I don’t agree. Vandalism is deliberate destruction or damage to a piece of property. Some graffiti can be damaging, sure. But some can be artistic, with no intent to cause damage.
I actually wonder: one way that even artistic graffiti might cause damage is in its removal. Is there any movement to make it easy to remove? I don’t really hear people talk about, say, chalk art as being “vandalism.”
That’s because the above linked video discussed an artist who cared about using other people’s property as their canvas. Most taggers don’t care about others but their homey’s.
I didn’t call it art. You said it was meaningless. I disagreed. Just_Asking_Questions said it was vandalism if it wasn’t on the artists’ property. I gave examples of things considered art that were done as graffiti.
But as long as you’ve asked about artistic merit: Who am I to judge what is good and what is not. Does me liking it make it art? I don’t like the music of Blake Shelton (or really anything about his public persona) does that make it not have artistic merit?
Or to Princhester’s point; does intention matter? Does intended audience size? If I make a piece of art that is only intended to mean something to me does that make it not art?
Why is Banksy considered an artist? Is it because they makes thought provoking pictures? Then why is Syko also considered an artist? They only tag.
Just because something seems bad or ugly to you doesn’t mean it seems the same to everyone.
Many things used to be considered antisocial, immoral, and/or illegal that are not considered so any more.
Miscegenation
Jazz
Sodomy
Marijuana
You are trying to strawman this into an argument about whether or not something is art. Debating whether or not something is art is vacuous sophistry and nothing to do with my point.
My point is simply that certain things are appreciated by the public (or a significant part thereof) and certain things are not. Some jerk scrawling his initials on a public surface is appreciated by pretty much no one except that jerk and maybe his mother (although even that is doubtful).
Your final argument is silly. If it were a valid argument, it would be a valid argument for being in favour of everything on the basis that it might be considered OK later. Further, all the examples you give are of behaviours that society saw fit to penalise, even though they only affected the consenting adults involved. That is not the case with graffiti.
The op inferred that there was a difference between art and graffiti. There is not.
Graffiti is always art. It’s not always good art or even widely appreciated art. It is oftentimes illegal art.
It can be beautiful and show alot of skill. It can bring joy to a community.
It can also be ugly and hateful, and bring sorrow to a community.
It can do so many things because that’s what all art does. It provokes feelings in the viewer.
Something being illegal does not automatically mean it has no value.
Sometimes things should never have been illegal in the first place. Sometimes things should no longer be illegal because the mores of the community have changed. Sometimes things remain illegal because the mores of only some of the community have changed.
Is graffiti art? Yes!
Is graffiti vandalism? That’s in the eye of the beholder.
Should graffiti be illegal? That’s up to the people. I would say no.
Let me put some “art” inside your house, on your car. My art uses “alternative materials” such as human feces in addition to paint. You should have no problem, right?
Actually,I think he’s equating me with Picasso, and would welcome my installation art piece “mikecurtis’ hypocrisy” installed in his house. Should increase its value by at least $100K, I should think.
I have a feeling the ‘warm smell of colitas’ was involved
I have a creepy graffiti story, though just words, not artwork.
Many years ago-- I’m talking maybe 30 years ago, when I was young and still single, I went camping up north a lot (up north being Michigan’s U.P. or the upper part of the L.P.).
One summer (it might have even been over a couple summers) when I’d be driving up I-75 there was a section for several miles around mid-L.P. area where every concrete buttress for the overpasses had this message: “THE MORE YOU LOVE DEMONS THE MORE THEY TORTURE YOU-- HORRIBLE PAIN”.
This persisted through the summer(s?), getting repainted after being removed, and like I said, appearing on several overpasses for a stretch of miles. I wondered what type of person would do that – was it a mentally ill person, or just a bored teenager (or group of bored teenagers)?
I tend to agree, but the other day as I was looking at some graffiti out in the wild, is it really so different from cave art or indigenous art? And who decides?
