Graffiti: Sometimes art, always art or always only vandalism?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

Poll question: Graffiti: Sometimes art, always art or always only vandalism?

I figure sometimes vandalism is a possible choice but I'm leaving it out because it seems less a matter of opinion and more a matter of a space being designated "graffiti safe".

What's your take?

[shoelace414]

1. If you have the owners permission

it's no longer graffiti..

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

4. Yeah - that's what I'm sayin'

in my convoluted way :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. And if you don't, it's illegal.

[sniffa]

2. i want to say "aLways art"

but it's not. especiaLLy since 'tagging' came aLong. those peopLe are just retards.

the oLd schooL muraLs are stiLL a sight for sore eyes. :D

[mark414]

6. second that...anyone here seen wildstyle?

shit's incredible

[LoZoccolo]

27. Or /Style Wars/.

It makes me want to put a big Oasis mural on a subway car.

[Lilith Velkor]

17. Took the words right outa my keyboard

:yourock:

[ghostsofgiants]

28. I have a question...

Why do you always capitalize your l's?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. It's definitely vandalism.

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't artistic expression, but unless the owner of the property that the graffiti is on gives his express consent to it being done, it's definitely vandalism.

[Jamastiene]

19. It depends on whether or not

it is gang "tagging" or something like that beautiful picture of Deborah Harry that Fab Five Freddy was rumored to have painted on the subway in NYC. Also, I think that if I finally ever get to visit "the city", I will not feel the visit is complete without being able to take my own pictures of some of the artistry I see in pictures of the graffiti on the streets there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. No, it doesn't.

Not at all.

If Fab Five Freddy was not commissioned by the owner of the property to paint Deborah Harry, he was a vandal. Period. It's not disputable, no matter how good the painting might be.

[Jamastiene]

23. Subway=mass transit

"We" the "people" own the property if it is considered government property. It's still art. You can argue vandalism, but I'll argue the opposite, because it is owned by ALL of us.

[Telly Savalas]

26. If it's owned by all of us, then shouldn't one person show consideration..

of the wishes of the millions of other people who own the transit system.

The park belongs to "we the people". It's my park. If I take a dump by the jungle gym and say it's a statement about how imperialist powers are shitting on us, am I an artist or an asshole?

Would I not just be exercising my right to free speech by spray-painting a racist message on the side of a bus? It is my bus, after all.

[Jamastiene]

29. Well,

You'd have to actually get the opinion by some kind of referendum to know whether the majority would see it as art. Granted a mural is considered art and not vandalism, it is still the same kind of art basically. There are places that just wouldn't look right without it.

If you take a dump by the jungle gym, then it is a health department issue. People have used feces and piss in their artwork and that is another debate.

Racist messages do exist here where I live in the form of graffiti. I'd rather see the Deborah Harry painting than a "tag" that says "KKK lives forever" which is what was painted across from the Wendy's for several years before it disappeared. There is still a difference in a noncontroversial picture of Deborah Harry and gang tagging. I would be against the gang tagging and we could argue about whether or not the the KKK is a gang all night. The debate about that is a separate debate as well.

This debate is about whether it is art or vandalism. It is both. I would still rather get to see that one painting of Deborah Harry if I ever get to go to New York City. I'd much rather see them use resources to keep me safe from violent crimes than to use resources fighting what primarily amounts to either art in some cases and territorial pissing in others.

[Telly Savalas]

30. My point though...

isn't so much that feces, racist slogans, tagging, and images of 70's divas all hold the same level of artistic merit. Without having seen the mural of Debbie Harry, I'm guessing I'd like it because I do find beauty in that sort of thing. What I meant to get across is that if we adopt the position that the transit belongs to the people so I should be able to make grafitti on it, then we're allowing for a profoundly undemocratic means for deciding our public spaces are decorated. Most decisions regarding public art (or public policy in general) aren't done by referendum since that would be impractical. However by entrusting such decisions to a transit commission, there is a certain level of accountability that you don't get if such choices are left to any random 15 year old with a spray paint can.


Fighting violent crime and combatting vandalism isn't any more an either-or proposition than fighting violent crime and enforcing traffic laws or fighting violent crime and providing Head Start programs for kids. We're an affluent society and have ample resources to do all of these things.

[mondo joe]

37. By the same token you shouldn't mind if the Debbie Harry is removed or def

By the same token you shouldn't mind if the Debbie Harry is removed or defaced.

If it's owned by ALL of us and any ONE of us can decide its use...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Well if someone WE elected to represent us didn't authorize it.

It's vandalism. Plain and simple. Your argument would never hold up in court.

[vi5]

7. I would think by definition it's vandalism....

..that's not a comment on the art itself. Putting ones art in an area which is not owned by or loaned to that person is by definition vandalism. Whether what's put there is a Van Gogh or a Danny Diablo is almost after the fact.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

8. I think I should modify the poll to say "only vandalism"

[On the Road]

9. Art and Vandalism are Not Mutually Exclusive

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

10. I modified the poll to clarify. I want to see if people here consider it

ONLY vandalism and devoid of artistic merit because it is as such.

