It's art. |
 |
19.5% (30) |
It's vandalism. |
|
22.7% (35) |
It's complicated. |
|
57.8% (89) |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
BANNED  Posts: 530 Joined: 10 Jan 2008     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1154 Joined: 29 Oct 2008     | If it's good it's Art. If it's bad it's Vandalism. Practice on your own wall. Tagging is not graffiti. It's "I woz ere." - No one cares. |
On the Record  Posts: 5674 Joined: 2 Dec 2007    | I love seeing graffiti as long as it's not destroying another artpiece. I love seeing very complex and colourful ones or just really strange ones in out of the way places ("How the hell did they manage to get up there?!"). Tagging on the other hand is vandalism. No artisitic merit, no style, no complexity, just a bland name. Lo and behold ManMan. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1495 Joined: 6 Sep 2008  | This is actually a really good topic. It's been a while. Well, if I was an owner of an establishment, and came to work in the morning to find some indecipherible name on my wall I'd be pretty upset, and not care about the "art" aspect of it. But when the owner cleans it off, they go and do it again, like it was a slight against the "artists'" work. I think if people are going to do it, there should be a message, not just some self-absorbed persons name on a wall. Do it on your own property, that's cool, but once you cross that line you're breaking the law, and should be punished accordingly. Also, if people want their art seen, set up a showcase, it's a little harder if you live in a rural area, sure, but cutting corners won't get you anywhere but jail in this instance. You sound like you're doing the right thing, by just sticking to your yard, maybe try branching out, go to a local bar and ask if you can have an art show or something. Plenty of places to show your art legally. And as far as the "don't fuck with us" mentality that a lot of graffiti artists have, I'd retort with "don't fuck with me", because if I saw that shit on the side of my house, or car, I'd be out for blood. Respect people's property. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1539 Joined: 27 Apr 2008   | If its a massive good looking spray peice of art, then I don't mind. If its a stupid picture with someones name sprayed over the wall then its vandalism. |
BANNED Posts: 530 Joined: 10 Jan 2008 | I understand the mentality of property owners, i know i'd be peeved if the vandalism was just that, vandalism. There is a line crossed at some point, the real question is how far that line is and where it should be drawn. But that's just it, alot of graffiti does have a message, just like there's a lot of art that doesn't. People just don't seem to get the message. I know i've caught the train into brisbane and seen all the graffiti on the side of the tracks, and it's brightened my day, people have taken a space that would generally not be touched and made it look better. Sometimes the message in a piece of graffiti is to just bring some colour to people's days. You'd be surprised the amount of writers that have that kind of mentality. As for people who paint on fences and houses, I hate people that do that, with a passion and i'm one of the first to denounce that as art. User was banned for: Lock please.. (Permanent) |
Anonymous Source Posts: 10 Joined: 10 Oct 2008    | Graffiti is art but tagging isn't graffiti. I usually see graffiti when I'm on public transport (not that often). There's the scraping in the windows and there's the paintings on goddamn ugly concrete walls. I've always thought that it they cleaned off anything shit (anything without any effort) and left anything that looked alright (in places where the "canvas" isn't a part of some larger spectacle such as a nice building or a park) then it would be an insult to those whose "art" is removed and it would put the great artists on the same side as the authorities; telling the taggers to get better or go away. But I think a lot of things and I was young (well, I still am) so I don't expect it to come true or even work in the first place. I think that because of the scratches on bus windows and things like that, graffiti artists of all kinds are wrongly grouped together as "vandals." |
Paperboy  Posts: 39 Joined: 8 Oct 2008    |
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Really. Art is a way of putting emotions/feelings/thoughts/whatever into a physical form. Just like music. For example, Andy Warhol's "Campbell's soup can." Is it good? It's a fucking soup can. But it is still art. On topic; Some graffiti could be regarded as art. My last few years of high school art were wasted away on stencil work. Depending on how you use graffiti determines if it is art or not. |
IT Director  Posts: 1549 Joined: 13 Jun 2002     | If it's painted on something without permission, it's vandalism. That's the very definition of vandalism - damage/destruction of property. And the person who gets to determine whether or not something is destruction is the owner, not the painter. That doesn't mean that some graffiti isn't also artistic (though not nearly the majority). It is a completely valid artistic style. But being of artistic value doesn't change whether or not something is vandalism. |
BANNED  Posts: 1198 Joined: 6 Sep 2008  | I think that people who want to treat it as art should be able to find "public walls" which perhaps should be funded by a charity of some sort.
