Can grafitti equal art?

[SongsOfDragons]

Anything can be considered artwork, but those same anythings can be considered a pile of rubbish by the person next to you.

I find it somewhat amusing to watch some freight trains go past and every one of them has been tagged with something. You could almost keep score of how many of the same tag you see.

Was reading a book last night - Theo Gray's Mad Science. ("Experiments you can do at home...but probably shouldn't") One of the experiments is how to anodise titanium. Gray talks about the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, which is covered in 344,000 square feet of titanium. He wonders if the guards are told to keep watch for people carrying batteries and coke...for if they follow the anodising instructions on that building, the pretty rainbow marks they can make are thoroughly permanent!!

[Racket_Man]

with what is called "art" these days yes graffiti can be called art

Anyone remember about 10 or 15 years ago when some "artist" in New York made a Virgin Mary out of poop and called it art????

Or the 10 mile long sheets of pink fabrick on the Claifornia coast???

Or the mile long line of umbrellas up a mountain????

or the multitude of abstract metal art that makes littte sense to those outside of the art world????

Or Homers f'ed up BBQ that sold as "urban art"????

[AdminAssistant]

with what is called "art" these days yes graffiti can be called art

I actually love that contemporary art is expanding out of the "paintings and sculptures inside of galleries for rich white people to look at and buy" model. I love 'found' art, where artists take ordinary objects and turn them into art, like a US flag made of cigarette butts or a shield made of fake fingernails (that one was so beautiful).

[PepperElf]

Well yes, I know that you can technically say that "anything can be considered art".

I could go take a poop on a sidewalk and call it art. Although I wouldn't.

the kids who spend their time doing this kind of stuff aren't the people who get their art put up in galleries.

This is perhaps the real issue. They're spending their talents marking up someone else's property.

Maybe the solution is for them to actually consider ... stopping. Or learning to express themselves in non-vandalism artistic ways.


Hell, turn that spray can into say... cleaning up the areas instead of trying to justify their art and they might really find that the outcome is a bit different, eh?


I guess I don't see why we should encourage them to "express" themselves like that. Sometimes it's OK to teach people self-control too.

[Zod]

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

So it comes down to whose rights count for more? Do your neighbour's rights outweight yours when it comes to decorating your own property?

Or learning to express themselves in non-vandalism artistic ways.

Such as . . . spray painting walls . . . with permission from the owner?

[AdminAssistant]

I agree that it's vandalism. But that doesn't mean it can't be art. I mean, if I recreate The Scream on the wall of a building somewhere, that's vandalism, too.

[siead_lietrathua]

here's a good article on graffiti art form the MOCA. showing that it HAS been treated as art, even in galleries a few times. http://www.moca.org/pc/viewArtTerm.php?id=15
the MOCA is also currently holding a gallery on graffiti http://www.moca.org/audio/blog/?p=1522
here's an article by a graffiti artist that became what people would consider a legit artist http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-21/u...igner?_s=PM:US
(though that makes one question how we can legitimize art in the first place, since it's a subjective thing)

other museums have had graffiti expositions in the past, and a quick google search turns up tons of online galleries.
this one i really liked http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008...fiti-artworks/


anywho, posted all these because it IS art. however, if people insist that art has to be in a gallery by a "legit" artist, hopefully this can help show that it IS.


edit:
i dunno about you guys, but to me being able to do this http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_ima...mb-450x409.jpg with spraypaint takes infinatly more talent and time than this art here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange,_Red,_Yellow that sold for $86,882,500

[Rapscallion]

Coming into this late, but it depends how you define art. Some of it is certainly artistic. Some of it is mindless vandalism.

If it's done with the property owner's permission, it's art in my view. If it's done without their permission, and it's good, then it's illegitimate art. If it's done without permission and basically crap, it's vandalism.

The middle ground is the interesting bit for me. It's artistic, it's entertaining, but is there really a difference between someone spraying their tags all over your property without permission, and finding the Mona Lisa on your house when you get home from work?

I tried to work out what would be a good definition of art. The best I've ever heard was 'putting up a mirror to life'. In the case of tags, life is repetitive, illegal, and the perpetrators are basically wankers. In the case of something actually creative on someone else's property without permission, it's downright stupid in that it's likely to be gone as soon as a pot of paint becomes available. I also don't see why a houseowner should be the one who has to pay to restore their property to its former state.

It may be artistic, but it's vandalism in its purest sense.

With permission in a gallery or agreed space, it's fine and artistic. Most of it isn't.

Rapscallion