I think it is both. I mean, graffiti is blatantly in violation of law or at least regulation in the vast majority of instances. If you're painting someone else's property (whether it's public property or an individual's property) without permission, you're probably breaking some kind of law.

That said, I have seen some really, really beautiful graffiti that I would consider art under pretty much any definition of art I've ever heard. I think the people who create these works of art are giving a gift to the community, and I think they ought to be appreciated at least for their undeniable skill.

Then again, I've never considered legality a moral issue. If the artists are being destructive or causing harm, that would be one thing. But most of the time, the places that get painted are ugly and neglected (alleys, freight trains, etc).

I believe it is art. Only if they put effort into it, of course.
I've seen some really really pretty graffiti- and it's amazing. I would consider it an art.
Of course, it is still a crime, it is still vandalism.
But maybe it's just a decoration of the town. 8)
Padfootsy: Jean Michel Basquiat's art is good. Good for spray paint/graffiti.
I especially like the "Mona Lisa"
It's pretty sweet.

Last year my friends and I hosted a Karaoke party and we had heard of a group of guys who wanted to find ways to do graffiti art legally. We got some plywood and plastered it with brown paper sacks and invited the guys to the party. They came with their equipment and started painting a mural on the plywood while people got up and sang karaoke. Everyone gave them a few dollars, plus free food. they were really cool guys, and it added a really cool element to the party.

graffiti is art and not a crime in my opinion.

Well well. It rather much depends, don't you think? If I wanted my car all painted and pretty, then I'd actually allow people to graffiti it all up. But but, some governmental areas and properties don't appreciate it at all, that's when it becomes vandalism. That's all there is to it.

Intresting topic i really agree with this quote

Originally Posted by life in red and black

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

Yes, it's art, but yeah, it's a crime because people do it on property that isn't their own. That's the crime. Now, if they were to do it on there on housing and property, it would be a different story.

It's both
It's art, but it's a crime. It may be pretty and stuff, but keep to paper, not to buildings. You can spray paint it on your own home, but don't go around spraying on government property.

I would have to go with both.

I mean, it is beautiful. When Im driving on the highway and pass a bridge near a city, I see grafitti. I think 'Oh, how beautiful. Tis a shame that it was done illegally.'

So it depends for me. I call it art, but at the same time I consider it graffitti. It just depends on where it is and if it was legal.

I graffiti, but I have not graffiti'd upon other people's property that does not wish for me to graffiti upon. Mostly, I decorated my friend's room into a graffiti wild life so that he could enjoy it. There is a yes and a no to this problem.

Graffiti IS vandalism whenever it is used to disrupt people's property without the person's permission. I see trains every single day that pass by with buttloads of graffiti which have nothing more than their names upon them with the lover that they're with. In my personal opinion, I think that that kind is just a waste of space and a waste of spray paint. :/

Graffiti IS NOT vandalism whenever the person uses it for their artistic abilities with the permission of the person that they're wanting to graffiti it on.

It is almost a word that means many a things. Most people think gangs, jerks, vandalism, illegal, cops, artistic, and eye-dropping. Just with the many thoughts that people bring, it brings what kind of graffitists there are in this world.

To each their own though. :3 <3

i would have to go with both as well. there's a time and a place for it, some graffiti can be quite beautiful. while others are just a color or two, with no depth or meaning.

but i also can't stand when the artists seem to think it's ok to graffiti someones house or brick wall surrounding said house. like i said before, there is a place where it can be accepted well. just not on someones private property.

Grafiti is a crime, HOWEVER

I think it is a perfectly creditable form of art and expression that should be viewable to the public.

So what should be done?

Make a place for it.

For example, in public parks perhaps a stone wall could be put up just for grafiti, or perhaps the city should allow and encourage it on the walls of restrooms in public parks.

This could also be done on the walls of subways, or other public places. Place where it will be seen, but it isn't damaging anyones property.

Maybe on tunnels and over passes.

I understand there would be a problem with profanity, but profanity will be added to the playground equipment, walls, and buildings anyway.

Perhaps if it's done on the wall of a public building there can be an album of photo taken at the end of each month before the wall is painted over with white, making a new canvas.

I doubt this will happen, and it would be a lot of effort that the city won't bother with, but I still believe that it would be an interesting twist to the surroundings.

I also think that grafiti as it is now has it's place in society. There's a grafitied woman's face on a half wall near a gas station By my house. It' well done and n black and whipe. It's small a*d in offensive, but it makes a ould-be boring place much more Interesting.

You know, Biscuit,you could actually ask for that to happen. I say it's a great idea.Keeping it controlled yet alive so people can enjoy, not a bad idea. Maybe you could go to your city hall or something and ask. :3

I don't think the city would go to all that trouble, especially for something that is generly viewed in a negative light.

That, and there are very few public parks in my area, and given who I am, my age, and my compleate lack of power in the political system, I don't think I would be creditable enough for them to bother listenin to me.


A appreciate your support of my idea however, thank you. n.n

I also encourage anyone who agrees with it (and cares enough) to give it a shot.

Yes, society is...twisted at times, they might not even recognize graffiti as a piece of art in the first place, which I differ. But, that's just me, since i appreciate art. IF only they didn't spray graffiti in crucial places.

Yes, someone SHOULD give it a shot though.

Not all graffiti is done illegally, and if it's not just some gang member writing on someone's property, yes it is an art form. Any media that allows for self expression, is art.

Some people, are so good with a spray can(which is not as easy a task as it looks) that they are paid to do murals. Hell, I've even seen gang tags that look really good to me. If they'd been channeled a different way, it'd been better, but it's still art regardless. In the times when the Catholic Church (corrupted as it was) was in power, anything worldly, the human body, was pretty much off limits to be drawn. Almost illegal as it was, it was still art, and art that bends the rules, truly creates. Case in point, the reformation era. The art was based on old ideas/concepts, with a then modern, spin.

This is difficult.. i cant say that it is either one or the other.. It is both. I knew some one who use to tag. It is a bit of both artistic and vandalism.. and not all graffiti is vandalism. There is business in the town i live in that actually payed someone to graffiti their entire building. Its quite a sight. Its really neat.

I also think not all graffiti is considered art.. since some tags are just like hand writing on a wall, with no artistic quality or anything.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

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 honestly think this says it all. Tagging is against the law. But graffiti is a style not an act. Not anymore.

However it can have a thin line. Your property is your property, I see were your coming from. To you its wrong and if it happened to you and you didn't want it, you have a right to be ticked. Some people dont view it as that though.

My brother and sisters house was recently tagged a few months ago. Some little urchin came along and put a few lines up that they claimed to be a symbol for something. My brother was furious. BUT it wasn't so much the act but what they put up. My brother and I are graphic artists. GA can trace its roots back to Graffiti so we have always admired it. My brother was angered at the fact these kids thought the act of tagging was JUST the act and really had nothing to do with what was put up.

Both sis and bro would have loved to have the tag. If it was true to the original style.

Nowadays, Graffiti isn't much used on the street illegally, at least not were I am. Any and all true Graffiti we see was sanctioned and had a permit. Taggers have decided instead of putting effort into an art they just take one can (usually an ugly black) and have no idea of design in the act. To an artist, its kind of an insult.