I think that is putting that argument well (I just didn't want to reiterate what you had said). User was banned for: Banning poems from schools in the UK. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1495 Joined: 6 Sep 2008 | Just because it's somebodys artistic expression doesn't give it license to suck. If I piss on a canvas, you'll say it's terrible. I'll say "but it represents my inner blah blah something", to which there is no response. It's like you're not allowed to say it's bad, you just don't "get it". Is it really so hard to just ask the people that own the crappy boring trains if you can paint on them? If they say no, then what right do you have to do it? You don't. Hell, I'm sure there's plenty of people, especially in urban areas, that would love to brighten up their shops or whatnot, probably even pay you. Go that route. It's legal, responsible, and the right thing to do. There is no feasable way that any rational-thinking person can say that it's alright to paint on somebody else's property without their permission. All arguments are moot, you know that it's not right. I will say, though, I do enjoy seeing some graffiti around here in Boston, especially on the T, going by all the train stations and seeing something bright and eye-catching, especially seeing a new one that isn't faded and whatever. But that doesn't make it ok. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 3 Joined: 2 Nov 2008 | Virgil has very succintly summed up my entire opinion on the subject; The two arent mutually exclusive. |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 530 Joined: 6 Nov 2008  | Graffiti is an art style. When its done on property that isnt yours without the owners permission, its vandalism. It doesn't matter if it has a message or not because the owner of that wall/building/vehicle, doesnt necessarily agree with it, and even if they do they don't necessarily want it broadcasted on their property. If you need to express yourself artistically try looking into legalised graffiti, or do it to your own property, that way you dont get fined/arrested and they don't have to waste their hard earned money cleaning up your art. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1096 Joined: 6 Oct 2008    | It's been said already. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1154 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 |
Really? I think you've missed my point. It's pretty much the same as everyone else's so don't jump on me.
what he said.
and what he said. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 780 Joined: 14 May 2008  | I'm a writer myself, but I don't deny that it's vandalism. As long as it's not a legal project I consider it to be vandalism, regardless of wether it's a tag, throwup, burner, whatever. It's a matter of perspective wether it's art or not, it's in the eye of the beholder I suppose. I consider it to be art, but people who don't appreciate it just see it as rubbish vandalism. And we're both right, because it's a matter of opinion. I'm sick of people just doing random nonsense and telling the world to respect said nonsense because they claim it to be art. If someone wants to paint with their own excrement instead of acrylics and call it art, that's up to them. But don't expect people to like it because you claim it to be art. It's still shit on a canvas. oh, and tagging IS graffiti. It's the most important part of graffiti, actually. If you honestly think graffiti just consists of people doing 7-colour pieces on legal walls, you don't know what graffiti is. |
On the Record  Posts: 6755 Joined: 22 Aug 2008   | I saw some 'graffiti'/tagging today. It said "Dont peeple care eney more. G" Apparently they don't care about spelling :( Tagging sucks. Art is good. My friend was heavily into this Banksy fellow a while back. Some of the stuff was quite good. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 5 Joined: 7 Oct 2008 | Buy a wall, paint on it. Graffiti on other peoples property is vandalism. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1407 Joined: 3 Apr 2008    | It depends on its message. if its for gangs...hell no. if its something like a picture of the virgin mary or daffy duck yes its goof and art then EDIT: only if they arent giving a bad message i.e. shooting someone, bad message |
On the Record  Posts: 5966 Joined: 7 Feb 2008   | Taggers can go fuck themselves with a switchblade. Writing your name in fancy letters isn't art, and I REALLY hate defacement. But by contrast I hate the depressing gray of urban life, I'd rather some enterprising and creative indivuduals shake things up a little by making the world look more interesting. Case and point on our train line in Calgary there are several examples of excellent looking murals on the backs of boring old warehouses, it definately improves the ride to work every morning. Primarily, Art should make people happy, if it doesn't, it is not art, it's pointless exhibitionism. |
BANNED Posts: 530 Joined: 10 Jan 2008 |
What if it's an improvement for said wall? Graffiti evolved from tagging, It was a wave that came from new york back in the early 1930's/40's. It evolved into the artform it is today. I agree with you though, doing legal walls isn't what makes graffiti great, it's the rush and excitement of putting up in a public place, knowing that possibly hundreds of people will see it. It's just not the same as legal walls. User was banned for: Lock please.. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2768 Joined: 18 Sep 2007  |
What if you think it's an improvement but the guy whose business is inside that building thinks it's a mess and that it'll scare away customers? To put it differently, what if someone decided to "improve" your leather jacket with a nice full-colour and well rendered image of something you don't approve of? Heck, there are people who'd be thrilled to have some Cubism on their walls but there are others who'd stuff a Picasso on the back shelf because it's not their thing. I agree with Virgil; don't go painting other people's stuff without their permission. If they're okay with it, fine; if not, don't do it. -- Steve |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1780 Joined: 29 May 2008   | I have no problem with graffiti on public property, in fact some bits are downright stunning. It is art, no matter how good it is. Tagging, which is essentially a signature isn't. |
On the Record  Posts: 5490 Joined: 13 Aug 2008   | It all depends on the context. If it is a public place, on a public surface, and it causes no permanent damage to something, then it is art. Also, I feel that to qualify as art it has to not be something like someone spraying obscenities on the wall. I don't care if it's their name, if it's done elegantly then it qualifies as art. But, if it is on a private property or causes damage, then it is vandalism. If it is done maliciously, it is vandalism. It really varies from instance to instance, but I think it's more one of those "you'll know it when you see it" kind of things. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 815 Joined: 20 Aug 2008   | Some graffiti is art that's in the wrong place. It's on a large wall, when it should be on a canvas, in a gallery. Other graffiti -crappy little unreadable squiggles- are a mess. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 96 Joined: 27 Mar 2008     | i was going to mention Banksy, but amnestic already beat me to it.. i was going to say that graffiti is art, but reckless tagging / "joe was here" that the kids across the street do for "fun" that cost the victims $ to cover up, however, vandalism... but corroded beat me to that... so this is simply my agreement with them... well played sirs / madams... well played. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 614 Joined: 23 Apr 2008   | Its just one of those subjects that has two well defined, tiny, sides with a big gray slab right in the middle. If people like graffiti then they should try to make the world take it seriously, otherwise even the good graffiti is just going to be written off as colorful doodles. |
On the Record  Posts: 6088 Joined: 25 Jan 2008  | Graffiti, the style, is art. Some may argue this, but there's really no if ands or buts about it. The style is art, like it or hate it, the same as Mime acting is a form of acting even though the majority of the world thinks it retarded. Graffiti, the act itself, is vandalism unless sanctioned by the owner of the item painted. Doesn't matter how nice it is, if the owner of the property didn't ask for the graffiti, it's vandalism and a crime. |
BANNED  Posts: 3486 Joined: 25 Aug 2008 | Graffiti itself is vandalism, defacing property of others, or public property. The sense that it's "art" comes from the fact that the style of graffiti is art. User was banned for: The Second Annual Escapist Election: Part 1: Presidential Primaries. (Permanent) |
BANNED  Posts: 2505 Joined: 19 Aug 2008  | It depends whether the graffiti is good and where it is. If its on a skate park ramp and its of a Zero skull its good and in its place, i think skate parks look way better with graffiti. If it was on the side of a school or something that would be bad, unless it was a mural about reading or something. User was banned for: Poll: Round 5 - Field of Four - (1) Turbine vs (1) Nintendo. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1850 Joined: 31 Oct 2007  |
I think that pretty much sums it up |
BANNED  Posts: 1201 Joined: 18 Sep 2008  | All free expression can be considered art, as long as it's not retarded User was banned for: WOW: a wtf moment. (Permanent) |
On the Record Posts: 5674 Joined: 2 Dec 2007 |
It is vandalism, but it wouldn't have the same message or be as symbolic if you actually asked permission and made permits to paint somewhere. It kills th reason. Like trying to orginise grundge. |
Red Guard  Posts: 4903 Joined: 14 Oct 2007  | I believe it depends on the context. If someone's just marking territory it's vandalistic egoism. Like pissing on a lamp post, except you can see as well as smell it. If it's done as artistic expression, it's art. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2940 Joined: 22 Jun 2008  |
Seconded. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
I've been doing some research on this topic for a while for an english speech. In that regard, i've read a lot of newspaper articles on the internet with a large number of people hating graffiti which sparked this question. The article that sparked this topic, read the comments. (http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/oct/06/you-wont-stop-us/)
To be honest, I am no stranger to writing my name on the walls of society and any type of view i give will be from that perspective. As a writer, I think graffiti is a crime, but also at the same time an outlet for creation. I'm sick of graffiti artists being generalised as vandals, there is a huge difference between these two groups. Vandals or "taggers" as the media like to refer to as seek only to get there name up and cause havok and then you've got graffers, people who seek only to create art. Scrawling your name on a wall might be the very basic essence of graffiti, but graffiti is an ever changing and evolving art from. I started off tagging and running my name on everything I could, from street signs to trains to toilet stalls, i lived for the next time i'd be tagging up a blank space. I'd see objects as places to fit my name. I grew and evolved with time, creating better and better names and styles for myself, trying new and different things, All the while learning.
I moved from simple tagging to painting, this was a big step for me, it felt like i was becoming serious. When you start painting, it's no longer about your name, it's about your style. Graffiti is a competition, every artists competes to outdo one another. And as I evolved from tagging to paint I realised this. Once you start painting, it becomes an obsession. It's no longer a hobby and you're no longer a kid playing with pens to get a quick adrenalin kick. You live for the paint, the smell, the colour, the feeling of creation.
I don't understand how people hate it, True people that have had bad experience with property destruction would feel differently, but i don't understand the pure hate that people have for graffiti. They always want to paint over it, get rid of it, but that just fuels the fire. For instance, everytime I see my work painted over, I strive to up my standards, to make my art better, to the point that people would rather see my art than a blank wall. It's a challenge and every time a wall get's painted fresh, it's like handing a writer a blank canvas.
Alot of my art isn't illegal, I paint on big plywood boards in my yard for practice, people see me painting and just walk past. I've even had people stop and watch me paint in public at night time, people have told me where i've missed spots on my outline. There are people that don't care, but the majority seem to hate it with a passion. You can't combat graffiti, the people that do it are everyday folk, to quote fight club, we cook your food, drive your cars, we watch you while you sleep, Do not fuck with us.
But in seriousness, what do you think about graffiti?