And, out of curiosity…those who can’t bring yourselves to consider something illegal art, what would you call it if Picasso painted on your house. Or Rembrandt.
I saw Exit Through the Gift Shop a week or so ago and LOVED IT. It was full of so much art, yes, ART, that [inarticulate gibbering] my head was about to explode by the amazingness of it all [/inarticulate gibbering].
I realize most of it is vandalism, but it’s definitely art. I have a particular fascination with temporary art, when the people who make it know it’s not going to last/be there very long. Artistic graffiti, ice sculptures, butter sculptures, sand art, crop circles*, sidewalk art (like those photorealistic paintings), they [inarticulate gibbering]blow my mind![/inarticulate gibbering] Why? Why expend artistic creativity and time on something that will be gone in a few hours, days, weeks? I don’t know why they do it, but damn, I’m glad they do, and thank goodness for people who document the art before it’s gone.
*Do I really have to say this? Maybe I do. I believe crop circles, ALL crop circles, are made by talented, innovative, creative HUMANS. Crediting them to aliens or some such ignorant shit takes away from the creative ability of humans, though I suppose it is a complement in a way. If someone or several someones do such a great job that yokels say “Oh man, an alien had to do that! No way could a human do that!” that’s saying a lot about the artistic ability and innovation of the artists. As well as the ignorance of the people who say it.
I’d call it vandalism, and it would piss me off. Want to paint my house? Get my permission.
Yeah, from what I read, the French guy who made the film became the subject of the film he was trying to make about Banksy.
Maybe you should edit your initial comment by saying graffiti on approved areas only? If Picasso painted on my home without my permission I would call the police. It’s vadalism and no more. It’s no different then if he put a brick through my window.
Again. You’re opinion. That doesn’t make it not art. I see a distinct difference between painting on property that is not yours and throwing a brick through someone’s window*. I condone neither, but I can find some value in one.
- Though I could imagine certain contexts where even the latter, while still wrong and deserving punishment, might be a worthy form of expression. Much fewer instances than when someone creates a meaningful work of art in a place where they’re not welcome.
Would you still be pissed off if someone came along and offered you $1,000,000 for the Picasso vandalism?
It’s not relevant what you consider art when the act itself is fundamentally illegal. A friend of mine. let’s call him Mick, used to consider his utlra violence (before prison) a form of art. Not in the least bit joking, he used this as justification for his violence. Graffiti is no different. Both the logic and the result are the same, people get hurt.
So in your mind, is there any limit to what can be deemed an expressive form of art? For example, if I shot a graffitist while he was vandalizing my home is that art?
I was waiting for something like this.
Just as I said in the first or second response, I’m not saying there aren’t valid discussions to be had on this subject. What I’m saying is that there’s no reason we can’t discuss graffiti artists without troubling ourselves over the vandalism. And for those who can’t, there is no obligation to respond.
Taking something to its extreme to prove a point doesn’t necessarily make it relevant. To reiterate, it’s thought provoking (and that would be great if this were in Great Debates), but it doesn’t specifically have a bearing on a discussion about talented people who make paintings, most of which happen to be posted in places they are not welcome. If I had started a thread about a form whose artistic value was almost universally disputed, like violent performance art, then at the very least I would expect the moderators to send this to great debates. But the truth is, most people can probably look at this and see the art as distinct from the act. Whereas, with violent performance art, its pretty hard (I would assume) to separate the act from the art.
I ask this question entirely without trying to be a smartass:
Can you honestly not reconsile the idea that something can be both art and illegal?
Imagine your favorite painting. Now imagine it painted illegally on a subway train. Does it stop being art the moment you see it on the train?
The problem is that by praising the “art” aspect your diminish the illegality of the act and, quite frankly, encourage more of it. And is forced art actually art? When does it become assault?
Again, why not publish in a gallery or in sanctioned areas? Is my moving my fence a few feet into my neighbors land a form of art?
So intellectual masterbation aside, the answer is no.
Grafitti does not have to be either art or vandalism. It can be both. Their criminality has no impact on their artistic merits (if they have any); it can be fascinating grafitti that you still don’t want on your house or business. If a fundamentalist religious state declares music illegal, any music produced there is still art. If a Communist country says certain types of painting are counterrevolutionary, painting in those styles is outlawed and punishable, but it’s still art. Grafitti doesn’t rise to that level of disapproval or persecution, but this thread has been reductionist so far and few people are answering the OP’s question. Personally I don’t really know any of the artists other than Banksy and Fairey.
What’s funny about this is that one of the reasons that I’m drawn to Bansky is for I perceive as his criticism of violence.
My guess is that more graffiti artists hurt themselves than hurt other people. By this, I mean “physically,” which I mention because I’m sure that people are going to say that those whose property is destroyed are “hurt,” and I’m going to have to say again that I agree and that I don’t disdain much of how street artists go about doing what they do while still appreciating the talent that a few of them obviously posses.
Keith Haring maybe? I don’t know if he was a graffiti artist like the ones mentioned in the OP, or if his stuff was done legally, but now his work can be found in museums.
And art + legality are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both, one or the other, or neither. The two have no bearing on one another and it’s really quite bizarre to see people arguing so passionately that nothing illegal can be thought of as art.
Yeah, because they got there right after I’d just finished scrubbing that shit off my wall. Possibly using the vandal, or portions thereof, as the scrub brush.
My home is my castle. You cross the moat, you answer to me. I’m middle-aged, cranky, and depending on how recent my last “boating accident” was, probably very well armed.
Drawings, paintings, symbols, markings, scribblings, etc. that are done illegally destroy or damage someone’s property. That’s a crime. Doesn’t matter if the criminal left a pretty picture or not.
No one has a right to destroy/damage property they do not own or otherwise have a legal right to control. Period.
Right on. To me, it’s like the story of Robin Hood. He was a thief. I wouldn’t call him a philanthropist. He was a thief. We might like Robin Hood, but he needs to do time.
That’s not the issue. The problem with calling it art is that it diminishes the illegality of the act. Intellectual discussion aside, it has actual real world repercussions.
Enough already. The OP isn’t looking for this debate, he’s looking for information about the names and styles of noted grafitti artists. Take the discussion of law and property issues to another thread.
Right. So.
The OP goes to certain lengths to stress that he/she appreciates that the art in question is illegal, but that he wants to focus in this thread on the art side of it.
Yet certain people still want to repeatedly shout that it is illegal and that, what? We shouldnt talk about it?
Mods, you might have to explain threadshitting to me, because this thread is full of it in my opinion.
Edit: Ignore that then. Marley has gazumped me.