the property owner, its vandalism. even if its breathtakingly beautiful, its vandalism.

legal graffiti isnt graffiti.

so

its vandalism.

Uh... legal graffiti is still graffiti. That's why it's called "graffiti art".

From an art dicitonary: The term "graffiti" derives from the Greek graphein ("to write"). Graffiti (s. graffito), meaning a drawing or scribbling on a flat surface, originally referred to those marks found on ancient Roman architecture.

http://www.melbournegraffiti.com/

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc80/Punky_Dory87/art/graffiti.jpg

Nice. I quite like the second one.

See, wasn't that fun? Contribution!

So if I painted a beautiful seascape on the side of your plane yellow house you'd send the police after me :( (I'm ust guessing at the color)

It would depend on how much money I had and whether the art work was any good. If I was struggling to pay my first home loan and some idiot painted something I didn't like on my wall, I'd have to pay to get it painted over, and that would make me upset. However, if I was comfortable money-wise and the painting was actually beautiful, I wouldn't be too pissed off. I'd probably keep it... or add to it.

guess you don't like graffiti then.

Apparently so...

I agree with SaintB ... if it isn't your wall, post, sidewalk, etc., then you are imposing your tastes on somebody else's thing unless they said you could tag it.

Encouraging artists to paint murals however is great, as the permission is there.

I certainly don't think it's right to graffiti (or paint/write/draw/stencil etc) on someone's personal property, like their fence. It causes damage that they have to pay to repair, and some graffiti looks simply unsightly. It's not fair to go out and purposely hurt someone like that.

However, I have no qualms about doing it on public property.

It is, by definition, vandalism. It could be art. It could be not art. Art's subjective.

From my understanding, and from what I posted above in reply to Ashmoria, it is not by definition "vandalism". Vandalism is subjective too.

There is nothing inherent in the definitions of "art" and "vandalism" that make them mutually exclusive terms.

Exactly.

*snip*
Why would it not be art to tattoo a realistic tiger pattern onto someone's face against his will, if it looks really really good?

Tatooing someone's face hurts them just a tad more than spray paint hurts your wall.

It's a matter of perspective. Some (most) of the owners of the items that get 'decorated' may well view it as no more than criminal damage which, of course, it is. A few, perhaps, quite like what is added.

Some people consider it to be art, some don't. Like any other form of art - e.g. music - there are some who will hate it all, on some kind of principle, and there are others who will like certain styles but not all of it, and all the range inbetween.

Personally, I don't like seeing straightforward names on walls, although I recognise that they are sometimes used as territorial markers. I don't particularly like any defacement of signage that leave the meaning of the sign unclear, since that poses a public safety issue, but I think that some of the graffiti that's been done is fabulous. Some of these, for example (http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm), and other similar works that obviously have had a bit more thought go into them 'feel' like art to me.

It's a matter of perspective.
...
Some people consider it to be art, some don't. Like any other form of art - e.g. music - there are some who will hate it all, on some kind of principle, and there are others who will like certain styles but not all of it, and all the range inbetween.

taking this perspective idea and running with it - suppose somebody claimed that the mona lisa just plain was not art. wouldn't you be tempted to say that they were wrong rather than just shrug and put it all down to a difference of opinion?

I consider it a bit of both. It could an outlet for artistic expression but it can also be vandalism. I guess it all is from your perspective, that of an artist or that of a vandal. You choose.

Tatooing someone's face hurts them just a tad more than spray paint hurts your wall.

Ok... I'll have them airbrush it instead.

That make it better?

It's a matter of perspective. Some (most) of the owners of the items that get 'decorated' may well view it as no more than criminal damage which, of course, it is. A few, perhaps, quite like what is added.

Some people consider it to be art, some don't. Like any other form of art - e.g. music - there are some who will hate it all, on some kind of principle, and there are others who will like certain styles but not all of it, and all the range inbetween.

Personally, I don't like seeing straightforward names on walls, although I recognise that they are sometimes used as territorial markers. I don't particularly like any defacement of signage that leave the meaning of the sign unclear, since that poses a public safety issue, but I think that some of the graffiti that's been done is fabulous. Some of these, for example (http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm), and other similar works that obviously have had a bit more thought go into them 'feel' like art to me.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between liking something and acknoledging that it's art. I don't particularly like sculpture, especially metal sculpture, but I acknoledge that it's art.

