If you're painting someone else's property without permission, you're a vandal. It's like breaking into someone's house and redecorating. You still broke in.

If you're painting *with* permission, it's artistic expression.

Banksy

/thread

I've seen graffiti that was art and graffiti that was vandalism.

Tagging is mostly vandalism, real graffiti is art. Anything done on people's private property is vandalism. Graffiti on the wall the side of the road/train, under bridges etc are fine.

I like graffiti, it's colourfull and expressionate (if that's a word..). It brightens up a lot of dull places. I dislike tagging, it serves no purpose and it's ugly.

Grafiti is art as long as it's not obscene

It depends what it is, if it's just some drawing if a peni, or some words no oen can really read then it's vandalism. But, if it's stuff like Banksy then I consider it art.

Now that's art!

The best thing about that one is it's on a sexual health clinic or something like that.

Vandalism, your painting something that doesn't belong to you. Plus I have yet to see any that have contributed to making my town a better place. Though I am impressed with where these people manage to put stuff sometimes

Labyrinth:
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.

Pretty much.

Nice mural on playground wall = art.

Huge cock and balls with Riley wuz ere - not art.

A nice portrait of Otto Von Bismarck on my door that I should find some morning - not art. It's my door dammit!

To me it's always art, bad or good, as long as it shows some kind of creative effort. Tagging (Simply writing your name/alias/logo on something in marker or paint) isn't art, but then again, I don't consider that graffiti. If it's on someone else's property and you didn't have their permission to put it there, yes it's vandalism, but that doesn't take away the artistic element of it.

I've been wanting to try graffiti for a while, but I'm awful at drawing, painting and pretty much any other visual art. So I'd probably suck at it too.

Tis complex

matter of the fact is that i can be one, both, or neither.

If its not your property and done with out owners consent then is still vandalism no matter how you slice it.

And if we're deffining graffiti as any thing done with can of spray paint with artistic intent, then graffiti can happen on canvas or any other medium. So graffiti can be stand anlone art with lagitimat standing.

then there is mindless tag, you know what im talking about. the sharpy scrawed on the bath room stall that reads "scabs was here" (with a back wods 'c'). Some thing with absolutly no artistic content or legitimany what so ever.

Depends. I've seen some of the graffiti on the remains of the Berlin Wall and really enjoyed it. If it's done to look good, it's art (although admittedly, doing it on property that isn't yours without permission makes it open to question).

it varies from case to case. whether or not graffiti is art depends on whether it was art, whether or not it is technically vandalism depends on whether or not you have the owners permission. but if its pretty, its pretty.

It's not inherently art or vandalism. It depends what you do with it.

Fightbulb:
... If you honestly think graffiti just consists of people doing 7-colour pieces on legal walls, you don't know what graffiti is.

Your right. I don't know know exactly what graffiti is. (I'm agreeing with you, not trying to be smart).

It's also arrogant for anyone to say "that's art but that isn't" no matter how pretty one is compared to another. If someone calls something of their own creation art, it's generally an expression of something.

I just like the stuff I see as opposed to seeing concrete walls so I think graffiti artists shouldn't give up in their never ending struggle against authorities and I hope they never invent cheap, unpaintable walls.

I just have to clarify one thing; regardless of wether you think tagging has any artistic merit or not, you can not say that it is not graffiti. Graffiti started out as nothing but tagging, and tagging one of the most important skills of any graffiti writer. Just to clarify, when I say tagging I'm talking about stuff like this:

You know, something that takes skill, thought and practice, as opposed to bullshit like this:

I'm not telling you to like it, or even to regard it as art. That's obviously a matter of opinion. But the next person to claim that tagging isn't graffiti can go jump off a bridge.

Humbug:

It's also arrogant for anyone to say "that's art but that isn't" no matter how pretty one is compared to another. If someone calls something of their own creation art, it's generally an expression of something.

No its highly arrogant to make utterly terrible art and hide under the banner of "self-expression" and then get pissy when people rightly point out that its just shit.

As for graffiti, 99% of it is piss poor and just makes a grey wall even more depressing. Then again I have seen some excellent works (including Banksy), which do add a bit of life to a wall.

Really the facts are defacing someone's personal property is illegal though I think if its on municipal property and its of high quality then yeh it should stay.

I wonder though, do graffiti artists paint over there own house? But then again I doubt many graffiti artists own their own home.

Well done graffiti is some of the coolest art ever, and I want to learn how to do it. It's all circumstancial.

Graffiti is necessarily vandalism. Otherwise its just a sanctioned mural. If it doesn't vandalize graffiti loses all its power as a subversive expression.

If its properly thought out, a good range of colors then its art. If its someone's initials and [insert name here] was here, then its vandalism

If you have someone's permission to paint graffiti on a particular wall then yes it would be art. If you don't have someone's permission then it is vandalism, although it can sometimes be both vandalism and art.

I consider graffiti to be an art form as such should be given certain areas of public wall/floorspace to be done. It being washed away just seem relatvely petty of the local councils.

I don't care is it art or not. Most graffiti sucks and usually just makes the wall/train/etc. it's on more depressing.

EDIT: Graffiti with wall's owner's permission = art. Graffiti without permission = vandalism.

Zac_Dai:

Humbug:

It's also arrogant for anyone to say "that's art but that isn't" no matter how pretty one is compared to another. If someone calls something of their own creation art, it's generally an expression of something.

No its highly arrogant to make utterly terrible art and hide under the banner of "self-expression" and then get pissy when people rightly point out that its just shit.

But what's "art"? Does it have to look good? I think most of that cubism stuff is shit but that's still art. Just not art I like. It would be arrogant of me to walk up to a bunch of people admiring it and telling them that what they're admiring isn't art.

But just because it is art it doesn't mean it has the right to go on my wall. Same with graffiti.

And the comment about graffiti artists not having homes as a generalisation is not needed.

I think artistic graffiti is awesome. Huge, sprawling works of unusual, abstract, and sometimes meaningful artistry is something that I think most people can appreciate.

Still, I do think that people know where graffiti is and isn't acceptable. If an artist is trying to piss off people, that's not art, and that person is not an artist, as far as I'm concerned.

Tagging is just a waste of time. I have no love of tagging, and I don't think many do.

*EDIT* Unless the tagging actually has artistic merit, as previously pointed out.

Some of the local graffiti where I live is actually quite well done to the point I consider it to be art, but then there are those random sprayings of names and obscene language/images that occur everywhere around town that make people think that all graffiti is vandalism. (There is an old railroad bridge that was rebuilt recently not too far from my home, after 6 months of construction it was already vandalized horrifically after 12 hours of its completion.)

But no, I think graffiti can be a very appealing art form, if only there were those who wouldn't abuse it.

It is a most complicated matter. I think its art when its a show off skill and the complexity etc, but when its just a tag, its vandalism and it usally sucks. When i see graffiti on trains, and its a good piece of work, i think it looks good, because its better than it being a dull grey train. I think there should be more legal walls for this. But as Labyrinth, it also depends on the context. But it rarly is someone just marking territory. So i do think its art. Most of the time.

Actually not i didnt start as tagging, a good graffiti artist dosent need the tagging to get his name out there, its just the little graffiti n00bs who do that, and i dont really think tagging is graffiti, its just that, tagging.

In the major city near where i live there use to be this small tunnel under a bridge that was covered in graffiti but it wasnt the crappy kind, the whole tunnel both sides were all painted and it was a major landmark that attracted everyone. Well one day the oh so great mayor gets the brilliant idea to just pain over it. Of course I don't know too much about the public opinion because I was probably 15 at the time but everyone I knew even my relative who is a cop and his friends were all sad to see it go. Though I think the cops were sad to see it go because of all the people they busted there. That is probably the only graffiti I've ever seen that qualifies as art whereas all the rest of it is generally idiots "tagging". Its all graffiti (considerable as art or not its still illegal) and anyone that says otherwise can go fuck yo couch.

i laugh at graffiti artists excusing their actions (which are obviously vandalism) by saying they have a message they want to get across.

the reason i laugh is because the message gets ignored because nobody wants to listen to someone who spends their free time vandalising other's property

ie. the only people that the message is going to reach are those who already agree.

Humbug:

Zac_Dai:

Humbug:

It's also arrogant for anyone to say "that's art but that isn't" no matter how pretty one is compared to another. If someone calls something of their own creation art, it's generally an expression of something.

No its highly arrogant to make utterly terrible art and hide under the banner of "self-expression" and then get pissy when people rightly point out that its just shit.

But what's "art"? Does it have to look good? I think most of that cubism stuff is shit but that's still art. Just not art I like. It would be arrogant of me to walk up to a bunch of people admiring it and telling them that what they're admiring isn't art.

But just because it is art it doesn't mean it has the right to go on my wall. Same with graffiti.

And the comment about graffiti artists not having homes as a generalisation is not needed.

The post wasn't directed at you personally its just in real life I've had to deal with people who use the argument you mentioned as a way of claiming that I have no right to be critical about their art and I flipped out a little... but anyway in essence you are right, I can't judge what is art same way I can't judge what is music but I can judge if its good.

Yes the generalisation may have been pretty harsh, but I still think its valid. My point was that graffiti artists don't seem to care about defacing other peoples property so would they enjoy having it done to there own? But then I really can't imagine someone with a mortgage going out at night to graffiti trains.

Obviously there are exceptions like Banksy who is most likely filthy rich now and I do wonder if he has a mural on his house.

MrGFunk:
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.

tagging is graffiti. graffiti is anything that you write/draw/spray on someone else's property because you are a twat.

the monopoly guy:
It depends what it is, if it's just some drawing if a peni, or some words no oen can really read then it's vandalism. But, if it's stuff like Banksy then I consider it art.

Now that's art!

The best thing about that one is it's on a sexual health clinic or something like that.

this picture is art i guess, but if it was put there by the owner, then it is a mural, not graffiti.

I love Banksys work, anything he does is art, in my oppinion.

Depends who ask - the grafitti artist or the guy who made the wall