43 replies to this topic

[Kyllorac]

The general sentiment of this thread seems to be "It's art so it's okay."No. Just no.I'll start with the "art is self-expression" opinion that a lot of you folks seem to hold. Quite frankly, art is more than just self-expression. Take any post in this forum for example: the posters are expressing themselves through their post, but would you consider a forum post a work of art? Probably not. And why not? Because art is more than just self-expression; it is the culmination of creativity, shaped into a form that can be appreciated, and designed to elicit a specific range of emotion and/or thought. As a result, art is generally aesthetically appealing in at least some way, even if that way is unconventional and/or not easily accessible.While graffiti may be a form of self-expression, not all forms of self-expression are art. And so while some graffiti may be of artistic merit, not all graffiti is. Therefore, saying that graffiti in general is a form of art is untrue.Secondly, just because something is a work of art does not mean that all else must give way to accommodate said art. I, for instance, happen to find a marvelously dissected, pinned, and preserved specimen quite lovely to look at. It is extremely difficult to cut apart a creature to reveal all the structures without damaging delicate tissues and membranes, and one must be precise and deliberate in one's cuts and the placement of pins. I would go so far as to say that properly dissecting a specimen is an art form, especially if the dissected specimen is intended for display, such as in the case of Bodyworlds which exhibits primarily human bodies in various states of dismemberment with the aim of education. In any case, just because I consider dissection an art does not mean I can go about nabbing specimens at random and dissecting them at will, especially if some of the specimens are human. If I did, I would be considered depraved and a menace to society, and rightfully so.There is a time and a place for every art. When art is not created or placed in the appropriate conditions, it ceases to be acceptable and instead becomes something rather undesirable. By that same token, graffiti, no matter how attractive the individual piece may be, is not acceptable if placed where it is unwanted or not allowed.And now that I have disturbed you all, I shall end with stating that I have no issue with graffiti that is not a form of vandalism. I still wouldn't call it art, necessarily, but so long as it isn't being put where it isn't wanted or causes damage, I say graffiti away.

[Tehpengwan]

In a bathroom stall, I found a little poem scrawled next to the toilet:Now I sit herebroken hearted,I came to poopbut only farted.I mean, it's still obvious that such snippets should be cleaned up periodically, but in a way, I don't really regret that graffiti pops up everywhere. It's kind of neat to be able to see another facet of human culture that isn't defined by social norms. In a way, it's kind of like a more archaic version of the internet.That being said, the majority of graffiti is pretty worthless--but then again, so is the majority of the human population. So in a way, graffiti (as well as the internet) just a neat way of measuring the true nature of our society.

[The Boss]

The word "graffiti" is usually associated with "vandalism," hence it is a bad thing to do, or at least that is what most of us might think. There are artists who I do appreciate, such as Bansky, as they do send a message and their spray paints look amazing. Instead of just spray painting, they paint beautiful works of art with their spray cans, as opposed to the indecipherable bubbly letters I normally see on back alleys. Unfortunately the beautiful kind of graffiti is very difficult to come by, and from what I see, those bubbly letters are intended to deface the property. I see a difference between graffiti and art. It's like differentiating between scribbles and sketches, between stick people and portraits of people - the difference is astounding. I would not mind street artists painting with their sprays on the walls of my house; I would mind the typical graffiti spray paintings. I call the former artists, the latter vandalism. Too much of those bubbly letters end up making the neighborhood and its structures look trashy and beaten up (in my eyes), hence the relation that graffiti and poor neighborhoods have.At the end of the day it is the building owner's decision to paint over the graffiti, and it costs a lot of money. No matter how beautiful the art may be, it isn't fair for the owner to have to spend dollars to clean up someone else's mess (well, I suppose what "fair" is can be debated - there are some situations where I believe that making the owner pay is the right thing to do).