Graffiti: Art or Vandalism

[Acid]

Im doing an essay for university, and im writing it on whether I think graffiti is art or vandalism. Im leaning more towards art, but only if its regulated really... anyway, I need some points to raise and would like you guys to debate amongst yourselves and Ill pick some good points to use in my essay. I need for and against though so dont hold back if you disagree, I just hope someone has a good counter argument... anyway, debate!

[Elmyn Noos]

Vandalism - pure and simple. What gives these knobjockeys the right to impose their ugly scribblings onto walls they don't own?

 

I can't see how anyone in their right mind would see it is as art.

[Mr.SB]

Poorly phrased question surely. The question "art or vandalism" implies mutual exclusiveness which they are obviously not. The opposite of vandalism is not art. Neither is the opposite of art vandalism. Debating vandalism is more clearcut, debating on art is a lot less so. Who says grafitti can't both be art and vandalism? Personally I think most grafitti is just pure vandalism. The nicer ones can be artistically impressive but nevertheless still vandalism.

[Edward.]

Depends how well its done, if it's just a scribble on a wall then I would say it's vandalism. Around Newcastle there are some wonderful pieces of what I would call artwork, done specifically in places where they have been given permission to do so. I have some images somewhere.

[Guest simon]

When i was in hamburg in the reaper ban there is some class Grafitti. Pure art!

[Elmyn Noos]

I've never seen any that I didn't think looked like pure shitness.

[RJ Fan club]

In Brighton we have allowed some sites that are up for redevelopment to be used as graffiti areas to channel it away from vandalism of homes and property. We did this by allowing hoardings to be place around the site and aloowed them to get busy with their spray cans.

 

It worked quite well too.

[Elmyn Noos]

Graffiti vandals can fuck right off. If I saw them spraying anything round our end I'd shove their cans up their arses.

 

It looks shit. It brings the area down. It makes people feel uneasy. It's vandalism.

 

Hey hoody - you're not expressing yourself and getting a message across via the medium of contemporary art, you're ruining that wall and offending my eyes with your shit.

[Guest simon]

Graffiti vandals can fuck right off. If I saw them spraying anything round our end I'd shove their cans up their arses.

 

It looks shit. It brings the area down. It makes people feel uneasy. It's vandalism.

 

Hey hoody - you're not expressing yourself and getting a message across via the medium of contemporary art, you're ruining that wall and offending my eyes with your shit.

There are some really good ones about and im not talking about the crappy writing.

[RJ Fan club]

I find it is good way to spread rumours of me having an over sized cock.

[Acid]

Ok ok, getting a general feeling of being an idiot asking a bunch of 'older' people... anyway, let me throw some pictures of nicer ones Ive found and see what you think.

 

 

 

 

No stupid writing or gang tags, still vandalism? Doesnt make the place look nicer?

[Elmyn Noos]

Nope - it looks shit.

 

I hated it when I was a younger person too.

[Acid]

Ok another question, why? Because its outside in public? Would that mean its ok to put in galleries? Like, if its out of your sight you dont care, for example I dont like a certain kind of art I wouldnt go to an art gallery with an exhibition by someone who does that?

[Section_31]

Anything which is done to someone else's (or public) property without their consent is technically vandalism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what it looks like. If someone planted flowers in your front yard without your say so, that would be vandalism too.

[Acid]

Right, if it was regulated? Like RJ said, there were places set up to be vandalised? Skate parks, random sides of buildings the council has put up for 'vandalising'?

[Elmyn Noos]

Anything which is done to someone else's (or public) property without their consent is technically vandalism as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what it looks like. If someone planted flowers in your front yard without your say so, that would be vandalism too.

 

Is right.

 

Also, it's just not very good. I find it totally bereft of any artistic merit. They're simple drawings that pretty much anyone could do inflicted on people who don't want to see it. If these were done on canvas and put in a gallery, no-one would give them any credence whatsoever because they would be in a forum where they could easily be compared to real art, and they'd be found laughably wanting.

[Section_31]

Right, if it was regulated? Like RJ said, there were places set up to be vandalised? Skate parks, random sides of buildings the council has put up for 'vandalising'?

 

That's fine, because if permission is given then it's no longer vandalism. Permission is the key.

 

 

Vandalism - willful or malicious destruction, injury, or disfigurement of any public or private property, real or personal, without consent of owner

[Acid]

Wether its good or not is opinion really, people are doing it so much, some people must like it. Id go to a photography exhibit because Im interested in photography, I wouldnt be interested in going to an impressionism exhibit, same with graffiti if it was in a gallery.

 

Although thinking about it, putting graffiti in a gallery might defeat the point so Im not really sure what to think now.

[Section_31]

Is right.

 

Also, it's just not very good. I find it totally bereft of any artistic merit. They're simple drawings that pretty much anyone could do inflicted on people who don't want to see it. If these were done on canvas and put in a gallery, no-one would give them any credence whatsoever because they would be in a forum where they could easily be compared to real art, and they'd be found laughably wanting.

 

Art is a pretty subjective term anyway isn't it though Noos?

 

I mean, I could shit in a shoebox and entitle it 'meditations on Abu Ghraib' and it'd probably win the Turner Prize.

[Elmyn Noos]

Wether its good or not is opinion really, people are doing it so much, some people must like it. Id go to a photography exhibit because Im interested in photography, I wouldnt be interested in going to an impressionism exhibit, same with graffiti if it was in a gallery.

 

I don't agree. I think graffiti has acquired credibility in some circles purely on account of the way in which it is done (vandalism street cred if you like), and not because the imagery is particularly stimulating. Of the three examples you gave us pictures of, put the middle one on a poster and you have a picture that would still be on the shelves when Athena closed down. You would not even have been able to shift that in the 1980's.

[Elmyn Noos]

Art is a pretty subjective term anyway isn't it though Noos?

 

I mean, I could shit in a shoebox and entitle it 'meditations on Abu Ghraib' and it'd probably win the Turner Prize.

 

You could indeed mate, but it would still be shit in a shoebox.

[Acid]

Imo though you could say that about any kind of new art form. When picasso first drew a messed up face, people werent used to it because people were used to proper portraits of kings and queens, and now look at his stuff.

[Elmyn Noos]

Imo though you could say that about any kind of new art form. When picasso first drew a messed up face, people werent used to it because people were used to proper portraits of kings and queens, and now look at his stuff.

 

It's not new at all though. It's been around for a long time. It's been around for so long in fact that you'd expect people of my generation to actually like it as we grew up with it.

 

Like I say, I think the only credibility it has acquired has been through the fact that it is anti-establishment. I sincerely believe that if the actual pictures were done in any other medium, they'd just be pretty crap pictures.

[RJ Fan club]

Most of this stuff will be going soon, as soon as I can tie up a Section 106 to grant permission on the site for new affordable housing. But there has been a full photographic record taken as it is so well known round these parts.

 

[YOUTUBE]Qtgsau0U8vE[/YOUTUBE]

 

This one below was that site I was referring to earlier...

 

[YOUTUBE]ILW9GtURplA[/YOUTUBE]

 

There is also a Bansky just round the corner from here.

 

[dirty_sanchez]

It's a daft question. Art is subjective anyway. One person's art is another person's rubbish. You only have to look at works from people like Damian Hirst or Tracey Emin. Some people see it as piles of crap, some see it as award winning art.

 

Graffiti as a style is most definitely an art form. There are people who are very very good at it and there are people who are terrible at it, but it's definitely an art form. However by definition, if you graffiti someone's property without their consent then it's vandalism.

 

It's a terrible essay title though. Graffiti is both art and vandalism by it's definition.