Oh, and I love Banksy! I spray painted a gun shooting out a heart last night. It's not exactly of Banksy's standard, but I tried!

taking this perspective idea and running with it - suppose somebody claimed that the mona lisa just plain was not art. wouldn't you be tempted to say that they were wrong rather than just shrug and put it all down to a difference of opinion?

I suppose someone could dislkike the Mona Lisa, but I agree that it's absolutely, most definitely art. However, someone (an idiot, I suppose) could argue that it's simple a realistic portrait of a woman - almost like a happy snap. And, to be honest, I'd probably turn around and say they were just "wrong".

I think if i wanted to compare different sorts of art, from what little knowledge i have of it.
I prefer Graffiti to the snobby expensive art paintings in special museums.
Graffiti is an expression of the public, expensive art is a statement of how much money some rich person has and how willing they are to spend it.
But i wouldn't support graffiti on someone's house.
Graffiti on public property which needs some expression is better (ie those big grey areas of brick, not educational buildings).
I hate messing up my sleep patterns.

So if I painted a beautiful seascape on the side of your plane yellow house you'd send the police after me :( (I'm ust guessing at the color)

thank you. some graffiti is art, hence the term "graffiti artists"
:sniper:
:mp5:

thank you. some graffiti is art, hence the term "graffiti artists"
:sniper:
:mp5:

Get your guns out of my thead.

new question, can gun smilies ever be art?

No

Yes, they got displaced from thier homes in the north Atlantic area by what at the time were more aggresive tribes. To survive they became raiders, the word Vandal is used to describe someone who causes property damage because the Vandals were infamous for destroying litterally anything in thier way.

that is totally pisser

new question, can gun smilies ever be art?

I certainly don't think it's right to graffiti (or paint/write/draw/stencil etc) on someone's personal property, like their fence. It causes damage that they have to pay to repair, and some graffiti looks simply unsightly. It's not fair to go out and purposely hurt someone like that.

However, I have no qualms about doing it on public property.


The problem with public property is that in reality it has a number of owners.

Let's say somebody paints pictures of male body parts on the side of a public elementary school. Is it OK? Most people would prefer to remove the equivalent body part from the artist and remove the vandalism.

I think the key isn't if it is private or public property, but rather if the graffiti was approved or not. Generally when people use the term graffiti, it is artwork or paint that was put on a structure (private or public) without permission.



Note: this isn't to say that sometimes graffiti isn't appealing to me. Sometimes I wish the artists would go out and get permission first. I also know that there are some places where they may have gotten permission first.

The type of graffiti that bothers me the most is when people put things on freeway overpasses, because the removal of the graffiti is nearly as dangerous as the application of it was ... however, in addition to passing a cost onto society, somebody is eventually having to take on some risk.

If it isn't your property, it's vandalism, no matter how pretty it looks

professional graffiti pieces

Rofl.

Really, though. If it's on a train, I have no objection. Makes the trains less boring while I'm stuck waiting for them ten minutes at a time.

Yes, I probably would. Perhaps I don't like seascapes. Perhaps as the property owner I would like to be consulted about what's put on my property. Perhaps I live in an area where the covenant (which has the force of law) proscribes all but a certain range of colors) (See the town Celebration (http://www.celebrationtowncenter.com/ee/)in Florida as an example).

You're honestly trying to set the argument up to make it look as though the artist is doing the property owner a favor -- if so, then why don't more of them ask permission before starting to paint? Because what you're talking about is making it a fait accompli, with the owner now having to either accept something that is not to his or her taste, or go to the expense of removing it.



Oh, it can be removed perfectly easily. You just need to pay a fortune and undergo some pain to have it burned away.

The same way a property owner has to go choose new paint, or replace his siding, and redo his home or pay others to do it.

This is becoming one, uh, heated debate.

Graffiti vandals should be subject to the full rigor of the law. Furthermore, the parents of gang punks who deface private or public property should be held financially and criminally liable for the actions of their brats.

1. LOL.
2. I think that if children deface private property it might be okay for the parents to be financially liable, but certainly not criminally. They didn't break the law, the kid did.

Ok... I'll have them airbrush it instead.

That make it better?

Well, it certainly makes it less morally apprehensive.

Still, it's not as though someone painting on a wall is akin to kidnapping and forcibly painting someone's face.

The problem with public property is that in reality it has a number of owners.

Let's say somebody paints pictures of male body parts on the side of a public elementary school. Is it OK? Most people would prefer to remove the equivalent body part from the artist and remove the vandalism.

Well, it's not really okay to put genitals on a school building, but I wouldn't go so far as to remove the vandalist's cock.