[On the Road]

11. I Mean, It IS Vandalism, But...

if the Mona Lisa were spray-painted on a building, would that disqualify it as a work of art?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

12. Not to me, certainly

[gottaB]

22. That was my thought too

But I've seen some pretty artless graffiti. Artless vandalism too. I'm going with sometimes.

[antigone382]

13. I love it, personally.

I suppose it's wrong to do it when you don't have permission, but I still think a lot of it is beautiful and unique.

Atlanta recently passed some legislation that all graffiti had to be covered up or removed, and a lot of store owners complained. They felt that the graffiti had become a part of the character of their establishments.

[redqueen]

14. Sometimes art.

Stupid stuff is just stupid, but some of it is really nice.

[Kellanved]

15. Generalizations are impossible, but quite frequently it is clearly art

And to post a famous example: the Berlin East Side Gallery, the International Memorial for Freedom. Sadly about 3/4 of it is in a terrible condition.






http://www.berlin-tourist-information.de/cgi-bin/sehenswertes.pl?id=13397&sprache=english

http://www.eastsidegallery.com/

http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/photographs/eastsidegallery.htm

[Pithlet]

16. Always vandalism, sometimes art.

Grafittie is vandalism by its definition. But, I think it is possible that it can also be artistic.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

18. Mostly just interesting hip typography.

If there's context involved then it may be art.
Sometimes it can be like a billboard; a public statement.
Then again, graffiti can be just a vehicle to get a public dialogue started.

[shesemsmom]

21. I have seen some pretty neat

graffiti

[bloodyjack]

24. It's only art if it's commissioned by the city

Otherwise it is sometimes very inspired vandalism

[Heddi]

25. Stops being art when the little fuckheads in my neighborhood

with nothing better to fucking do skip school, stand in my fucking alleyway and go down one side and up the other tagging anything that stands still with their retarded gibberish.

It stops being art when they fucking PAINT MY MAILBOX BRIGHT FUCKING PINK (I kid you not! Like, Hello Kitty Fucking Pink), obscuring my street number, causing much confusion and missed mail for days until I happen to drive down my street and see that The Barbie Krew has tagged my fucking mailbox AND my fencepost, both of which had my street number on them.

It stops being art when the city I live in now fines property owners $400 if they don't clean up the grafiti within 2 days of it being put on their property (Which I have to say is a relief since the OLD fine was $400 PER DAY)

It stops being art when I have to destroy my lawn by driving my car 6 feet further into my driveway to make sure it's beyond the reach of an average spray-paint stream

It stops being art when my otherwise nice, working class neighborhood looks like a goddamn ghetto because EVERY FUCKING HOUSE AND FENCE has SOME kind of marking on it. And as soon as their vandalism is painted over by the owners, the little shits come out and re-tag the newly painted area.

There's one house for sale on my block that has been repainted AT LEAST 20 times in the last 3 months, and every time it's repainted, it's tagged. And every time it's re-tagged, they retag not just one spot, but another.

FInally, the owners of the house just said 'fuck it' and let the poor house (not a bad price either) just stay tagged. Sucks that their asking price must have dropped by $10k not just because of the grafiti on THEIR house, but on every other house on the block as well.

---
end of rant
---
I think that grafiti, when done tastefully and with property-owner's permission, is great. I used to get skate-boarding magazines when I was in high school and paste the great grafiti pictures on my wall .They were absolute works of art.

But what's done in my neighborhood isn't art. I swear. It's an X. Or a zig-zag. There's no art there---it's nothing more than the product of unmotivated and uncaring youth with no creativity who enjoy not the art of tagging, but the criminal aspect of destroying people's property.

[bleedingheart]

34. I have to agree with you

I have these "artists" completely ruin neighborhoods where residents are trying to revive the community. Basically vandalism/grafitti destroys the psyche of those neighborhoods...as my mother said..people should take a lesson from birds and not shit in their own nests...

If they want to paint somethng they should sign up with the painters union IUPAT or go to art school....

[Bridget Burke]

31. Sometimes art. Vandalism if done on private property without permission.

But concrete embankments along the freeway, for example, might use a bit of decoration.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[WeRQ4U]

35. BOTH!!

There's nothing saying it can't be art AND be illegal at the same time. It may look cool and take a decent amount of talent, but when you spraypaint on someone else's shit, it'll get you in trouble.

And if it's just little punks "tagging" things with their corny little symbols, then it's just plain SHIT.

[MrModerate]

36. Where I used to live, they have "approved" tagging surfaces.

However, most of what when up was pretty crappy. Some was great, though.

However, if you put it on someone else's property without their permission, it's vandalism, no matter how accomplished it may be.

[Rabrrrrrr]

38. Sometimes art, always vandalism (if done on someone else's property)

Except that now "graffiti" has also become an art genre in and of itself, and "graffiti" artists do it on canvas and boards and etc. and hang 'em and sell 'em in galleries.

:shrug: