After seeing some photos on the Internet of graffiti in Los Angeles, I recently got into this argument with a friend: Can graffiti be considered an art form, or is it simply vandalism? I hold the opinion that it is a criminal action, while my friend heartily sanctions it.

Each side of the debate:

She believes that most graffiti holds artistic qualities. The colors, the styles, and the message are unique to its form, and should be recognized as such. Although tagging is usually nothing more than a gang member's name and symbol, graffiti has the potential to become much more. Artists like David Choe, Jeff Soto, Daniel Ramos, or Lady Pink have perfected their work and been recognized for it.

Just because it comes from a spray can does not mean that it is worthless. Graffiti can be used as social commentary to the masses. The sheer number of people who see it and can contribute to it is enough to bring any view into public light. Be it political commentary, cultural problems, or current events, graffiti is another form of self expression. It is street art. If you take it off the street, outlaw it and force artists to perform only within galleries, then you take away that public exposure that is so crucial to the message. And by making it illegal, you are infringing upon the right to free speech.



To me, what the graffiti looks like or says makes no difference at all. It is still vandalism. Creating a gorgeous mural on a wall in my property is no different from splashing it ith a bucket of paint or throwing a brick through my window. I didn't want it, you did it without my knowledge and consent, you trespassed, you damaged my property, and now I'm the one who's going to have to pay for it to be fixed. Trespass and damage to property have always been crimes and civil wrongs. Why should paint be viewed as something special?

If you want to tag your own property, go right ahead. But this is often not the case. Property owners should not live in fear that they will become victim to graffiti 'artists'. They have the right to keep their buildings intact. It is completely unfair to force them to continually repaint their walls and doors, costing them unnecessary amounts of money for upkeep. While the design and message of graffiti may be beautiful and witty and unique, but that does not change the fact that it was created illegally. Just because something is beautiful does not mean that it is art.

If graffiti artists wish to make their work legitimate, they must either restrict it to their own property, restrict it to commission work, or create galleries unique to their work. By no means is this limiting self expression - It is instead protecting our basic right to property.



Which side do you choose to take?

It's a crime regardless..

no one's property deserves to be spray painted for any reason, unless it was alright with the owner.

as for the streets.. I don't know, it's a bad image for the community.. usually seeing graffiti on side walks and streets would often tell people passing through that the neighborhood might be a bit rough.

Well that's all the negative for graffiti, other than that some of the art work is unbelievably good.

I think it can be a really powerful message and sign to people, but it is illegal.
I think if it was on their own property or given permission then it would be ok. Its not fair to the owners of the property being destroyed.

I have to say I do appreciate good graffiti, not like the stuff in my town....

Graffiti doesn't have to be done illegally. It doesn't even have to be done on the side of a wall-- it is an art form in and of itself.

There are two different things here: "tagging" or "bombing"

and

Graffiti as a style.

They cannot be rolled into one, since one describes an illegal act while another is a legitimate style of art.

You can't really talk about them as being one in the same, because they are not.

I agree with Stilletto- not all graffitti is the same.
On one hand I do think that peopl'e property shouldn't be vandalized, but Graffiti can send a powerful message.
I get annoyed with ___ was here, or __ <3__, but I've also seen some really cool illegal graffitti. My favorite was a political statement. It was on a do not enter sign, and someone wrote Iraq in it. I think I was in NYC a the time. I found it to not be pretty, but it sent a message. You could argue that someone's wall is being ruined, but you could also argue that a message on a sign or parking ramp is owned by the city, and the voices of the city have something to say.

I think it could be art. I mean, a lot of it is ugly. But if someone does it artistically then I say it can be art. But I don't think simply a word, especially some sort of gang slang sprayed somewhere would be art. I guess it just depends on what they've put there. I've seen a lot of amusing graffiti, because it's either something funny or it seems to be something that doesn't make sense. The funniest thing I've seen so far is a brick wall that is missing a lot of bricks off the top, and sprayed in there it says "Do not take bricks". I've also seen a naked woman painted on a light pole. o.O Someone sprayed over that though, thank goodness. XD It was funny though, but a bit disturbing.

I think it can be art, no doubt. But it should be done on your property.

When we were doing persuasive speeches in my English class last semester, there were actually a few kids who did it on this topic. I never really thought of it as art, just some offensive junk written on public property, until I listened to their speeches. They weren't very good speeches, but it got me seeing the other side.
I'm not sure what the difference between "tagging" and "bombing", I've always known graffiti to be tagging. So I'm just gonna say tagging, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, graffiti is illegal, but I was thinking: why not make a certain amount of wall space for people to tag? That way they'd still be able to express themselves through their art but they wouldn't be penalized. I remembered an old neighbor of mine that wasn't in a gang per say, but he hung out with people who did a lot of vandalism. He never got busted, but a lot of the other guys did, so eventually he just went out and bought a ton of plywood and had them come over to tag that instead. The PD heard about it and they recognized him for it and gave him an award or something for helping the community stay cleaner, or something like that. So, why don't other cities do the same thing? Have designated tagging areas?

I think graffiti can be classified into three forms. One of which i would never consider art, and is just the stuff you find in public toilets and peoples names scribbled on walls.

The second kind, is that of the words, in bright colours and what i find mesmerizing styles. I quite admire these because i could never do it with such skill as its creators do. I know alot of the time people put great amounts of thought into it, as traditional artists do. As for weather i consider it an eyesaw, i'm inclined to say no, but i do think that it should be in secluded areas, so those that dont wish to view it don't necisarily have to.

The third kind is picture graffiti. Some of this appeals to me, some dosen't, like normal arty pictures, though i still think its creators deserve some credit. I think it's just art on a different canvas, and with different materials. While its origins may have been from roughly scrawled abusive words on electric boxes, it's evolved in my opinion, to the more tasteful kind of creation it is today.

Graffitti is an artform. It can be in galleries, and admired for its details, style, message it portrays, etc.

BUT, it's true it's illegal usually. But even illegal, it is art that should be noticed and then treated as vandalism second. I am always angry at seeing 'messages' in the bathroom stalls. If I needed to read something there, I would've brought something with me, instead of reading your cussing.

If only graffitti, it's artform, could've been more recognized on a canvas instead of illegally on someone else's property.

In my eyes, if it's a beautiful picture of say, an angel or something, then it's art.

If it says "YO GAZZA WOZ ERE 2007" then I'd consider it graffiti.

But, alas, it's not up to me, as vandalizing in any form is illegal. v_v

I once saw this metal looking graffiti shape pattern picture thing, which had loads of detail and was really cool, I hope it hasn't been taken down.

Really it depends, to Flink, on how the graffiti is done. If it's just a bunch of pointless gang signs, or something like, "Blood D <3s Tammy Chokehold", then it's a crime and shouldn't be done.

BUT, if it's in a place that could be improved by a beautiful work of art... then it's art.

Flink's seen examples of both. The former, which she thinks is just ugly and disrespectful, a way to get attention, a product of pure boredom. And the latter, which when done in most cases is an expression of artistic talent or some form of rebellion.

As much as I like looking at graffiti, I do believe it is a crime. You can't just go around placing art anywhere because it is someone's property. You violate the owner's rights when you graffiti their property.

I'll say this, graffiti work can create some of the most beautiful murals but if you have to inflict on another person's right -shakes head-

I think cities should be more open minded to graffiti artists. Instead of just letting them scribble over the place, they should be commission to do inspiring art.

Of course, you do have the artists who don't give a damn about anything other than his/her own name. I hate seeing that kind of "art."

If it's tagging, than I do believe it is a crime. Mainly because it is vanalization of property. Though, it's artful crime. (xP)

Though I think all graffiti is very artistic, yet I believe that graffiti artists if they want the public to see it they should ask the owners of the shop or whatever property if they can.

There are many graffiti artists out there that are very talented. There are some people out there that would love to own some of these people's art. So if they do it on a big canvas, it'll look really nice and professional.

Graffiti isn't just done by gangs or whatever.

So I think it's both. Depends on who does it and what the canvas is.

NO! ^_^ The only time it would be a crime is if you did it on public buildings and all without permission. If you do graffiti like on a box or if you have permission, it's okay. It IS a form of art, and really cool I think. ^__^ <3

I didn't want the side of my house painted all pretty. I'm glad you can do something all nice and special but I perfer my white.

Crime.

I'm sorry, I understand that some people can do wonderful things, but if your doing it in a place that's unwanted why shouldn't it be a crime. As a person you should accept there is a time and a place for it and on a downtown business, that's not the place.

it depends on what it is used for...graffitii can be an art form..ive seen a lot of amazing work..but it should not deface someones property..and i dont accept all the gang related graffitii either..

True most graffiti is an art form such as murals but I kinda feel as if with all these gang related graffitis and tags around it does degrade the art of it. Though even if it isn't any gang related graffitis, I would agree with many people that its still considered vandalism. Honestly nobody wants their properties trashed.

Graffiti is a crime, end of. I've seen it on transit vans, the doors of trains in major cities and the shutters of shop windows, as well as walls and signs. If you're feeling creative, you get your sketchbook out and doodle in that, you don't draw all over the walls.

In my town about a month ago, some graffiti vandals were caught on camera and made to scrub off their work, and that should be the fate of every graffiti vandal, NOT the artists. I would be perfectly happy to have a 'graffiti wall' where artists could graffiti to their hearts content and it wouldn't be damaging property. But, I would not be happy with some clever git spraying paint over something that belonged to me. It's not on.

Graffiti as a form of art is creative and pretty to look at. What's not pretty is the more and more people who are graffiting street corners.

Well, It can be considered an art. But at the same time, vandalism of one's property. Of course if they do it on their own property, or if they have permission of someone who owns property then by all means. But just because some people consider it art, doesn't mean they get to do it to other peoples property without permission.

I can put a house on fire, and call it art, for example.

I like to think of graffidi as art, but also vandalisim at the same time.

It can be art becuase people are expressing themselves with words or symbols or things people can't read haha. But in anyway, it's like Picaso or whatever. I mean alot of people "don't get it" with some art, but it's created by someone to show people things. Graffidi is made by people to show something... even if it has no point exactly --- that is, if it's not on someone's store or around the community if they don't want it there.

It can be vandalisim becuase like if graffidi is somewhere that the owner does not want it to be, it shouldn't be there. It's just like if someone writes moustache's on art in the musem, if it's not sopposed to even be there to being with, it shouldn't be there.

Again, it probably sounds better as I was thinking it. I'm not good with words.

I think it's a crime, regardless of how beautiful and original it is. They should do it on their own property. I get really ticked off when I see a poor merchant's truck that has a huge graffiti on the side. Having a business is a lot of hard work and earning money is very hard for them. I learned that when we bought a dry cleaner. There are so many expenses we have to worry about already that having to repaint our building shouldn't be another one!

I think that the main reason they draw graffiti on the walls is because they want to get a thrilling sensation out of it. If it was legal, I don't think there would be that much graffiti. There are so many other methods of expressing ourselves! Why do we always have to invent more distractions and not be satisfied of what we have now? Since when is painting a distraction for only the 18th century?

As much as I appreciate graffiti as an art form, I side with it being vandalism.

Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the aesthetic appeal of graffiti should be considered in the debate at all. Some will like it, some wont. If we set a president of accepting graffiti if it's "art" then where will it stop? Each community would then have to debate about the artistic standards to set graffiti against, and the whole thing would get very messy. Since graffiti is done on private property, the property owners then have to debate whether they want to remove it or not, and then pay for that. It's not fair to them.

Another thing to take into consideration is the broken window theory: if a window gets broken and doesn't get repaired, it gives people the impression that the building, and the neighborhood, isn't cared for or watched. Then you get a snowball effect of more broken windows, derelict buildings, graffiti, and inevitably, a rise in crime. It's one of those subtle things that we don't really consciously notice, but that has a big impact on our impressions of places. If someone tags your house, if you leave it there, it can (though not always) be the straw that tips your neighborhood over. When the New York police put major efforts into keeping the subways clean in the 90's, it had a huge impact on the crime rate, for the better. They recall that they had to paint over a lot of really artistic graffiti, which they felt a little bad about, but overall it was more important to make sure that people knew that the subways were taken care of.

So, for those reasons, I think that graffiti should be considered vandalism.

That said, the fact that graffiti exists means that there is a desire for such public, artistic expression. I think, as a culture, we need to come up with some sort of way of allowing people that expression without violating private property. We could maybe designate specific public art areas, or maybe start more mural projects, or something like that. Or, better yet, we could ban all outdoor advertising, and reallocate the billboards to street art. I don't really know, but I think it's one of the things on our long list of social dilemmas to discuss.

Graffitti is art, but it is also a way to rebel. People may have put work, but it is still vandalism. I'm kind of stuck in the middle of the two points of view. It is violating private property, but it is a way for kids to say, "I'm vandalizing and there is nothing that you can do to stop me."

I personally love graffiti, though I can understand how some people wouldn't like it, because yes, it is vandalism.

But it is also an art form, and I have seen some AWESOME pieces, even in my own semi-large Midwestern city. (see my www for some photos on my DA account)

Anyway, I'm more pro-graffiti than against in the grand scheme of things, but I do see both sides of the debate.