It is unfair, however, that a school would have to wear the cost.

I think the key isn't if it is private or public property, but rather if the graffiti was approved or not. Generally when people use the term graffiti, it is artwork or paint that was put on a structure (private or public) without permission.

You just agreed that it's still art, even if it's without permission.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Banksy's work was "without permission". That doesn't mean it's not art. And considering it doesn't harm anyone, it's nothing like the afformentioned school-penis situation.

Note: this isn't to say that sometimes graffiti isn't appealing to me. Sometimes I wish the artists would go out and get permission first. I also know that there are some places where they may have gotten permission first.

I suppose, but sometimes it's the nature and spotenaity of some (and I'm not talking about tags, here) graffiti that makes it special.

The type of graffiti that bothers me the most is when people put things on freeway overpasses, because the removal of the graffiti is nearly as dangerous as the application of it was ... however, in addition to passing a cost onto society, somebody is eventually having to take on some risk.

If it's ugly, then yes, it's bad.

But if it's fantastic work, why is there a need to remove it at all?

Outside my beautiful heritage brick bulding there are stairs and a wall leading into the carpark. That wall was once covered with the most interesting and mood-creating graffiti I have ever seen. Every day there were proffesional photographers with models, families and couples taking photographs in front of the best backdrop in the city. Recently, the building managers painted over it, and it looks horrible. They didn't even use the same grey as the concrete. To me, what they did is vandalism.

depends entirely on what it says, where its placed, and how 'artistic' it actually is.

when its an expression of thoughtlessness, just braging about someone's name they came up with or whatever like that, and if its inconsiderately placed, deadining a live space rather then livining a dead one, then of course that IS absolute crap.

but when it either actually says something to make you think, or actually beautifys an otherwise totally dead space that really NEEDS something, then i think it is definately art and doing something positive.

=^^=
.../\...

taking this perspective idea and running with it - suppose somebody claimed that the mona lisa just plain was not art. wouldn't you be tempted to say that they were wrong rather than just shrug and put it all down to a difference of opinion?
When I was younger, yes, I probably would have said that they were wrong. However, after being involved in countless "what is art?" discussions down the years I have to say that I believe it to be completely down to individual perspective. Things that I consider to be 'art' might be written off by others as not being 'art'. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means that their opinion - which is by definition subjective and wholly dependent on a set of measures that apply only to them as indivduals - differs from mine.

It's my opinion that defining what is or is not 'art' is impossible precisely because it is a matter of individual perspective. There are, of course, works or styles of work that seem to hold an appeal to vast swathes of the populace and no, I don't have a good explanation for that, although I'm sure that some might make a case for it being down to some kind of cultural conditioning. Basically though, when dealing of questions of art I have to borrow Justice Stewart's comment, which underlines the subjectivity involved rather nicely:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"

I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that there is a big difference between liking something and acknoledging that it's art. I don't particularly like sculpture, especially metal sculpture, but I acknoledge that it's art.
I disagree, for the reasons I've noted above, simply because I view it as an impossible task to place a definition on what constitutes 'art'. One man's art is another's waste of materials, et cetera. It's enough for me to know what I like without having to impose those tastes on anyone else.

When I was younger, yes, I probably would have said that they were wrong. However, after being involved in countless "what is art?" discussions down the years I have to say that I believe it to be completely down to individual perspective. Things that I consider to be 'art' might be written off by others as not being 'art'. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means that their opinion - which is by definition subjective and wholly dependent on a set of measures that apply only to them as indivduals - differs from mine.

It's my opinion that defining what is or is not 'art' is impossible precisely because it is a matter of individual perspective. There are, of course, works or styles of work that seem to hold an appeal to vast swathes of the populace and no, I don't have a good explanation for that, although I'm sure that some might make a case for it being down to some kind of cultural conditioning. Basically though, when dealing of questions of art I have to borrow Justice Stewart's comment, which underlines the subjectivity involved rather nicely:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"


I disagree, for the reasons I've noted above, simply because I view it as an impossible task to place a definition on what constitutes 'art'. One man's art is another's waste of materials, et cetera. It's enough for me to know what I like without having to impose those tastes on anyone else.

just to make sure, is your argument in favor of "art or not" being all just a matter of opinion and taste based entirely on the fact that people disagree about it?

also, if a thing's being art is merely a matter of personal (or cultural) taste, then how is it possible for me to recognize the existence of art i don't like as art?

It's vandalism because it's on someone else's property. That said, I can accept that some graffiti is art as well as being vandalism. Just don't do it on my house. Do it on your own house.

just to make sure, is your argument in favor of "art or not" being all just a matter of opinion and taste based entirely on the fact that people disagree about it?
Perhaps it is, yes. I hadn't analysed the consequences of my beliefs in that regard and come to that conclusion before but, having re-read what I've written in the light of your question, I think you may be right. It is, I freely confess, a bit of an egocentric stance to take, but that's just seems to be where I find myself on the subject.

If I may turn it around a little, though... if it's not simply a matter of personal taste then what consititutes 'art'? And, perhaps more importantly, who gets to make the distinction?

also, if a thing's being art is merely a matter of personal (or cultural) taste, then how is it possible for me to recognize the existence of art i don't like as art?
That's a fine question. Perhaps it's the cultural taste thing. Perhaps we've all had a sense of what constitutes 'proper art' inculcated in us as we grow up. As I mentioned earlier there do seem to be certain themes that crop up again and again in works of art that appear to be found aesthetically pleasing by the majority of people. Perhaps they appeal to some kind of base instinct and evoke a response, and that is what makes them art - I don't know. It's just something that I find very hard to delineate.

Most of the 'graffiti' are tags or little more, and have no artistical value (id est, aesthetical intent) intent at all.
Also, most of the 'graffiti' are the result of vandalism.

I also fail to understand why they used the word 'graffiti'. 'Graffiti' is an italian word, coming from 'graffiare' (to scratch). See stone-age graffiti (drawing by scratching stone with a sharp tool). Hence, it isn't something you can do with paint. Maybe the word 'murales' (spanish, from 'muros', walls) would be better.

Perhaps it is, yes. I hadn't analysed the consequences of my beliefs in that regard and come to that conclusion before but, having re-read what I've written in the light of your question, I think you may be right. It is, I freely confess, a bit of an egocentric stance to take, but that's just seems to be where I find myself on the subject.

If I may turn it around a little, though... if it's not simply a matter of personal taste then what consititutes 'art'? And, perhaps more importantly, who gets to make the distinction?

i worry about the "people disagree, therefore there is no fact of the matter" line of argument because people disagree about things where there clearly is a fact of the matter. this isn't to say that there always is a fact of the matter, just that mere disagreement doesn't seem to be enough to demonstrate that there isn't.

it seems to me that answering the question 'what is art?' could be attempted by anybody, provided we actually sat down and tried to puzzle it out. it may be (and probably almost certainly is) rather complex and would require some amount of knowledge and experience with thing. but no one person would get to make the distinction - it would be based on some sort of defensible conception of art that captured the spirit of the thing.

i haven't actually spent much time thinking about what makes something art or not in any formal way, but just taking a first stab at it it seems that it would at least cover many things within the range of activities intentionally done to create a sensory and emotional response in a not-entirely-utilitarian way. beyond that, it probably comes out to a cluster of related things defined more by family resemblances than by formal definitions.

but when it either actually says something to make you think, or actually beautifys an otherwise totally dead space that really NEEDS something, then i think it is definately art and doing something positive.

=^^=
.../\...

Banksys work being a prime example of this.

Look at Pompeii.

Graffiti can be a historical record.

Or look at the origins of the word Quiz.

Graffitti is artistic vandalism.

Just because it's 'Art', doen't mean it's not vandalism. and just because it's vandalism, doesn't make it 'not art'.

Graffitti is artistic vandalism.

Just because it's 'Art', doen't mean it's not vandalism. and just because it's vandalism, doesn't make it 'not art'.

That sounds so Shakespearian: To be or not to be, that is the question.:cool:
http://www.jamesfinngarner.com/images/blogimages/shakespeare.jpg

Aparently graffiti is part of the museum in Pompeii on Ancient Porn.

When I was younger, yes, I probably would have said that they were wrong. However, after being involved in countless "what is art?" discussions down the years I have to say that I believe it to be completely down to individual perspective. Things that I consider to be 'art' might be written off by others as not being 'art'. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means that their opinion - which is by definition subjective and wholly dependent on a set of measures that apply only to them as indivduals - differs from mine.

