Can grafitti equal art?

[Silverharp]

This is an ongoing debate in many places. I'd have to say it depends on the location and the actual grafitti.

Example one: Tagging. Obvious grafitti

Example two: Community art walls. I've seen several of these and WOW. Some of the talent is insane

Example three: "Social" grafitti such as Banksy. I've gotten some pretty heated responses at my insistance that artists such as Banksy do have their moments, but for the most part create less social awareness than a mess that needs to be cleaned up by the owners whose property is being defaced.

Thoughts?

[Greenday]

If you are actually creating a picture or something, then yea, I'd say it's art.

But if you are just spraying some stupid gang symbol, it's not art. It's defacement.

[Mytical]

I've seen pictures of graffiti murals that were no doubt art. They were not welcome by the place that sported them, nor commissioned by them. Most were painted over also. Still the murals were very well done. Anything can be art, depending on how you view it.

[SongsOfDragons]

I saw an advert for some guy who creates graffiti...by finding a dirty wall and power-washing designs into it.

He leaves them for a day, then comes back and washes the rest of the wall so it's all nice and clean.

[Andara Bledin]

Graffiti can absolutely be art.

And it can be an eyesore and a public nuisance, all at the same time. Even some tags are art.

^-.-^

[Lillfilly]

Hmm, yes I'd say if it's an involved piece of graffiti with obvious talent and enjoyable to look at = art. Tagging a mailbox with your 'streetname' = vandalism. I love the powerwashing art; reminds me of dust art in car windows.

[PepperElf]

I rather figure...

if it's worthy of calling "art" then it's worthy enough to get your own building to paint.


if it HAS to be done on someone else's property without permission then no matter how good it looks it's not worthy of being art.

[Amanita]

I remember walking across the Manhattan Bridge in NYC, and wanting to hunt down taggers and start handing out singaporean- style bare ass canings. Seriously, that beautiful bridge was just covered in tags. All that beautiful stone and metalwork, the likes of which nobody does anymore, just covered in ugly scrawls. If I had my way, the perpetrators would be put in the stocks somewhere highly public (Brooklyn Bridge promenade or Times Square), with signs around their necks, saying "I defaced a 100 year old landmark, don't be an asshole like me!".
People would be encouraged to take markers and "tag the taggers" in return for their vandalism.

That said, I have seen graffitti in more appropriate places, and there was definitely talent there- a skate park here in town used to have interesting things painted on it on a regular basis, and it was allowed.

[siead_lietrathua]

tagging i cannot stand. but as soon as it involves stylized lettering, a variety of colours and some, ya know, effort and planning, i consider it artistic.
alot of people here freak about it, and i can understand that because of the tagging. but there are some places, like out of the way walls under overpasses that back on nothingness, where the graffiti artists have claimed turf.
we even had a store open up that sells, with it's other art supplies, a wide range of spraypaints for the people they know to be graffiti artists (not for random kids off the street)

in the end, i think the graffiti art is harmless, and when done beautifully can add to the visual landscape of a city. a little colour amongst the concrete, so to speak. if it was mandated that they could paint on walls with written permission from the landowners, it would save some greif on both sides of the issue. if someone calls the fuzz, the kid has proof it's fine, and the landowners can pick an artist with a style they like, or even pay them if they want something specific for their business.
or better yet, let the cities give them reign under the overpasses that are fenced out properly from traffic. noone sees when driving except a glimpse unless it's bumper traffic anyway. and again, they can apply for a permit and a list of approved locations would be available.

[PepperElf]

landowners can pick an artist with a style they like

The problem with that is ... "landowners". If it's their land why do they have to accept having it painted, period? By that reasoning... why stop at just businesses and overpasses. How about forced acceptance on residences?


If anything, I bet if the same kind of forced acceptance was mandated for houses same as it seems to be suggested for city buildings... a lot more people might not be so happy about the art. It can really do bad things to the property value right? Perhaps that's the same reason why city-dwelling owners shouldn't have to put up with it either.

[siead_lietrathua]

The problem with that is ... "landowners". If it's their land why do they have to accept having it painted, period? By that reasoning... why stop at just businesses and overpasses. How about forced acceptance on residences?

er, that's why i said with written permission... if the landowner doesnt want it, they don't give a person a permit. no permit, it's vandilism and they are arrested for vandilism, like now. it's a simple concept.
that's nothing like forced acceptance and it's a silly comparison.

edit: i don'e see any visual diffrence between graffiti art and billboard advertisement. frankly, the art can be a better visual landscape at times than some of the ads i've seen. so unless it's a billboard free city i dont think well-planned and placed graffiti walls detract from the view or should detract from property value more than an ad would.

[PepperElf]

except that you also forget... what the neighbors put up will also affect your property value too.


and if this artwork is so great, why is it only done in this manner?

[siead_lietrathua]

graffiti art? it's on clothing, accesories, stylized on craft material galore, used in legit advertisements, etc. it's not just put on walls. if people got over the stigma of it, it wouldnt lower property value any more than a billboard.
i think it's needing to understand what's tagging vs what's art.
art: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8o0K6rar8h...OBS-Crew_2.jpg
tagging: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iti_tags_2.JPG

huge diffrence.

[AdminAssistant]

and if this artwork is so great, why is it only done in this manner?

Because outside of Basquiat, the kids who spend their time doing this kind of stuff aren't the people who get their art put up in galleries. Graffiti/tagging is definitely vandalism, though, and I can't think of a simple solution to the problem.

Oh, and honestly? I'm not a big fan of Banksy.

[powerboy]

Anything can be considered artwork.

Tagging is not artwork in my book. But if it is graffiti, and it looks great, then it could be considered artwork.