Graffiti- art or not?

[analogZero]

Graffiti is often referred to as street art, mixed in with a subdivision of societal culture, but out of the taste of the general public. It holds a culture and certain ethics that in a way dictate it's governance, but at the same time it's regarded as a rebellious form of expression. There are some who do it for notoriety, some who do it for a cause, and some who do it with nothing more than passion. Yet it's far from considered high class, and many wouldn't even deem it worthy of the title of art. Thus, I ask of this debate forum, do you consider graffiti to be art?

[suigintou]

To quote Jet Grind Radio: graffiti is art. But graffiti as an act of vandalism is a crime.

That's really all there is to it, in my opinion. Yes, it's an art form, but unfortunately it's abused and thus it has a bad reputation.

[Koopaking]

Sure it's art, I mean it's something created by someone as a creative expression right? I think graffiti is art, whether it's considered legal or not.

[CryticX]

It is art, I have seen amazing works of graffiti in my life. It has also influenced our society beneficially in ways such as "pop culture", advertisement and more.

[carolyn07]

...i think it depends on grafitti!,.

some are overusing it!,.

i mean,.they do grafittis that don't actually look good,.and some grafittis are really great!,.3

[Memorix]

Even though it is illegal, it is still considered a form of art, whether anyone likes it or not.

[animex09]

graffiti is art when meant to be. you wouldn't call something like tagging art.

[jyuukai]

It is art but people can misinterpret is as just vandalism like Suig said. But I remember seeing some graffiti and I'll quote what it said,

"Billboards are for the rich, Graffiti is for everyone else"

I actually love this quote and think it hits the nail on the head.

[am0184]

graffiti is art when meant to be. you wouldn't call something like tagging art.

And there we go.

[wi_sam]

Graffiti is vandalizm, wether it's artistic or not.
But, I believe that rules where made, to be broken ;)

[suigintou]

Graffiti is vandalizm, wether it's artistic or not.
But, I believe that rules where made, to be broken ;)

Graffiti is only vandalism if it's done on something it's not supposed to be...believe it or not, there are legal spots designated for graffiti artists.

[analogZero]

What about Graffiti artist who make the transition into commercial art though? There's artist now who brought themselves up using the cities as their canvas, but graduate to studios, doing their art in a more contemporary form. I notice it a fair deal nowadays, that graf artists start off as many do, covering a city with their imagery to the point of recognition. However there's now a graduation taking place with graf artists getting into studios, selling themselves commercially, as a brand you could say. They spend their time putting the same imagery onto canvases and CD covers and commercial illustration and design. It's spreading into a pop culture demographic where once it was simply an element of the urban underground. Graffiti's style is marketable, but is it "selling out" so to speak, to present graffiti in such a way? To become a branded name that hangs in a gallery rather than a fragile and impermanent image on a concrete wall?

As for Graffiti as vandalism, it's a thin line I'd say. Graffiti's roots are in painting where you're not suppose to. If it has purpose, then it's arguable to say that it's social commentary or whatever as much as it's vandalism. It's a more difficult world of art to gauge because you have to see the good the bad and the ugly of what's out there. As is with most art there's more bad than good and thus it becomes majority rules for a lot of people. There's no curator when it comes to graffiti, and so we're stuck with everything and left to be the judge of it all.

[suigintou]

Not only that, Analog, but graffiti artists are also being paid to do graffiti on legal walls and sidewalks and such that act as advertisements. These artists really do get a lot of attention these days.

[wi_sam]

If there is such things as legal spots for graffiti artists, then there is no need for this debate.

they -you're goverments- think it's art enough to have it's own spaces.
And come to think of it we also started having special places for those guys, too.

so it is art.

[analogZero]

Well municipalities began allotting space for graffiti artists as a means of distraction, you might say. It's a way to solve a problem essentially. Give them a spot and they'll do it there rather than other places. Designating walls for graffiti is about the same as telling them to paint on canvas. It shoo's them away while making it appear friendly. Win/win from a political standpoint, but graffiti artists are stuck with a win/lose in that they can do what they do, but they're restricted to a segregated area.

[Silverleon]

I gotta admit, some grafitti IS art, but sometimes ist just something idiots make to be idiots....

[suune]

Graffiti is a way to say something when you can't say it out loud. But when it's just some random drabble showing no sense of individuality it's very bad taste.

[FlrcntKnht]

I think that what the artists sometimes paint is art but Graffiti is not. The people who do it may be artists but they are slo putting a permanent mark in places when you could do it on a canvas. I think that doing it to make a statement is the only justifiable explanation for Graffiti but doing it to make a name for yourself is where teh social taboo comes in. So yes the paintings themselves are art but i do not consider the act of painting on a building without permission to be a very noble or even logical idea or art.

[giovanni r]

This is an art that is easily abused! People mistreat the beauty of it a lot.

[Sixxty]

The artists are the ones that actually have some meaning, try and make a statement, or simply want their work to be seen by others. These people use a wall as their canvas and a city as their gallery, and regardless of your moral opinion that should be considered art.

Tagging and doing it for vandalism on other hand is NEVER art IMO no matter how good it looks.

[mikesword]

I believe graffiti is an art thats often used for defacing property. But it would be a great form of art to use for elections and for protesting. Even I wish I had that kind of talent.

[yoh]

art is art doesnt matter is its legal or not graffiti may be overused but art is art

[DjKuato]

art it the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. so yes it is art

[Gravi Girl]

It is art.

[kokoro-ran]

to me any thing creative and beatiful is art

[kokoro-ran]

to me any thing creative and beautiful is art

[Nyx]

Yeah ..It include from the art ... If it was not .. Why then ..All those amazing works ?