It's my opinion that defining what is or is not 'art' is impossible precisely because it is a matter of individual perspective. There are, of course, works or styles of work that seem to hold an appeal to vast swathes of the populace and no, I don't have a good explanation for that, although I'm sure that some might make a case for it being down to some kind of cultural conditioning. Basically though, when dealing of questions of art I have to borrow Justice Stewart's comment, which underlines the subjectivity involved rather nicely:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it"


I disagree, for the reasons I've noted above, simply because I view it as an impossible task to place a definition on what constitutes 'art'. One man's art is another's waste of materials, et cetera. It's enough for me to know what I like without having to impose those tastes on anyone else.

I think you're missing the point.

I'm not saying that you have to like graffiti or that you have to think it's art, but I am pointing out that there is a difference between "liking" something and considering it "art". I agree that there is no set definition about what "art" is, and just because I consider something "art" doesn't mean I'm imposing my taste on anyone else. No one - except perhaps the guy with the gun emoticons - is trying to impose their taste on anyone else. It's called discussion.

Most of the 'graffiti' are tags or little more, and have no artistical value (id est, aesthetical intent) intent at all.
Also, most of the 'graffiti' are the result of vandalism.

I also fail to understand why they used the word 'graffiti'. 'Graffiti' is an italian word, coming from 'graffiare' (to scratch). See stone-age graffiti (drawing by scratching stone with a sharp tool). Hence, it isn't something you can do with paint. Maybe the word 'murales' (spanish, from 'muros', walls) would be better.

The term "graffiti" derives from the Greek graphein ("to write").

Actual graffiti can be quite artistic. The tomcat-pissing-everywhere disease known as "tagging" is almost never artistic.

I think you're missing the point.

I'm not saying that you have to like graffiti or that you have to think it's art, but I am pointing out that there is a difference between "liking" something and considering it "art". I agree that there is no set definition about what "art" is, and just because I consider something "art" doesn't mean I'm imposing my taste on anyone else. No one - except perhaps the guy with the gun emoticons - is trying to impose their taste on anyone else. It's called discussion.

Well said.

Well said.

:)

I think you're missing the point.

I'm not saying that you have to like graffiti or that you have to think it's art, but I am pointing out that there is a difference between "liking" something and considering it "art". I agree that there is no set definition about what "art" is, and just because I consider something "art" doesn't mean I'm imposing my taste on anyone else. No one - except perhaps the guy with the gun emoticons - is trying to impose their taste on anyone else. It's called discussion.
I think you've misinterpreted what I was trying to say earlier - which probably means that, yet again, I've communicated it badly.

I had no intention of characterising anyone here as trying to impose their tastes on anyone else, no intent to accuse people of saying "X is art, and Y isn't, dammit!". I was simply making the comment that I don't see it as possible, or meaningful, to try and define 'art', since it always boils down to individual perception.

Such statements of points of view also have a place in a discussion, where I live.

For every Banksy there are several thousand talentless little bastards artlessly scrawling their tags with no regard for anyone else. I would happily forgo the one or two genuinely artistic pieces of graffiti if it also meant not having the vandals.

Unless it's done with the permission of the owner of the property it is always vandalism. That doesn't mean it can't be artistic or meaningful, but it does mean that it's illegal.

That sounds so Shakespearian: To be or not to be, that is the question.:cool:

damn, I was trying more Socrates... :p


"art" is really up to the viewer and creator.

some of these "modern art works" are called "art" my some people, I call them "Crap".

the brushwork of an elephant is called 'art' by some, and a mess by others.

so yes, Graffitti is 'Art'. but that doesn't mean it still cannot be 'vandalism'.

damn, I was trying more Socrates... :p


"art" is really up to the viewer and creator.

some of these "modern art works" are called "art" my some people, I call them "Crap".

the brushwork of an elephant is called 'art' by some, and a mess by others.

so yes, Graffitti is 'Art'. but that doesn't mean it still cannot be 'vandalism'.

Ah, the joys of simultaneous connotations. Well said, and exactly right. If this thread really wants to get into the grist of this issue, it should enroll in an Aesthetics course. Enough Burke, Bloom, Nietzsche and Kant to last you a lifetime.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was trying to say earlier - which probably means that, yet again, I've communicated it badly.

I had no intention of characterising anyone here as trying to impose their tastes on anyone else, no intent to accuse people of saying "X is art, and Y isn't, dammit!". I was simply making the comment that I don't see it as possible, or meaningful, to try and define 'art', since it always boils down to individual perception.

Such statements of points of view also have a place in a discussion, where I live.

I suppose you did communicate it badly, originally.

How does where you or I live come into it.

This is some of Bansky's work: http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/gracejulia/pics/banksy_whatareyoulookingatsmall.jpg


lol. :D